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 Second mistake. The Hebrew, and Greek words here put, Grauen Image are mistranslated.

HEre againe is the word, grauen Image, put in to the English text, contrary both to the Hebrew and Greeke text: the Hebrew word here is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pesel, which the 70. Inter∣preters in this place translate in the Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Idol, or false God, and the Latine, sculptile, which in the eeclesiasticall significa∣tion, is always through the whole Scripture taken for an Idol or representation of a false God, when it is forbidden; as also the Hebrew word pesel, which is neuer taken in a good sense for any Image truly representing any∣thing existent as it is really in it selfe, as carued or grauen curiosityes.

Now the difference betwixt an Image, and an Idol is this: an Image is a representation of a true thing, which either is, or is possible to be, in that very maner wherin he who makes

or vses the Image, intends to represent it as the paintings or caruings of trees, of flowers, of beasts, of men, or women, which we ordinarily vse in our houses. Thus the word Image is taken, Gen. 1.26. and 27. Gen. 5. v. 36. Deut. 4. v. 16. 2. Cor. 4. v. 4. Coloss. 1. v. 15. and in many other places: and in Hebrew it is called tsalem in Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ikon.

But an Idol is a representation of what neither is, nor can possibly be as he who ma∣kes, or vsees it, intends to represent it; and ther∣fore is called Abacuc 2. v. 18. a false phantasie in the 70. Interpreters, and according to the Hebrew, a thing which tells a lye, that is, re∣presēts that to be, which neither is, not can be. And Isay 44. v. 10. an Idol is called vanity, or, profitable for nothing. And S. Paul 1. Cor. 8.4. we know that an Idol is nothing in the world; because it represents that to be God, which neither is, nor possibly can be God, because there is but one only true God; and therefore in Hebrew, Idols are called Elilim, that is va∣nity, or falsity; and in Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, an empty and Idle fiction of the brayne. Hence it comes to passe that the very same materiall representation, may in diuers respects be an Image, and an Idol; an Image, in regard of that which is truly represented by it; an Idol, in reference to that which it represents falsly and lyingly. Thus the picture of the Sun is an

Image therof, so far as it represents the face, beames, and figure of the visibile sun, and puts vs in remembrance of it: But the very same materiall picture will be an Idol in as much as it is made to represent the sun as a God, and a soueraine diuine power, as the hea¦thens represent it in their Idols; And hence by different persons, the same materiall pic∣ture, or statue may be esteemed and respected as an Image, or as an Idol: for a true Christian seeing the Image of the Sun, will regard only the true representation of the true sun̄e in it; but the Heathen will esteeme it as conteyn∣ing, or representing some diuinity or deity, and so to him it will be an Idol. That which here I exemplify in the Sunnes picture, is to be extended to all other representations of men, or other creatures: for if any one, in an historicall way would represent some reall passage in the life of Mars, Iuno, Iupiter, Sa∣turne, Venus &c. as they were men, or weomen once here liuing vppon earth, and go no further; those very pictures will be Images only, that is, true representations of that which once was; but if one intend to draw their pic∣tures, or carue their statues, with designe to represent them as Gods and Goddesses; it will be in that regard no Image, but a pure Idol, falsly representing that to be God, which neither was, nor can he God.

And the very same different respect is in force in those very pictures which Protestants allow of: for if one should haue the pictures of Queene Elizabeth, or King Iames, merely to represent them as they indeed were, the one true King, the other true Queen of Eng∣land, the would be Images only; but if a Heathen should make a God of each of them (as they vsed to doe of their ancient Kings and Queenes) and intend to acknowledge them, by that picture, as such, those very pic∣tures would become Idols, falsly representing, what neither was, is, nor can be. And the same rule is to be verifyed in the Catholike pictu∣res of Saints: for if they be only represented as holy persons, as Martyrs, as Virgins, as glo∣rious in heauen with their and our God, then their pictures are only true Images, as truly representing the Saints as they are.

But if any one through ignorance, or mali∣ce, should attribute any diuine power, or any thing proper to God, to them, or account them Gods, or Goddesses, to such the pictu∣res of Saints would be no Images, but Idols.

This therefore supposed as necessary to distinguish, betweene an Image and an Idol, I answer to the text of Exodus cited in the obiection,* 1.1 that both according to the hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pesel, and the greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, idolum, and the ancient Latin sculptile, that which is here

forbidden, is an Idol, and not an Image, as the Protestants English Translation falsly hath it; and consequently the other word following Temounach, which in hebrew signifies an Idol also, which represents any creature falsely as a God; it being only a deelaration of the for∣mer word pesel, and so signifying the very same thing which pesel signifyes, that is an Idol; which the cōiunction ve (and in English) not obscurely declares to such as are skilfull in the hebrew tongue, which ioynes two words togeather, in the same signification for greater explication: and yet this is made wholy out of doubt Deut. 5. v. 8. as it stands in the hebrew Lo tegase lecha, pesel, col temounach &c. where the very same words of Exodus 20. are repeated, thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol, all the likenesses in heauen: where the sense is nothing but this, thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol, that is any likenesse or figure in heauen: so that all the likenesses forbidden in the 20. of Exodus, are the same which are forbidden here Deut. 5. that is, such as are pesel, Idolls, or representa∣tions of false Gods. And this is further con∣firmed out of Exod. 20. v. 33. where God himselfe explicates those former words in the same chapter. v. 4. you shall not make to your selues Gods of siluer: nor you shall nor make to your selues Gods of gould, which are pesel, and temounach, Exod. 20. v. 4. and yet lastly that pesel put there

in the Hebrew, signifyes the same with el, a God, is most cleare out of Esay 44. v. 10. who hath formed a God, or molten a grauen Image which is profitable for nothing. in hebrew the word here is pesel; and though the Protestant Eng∣lish translation haue it, grauen Image falsely, as I noted before, yet certayne it is, that euen ac∣cording to your owne translation, it here signifyes the same with a false God, as is cleare out of the words, and yet much clearer in the 17. verse, and of the risidue of it he maketh a God, euen his grauen Image, saith your translation; where the same peece of wood carued, is called a God of the heathens, and a grauen Image, in hebrew, lephislo, his Idol, or grauen representation of a false God, and yet to shew vnanswearably that this word pesel, euen by Reformes ought to be translated Idol, or at least is capable of that signification, let any Protestant read his more ancient translations, and he shall find that which is called grauen Image, in the later translations, to be called Idol, or his Idol, v. 17. of the 44. of Isay in theyr more ancient, which in Hebrew is Phesel Phiselo, which in this 20. of Exodi v. 4. they alwayes translate grauen Image. (See the Bibles printed, in King Edwards tyme, and others of the most ancient Protestant Prints,) comimg of the word pesel so often cited.

Hauing therefore demonstraded, that in

the two places cited in the obiection, Exod. 20 v 4, and Leuiticus the 26. v. 1. no other picture, representation, or likenesse of any creature is forbidden, but only such as are in∣tended, to represent them, by way of Idola∣try, as Gods, and deityes, (which they neither are, nor can be) and not as creatures, Saints, Angells, &c. which they truly are. The secōd poynt propounded in the obiection, about the worship of pictures, or Images, of our Sauiour, or Saints, &c. will easily be determined: for it must be a worship, (which is forbidden in the forenamed places) proportionate or cor∣respondent to the thing which those Idols re∣present▪ which is a God; and that can be nothing else but a diuine worship, or an homage giuen to a diuine power: and this is so cleare, that none who vnderstand it, can doubt of it. Yet because I intend, as much as may be, to confirme euery thing I say, by cleare texts of holy Scripture, we must first note, that the foolish Idolatry of the Heathens con∣demned in holy Scripture (almost through∣out) is that they did adore, worship, and pray to that very materiall grauen, or paynted thing (which they had before theyr eyes) as a God: This is so euident out the 44. of Esay, v. 17. iust now cited, that it puts the matter out of question, euen as it stands in your owne Bible: And the residue therof he maketh a God, euen a grauen

