An appeal to Scripture & antiquity in the questions of 1. the worship and invocation of saints and angels 2. the worship of images 3. justification by and merit of good works 4. purgatory 5. real presence and half-communion : against the Romanists / by H. Ferne ...

CHAP. III. Of Images.

[unspec I] THe Council of Trent, as we see by the Decree touching Images, * 1.1 would seem very careful that the people be taught, how they may safely conceive of, and worship Images: and that all super∣stition and filthy lucre be taken away in the use of them. This is easily said and pretended, but what boots it, when peo∣ple are taught contrary to the command∣ment to bow down and worship: and to direct and secure them in it, do hear a company of distinctions, * 1.2 they under∣stand not? Whatever therefore becomes of the truth of that doctrine now to be ex∣amined, we may without rash judgement

(which this Author layes to our charge, pa. 72.) challenge the Church of Rome for so needlesly exposing her people to the peril of Idolatrie or superstition; in this and other points of worship.

The first Protestant position, saith he, is; That it is unlawful to represent God the Father in any likeness: and the Scripture is, Deut. 4.15, 16.

[unspec II] This Scripture he will have mistaken and misapplied to the Church of Rome, * 1.3 pa. 75. Before we ask his reason, note here how they of the Church of Rome are divided in this point * 1.4 the Cardinal ac∣knowledges some of his Catholicks (Abu∣lensis, Durand, Peresius and others) to be of Calvins opinion herein, that an Image of God is not rightly and lawfully made. And though these be the smaller number in the Church of Rome, specially since the Jesuites arose and multiplied: yet are they in this more suitable to the ancient Christians, who had no Images of God, as Minutius Foelix, and other ancient writers affirm.

Now see this Authors reason, why that Scripture is mistaken, and misapplied by us. First, because they of the Church of Rome do not represent God by any Image directly, that is, to signifie he is of a figure

or shape like that Image, pa. 27. Nor did the understanding Heathens say, they did so represent their Gods by their Images. Again, we represent God (saith he) only historically, as he appeared to the prophets (as Dan. 7. the ancient of dayes) neither is it forbidden to represent him, as he plea∣sed to represent himself, pa. 75. But we must put a difference between the repre∣senting of a Vision and of an History: * 1.5 to represent a vision in which God Almigh∣ty pleased to shew himself to the eye, is tolerable; but the Church of Rome takes greater liberty, (as appears by the decree set down by this Author, pa. 72.) of figuring * 1.6 histories, and passages of Scripture, in which God did not shew himself to the eye under any kinde of fi∣gure, thus also in the story of our Savi∣ours baptisme, they figure him like an old man looking out of the clouds, when as they only heard a voice, saw no shape: so in the story of Creation, they figure him like an old man with a globe in his hand; and without reference to history, they figure the Trinity, God the Father as an old man with the Son on one hand, & Ho∣ly Ghost in shape of a Dove on the other hand.

His Hieroglyphical figuring of Gods attributes, as of providence by an eye, and

the figurative speeches of Scripture attri∣buting hand, wings, feet, to God Al∣mighty, I let pass as altogether unfit to make any argument for representing God by an Image; neither is he so confident of them as to make any concluding argu∣ment, but only some semblance for re∣presentations of God: for if he will make Images of these Hieroglyphical or Emble∣matical expressions, they will not prove innocent Images, which according to his own definition of an Image do represent the things as they are in themselves.

The second protestant position (saith he) is, That no Image ought to be worshipped. The Scriptures are Levit. 26.1. Exod. 20.4, 5.

[unspec II] Here he makes (as they do all in this point) a great noise about the words and translations, * 1.7 to amuse the Reader in ex∣amining the thing it self, spending thirty pages upon the words, Idol, graven∣image, likeness: and quarrelling at our Translation as false and partial; for saith he, no word in the first Text signifies I∣mage, and that which we render graven∣image (out of the Hebrew Pesel) every where signifies an Idol, and so it is rendred by the Septuagint in the second Text 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Idolum; now there is a great diffe∣rence between Idol and Image; for an

