Scripture mistaken the ground of Protestants and common plea of all new reformers against the ancient Catholicke religion of England : many texts quite mistaken by Nouelists are lay'd open and redressed in this treatis[e] by Iohn Spenser.

The first Protestant Position.

It is not lawfull to represent God the Father in any likenesse whatsoeuer of any Image.

This is proued by Scripture mistaken.

The first Proof.

* 1.1THey changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into an Image made like to a corruptible man, and to birds, and to foure footed beasts, and to creeping things.

The second Proof.

* 1.2TAke yee therefore good heed vnto yeur selues: for yee saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spoke to you in Horeb, out of the middest of the fier.

Least you corrupt your selues, and make you a gra∣uen image, the similitude of any figure, the likenesse of male or female.

These proofs mistaken·

THese texts are missappleyed against the doctrine of the Romain Church, wee grant most willingly all that is sayd here: neither do wee euer represent God the Father by any image at all immediatly or directly: that is to signify that he is of a figure or shape like that image: but cheefly (as wee haue now shewed in the Council of Trent) wee represent by our Images,* 1.3 the figures wherin he appeared to the ancient Prophets, historically.* 1.4 And I beheld till the thrones were cast down; and the ancient of dayes did sit: whose garmēts were white as snow; & the hayre of his head like to pure well. This figure here described by the Prophet Daniel we represent: neither is it forbidden in any of the places alleadged, or any other of holy Scrip∣ture, to represent the figures wherin All∣mighty God hath pleased to represent him∣selfe: for where is it forbidden to represent by way of history, this vision of Daniel as he describes it, or the vision of other Prophets, and of S. Iohn in the Apocalyps, more then any other historyes of Scripture? Let any such place be produced: neyther by such represen∣tations, do Romain Catholikes more beleeue that God the Father is an old man, then did Daniel the Prophet beleeue he was one, when he saw this vision. For the Roman

Church both stedfastly beleeues her selfe, and strictly commands all her Prelats, Pastours, and teachers, to instruct all her children, that God is a pure spirit in himselfe, and hath no body, or figure, at all; and that such like pictures are not to represent God immediately, but the figures wherin he appeared: And this euen the little children are taught in their catechis∣mes: and if some chance to be ignorant of it, it is not the Churches fault, but the fault of her particular Pastours, who are negligent in instructing their flockes: as also ignorant people may easily fall to thinke as well amongst Protestants, as Catholikes, that God the Father hath a right hand, & consequently a body, because they haue mention of his right hand in their creed: and the like is in many places of Scripture (read ordinarily by com∣mon people in England) where God is sayd to haue feet, hands, head, face, mouth, eyes, eares, and particularly in this vision of Daniell, and others of S. Iohn in the Reuelations, if these words be not, by negligence of Pastours, or Ministers, well explicated: and yet not∣withstanding, as these words, he sits at the right hand of God the Father Allmighty, and the like, are not to be blotted out of the creed, or Scriptu∣re, but to be well explicated; so also those pictures, though some, through their Pastours negligence, may fall into errour by them, are

not to be taken away, but explicated and ex∣pounded according to the grounds of the Christian faith, and the doctrinc of the Ca∣tholicke Chruch. Yet if any one would vrge that some attributes of God may be signifyed by some pictures which are vsed in the Ca∣tholicke Church, I answer, that thence fol∣lowes not that we intend to picture the Di∣uinity, or nature of God, or to signify that it is a visible, corporall thing like to that picture, but only to make a hieroglyphicall expression of certaine attributes as wee doe when we re∣present vertues or vices in certaine shapes, of men or weomē, the better to expresse the na∣ture of them, not to signify that they are cor∣porall, or like to those persons. Thus the white haire mentioned by Daniell, signifycs the neuer begining, nor ending eternity of God: the crown, scepter, and world his absolute dominion ouer all things: the light about him, his infinite glory and so of the rest.

Only here I thought fit, to note, that (ac∣cording to the Council of Trent aboue cited) The Church of Rome, hath not commanded, nor ordayned, that the Pictures, which thus represent the apparitions of God the Father or God the holy Ghost, should be had, and reteyned espeacially in churchs, for there the Council mentions only the Images of our Sauiour, and of Saints; but she only tolerates,

or permits that such other pictures may be made, when it is found expedient; and that only historically.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Rom. 3. v. 23.
• * 1.2

  Deut· 4. v. 15.16.
• * 1.3

  Concil. Trid. cit.
• * 1.4

  Dan. 7. v. 9.13.22.