Image; he falleth downe vnto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth vnto it, and saith, deliuer me, for thou art my God. So also is this matter clearly set downe in the booke of wisdome, chapters 13. and 14. in many verses at large which, though Protestants receiue not as Canonicall Scriptu∣re, yet they put it in their Bibles, and therefore esteeme it not to be a lying fable, especially agreeing so well in this matter with other parts of Canonicall Scripture. So also Ieremy 2. v. 28. and 16. v. 20. Dan. 3. v. 12.14.18. and the 5. v. 4.23· Oseas 8. v. 6. Psal. 133. v. 4. and many other places which I omit for breuitys sake: where it appeares clearly that the Heathens, and Idolaters esteemed that visible picture befote them to be a God, and to haue power to heare their prayers, and to helpe them, and so they bowed vnto it, worshipped it with di∣uine honour, prayed to it, and put their hope in it. This supposed as certaine, it will present∣ly be thought most reasonable to vnderstand that worship of pictures, or resemblances of things to be forbidden, Leuit. 26. v. 1. and Exod. 20. v. 4. which is generally explicated in so many other passages of holy Scripture; for by clearer places the more obscure are to be explicated and expounded, euen accord∣ing to Protestants: Seeing therefore, the word bowing downe, and worshipping in the Protestants translation is set downe in the two sayd pla∣ces,

generally and without clearly expressing what kind of worship is meant, we must gat∣her the further explication of it out of other places of holy Scripture, where it is more distinctly and clearly deliuered: and indeed, though the text in the 20. of Exod. be obscure, and generall in Protestants translations in these words, thou shalt not bow downe to them, nor worship them, yet in hebrew, and the 70. in greeke there is light enough giuen to direct vs in the true vnderstanding of them, namely, that it is a diuine worship alone, which is for∣bidden; for the hebrew words ve lo tagauethen•• signify, and you shall not serue them; which word shewes an homage or seruice done to those Idols, as to things capable of such offices done vnto them, and endued with knowledge, vn∣derstanding▪ power, and diuinity: for no man is strictly and properly sayd to serue that which is wholy voyd of knowledge to exact or accept of that seruice: and hence appeares, that if the Protestāts had followed closely the first and ordinary signification of this word in the originall (as they professe to do) and translated it thus, thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serue them, the word serue would haue gi∣uen occasion of vnderstanding a right the word bow down, that is such a bowing down as is vsed to those whom wee serue, who are only in the proper & ordinary vnderstanding

of seruice, such as we esteeme to be endued with knowledge understanding, and power, able to receiue our seruice, and assist vs in our petitions. And to demonstrate that this transla∣tion of yours is not without partiality and dubble dealing, of putting worship for serue, the word worship being put in of purpose to bring the ignorant people from the reuerence of holy Images, as they are reuerenced amongst Romain Catholikes; you must know, that in a hundred other places of Scripture where Moyses, Caleb, Iosua, Dauid, and othets are called seruants of God, in your translation, not worshippers, the hebrew hath the very same word gauedy my seruant, which is vsed here in the 20. of Exodus; end yet further the fraud appeares more clearly Hier. 13. v. 10. the 16. v. 11. and 22. v. 9. where the two very same words put in hebrew, which are in Exod. 20. now cited, and applyed to false Gods, are al∣wayes translated adore, and serue, because it serued not their purpose to translate it other∣wise; only in Exod. 20. and the like to breed a hatred of the worship of holy Images, in the common peoples minds, it must be translated fall down and worship: and yet more clearly by their owne translation they conuince them∣selues of partiality; for in the Psalme 96. aliter the 97. v. 7. they haue these words; confounded be all those who serue grauen Images, who boost them∣selues

of Idols: where in the Hebrew, the same words are, which are Exod. 20. gauthe', pesel•• where also may be gathered, that, that which they please falsly to translate grauen Image, is the very same with a heathen Idol, as being ioyned with it as the same thing in significa∣tion. And to vrge an other place, this partiality is clearly conuinced out of the first text cited by the person who writ it: Matth. 4. v. 10. It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord by God, and him only shalt thou serue: where the 6. of Deut. v. 13. (from which that of S. Matthew is taken) hath the very same hebrew word gauedth, which is here translated worship in the 20. of Exodus, and there serue. But to put all out of question, and to bring an vndeniable discoue∣ry of their fraud and falhood in the translat∣ing of this hebrew word gauedh worship, not serue, it is to be noted, that in their more ancient translations of these words. Exod. 20. v. 4. they translated it, thou shalt not bow down vnto them, nor worship them, as appeares by the text here cited in the obiection, and by the Bibles them∣selues: but in their later impressions and trans∣lations of the yeare 1638. and somwhat before, and since, they haue corrected this errour, and put it, thou shalt not bouw down vnto them, nor serue them, both in Eod. and Leuiticus: yet be∣cause they had taught all the common people to say it after the ancient erroneous māner, it is

still in the cate••hisme set down in the com∣mon prayre booke, thou shalt not bow down vnto them, nor worship them, least if they should haue changed it there, the people might haue discouered that they had beene taught their commandements amisse, and that in the an∣cient editions of the common prayer, the commandements were otherwise then in the latter:* 1.2 but the correction in the Bible might more easily be admitted, because few of the common people read the commandements as they stand there. But that at one view may be seene the manifold tricks and diuises, frauds, and deceits vsed in the sophisticating and falsifying of this text in their translations, I will briefly set them all down together: First therefore, contrary to both hebrew and greeke, and Latin, and all antiquity, they translate, pesel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sculptile; grauen Image. Secondly, they ad the word any; thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image; which is not in the hebrew, but thus, thou shalt not make to thy selue an Idol: or if the Protestant trans∣lation of pesel were true, it should haue beene a grauen Image, not, any grauen Image. And this they seeme to adde, therby to make the igno∣rant beleeue that all sorts of Images what∣soeuer, euen of our Sauiour, and of his Saints, are here forbidden by this generall clause, thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image▪

Thirdly, to make the text yet more to sound against vs, in the eares of the vulgar, they make it say, nor the likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue &c. when it should be ac∣cording to the hebrew, col tegumach asher, nor any likenesse which is in heauen, or verbatim thus, or all and euery likenesse which is in heauen, not of any thing which is in heauen, these words any thing being added vnto the hebrew text; therby to perswade the vn∣learned, that the likenesse of all things in heauen and consequently of our Sauiour, the Angells, and Saints, are here prohibited: wher as the direct meaning of the text is, to for∣bidde these likenesses to be made which ap∣peare visibly in the materiall heauen to the corporeall eys, as the sunne, moone, slarrs &c. as is cleare Deut. 4. v. 19. which agrees well with the hebrew text, any likenesse which is in heauen; for at that time, when this comman∣dement was giuen, there was nothing in the imperiall heauen, which had any visible figure, or could be immediatly expressed by any vi∣sible picture, as a true Image of it, for there was nothing then in heauen but God and his holy Angels. But the English translation, the likenesse of any thing which is in heauen, is subiect to giue occasion to the simple reader (who being taught that our Sauiour with his Saints are in heauen, and that they are forbidden in this

commandement to make the likenesse of any thing which is in heauen, to thinke that they are clearly forbidden to make the likenesses or Images, of our Sauiour, & the Saints: and thus the common people of our nation or∣dinarily vnderstand it, and their ministers, and teachers, nuzzle them vp in this errour. Fourthly, yet further to extend the words of this commandement to all sorts of holy li∣kenesses, and similitudes, though in the little catechisme contayned in their common prayer-booke, they put the commandement thus, nor the likenesse of any thing mhich is in heauen aboue &c. which was lesse intolerable, yet in their Translations from the yeare 1638. they adde another any to the text, thus, nor any likenesse of any thing, that they may be sure to include all. And though in their later Trans∣lations, they put the word any, any Image, any thing, in a different letter, to signify to the more learned, that it is not in the originall; yet in theyr little Catechisme they are still put in the very same letter with the rest, as if they were no lesse in the originall then the other words; which may be noted for an other fraud: and I finde these words of Exodus thus translated, in a booke called the confession of faith, reprinted at London for the Compaignie of Stationers, 1652. all the words being in the same leter: pag. 167. Thou shalt not make vnto thee