Image is the representation of a true thing, but Idol a representation of what neither is, nor can be, as he who makes or uses it intends; thus he, in pa. 78, 79, 80, 81. But he should remember that in the first text the Septuagint hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Latine sculptile, and our Tran∣slation then does duly render it graven∣image; also that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (by which the Septuagint in the second Text renders the same word Pesel) does generally imply Image, likeness, representation, although when taken with connotation of Idola∣trous worship given it, it signifies an Idol in his sense; and seeing the Heathen false Gods were worshipped by Images and re∣presenting statues, he should not be so offended that we in rendring those texts put in the word Image; well, let the texts run as rendred in their latine Bible, our reasoning and argument against Image∣worship will stand firm: it being but the simple truth which all antiquity for 600. years, according to Scripture asserted; and after the Cardinal (whom this Au∣thor follows) had laboured so much in his conceited difference between Idol and Image, he is forced to admit that which defaces it, as this Author, we shall see, is content to do, in acknowledging any Image may be made an Idol by the wor∣ship given it.

[unspec III] That the prohibition of the command∣ment concerned only Heathen Idols, * 1.8 was the device of the goodly second Council of Nice after the year 700. which Council, to introduce or defend the Image-worship then begun, so grosly abused both the words of Scripture, and the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers. They of the Church of Rome see themselves concerned for the maintaining of their Image-wor∣ship, to defend that hold, and in order to that, conceive it necessary to make such a distinction between Idol and Image, as may seem to clear their Images and sta∣tues from the prohibition of the Com∣mandment, and leave only that which they call an Idol under it. Upon his long descant upon the words, we may note, 1. this their acception of the word Idol restrains it to the visible thing represent∣ing (and such was Pesel the graven ima∣ges, statues, pillars forbidden in those texts) whereas the things represented, or the reputed Deities, Baal, Jupiter, Di∣ana, were Idols too, and the main ones: and they that prayed or offered sacrifice to them, without sight or presence of their representations or graven Images, were Idolaters by the first commandment. And this note is necessary for distinction of the first * 1.9 and second Commandment,

which they would confound. 2. Note, that he fixes the whole notion of his Idol in the false representation as we saw a∣bove; whereas the notion and reason of an Idol, if we will speak of it as Scripture intends and forbids it, stands chiefly in the worship unduly given to it, for that makes the representation forbidden; else if we set aside the consideration of undue worship, all Chimaera's and monstrous phansies of mans brain, expressed by the painter, would be Idols forbidden in the Commandment. 3. Whereas according to that restrained notion of an Idol (as he usually expresses it, to be a representa∣tion made to represent any thing as God which is not so) he would vindicate the Images of the blessed Saints from being made Idols, because they represent them as they are, pa. 83. This is a lame defence. For first, any representation made to wor∣ship the true God by, may be, nay is an Idol; such were Labans Images, Gen. 31. and Micha's Teraphin, Jud. 17. and such was the golden calfe, Exod. 32. and it is apparent that the likeness or representati∣on forbidden, Isa. 40.18, 19. refers to the true God; and so by Deut. 4.15. that to make them an image or represen∣tation of the true God, was a corrupting of themselves; so by Exod. 20.22.23.

Ye shall not make with me Gods of silver — the worshipping of the graven image * 1.10 with God is forbidden. Secondly, the images of the Saints, although represent∣ing them as they are, yet become idols by undue worship given them: this Author is forced to acknowledge, pa. 81. and that the same material representation may in di∣vers respects be an image and an idol; the image being made an idol, by attributing to it any thing proper to God, pa. 82, 83. so then the distinction of idol and image comes to this: first it is an image or re∣presentation, whether painted or graven, then made an idol in the use of it, Qui colit ille facit, he that worships makes the idol: so little does their distinction of idol and image serve the turn.

[unspec IIII] As for the word Temounah in Exod. 20. albeit in Scripture-use it signifies any kind of likeness, * 1.11 natural, artificial, or spiritu∣al, yet here he will have it of no larger extent then the other word Pesel as he re∣strained it to signifie an idol or represen∣tation of any thing as God, pa. 84. and concludes pa. 86. line 3. No other repre∣sentation, picture or likeness of any creature is here forbidden, but such as are intended to represent them, by way of idolatry as Gods and Deities, which they neither are, nor can be; so he. But this is not de∣monstrated

