A replie to Iesuit Fishers answere to certain questions propou[n]ded by his most gratious Matie: King Iames By Francis White D: of Div· deane of Carlile, chaplaine to his Matie. Hereunto is annexed, a conference of the right: R:B: of St Dauids wth the same Iesuit*

ANSWER.

This Argument reduced to forme, soundeth as followeth: [ C]

If Gods prohibition of a thing doth also forbid the intenti∣on thereof, then it had beene sufficient for him to haue said, Thou shalt not adore Images: and the former clause, Thou shalt make no grauen Image, &c. forbidding onely the ma∣king of Images, with an intention to worship, had beene super∣fluous, and without any speciall sence.

But God held it not sufficient to say, Thou shalt not adore Images: and the former clause, Thou shalt make no Image, is not superfluous, &c. Ergo

The former clause of the Commandement, which saith, Thou [ D] shalt make no grauen Image, forbiddeth not the making of Images, with an intention to worship. And from hence it ap∣peareth, that the Protestants exposition of the second Commandement, is not onely violent but incongruous.

I answer, granting the antecedent part of the first Propositi∣on; (for whensoeuer God forbiddeth any action, he alwaies prohibiteth, at least implicitely, & interpretatiuely, the purpose and intention of doing the same.) But from hence it followeth [ E] not, that because the worship of Images is prohibited in the words, Thou shalt not bow downe to them, &c. therefore it was vn∣necessarie and superfluous, to say, Thou shalt make no Images, with intention to worship. First, touching such vices as man by nature and custome is prone vnto, Abundans cautela non nocet,

abundant warning and caution is not superfluous. Secondly, [ A] we haue examples in the verie Decalogue, that although inor∣dinate concupiscence was prohibited in the seuenth and eight Commandement, Thou shalt not commit adulterie, Thou shalt not steale: yet the intention, and sensuall motion and desire to do this, is prohibited also in the tenth Precept a 1.1. Thirdly, we say not in our answer, That the intention of adoring the Image, being made, is forbidden in these words of the Commande∣ment, Thou shalt make vnto thy selfe no grauen Image, &c. as these words are considered apart, that is, diuiding, and parting the [ B] said words from those which follow, Thou shalt not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 downe to them, nor worship them: But we conioyne the former and latter words b 1.2, and make the one materiall, and the other formall, and expound them in this sort; Thou shalt make vnto thy selfe no grauen Image, intending to vse the same contrarie to the words of the Law following, which prohibite the Adoration of all created and artificiall formes.

When our Sauiour in the Gospell, forbiddeth to looke on [ C] a woman to lust after her, Matth. 5.28. We may not diuide the first and latter part: for the looking on a woman without lust, is onely materiall in the Action, and it may be lawfull, and in some case vertuous, Ioh. 19.26. Luk. 7.44. But we must con∣ioyne the Intention, which is formall, to the materiall aspect, and then the same is vicious, Iob 31.1. Genes. 38.15. And there is nothing more common in the holy Scripture, than for the former part of a Doctrine, or Commandement, to be expoun∣ded, limited, and receiue his kinde from the latter part, Mark. [ D] 10.11. Luk. 16.18. Psal. 37.21. Iob 31.26, 27. Esay 5.8, 11. Luk. 14.12, 13.

If it be obiected, that there is a sof Pasuch, or full point at the end of the Sentence, which forbiddeth the making of Ima∣ges: I answer, First, That in the place of Leuiticus, Cap. 26.1. There is no such period or full point. Secondly, Because the making of some kind of Images, to wit, visible Images, and representations of God, according to his Deitie c 1.3, Deut. 4. 16. is vnlawfull in it selfe, secluding Adoration, therefore the Spirit of God forbade both the making of Images, to wit, of [ E]

false Gods, and of the true God, in manner aforesaid; and also [ A] in the other Branch of the Commandement, hee forbad wor∣ship and adoration of all Images whatsoeuer, deuised by man.

Notes

• a 1.1

  August. sup. Ex∣od. q. 71. Quaeritur quid disterat quod dictum est, non maechaberis, ab eo quod paulo post dictum est, non concupisces, &c. In eo quippe quod dictum est, non maechaberis pote∣rat & illud intelligi: nisi sorsan in illis duobus praeceptis, non maechandi & non furandi, ipsa opera notata sunt: in hijs vero extremis ipsa concupiscentia, &c.
• b 1.2

  Aug. sup. Ioh. tr. 111. Nemo serenissimum sensum, nubi. Iosa contradictione perturbet, consequentia perhibeant testimonium, precedentibus verbis.
• c 1.3

  Abulens. sup. Deuteronom. ca. 4. q. 5. Quaedam sunt, quae nec in Statua, nec in figura con∣grue assignari possunt, sicut Trinitas beata, quae nullis cerporeis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 circumscripta est. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. sup. Deuteronom. q. 1. Haec dicit instruens eos, ne simulachrum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fabricent, neque tentent vnquam diumam Imaginem effingere. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 1. pag. 165. Origen. c. Celsum. li. 7. Euseb. d. praepar. Euang. l. 1. c. 6. Vasq. d. Ador. l. 2. Disp. 4. c. 2. Ex Deuteronomij quarto, clare deducitur, non 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 verum Deum in aliqua imagine venerari.