any grauen Image, nor any likenesse of any thing. Lastly, for serue, they haue put worship, as I haue now declared. So that in these few words, thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image, nor any likenesse of any thing &c. thou shalt not bow down vnto them, nor worship them, are six mista∣kes, corruptions, or additions to the text. And though some of these, in themselues, may be iudged to be of no great moment, and might passe amongst such as with a sincere mean∣ing should admit some of them in their trans∣lation, yet in our new Reformists, who labour all they can to presse this text to common people aboue all others, against vs, and about the meaning wherof wee are in great Con∣trouersy: and who professe, reiecting all other Translations, to stand closely and strictly to the hebrew text, they are wholy inexcusable. Now if any illitterate Protestant much de∣uoted to his ministers, and teachers, and con∣fident of their sincerity in Translating God's word, should not be brought by what I haue yet sayd, to beleeue that they would put Image, in the place of Idol, and adde other words to the text, which are not in the ori∣ginall, thereby deceiuing the people: for a cleare and vndeniable proofe of their parti∣ality and deceit in this particular, let him exa∣min the 11. chapter to the Romans, v. 4. and the first of the Kings, c. 19. v. 18. and his own

eyes will tell him that they haue added the word Image to the text: for he shall find in the Translations of the yeare 1648. and about that tyme, these words, Rom. 11. v. 4. who haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal: where these three words, the Image of, are added to the text, being neither in the greeke, Latin, nor hehrew for it should be, who haue not bowed the knee to Baal. Not as they haue it, to the Image of Baal, the word Image being added of putpose (as it seemes) to create a hatred in the harts of the common people, against the vse of holy Images, seeing them so expresly forbidden in their Bibles, euen in the new Testament. Now that it may vnanswerably appeare, that this word Image is added to the text, looke into this very text cited by S. Paul, out of the first of the Kings, c. 19. v. 18. in their own Bible, and you shall find it thus, all the knees which haue not bowed vnto Baal, without these words,* 1.3 the Image of Baal. And that they may vndoubtedly know that these words are added to the text in those later Translations, let them peruse this place in the more ancient Translations, of King Edwards, or Queene Elizabeths tyme, and they mill find this text to the Rom. c. 11. v. 4. without this addition, thus; which haue not bowed the knee to Baal, as indeed it should be. And though in the latter Translations, those words the Image be put a different print,

or letter, which may signify to such as are learned, that they are not in the originall, yet this may reasonably be called into question, because the word of, which hath a necessary relation to the two fotmer words the Image, is put in the same print or letter with Baal, and the rest of the text, which is in the originall; thus, which haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal; and for what belonges to the vnlearned, who are most in danger to be seduced by such shifts as these, they are com∣monly ignorant of the reason why some words are in different or lesse letters, and all they find in the text, they take to be equally Scrip∣ture, and the word of God, as I haue had ex∣perience of about a hundred togeather, who all esteemed the words the Image to be no lesse Scripture, then the rest of that text, yea I found one who very eagerly and strongly vrged this text, against Images, telling me, and glorying in it, that Images were condemned expresly in the new Testament by these words of S. Paul. Neither can it stand with the rules of true and sincere Translatours, to adde when they please, and when it makes for theyr aduantage, and indangers the deceiuing of the vnlearned in matters of Re∣ligion; (as here it doth) by adding certaine words, which are neither found in the he∣brew, greeke, nor Latin, (as these are not)

though it be in a different letter. In the Bibles printed, 1648. at London, by Robert Barker, I find the said words in the same letter with the rest, thus, which haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal, by which the vnlearned Readers cannot iudge but that these words, the Image of, are as much the word of God as the rest, seeing them all in the same print and leter, with the other words of the text, especially when they marke, that in a hundred other places, the words which are not in the ori∣ginall are printed in a different leter, from the others in that very Bible. which makes it probable in a high degree, if not certaine, that the maner of printing in this text, is a mere corrupt dealing of our aduersaries, and a wil∣full adding to the word of God, to incense the ignorant against Images.

M. Fulck, in his English translation, and commentaries vppon the new Testament. Printed at London by the deputies of Chri∣stopher Barker, 1589. exuses this addition by alleadging that in the greeke text here in S. Paul, Rom. 11.4. the article is of the femi∣nine gender, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. & therefore must agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, image, beeing also of the feminine gender, which word though it be not ex∣pressed in the greeke, yet saith Fulck, it is to be vnderstood, and soe might lawfully be ex∣pressed in the English translation. But that

this answer is a mere euasion, grounded vppon a false principle, I will presently make ma∣nifest for first it is not the custome of Greeke authours, speaking of the statues, or Idols of theyr Gods, to expresse them in the feminine, as referred to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but in the masculine ar∣ticle, as referred to the God, whose name that statua beares.

Secondly Acts 19.35. those words which M. Fulck and other Protestants vnderstand, of the statua, or Image of Diana, are not put in greek with the feminine, but with the mas∣culine or newter gender, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereby is manifest, that when the greeks speake of theyr Idols, and statuas, they referre them, not to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & the feminine, but rather to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the newter gender, or some such like word.

Thirdly, in the 1. of Kings 19.18. whence this text of Rom. 11.4. is taken, the Septuagint haue it in the masculine gender, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and yet both this place, and that of S. Paul must necessarily be vnderstood to speake of the same thing, and in the same sence, which seeing the Protestants will haue to be only, the statua, or picture of Baal, it must needs follow, that the reason why S. Paul hath it in the feminine gender, is not because it speakes of that visible, and artificiall Idol, for 1. Kings 19.18. speaking also of that, hath it in

the masculine gender 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This therefore is not the Reason, but S. Paul puts it in the fe∣minine and the Septuagint in the masculine gender, because Baal was a common name to the Idols of the heathens, which weare adored by the Iews, thus nothing is more familiar in the old Testament, then to put that word in the plurall number, Baalim, because it was common to many false Gods, which weare comprised in that name- now those Gods some were males, and some femalls, and soe of both genders; amongst which Astarthes Queene, and Goddesse of Sidonia, was the most famous, where of familiar mention is made in the old Testament, speaking of Baalim, and Asteroth. Seeing therefore that both S. Paul,* 1.4 and the booke of kings speake of a generall worshipping of Baal through the whol kingdome of Israel, which must be extended to all theyr false Gods whether men or woemen, it might likewise be trans∣lated truly both in the masculine gender in the first of the kings, and in the feminine in the 11. to the Romains, as comprehending both. And soe S. Paul hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the femi∣nine, not in reference to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Image, as Fulk would haue it, bur in reference to Astarthes, or other woemen Goddesses, comprehended in that generall word Baal, as Catholicque doctours vnderstand it, for according to this

exposition, both the old and new Testament are easily reconciled, but according to Fulk, neyther can the old be here reconciled with the new, nor the new with it selfe, as I ha••e declared. whence appeares, seeing this reason failes, which Protestants foly alleadge for theyr defence, that the word Image, is here added to the text, with out any sufficient reason, and soe falsely and corruptedly.

I finde the like addition of the word Image, Acts 19.35. aboue cited, where though the greek word be of the masculine gender, (as I haue declared) yet the word Image (which is not in the originall as M. Fulk acknow∣ledges) is put into the English text, thus, of the Image which came down from Iupiter, where there was noe reason at all to put Image, seeing the greeke words are masculine, but the Reade•• may easily discouer by such indirect pro∣ceedings as these, that it is not the gender, but the generall disgust against holy Images, which caused these additions, for whether the greek article be masculine, or feminine, Image must come in, as is euident from these two texts•• Neyther is that which M. Fulk alleadges of any force, for the greek words may be refered, to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and be translated, as our vulgar hath it, Iouis Prolis, Iupiters child, hauing rather relation to the Person, then to the Idol of Diana. Or if it be referred to that Idol which was re∣serued,

with soe greate honour in the temple of Ephesus, yet by reason of the great stu∣pidity, and brutality of the Heathens described in many places of holy Scripture (as I shall here after declare) that very Idol,* 1.5 was held by them to be a true deity, and the liuing God∣desse Diana, and therefore they made soe loud, and strong acclamations, magna est Diana Ephesiorum, great is Diana of the Ephefiens, who was noe other, then that dull, and dead Idol, which was adored by them in the temple of Ephesus. But though they had been wiser then the ordinary strayne of Idolaters, and soe had esteemed that Idol, to be a mere representa∣tion of theyr Goddesse, yet seeing that the originall, hath noe word which signifies Ima∣ge, but vses a generall expression, which is in∣different, to the one, or other of these explica∣tions, why should not the English, as well as the greek haue only sayd, that which came down from Iupiter, neyther expressiing Image, nor any other determinate thing, if they had as fully intended to follow the originall, without all passion against holy Images, as they pred∣end it?