(as he boasts) from the places of Scripture, which he brought for these words. For though it be true, that idols and the gross idols of the Heathen are for∣bidden, Exod. 20. and that in those places he brings, the words do import such idols; yet can it not be concluded from those instances, either that such idols only (i.e. the representations of false Gods, or of any taken for a God which is not, as he usually and cunningly renders the notion of an idol) are here forbidden; or that the col Temounah, any likeness of things in hea∣ven or earth should be restrained to such idolatry; for who shall restrain a Cōmand∣ment of God so generally expressed, with∣out warrant from the same God, to tell us some likeness or images of things in Heaven or earth may be worshipped, so they be not counted for Gods, or wor∣shipped as Gods? Tertul. * 1.12 gives a good caution to this purpose: If thou observest the same God, thou hast his law, that thou adore nothing besides God: and if thou look∣est at the precept that came after: (touch∣ing the Ark) imitate thou the prophet, and do not adore any images, unless God com∣mand thee. Not that he commanded any where to adore images, but did com∣mand to make them, viz. the Cheru∣bin.

[unspec V] This slender evasion, that only such idols as he has described are here forbid∣den: * 1.13 will the better be seen through when we have looked upon the words following, not bow down, nor worship; for whether the representation be pesel a graven image, or Temounah, the likeness of anything, it is no idol till the using of it, by bowing down, and worshipping of it or the like, do come. Here therefore he makes the like restraint of worship forbid∣den by the Commandment; it must be saith he, proportionate to the thing those idols represented, a God, and so a Divine worship, pa. 86. and then he heaps up places of Scripture, noting the grossest of Heathen idolatry: esteeming the material picture, as a God, to hear prayers, to be able to help; and therefore they bowed down to it, prayed to it, and put hope in it: that it may appear how far the Church of Rome in her fubtil and refined wor∣ships of creatures, is from the idolatry of the Heathen here forbidden. But I fear the gross fort of Papists fall down to their stocks and images, much like as those gross idolaters did to theirs; (some honest Romish writers have complaints to that purpose) and as for the understanding and learned Heathens, they were almost as subtilin their conceits and distinctions of

their worship, as the more knowing Pa∣pists are: as will appear below in the Tri∣al of Antiquity.

[unspec VI] But a great complaint he makes of our translation rendering in the Command∣ment, nor worship them, * 1.14 which should be, nor serve them, by which word he will have a Divine worship only forbid∣den: for the word serve shews an ho∣mage done to those Idols, as to things ca∣pable of such offices, and endued with knowledge, power, and divinity; so he pa. 88.89. We answer, Though service be more and may perform more (then worship) to persons endowed with under∣standing, and power to give commands: yet in regard of inanimate statues, Ima∣ges, and likenesses, serving them, stands only in acts of worship, and therefore the one may in that case be indifferently put for the other: and both of them are put as indifferent expressions of the same thing Deut. 4.19. to worship them and serve them: so Jos. 23.16. serve and bow down as equal expressions: Only serving may imply a frequenting of those acts of worship, in an order and way of Reli∣gion towards those objects of worship; and so the Romish worshiping of Images and Saints may be call'd a serving of them. And unless he will exempt those Heathens

(before spoken of) from the serving of graven Images which they worshiped: it may appear, that the importance of that word, serve them, does not infer such a divine worship, or homage given to such as they esteem endued with understanding, power, divinity, as he expressed it; for if by this importance of the word serve, the Romanists think to secure their worshiping of Images, because they do not give di∣vine worship or homage to them, nor esteem them endowed with understanding, power, and divinity: then I say those more understanding Heathens may be excused from serving of Images, because they did not give Divine honour to them, or esteem them so endued with, &c. and yet their worshiping was a serving of them. So we see there was no need of such an outcry as he makes against our Translation, saying worship, where it should have said serve; we had no advan∣tage by the one, nor hath he by the other.

