A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux

You proceed to another exception; the violation of an image say you, redounds to the Prototype if it be rightly and duly represented, not else. To which you reply, and, when then for example is Christ crucified rightly and duly represented? are you one of those that can tell what figures represent or not? 1. You do not rightly report my words, though you might as easily have done it as set down those you have made use of. My words were, that the violation of an Image redounds to the Prototype, provided it be an Image rightly and duly destined to represent him, that is intended to be injured; which is so cleared by an instance there expressed, as turns your exception out of doors as altogether useless. For first, I require that the Image be rightly and duly destined to the representation of the Prototype; that is, by him or by them who have power so to do, and by the express consent and will of him whose image it is, who otherwise is not concerned in it. Now nothing of all this can you affirm concerning your Images. 2. I require an intention of doing injury or contumely unto the Person represented by the image, without ⟨p. 502⟩which whatever is done to the image reflects not at all upon him; And so a man may break an Image of a King which he finds formed against his will in some ugly shape to expose him to contempt and scorn, as I suppose out of Loyalty unto him, without the least violation of his honour, which is the very condition of your Images and those that reject them. And this also may suffice to what you add about hanging of Traitors in Effigy, which is a particular instance of your general Assertion that the violation of an Image redounds to the Prototype; which we grant it doth when the Image is rightly designed to that purpose by them who have just authority so to do, and when there is an intention of casting contempt upon it; the first whereof is not found amongst your Images, nor the latter among them who reject them.

You proceed to another exception; the violation of an image say you, redounds to the Prototype if it be rightly and duely represented, not else. To which you reply, and, when then for example is Christ crucified rightly and duly represented? are you one of those that can tell what figures represent or not? 1. You do not rightly report my words, though you might as easily have done it as set down those you have made use of. My words were, that the violation of an Image redounds to the Prototype, provided it be an Image rightly and duely destined to represent him, that is intended to be injured; which is so cleared by an instance there expressed, as turns your exception out of doors as altogether useless. For first, I require that the Image be rightly and duly destined to the representation of the Prototype; that is, by him or by them who have power so to do, and by the express consent and will of him whose image it is, who otherwise is not concerned in it. Now nothing of all this can you affirm concerning your Images. 2. I require an intention of doing injury or contumely unto the Person represented by the image, without