But that I may further lay open how ve∣hemently they were transported in the first appearance of theyr new Church, against the vse of Images, I will breefly alleadge some other places of Scripture wherein theyr trans∣lations

of the yeares 1562. and 1577. as M. Fulk acknowledges, and 1589. they haue translated the greek words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, worshippers of Images, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Images. Thus Ephes. 5.5. where the greek hath, Idolater, these trāflations haue, a worshipper of Images. And Coll. 3.5. where the greek hath Idolatry, they haue worshipping of Images, and the like is Gal. 5.20. 1. Ioan. 5.21. for Idoles in greeke they translate Images, in the Bible printed, 1562. and though in Fulks testa∣ment it be translated Idoles in the text; yet in the margent he puts, or Images. Now how great a difference there is betwixt an Idol, and an Image, I haue all ready declared, and M. Fulk acknowledges, fol. 456. that the vse of our English speach hath made the name of Idol odious, and of Ima∣ge indifferent. whence follows necessarily, that the word Image according to him may signi∣fie noe lesse a good then a bad representation, but the word Idol allways a bad, soe that the word Image, or Images cannot be put absolutly in those places of Scripture, where they are vniuersally to be vnderstood of things bad, or vnlawful; thus therefore, 1. Iohn 5.2. where the Apostle saith, Babes keepe your selues from Idoles, being an indefinite, and soe an vniuersall precept he commands Christians to keepe themselues from all kinde of Idoles what soeuer, and soe is fitly, and truly expressed, by the word Idoles, because that word is

alwayes taken in our language (euen ac∣cording to M. Fulk) in an odious, and bad signification: but it can neyther fitly, nor truly, be expressed by the word Images put absolut∣ly, and with our any adjunct, as it is in those first ttanslations of English Protestants, babes keepe your selues from Images, for then the pre∣cept could not be indefinitly, and vniuersally vnderstood, as it must be, to keepe themselues from all Images whatsoeuer, for all Christians should be here commanded, to keepe them∣selues from all monie,* 1.6 because it hath Images vppon it, and the husband to keepe himselfe from his wife, because she is an Image of God, nay Christians to keepe themselues from Christ, because he is the Image of his father. But if Protestants would vse the word Image, in this text, fitly and truly, they must haue added some adiectiue, to it, which would haue tyed it to signifie something which is vniuersally vnlawfull, thus Babes keepe your selues from false Images, or from bad Images &c. but this they refused to doe, first because there was noe such adiectiue in the originall, and and secondly, because the addition of that adiectiue, would haue made the text to haue had not soe much as any seeming force, against the doctrine of the Romain Church, for we should presently haue answered, that our Images are neyther false, nor bad but true, and

holy, and soe not forbidden in that place. Thus though the word desire, be indifferēt to signifie as wel bad, as good desires, yet this would be a very absurd command▪ keep your selues from defires, for that were to oblige one to abstayne from all desires, and therefore the Apostle, when he giues a command about desires, he speakes not indefinitly, but expresses by the adiectiue, which he adioynes, what desires he meanes, Abstinete vos à carnalibus desiderijs,* 1.7 Keepe your selues from carnal desires, all which are bad and vnlawfull. whence appeares that Protestants, by this theyr translation, make S. Iohn, and the holy Scripture, to deliuer a commande, not only false, and senselesse, but euen wicked, and blasphemous; for it must command Chri∣stians to keepe themselues from all Images, and consequently, not only from all Koyne, and Company, of men, which are Images, but euen from Christ himselfe, who is the Image of his eternall father.

The like inconueniences follow, from the other texts now cited, where Image, is put ab∣solutly. for Idoll. for when the Apostle, Ephes. 5.5. Reckons vp those hainous sinners, who are excluded (di••ng without repentance) from the kingdome of heauen, he calls an auari∣tious man, an Idolater in the originall, and the English Protestants, make the text say, an aua∣ritious man which is a worshipper of Images, now

euery aua••itious man is truly called an Idola∣ter, because he commits spirituall idolarry, in making his gould, his God; but an auaritious man cannot be truly termed a spirituall worshipper of Images, absolutly taken, for that supposes, that all worshipping of any Image whatsoeuer is sinfull, as all auarice is, which notwithstanding is not only false but blas∣phemous, for ciuil worship exhibited to the Image of some lawfull Emperour, is not sin∣full euen according to Protestants, and diuine worship giuen to our Sauiour, who is the Image of his father, is not only not sinfull, but most lawfull and holy.

The like follows, from theyr translation of Gal. 5.20. where the Apostle giuing a ca∣talogue of those capitall sinnes which vnre∣pented depriue a soul of eternall happinesse, amongst many others, names, Idolorum seruitus, in greeke Idolatry, now as all the rest when∣soeuer they are done; are sinnes, soe when∣soeuer any kinde, or act of Idolatry is com∣mitted, it is a sinne; but the Protestant chang∣ing Idolatrie, into worshipping of Images, must make the Scripture say, that as whensoeuer any fornication, adultery, witchcraft, idolatry, or any other here named, is commited, sinne is committed, soe when any kinde of wor∣shipping of Images is committed, sinne is com∣mitted, which notwithstanding is manifestly

false, for neyther is the ciuil worship of an Emperours Image a sinne, and much lesse the diuine worship of our Sauiour, who is the Image of his father; Thus is it made euident, that whilst Protestants shew theyr vehement passions against holy Images, they make the Scripture to speake not only falsities, but euen blasphemies. which the later Trāslaters hauing obserued, ashamed of soe foul errours, haue corrected (as any one may see) theyr former, and ancienter translations, and haue restored Idoles, Idolaters, and Idolatrie, to the respectiue texts, which I haue aboue cited. neyther is that which M. Fulk alleadges in defense of those ancient translations, of any force at all, for though the vulgar latin̄ translation, translate the greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sometimes simulacrum, and some amongst the ancients, not only heathens, but Christians, take that latin word in a good sense, yet according to the acception which it hath through the whol latin Bible, it is neuer taken for any thing saue an Idol: neyther cites M. Fulk, soe much as any one text of Scripture, where simulacrum, is not taken for an Idol: where as the word Image, in all lan∣guages, is familiarly taken, not only in all authours, both Heathens, and Christians, but also in holy Scripture, for true, lawfull, holy, and diuine Images. Notwithstanding all that I haue sayd in manifest and vndeniable proofe

of the false translation of the commandement Exod. 20. v. 4. &c. yet to shew how little force these texts haue, euen as they stand in the Protestant Bibles, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image &c. to proue any thing against the vse of holy Images practised in the Romain Church; I most easily answer, that if they vnderstand by grauen Image such as are also Idoles as it is taken, Isay. 44.17. Ps. 105.19. Ps 78.5. Iudg. 18. where that which v. 17. & 18. & 20. is called a grauē, & a molten Image, v. 24. is called Gods, & in the Protestāt Bibles in dif∣ferent other places, as I haue already shewed, nay through the whol Protestant Bible, the word grauen Image, is neuer taken but for an Idol, or a false God, for as much I euer could yet discouer in it: then I grant that such Images are neither to be made, worshipped, nor serued: but this concludes nothing at all against the Romain Church, who abhorres, detests, and anathematizes all such Images, with the wotshipping, and worshippers of them. But if they vnderstand by grauen Image, an Image wich is no Idoll, but a true repre∣sentation of some holy person now in heauen∣ly blisse, such as where the images of the two Cherubins Exodus the 25. then I deny that such grauen Images are forbidden, either to be made, or worshipped, according to the expli∣cation already deliuered. Now the reason of