[unspec VII] Besides this of worship for serve, he bu∣sieth himself to finde three other mistakes in our translating that one verse of the Commandment, * 1.15 which in his zeal to Image-worship he brands with the note of fraud and double dealing. The one in translating Pesel a graven Image, which should be Idol, as he would make us be∣lieve

and all because the Septuagint has it in this place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & the Latine Idolum; so he will have us contrary to the Hebrew, Greek & Latin texts, so he p. 91. But what if here the Septuagint rendred it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; in the parallel place Levit. 26.1. it renders the same Hebrew word Pesel by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Latin Sculptile, and who can deny that this signifies a graven Image? and if their Latine Sculptile be not contrary to the Hebrew, then we are safe enough. His second exception is, that we translate it any graven Image. But his Logick might teach him, that the force of Inde∣finites, amounts to an Ʋniversality: that to say there is not a man in the Church, is as much as to say, there is not any man in the Church: so thou shalt not make to thy self a graven Image, and, thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image: Wher's the difference? besides he ac∣knowledges, that in our New Translati∣on the word any is put in a different cha∣racter. His third exception is not much unlike the former: To make the Text (saith he) sound yet more against us in the ears of the Vulgar they make it say, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven: when as it should be, nor any likeness which is in Heaven, pa. 92. But what English man would make any difference in these, more

then that the first is the rounder expressi∣on? and the zeal Mr. Spencer has for the Images of Saints (which are in heaven) makes him so suspicious (if not uncharita∣ble in judging) we had a designe in the translation, to make the unlearued think that the likeness of all things in heaven, and consequently of our Saviour, and of the Saints, is here forbidden; so he pa. 93. But the words any thing are here also put in a differing character to shew they are added for the rounder English expressi∣on; and as for the Religious or Romish worshiping of the likeness or Images of our Saviour and Saints, we conclude it forbidden not by any consequence of an advantageous translation, but by the force and intent of the Commandment. Besides Deut. 4.16. will bear print∣ing it out so in the Catechisme, for there is Col. after Temounah, the likeness of any—

[unspec VIII] After this in his zeal to Image-worship, he spends 11. * 1.16 pages in noting places of our translations, where the word Image (as he pretends) is unduly and fraudulently put in; but because most of them were so in the old Translation, and are cor∣rected in the New: I will only note two, where the word stands still in our present Translation. The one is Ro. 11.4. to the

Image of Baal. But how could 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be better rendred? whether we supply it with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Erasmus did) which signi∣fies Image, or with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies statue and may well be understood, it be∣ing the word which the Septuagint useth in that History of Baal 1 Kings 10.27.— the * 1.17 Image or statue of Baal. Mr. Spen∣cer for fear the word Image should be here supplied, would make it refer to a Femal Deity. But let him shew that any femal Deities, came under the name of Baals, or Baalim; he acknowledges that in 1 Kings 19.18. (to which this place of the Romans relates) it is, that bowed not the knee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, therefore no femal Idol is here meant: but because the falsely supposed Deity was acknowledged and worshiped, by bowing the knee to his Image, S. Paul more expresly and elegantly put it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The other is Act. 19.35. where he quarrels at our Translation for adding the word Image, in rendring the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies that which fell from Jupiter: But seeing that which was supposed to fall was a statue or Image, what harme is there or fraud in adding the word Image, and rendring it more clearly, the Image that fell—? And what need this tender∣ness in Mr. Spencer for the word Image,

if he would not shew himself zealous for that, against which God Almighty has in this Commandment declared himself a jealous God.

[unspec IX] But its time from words to return again to the consideration of the thing, worshiping of Images; which he begins to do pa. 107. where he undertakes to shew that the ve∣ry Translations of the Protestants prove nothing against the use of Images, * 1.18 practi∣sed in the Romish Church: Certainly much may be proved against what is pra∣ctised there: but here we are to consider the Doctrine: see then how he makes good what he said. He supposes, the Protestant must take Graven Image, ei∣ther in his sense above, for an Idol and false God, or in the sense he put upon the word Image, i.e. for a true representa∣tion of some holy person: the Church of Rome detests Graven Images in the first sense, and in the other sense a Graven Image is not forbidden. Thus he. But he should consider that Protestants can tell him of Graven Images, which may and have been made to worship by them not a false god, but the true; and so forbid∣den in the Commandment: such were those we spoke of above, Labans Images, Mica's, the Golden Calf: and note that those Images which were stoln from La∣ban,

are called strange Gods, Gen. 35.2. not that the false Heathen gods were worshiped in them by Laban or any of Jacobs family, but because they used these in the worship of the true God, which was to worship God after a strange manner, as the Heathens worshiped their gods; Again the Protestants can tell him of Graven Images, which represent nei∣ther the true nor false God, yet falling under the prohibition by undue worship given unto them; and such was the bra∣zen Serpent, and so their Images as used in the Romish Church, may by undue wor∣ship become prohibited.

