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*

About this Item

Title
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*
Author
White, Francis, 1564?-1638.
Publication
London :: Printed by Adam Islip,
1624.
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Fisher, John, 1569-1641 -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800.
Church of England -- Apologetic works -- Early works to 1800.
Catholic Church -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A15082.0001.001
Cite this Item
"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*." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A15082.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 3, 2024.

Pages

ANSVVER.

The summe of this part of your disputation is, That in the text of Exodus, To fall downe and worship images, is no more forbidden than to make: but making of images is not simply and absolutely vnlawfull; and consequently their worship is not simply and absolutely vnlawfull.

The first ground and proposition of this argument is false: [ C] for worshipping of images is forbidden, as the principall obiect of that negatiue precept, and as a thing morally euill in his ve∣ry kind: but making them is forbidden (onely) when it is a meanes subseruient to worship: and because it may be separa∣ted, both in his owne nature, and in mans intention, from that end and vse, therefore the one is simply forbidden, and the other is onely prohibited, when it becommeth a meanes or in∣strument to the other. And this distinction and disparitie be∣tweene making and worshipping, hath beene confirmed by the example of the brasen Serpent: for when the same was onely [ D] made, and looked vpon, it was a medicine; when it was wor∣shipped, it became a poyson. 2 Kings 18.4. Wherefore, consi∣dering that the holy Scripture approoueth the difference which Protestants assigne, betweene making and worshipping of images, I see no reason why Papists should not rest vpon the sentence of holy Scripture, alwayes condemning, but ne∣uer maintaining Image worship; rather than to persist in a pal∣pable superstition, to the offence of God, and scandall of his people. [ E]

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.