this answer, and distinction is cleare; for if true Images of holy things and persons were forbidden Exod. 20. v. 4. then that place of Seripture would be contrary to the others, Exodus the 25. which command them: and if all kind of reuerence, respect, and worship be here forbidden to holy Images, then this text Exod. 20. v. 4. would be contrary to the Psal. 98. alias 99. v. 5. where we are commanded to worship, or adore the footstoole of God, which was nothing but the Arke of the Testament with the two goulden Cherubins in the holy of holyes. Adore, or worship his footstoole, saith there holy Dauid;* 1.8 where the very same hebrew word, and phrase is vsed which is in Exod. 20. v. 4. Some ignorant reader may happily say, that those pictures of the Cherubins Exod. 25. were commanded only to the Iewes, and to be vsed in the old law, and so tutch not chri∣stians any thing. I answer first, the forbidding of Images is also only in the old Testament, Exod. 20. v. 4. &c. Secondly, that command Exod. 25. to make some Images, was brought to shew that all kind of Images were not for∣bidden, Exod. 20. v. 4. and consequently, that some images might be lawfully made, and seeing there is now no prohibition forbidding all Images, giuen to Christians, it is lawfull for them, to make holy Images, like to the Che∣rubins Exod. 25.

Seeing therefore one place of holy Scrip∣ture cannot be contrary to another, for then the one should be false, (and so could not be the word of God, as it is supposed to be) they must necessarily be reconciled and made to agree. And seeing the Images of the Cherubs are so expresly commanded to be made by Allmighty God himselfe, that there is no way to deny or avoyd it, if a christian will recon∣cile and agree these two places, he must grant that all kind of Images, euen such as are no more Idols, nor lesse truly sacred and holy Images then those Cherubs in the Tabernacle were, are not forbidden in the commande∣ment Exod. 20. v. 4. for if they were, then God should forbid Exod. 20. what be commands Exodus 25.18. and so contradict himselfe. And what is sayd about the vnderstanding of the word grauen Image, is respectiuely to be applied to the word, worship: for if all kind of worship of Images be forbidden in the commande∣ment Exod. 20.4. then holy Dauid will con∣tradict Gods command, when be commands the Israelites to worship his footstoole, where those Images of the Cherubs were. There is therefore no other possible meanes to recon∣cile those two commands, but by saying, that Exod. 20. forbids not all kind, nor can be vn∣derstood of that which holy Dauid com∣mandes, but only such a worship as is wholy

vnlawfull, superstitious, and Idolatrous, wher∣by the creature is worshipped and prayed to, as God; and the Image made an Idol, or a false God: wich is neither commanded nor allowed in any place of holy Scripture, but alwayes forbidden and condemned. Neither can it be sayd, that Allmighty God. Psal. 98. dispensed with his command giuen Exod. 2. for if there were forbidden all kind of Images, as being superstitious and Idolatrous, and iniurious to Gods honour, and so of themselues, or in∣trinsecally (as the schoole speakes) vnlawfull, and all kind of reuerence or worship exhi∣bited to them, as in it selfe dishonorable to God, as Protestāts vnderstand this command. Then it cannot be sayd without most high blasphemy, that God dispensed with this command: for then he should dispence with men to commit superstition, Idolatry, and dishonour to him by a command to do them, which were to make him not only authour; but euen fauorer, and commander of sin.

Neither can it auayle Protestants to say, (as some others haue sayd) that the making all kind of Images, and all reuerence to them, was forbidden to the Iewes Exod. 20. v. 4. though not vnlawfull in themselues, by reason of the great danger they were in, to be broughr into Idolatry by them, as appeares in the brazen serpent, and their perpetuall

falling, vppon euery light occasion, into Ido∣latrie. This, I say, nothing auayls Protestants: first, because I haue already shewed that it is Idolatry only, and Idols, which are here for∣bidden. Secondly, because if this command of forbidding all kind of Images, and worship of them, though good and holy in themselues, was only directed to the Iewes as long as they were in so eminent danger of falling, by reason of them, into Idolatry, superstition &c. then it cannot be pressed now against Christians; whom it touches not, they being not in any such danger of committing heathenish Ido∣latry, but destroying it, and rooting it out through the whole world; and so it will be lawfull for them to make, and worship (ac∣cording to my former explications) holy Images, as hauing no command to the contrary.

From what I haue now sayd, will easily appeare how little reason the Romain Church hath, to blot those words, Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any Idol &c. out of the commande∣ment, as vulgar Protestants are made beleeue by a most false aspersion of their ministers: for if they make nothing at all against her, as I haue shewed, why should she blot them out? But that I may giue a full and cōpleat answer to this mistake of common people, which I haue learned by long experience to be one of

the greatest stumbling blocks, that hinders them from imbracing Catholike Religion: because, say they, we leaue out the second Commandement: I will breefly cleare this poynt, and conuince euidently, that it is a mere deuise to catch the ignorant, hauing neither truth nor substance in it For first, there neuer was yet so much as one sole Bible, of ours in whatsoeuer language, place, tyme, or edition, which hath not these words, which Pro∣testants, call the seeond commandement, as fully and compleatly as any Protestant Bibles haue: and I challenge the best versed amongst them, to produce one only in the whol world, which hath them not, and that the more ignorant, who vnderstand English only, may haue what assurance they are capable of in this particular▪ let them presse their mi∣nisters, to shew them the Remish Bible set out by Romain Catholike Diuines: and there Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. they shall find, all the sayd words fully an intyrely.

Secondly, not only in all our Bibles, but in our larger and fuller Catechismes, this whole commandement is expressed. So Catechismus Romanus set out by order of the late Coun∣cill of Trent, parte 3. pag. 298. n. 8. and Cani∣sius his Catechisme, de Charitate & Decalo∣go 1. q. 5. p. 74. 75. where setting down the commandements, he puts the first thus: Non

habebis Deos alienos coram me••non facies tihi sculpti∣le, vt adores illud. Thou shalt haue no other Gods be∣fore me: thou shalt not make to thy selfe any Idol to adore it: and then cites the commandements all at large, as fully as they stand in the Pro∣testant Bibles Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. And in an English Catechisme, called a Summary of Controuersies, composed by P.C. of the So∣ciety of Iesus, and printed in the yeare 1639. The third edition chap. 3 q. 5. pag. 68. hath it thus: Thou shalt not haue any strange Gods before me: thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image to worship it. And in the same maner are they set down in an other English Catechisme, which I haue seene and read in a publike au∣ditory of Protestants.

The ground therefore of this false impo∣sition, if it may be termed a ground, may happily haue beene some small short Cate∣chismes made for little children, and new be∣ginners, for the help of their memories, to be learned by hart, wherin this commandement, (as all the rest of the longer commandements) set down Exod. 20. Deut. 5. is abridged and brought to so many words as merely serue to expresse the substance of them, omitting the rest, thus. 1. I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not haue any other Gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vayne. 3. Re∣member thou sanctify the festiuall dayes. 4. Honour

thy father, and mother. where not only many words adioyned to the command against adoring false Gods, or Idols, Exod. 20. Deut. 5. but to the three ensuing also, are here for bre∣uity's sake omitted: setting down in few words the substance, and making no mention of the reasons and amplifications found in Exodus, and Deuteronomy, least, were they all sett at large, as they are there, both the memory of yong children might be ouercharged, and their weake vnderstandings confounded, not being able to distinguish the substance of the command, from the reasons and amplifica∣tions of it.

Now if we deliuered the commandements with this preface, as Protestants do in their common prayer booke, The same which God spake in the 20. chapter of Exodus, saying &c. we were obliged to put them all word for word as they are found there: For otherwise the commandements would not be answerable to the Title. But seeing we find them in other places of Scripture, set down in a much briefer manner then they are there; and find no precept neither in Scripture, nor in the Church, to deliuer them to Christians as they are deliuered in Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. rather then in other places; our aduersaryes can no more condemne vs of falsefying them when we put them briefer, then they can the holy

Scripture it selfe for abbreuiating them more in other places then they are in Exodus now cited, and Leuiticus.