[unspec X] But see his argument. If all kind of worship of Images were forbidden by the Commandment Exod. 20. * 1.19 then David contradicted Gods command in bidding them, worship his footstool, Ps. 99.5. so he pa. 108. By better warrant may we say, the Church of Rome contradicts the Commandment of God: He saith, Thou shalt not bow down and worship: she saith, bow down and worship, and commends the practice as religious and profitable. But seeing he alledges Scripture, to prove his Position: let it be our turn now to shew his many mistakes, in urging that of Psal. 99.5. for worshiping of Images. He begins with a complaint of our Transla∣tion,

for rendring it worship at his foot∣stool, when it should be, worship his foot∣stool, the Ark and Cherubins upon it. First, we might quit him with a more just complaint of their rendring Heb. 11.21. Jacob worshiped the top of his staff, which the original 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, will not bear. But the Original in Ps. 99. will admit ours, at or towards his footstoole, the same word and phrase being used in the last verse: worship his holy Mount; or at or in his holy Mount: Pagnin and Montanus rendring both places alike (to shew the indifferency of the phrase) Incurvate Sca∣bello, and incurvate Monti: so that by Mr. Spencers argument, they were com∣manded to worship the Mount as well as the Ark or Cherubins; and if the latter be capable of this sense, worship at or in his holy Mount (as the Septuagint turns it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) then may the former place be also rendred, worship at or toward his foot stool; so the Chalde Paraphrase renders both alike, Adorate in Domo Sanctuarij, worship in or at the house of his Sanctuary that's his footstool, or place of presence on earth: and so the last verse, Adorate in Monte Sanctuarii, worship in the Mount of his Sanctuary: the place where his Temple stood. Now as the same phrase in the last verse directs

the rendring of the fifth verse, worship at his footstool, so does reason also perswade it; for the people could not see the Che∣rubins which were in the holiest place, how then commanded to worship them, and that as Images and representations? But the intent of the Psalm is to bid them frequent that place of worship where his foot-stool was; and in worshipping to look that way, not for the Cherubins sake, but for Gods presence sake of which the Ark was a signe and witness; so the Ark or place where it stood did but circumstan∣tially determine the worship, (i.e. that way) it did not objectively receive the worship. Secondly, he will have (which also he repeats pa. 127. and 133.) * 1.20 images commanded to be made and set in holy places for worship, because these Cheru∣bins were so; but how many mistakes and inconsequencies are here? First, in draw∣ing warrant from Gods action to their in∣ventions; Secondly, in supposing them the images or representations of Angels, which being set out for worship, must according to his own definition of an image represent the thing or person as they are — but let him say, what indivi∣dual Angels these did represent? Or what Angel is like, or did ever appear like to those Cherubins? Therefore images ac∣cording

cording to his own notion of image are not here commanded. Thirdly, the truth is, those Cherubs were symbolical or em∣blematical representations of the ministry of Angels, which God as it pleaseth him useth in and about his Church: and therefore is said to sit on the Cherubins, and to ride upon them: and this pair of Cherubs over the Ark is call'd the charet of the Cherubins, 1 Chro. 28.18. Lastly, his mistake in supposing them set there for worship, which is a great falshood, and injurious to Almighty God that set them there, and I fear a wilful mistake; for he cannot be ignorant how it is acknowledg∣ed, that the Jews did not worship Angels themselves, much less their images; that the Jews had not those images of the Cheru∣bins and Brazen Serpent, * 1.21 nor any images for worship, this is asserted by several ••a∣thers, acknowledged by some of this Authors Society.

[unspec XI] He excuses (pa. 112.) their leaving out these words; * 1.22 thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image, nor the likeness, &c. in their shorter Catechisms; Did we (saith he) deliver the Commandments as Prote∣stants do, with the Preface: The same which God spake — we were obliged to put them word for word, or else the Com∣mandments would not be answerable to the

Title, pa. 114. But though you set not that preface before them, yet prefixing the Title of Gods Commandments, and pretending to deliver in your Catechisms the ten Commandments, you are obliged to deliver all the fubstantial parts or things commanded or forbidden; other∣wise you make them unanswerable to the title, and to your pretence.