That they are thus abbreuiated in Scrip∣ture, is manifest Leuit. 19. v. 1.2.3. And the Lord spake vnto Moyses, saying; speake vnto all the congre∣gation of the children of Israel, and say vnto them; yee shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy; yee shall feare euery man his father and his mother, and shall keepe my sabbaths: I am the Lord your God: yee shall not turne vndo Idols, nor make molten Gods, I am the Lord your God &c. where that which our ad∣uersaryes account the second commande∣ment, is put euen shorter then many of our catechismes, haue it: Turne not your selues vnto Idols, nor make vnto your selues molten Gods: as it is in Exod. 20. v. 23. Yee shall not make vnto your selues Gods of siluer: neither shall yee make Gods of gould.

Neither indeed is it any way conuenient to deliuer the commandements publikely and generally to Christian people word for word as they stand Exod. 20. Leuitit. 26. because therby they are indangered, either to take sunday to be saturday, or the Iewish Sabbath; or must hold themselues obliged to obserue Saturday with the Iewes, that alone being dies Sabbati, the Sabbath day, wherin only, God rested after the creation of the world▪ which only he also Sanctifyed, and commanded to

be kept, as clearly appeares by the words of the commandement: soe that it is not any seuenth day, or one indeterminately euery weeke, which God commands to be kept holy in this precept, but one only, and deter∣minately, that is the same seuenth day, where in God rested from the worke of the crea∣tion, as appeares, Gen. 2.1.2.3. Et benedixit diei septimo, & sanctisicauit illum, quia in ipso cessauerat ab omni opere suo quod creauit Deus vt faceret. And God blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it, hecause that in it he had rested from all his workes, which God created and made. now it is most euident, that God rested only, vppon one determinate day, and that, noe other then the Iewish Sabbath, or Saturday. or if they vnderstand well what day is meant in the commandemenr, they must needs be scandalized, to see a comman∣dement vniuersally deliuered to them of keeping the Iewish Sabbath, which is, and euer was, Saturday, and yet neuer obserued by any of them, but Sunday in place of it.

Hence therefore we see in generall, that it is very inconuenient to propose Gods com∣mandements publikely to Christians word for word as they stand in Exodus: and so wee can neuer be iustly condemned if we put some of them as they are more briefly deliuered in other places of Scripture, or now to be in ob∣seruance amongst Christians.

But there is an other poynt boggeled at chiefly by the ignorant, about the diuision of Gods cōmandements. Yee (obiect they against vs) put the two first commandements into one, and diuide the last into two. I answere, that a Catho∣like seeing their diuision, may with much more reason tell Protestants, yee put the two last commandements into one, and diuide the first into two. Briefly therefore to cleare this poynt, it is to be noted: that though it be expresly de∣clared in Scripture that Gods commande∣ments were ten in number, and written in two tables, yet through the whole Bible neuer is it declared which is the first; second, third &c. nor so much as one word spoken concerning the diuision of them: but this was left, either to tradition, or to the prudent de∣termination of Doctours: so that, howsoeuer they are prudently diuided, there will be nothing contrary to Scripture, so long as the whol substance be expressed, and the number of them be obserued.

Hence, in and euen before S. Augustins tyme, (as he witnesses) there was a double di∣uision of the commandements amongst Chri∣stians: some diuiding them as we doe; and others as our aduersaryes. Yet both S. Augusti∣ne himselfe, q. 71. in Exod. and S. Hierome Comment. in Psalm. 32. and Clemens Alexan∣drinus lib. 6. Stromatum, follow our diuision,

S. Augustin prouing it very largly to be the better, and putting in the first commande∣ment, Idol, not Image; and serue, not worship; and S. Hierome setting down the three comman∣dements conteyned in the first table,* 1.9 as short, or shorter then any of our Catechismes doe: and from them euen to our tymes, it seemes to haue beene the receiued diuision, at least in the westerne Church, and should haue beene followed by those of our nation, (who euer before the breach, were estemeed a part of it, and yet pretend to be so) had not the spirit of contradiction against the Romain Church induced them to the contrary.

Now as we haue authority, so haue we solid reason to prefer this diuision, before that of our aduersaryes: for certaine it is that each different commandement forbids a different maine sin; so that neither are we to make two forbid one capitall sin, nor one, two sinnes. This our diuision strictly obserues, but that of our aducrsaryes, not so: for their two first commandements forbid only the sin of Ido∣latry, as being the capitall sin forbidden in them both, and so can be but one com∣mandement, as we put them: and their last prohibites two maine distinct sinnes, the desi∣re of adultery, thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife, and the desire of theft, thou shalt not couet thy neighbours goods &c. which are as different in

thought, as adultery and stealing are in act: if therefore, as they acknowledge, there be two commandements to forbid them; in all reason there must be two to forbid the desires of them; and this reason is pressed by S. Au∣gustin in the place alleadged.

It is further most manifest, that these which are made two commandements by the Pro∣testants, can be noe more then one and the same commandement, for in the 2. of Kings 17. v. 35. the whole substance, of that which Protestants call the second comman∣dement is put in one single sentēce, togeather with the first in these words, you shall not feare strange Gods, neyther shal you worship them, neyther shall you serue them, neyther shall sacrifize to them. now, what is meant by those strange Gods, is declared, v. 40. and the 41. How be it they did not harken but they did after theyr former maner, soe these nations feared the Lord, and serued theyr grauen Ima∣ges. whence it is euident, that that which is called strange Gods, v. 35. is called grauen Images, v. 41. and soe to forbid the seruice, and wor∣ship of strange Gods, which is in the Protestants first commandement, and to forbid the ser∣uice, and worship of grauen Images, is the same command, as forbidding the same thing. Hence also appeares, that the word Phesel, vsed Exod. 20.4. and is also vsed here v. 41. signifies an Idol, or a strange God, as I haue often said: and

noe lesse is manifest from these words, th••t the seruice which is here mentioned, to those grauen Images, Pheselim, v. 41. was to feare them, and sacrifice to them, as strange Gods, v. 35. And, moreouer thus these which are here called strange Gods, v. 35. were materiall Idoles, or as Protestants terme them grauen Images, is most cleare, v. 33. They feared the Lord, and serued theyr own Gods after the maner of the nations, whom they carried away from thence, for they could not carry with them, any other Gods, saue such as these, from one place to an other.

That nothing may me wanting to the full satisfaction of the Reader, I haue here adioyned, the hebrew words as they stand in the originall of this text which is so violently, and frequently pressed against vs.

Exod. 20. v. 4.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Deut. 5. v. 5.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Which words out of what I haue allready alleadged, may be thus translated.

Thou shalt not make to thy s••lfe, an Ido••, any fi∣gure which is in heauen aboue, or in the earth beneath or in the water vnder the earth, thou shalt not bow, down to them, nor serue them. or thus·

Thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol, of any figure which is in heauen aboue,* 1.10 for the Protestants themselues, giue the like translation to the like phrase, Deut. 4. v. 16. and Pagninus giues for the first signi∣fication, of Moun, or Temounach, figuram, a figure, not only artificiall, but naturall, or ap∣parent, as when angels appeare, in the figures of men. Deut. 4.15. Psal. 17.15. I shal be satified when I awake with thy likenesse, Temounacb, which is nothing but the substance, and essence of God, conceiued clearly in our vnderstanding, as we commonly say in our language, let him appeare in his likenesse, that is in his own shape, figure, or persone.

Soe that the meaning of these words as they ly in the 20. of Exod. and 5. of Deutro∣nomy compared with the 2. of Kings 17. where a strange God, & a grauen Image are the same thing, as I shewed iust now, can only haue this sence, that Allmighty God here forbids, that we should haue any strange Gods before him, that is, that we should not make an Idol, according to any visible figure whieh wee see eyther in the materiall heauens, or in the earth, or in the waters, worshipping, and

seruing, that is, fearing those very Idoles, and sacrifizing to them, as to things indewed, with life, power, vnderstanding, & diuinity. which horrible Idolatry is as farre from the doctrine of the Romain Church, (which in the be∣ginning of this controuersie, I cited out of the cleare words of the Council of Trent) as darckenesse is from light.

To correspond to the desire of other Readers, I haue also thought it conuenient to cite the Greeke text, of the 70. Interpreres.

Exodus 20. v. 4.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Where they doe not only translate it serue, but shew that it is a seruice proper to God, which is here forbidden, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and thou shalt not serue them with a diuine or highest seruice, as I shewed in the begining out of Scripture to be vnderstood by the greeke word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and S. Augustin q. 61. vppon Genesis confirmes the same.

Now that the difference betwixt worshipp∣ing, and seruing, may be better vnderstood; and that worship, may in some true sence be attri∣buted

to things inanimate and without knowledge, but not seruice; the Protestants themselues grant that ciuill worship may be giuen to te chayre of state, or picture, of a temporall King; but seruice only to his Royall person, not to his picture; so that no man can be rightly sayd to serue the Kings chayre of state or his picture, but to serue the Kinge, and yet they may be, and are sayd truly, to worship or honour, by some externall signe, his chayre of state, &c. In the very same manner with proportion, one may truly be sayd to worship or reuerence the picture of our Sauiour, or his Saints, as things known and esteemed to be (as indeed they are) wholy dead, and inanimate, without any power att all, in themselues, to heare vs, or helpe vs, merely because they represent those holy per∣sons whose pictures they are▪ but we cannot be sayd in any true or proper sence, to serue them, so long as we make only this esteeme of them. And hence it is, that the reuerence or worship wich we yeeld to holy Images, is not intended to them, or to begge any fauour of them, or thinke that any help can be con∣ferred vppon vs by any power in them,* 1.11 and no Romain Catholike is to doe otherwise. But we pray before them, that we hauing them before our eyes, may better and more attentiuely thinke of those whom they re∣present,

and the reuerence and honour which we giue to them, is in a double respect; first we giue them that reuerence which is due to holy things, dedicated, and consecrated, or tending to the worship of God, as are altars, holy vessells, and such like; and in this respect we giue them no more honour, nor worship, then the Protestants vse to doe to Churches in England, by keeping their hats of, kneel∣ing &c. for as they doe that to such places, rather then to theyr own houses, because they are the houses of God; so doe we reuerence holy Images, because they are holy things, putting vs in remembrance of God, and heauenly things. Neither doe we this without warrant of holy Scripture: for Iosue 5. v. 15. an Exod. 3. v. 9. Iosue and Moyses are com∣manded to put of their shoes because the earth was holy wheron they stood; which was nothing but a reuerence vnto that earth made holy by the presence of God, or an Angell: and if a piece of ground must haue beene re••erenced because it was holy, why not all other things, which are consecrated or referred to the worship and reuerence of God?

The second respect which we haue in worshipping holy Images, is particular to them as they are Images and representations of other things: and in this respect, all the acts

of externall reuerence or worship, which we exhibite to them, is not directed to them, as the ende or reason of our worship, but it is only to passe by meanes of them, to that which is represented by them; where it wholy and only rests, as in a thing intended to be worshipped by it. Thus when wee doe any reuerence to an Image of the Virgin Mary, respecting it merly as her Image, the reue∣rence or worship passes by meanes of that to the B. Virgin, and there only rests and termi∣nates it selfe; and it is impossible to honour an Image, as an Image, otherwise: for being in its, proper nature, nothing else but a representa∣tion of such or such a person, or thing all which is done to it, is intended by it to that which it represents: neither is it possible, at least in this life, to giue any honour to God, or his Saints, otherwise then by meanes of one Image or other eyther corporall, of spirituall: for it is impossible to honour or worship any thing vnlesse we thinke vppon that which we worship: and it is impossible to thinke of any thing vnlesse there be framed in our heads, or vnderstandings a representation of that thing which we thinke of: now nothing can be re∣presented, without some representation, as is cleare, and euery representation is an Image and likenesse of that thing which is repre∣sents. So that we always honour whomsoeuer

we honour, through that Image of our thought, which we frame of them; and all our acts of honour of worship passe through that interiour imagination or thought which we haue framed, to the obiect or thing, which is represented by it. Now for the better help of our imagination, or internall thought, we vse some externall thing as an obiect of our senses, to excite vs to such thoughts, and keepe vs more liuely and fixedly in them: thus words and discourses (wherin the things which we intend to worship, are described, or signifyed) help vs to a more strong and atten∣tiue thought of them, and are the Images of the eare; through which as through represen∣tations of what we worship, we giue honour to that which they represent to vs: thus pictu∣res and images, paynted or carued, help the eye to frame a more full and ferme imagina∣tion, or thought of that we worship; now we haue warrant enough in holy Scripture, to giue honour, or adoration, to such things as helpe vs to thinke of God, and haue a reue∣rence giuen them to that end.

Thus in the 98. Psalme alias the 99. v. 5. Adorate scabellum pedum eius, worship or adore his footstoole, which was nothing but the Arke of the Testament, as all agree, and notwithstand∣ing here is a command to worship it. Your English translation to auoyd the force of these

words, translates it in this manner worship at his footstoole: as though indeed no worship at all were commanded to be giuen to it; but only that God were to be worshipped at it. But this is another manifest fraud: for the hebrew word, and greeke is the very same here with that of the 20. of Eodus, lo tishtachaue lachem, and here, ve hishtacauou la hathom ragluau. and in Exod. 20. because they will exaggerate the command against holy Images, it must be, thou shalt not bow down vnto them: and here, Psalm. 98. v. 5. because they feare that the people might gather from hence, that crea∣tures, and Images, (such as were the two Cherubins in the tabernacle, putting vs in mynd of the true God, were to be worshipp∣ed, it must be with them, worship at his footstoole. Thus they change and chop the words of holy Scripture, to serue their own turnes, at their pleasure so far, that euen two Psalmes before Psalm. 97. v. 7. they translate the same word and phrase in hebrew, worship him all yee Gods: and here it must not be worship his foot∣stoole, but, worship at bis footstoole: nay in hundreds of other places of Scripture, where the same word and manner of speech is in the Hebrew either attributed to God, or men, or Idols, or false Gods, they translate worship or worship not, the things forbidden or com∣manded: only here forsooth, because it makes

quite against them, if it be truly translated, they will needs haue it, worship at his footstoole: but both the hebrew, and greeke, and the Septua∣ginta, and the ancient vulgar Translation haue it plaine enough bow down vnto his footstoole, or, worship his footstoole. whence I gather, that it is warranted in holy Scripture, to giue reue∣rence and worship as I before explicated, to such things as put vs in mynd of Allmighty God, and consequently to holy Images. And as this is cleare in Scripture, so is the practise thereof no lesse cleare euen amongst Pro∣testants: for what more common amongst the more moderate of them, then to make a pro∣found adoration at the name of Iesus? which is nothing but a representation, or Image of our Sauiour, to the eare: which practice seeing it is grounded (according to them) in those words, Phil. 2.10. In the name of Iesus euery knee shall bow, and those words, extend themselues as much to that sacred name seen by the eye, as heard by the eare, brings in a necessity, of granting a religious worship, to that most di∣uine name, when we see it eyther printed in a booke, or carued in a stone &c. what wor∣ship soeuer therefore, a well minded Protestant should iudge to be giuen to that name thus ingrauen, with out all superstition or Idolatry, or breach of this commandement, let him giue the same to any Image of our Sauiour,

and in the same maner, or at least iudge that the like may lawfully be giuen to it, and noe more in this point will be required of him, to be esteemed conformable to the doctrine, and practice of the Romane church. & what more generally practised before these troubles then to kneele in receiuing the cōmunion, which is only a resemblance or likenesse of our Sa∣uiours Passion with them? and so giuing the reuerence of kneeling to it, they properly worship an Image, or similitude, or remem∣brance, of our Sauiours death. And if any should answer that they worship not the bread and wine in the Lords supper, nor kneele to them, but only to God when they receiue them, I demand presently, whether they exhibite any kind of reuerence to the bread and wine as a representation of our Lords Passion, or no? if they answer that they giue none at all to them: why then doe they make an exteriour shew, and that by way of command and obligation, of exhibiting reue∣rence and respect to those signes, seeing that in the exteriour, none who see them, can iudge that they giue not some reuerence euen to them? againe, if they giue no reuerence at all to them, what greater respect doe they beare to the Lords supper, then they doe to their own in their houses? so that if a zealous bro∣ther would kneele to God at the same tyme

when he eates his supper, he whould shew as much respect to a brown loafe, as he does to the Lords supper when he kneeles only to God, in receiuing it. And yet further, if one who goes to their communion, had no maw to adore God at that tyme, but should put it of to some other, when he found himselfe more moued by the spirit, why could not he receiue sitting, or standing, and that without any externall reuerence at all, to what he re∣ceiues visibly?

Nay how could he in conscience receiue kneeling 'or shewing any externall reuerence? If they answer that they exhibit some reue∣rence, to the externall signes, as representa∣tions of our Lords death; I demand, whether it be a ciuill or a religious reuerence: to say it is a ciuil reuerence, were absurd: for that is in matters of state and ciuill authority only; and this is in matter of Religion. If they say that it is a religious reuerence, then I haue my in∣tent, that euen Protestants doe exhibite Re∣ligious reuerence to signes, figures. and re∣presentations of our Sauiour, no lesse then Catholikes: and then I demand further, by what externall signe they make profession of such a reuerence to the signes of their com∣munion: certainly they will find no other which shewes it more clearly and fully, then their kneeling; or whatsoeuer they name, it

is an externall exhibition of religious reue∣rence, which is nothing but worship in a true and Christian sense: whence appeares that Protestants themselues are guilty of what they accuse vs, that is, of giuing woiship to an Image or figure, of our Sauiour dying vppon the crosse for vs. That which I haue answered to the 20. of Exodus, is in like manner ap∣plyable to the 26. of Leuiticus, v. 1. and to the 6. v. 73. for they speak only of Idols, and false Gods: from which, all Roman Catholikes abhorre far more then Protestants.

It is not my intention here to enter into any schoole questions, which can neyther easily be made plaine enough to be rightly con∣ceiued, by all those whom I intend to infor∣me in this treatis, nor are they necessary to be known by all Catholicques, nor if they were known, is it necessary to beleeue them. So long therefore, as the doctrine of the Council of Trent cited in the beginning of this con∣trouersie is beleeued and obserued, noe more will or can be required, (for soe much as be∣longs to this point) of any one who eyther is, or intends to be, a Child of the Roman Church. which doctrine is not only without all danger, but euen without all possibility of Idolatrie: for seeing an Idolatrous worship must acknowledge a diuine power, and vertu in that which it worships, and the Council

expressely theaches that noe such diuine power is to be acknowledged in any Image, it is im∣possible to follow this doctrine, and to com∣mit Idolatrie in the worship we giue to any Image, all therefore which is required to vnite a Protestant in this particular to the doctri∣ne of the Roman Church, is only this, that he beleeue noe more that there is eyher life, vertu, or diuinity in any Image, then he now beleeues there is in the name of IESVS spoaken or written; that he put noe more confidence, nor hope in the picture, then he now puts in the name, that he pray noe more to the picture, then he now prayes to that name, if kneeling before the name of IESVS grauen vppon some stone, he pray to our Sa∣uiour: but as he now puts of his hat and boweth his knee or body, when he sees or heares that name, he hold it lawfull to ex∣hibit the same reuerence when one sees the picture of our Sauiour, and as he may now kisse that sacred name in deuotion to our Sa∣uiour, soe he hold it lawfull to kisse our Sa∣uiours picture in deuotion to him, or in his regard.

If a Protestant should demande, whether there be as cleare proofs of Scripture for the worship of Images, as there are for the wor∣shipping the name of IESVS, I answer there are. That some Images may be lawfully made,

is cleare in the Brrazon serpent, Num. 21.8.9. That they may lawfully be put in places de∣dicated to the seruice of God, is euident in the two cherubins of gould, Exod. 25.18. That they may haue a reference to diuine seruice, and be ordinances helonging to it, is manifest Hebr. 9.1.5. That it is lawfull to exhibite some worship to them, is all ready proued, Ps. 99.5. Adore his footstoole. That the worship which is done to the Image of another, tends as much to his honour whose Image it is, as the worship done to his name, tends to the honour of him-whose name it is, is vndeniably prouued, Reu. 13. v. 15.16.17. And he had power to giue life to the Image of the beast, that the Image of the beast should both speake, and cause that as many as would not worship the Image of the beast should be killed; and he causeth all both small and greate, rich and pore, free and bond, to receiue a marke in theyr right hand, or in theyr foreheads: and that noe man might buy or sall, saue he who had the marke or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. whence is ma∣nifest, that the worship of the Image, of this accursed creature, tended to his honour, otherwise he would neuer haue compelled men to worship it, and that he was honored noe lese in this, if not more, then in carijng his marke, and his name. which can be deduced from no other principle then this, that all worship done proportionally to the Image, is

an honour to him who is represented by it, and consequently, that in this our Sauiour and the Saints are honoured as truly as any other in theyr Images.

If any Protestant, demand farther whether there be any expresse command in the new Testament, to worship holy Images. I answer there is noe expresse command. If it should be replied, that nothing is to be held, or prac∣tized by Christians which is not set down in expresse words in the new Testament. I answer that that is manifestly vntrue, and must be confessed to be soe euen by Protestants them∣selues, for they can neuer find any expresse mention in the new Testament: that nothing is to be beleeued, or practized lawfully by Christians, saue that which is expressed in the new Testament, 2. that any churches were made or to be made amongst Christians, disti∣nct from dwelling houses, 3. that fonts for baptisme were put in those churches, 4. that childeren were euer actually baptised in those fonts, 5. that God-fathers, and God-mothers were to be vsed in Baptisme of childeren, 6. that any spirituall kindred arises by vertu of Baptisme, betwixt those God-fathers, and God-mothers, on the one side, and the chil∣deren Baptized, & theyr Parents respectiuely on the other. If therefore none of those can be found mentioned expressely in the new

Testament, with what shew of reason, can Protestants demand, that the worship of Ima∣ges, should be mentioned in the new Testa∣ment, seeing they practice these particulars, noe lesse, then we the worship of Images? But in these, and such like religious practices, it is sufficient (euen according to the Protestant Principle of sole Sctipture) that eyther there be expresse mention made of them, eyther commanding or allowing them in the old Testament, which is neuer reuoked or diss∣allowed in the new (as is that of the worship of Images) or at least, that the lawfullnesse of them, can be deduced, from the old, or new Testament, by a good consequence, drawn according to the rules of right reason, as the worship of Images is manifestly, from the 13. of the Reuel. now cited, for if the wor∣ship of the Image tend to the honour of him who is represented by it, (as is there euident) and that it is lawfull to doe all that which tends to the honour of our Sauiour, then it follows ineuitably, that the worship of his Image, is lawfull, and the like is of the Images of Saints.

Thus haue I indeauored to discouer the different mistakes of Protestants, in the texts of Scripture cited by them against the vse of holy Images, taught, and peactized in the Ro∣mane Church, and with all the strange mis∣translations

inuented by them, to make holy Scripture speake to the vulgar, against the doctrine, and practice of the Romane Church in this particular. and this may sfuffice for the second Controuersie.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Exod. 2. v. 4. d.
• * 1.2

  Exod. 20. v. 4.
• * 1.3

  Rom. 11▪ v. 4.
• * 1.4

  1. Kings 11.5.33.
• * 1.5

  Isa. 44.15.17. Luc. 19.3. Oseae 11.2.
• * 1.6

  Mar. 32.16. Gen. 1.27. 2. Cor. 4.4,
• * 1.7

  1. Pet. 2.12
• * 1.8

  ••. Par. 18.2
• * 1.9

  Item Lu∣therus impr. Ie∣nae 1589. pag. 117. Et Hus Norin∣bergae 1558. pag. 30.
• * 1.10

  Bible 1629.
• * 1.11

  Concil. Trid. sess. 24. c. 2.