[unspec XII] Upon this occasion he makes his defence of their division of the Commandments, * 1.23 which reckons but three in the first Table, by crowding the second commandment into the first; and making seven Com∣mandments in the second table, by break∣ing the last into two. The division of the Decalogue, if it were a point of great mo∣ment, might be cleared on the Protestants side, as more agreeable to the greater part of Antiquity, and more rational in it self. For though * 1.24 St. August. with some few others liked the former division, into three and seven: conceiting three in the first table (which prescribes the worship of God) suitable to the three persons in Trinity: yet Romanists have another and more dangerous reason, because they see it more suitable to their image-worship, to make the first and second Command∣ment but one, and forbidding only an Idol or false God, and to be rendred in

brief, Thou shalt make to thy self no idol. Therefore this Author, pa. 119. and 121. where he gives the summe of the Com∣mandment, would have the strange God in our first Commandment, and the gra∣ven image in our second, to be all one. But if we consider the Heathen Deities or strange Gods were idols, and their pray∣ing or sacrificing to them * 1.25 without an image, was idolatry, according to the first Commandment; so also the wor∣shipping of their images, yea, the wor∣shipping of the true God by an image, is another sort of idolatry by our second Commandment forbidding the graven image. The worship also which the Turks give their Mahomet (I hope our Romanists will say) is forbidden by Gods Law here: yet do they not worship him as a God, but at his Tomb, (and there∣fore the thing forbidden must not be re∣strained to a false God as he would have it;) nor do they worship him by any gra∣ven image, for they have no representa∣tions or likenesses of things: therefore it is fit that our second commandment, which forbids such should stand divided from the first. And for the last com∣mandment which they break into two, and pretend a reason from the several ob∣jects, Goods and wife: yet the unity of it

rests upon the desire forbidden (in the word covet) let the object or thing cove∣ted be what it will; therefore the Apostle renders the commandment by that one word, non concupisces, thou shalt not co∣vet, Rom. 7.7. And God himself has so disposed the words of this command∣ment, Exod. 20. that he has put the not coveting of a neighbours wife (which they make the ninth commandment) into the midst of their tenth commandment; put∣ting before and after it the not coveting of his goods, which shews them but one commandment.

But enough of this. It is not the divisi∣on of the Commandments that is so much to be stood upon, as the observing and keeping of them; did the Romanists hold this way of dividing the Decalogue, with the same simplicitie and uprightness that St. Aug. and some others with him did, we should not quarrel at it; but this we have cause to charge upon them, that in dividing they maim the Commandments, either by leaving out some material parts, as what concerns the graven image, like∣ness, bowing down to it, and Gods jealousie against it, or by restraining the sense of them, as we have heard.

[unspec XIII] Now he proceeds to give us the double respect, * 1.26 under which they give reverence and worship to images, pa. 124. But it is in vain to shew in what respect they give, if the Scripture exclude it. First he pre∣tends it is but such a reverence as is given to holy things dedicated or tending to the worship of God: and in this respect (saith he) we give them no more ho∣nour or worship then Protestants do to Churches, pa. 129. This is too remiss and comes short of their worshipping and ser∣ving of images. For we worship not holy things used in Gods service, but use them reverently with difference from common things; also sometimes they determine our worship (we give to God) circum∣stantially, ad hic & nunc, for the perform∣ing it then and that way: not objectively receive it; but who can without shame make images, holy things dedicated, or tending to Gods service, when there is such caution in Scripture against that dan∣ger? Or affix a special presence of God to them? For this would be what the grosser sort of Heathens conceited of their images: yet does this Author alledge for the worship of their images, that reve∣rence which the ground had as made ho∣ly by the presence of God, Exod. 3.9. where in token and acknowledgement of

that presence, shoes were to be put off. The presence of Patriarch, Prophet, or Saint made not the ground or place holy where they stood themselves: much less can the representation of them in or by an image, render that image holy, and to require our reverence and worship.

[unspec XIV] His second respect is, because of their representing the thing to which the wor∣ship is conveyed, pa. 125. and is not a∣shamed to argue (but he learnt it from his Master the Cardinal) from the necessi∣ty of the inward image or representation we have in our mind of the thing to be worshipped, to prove the conveniency of an outward image to help our imagina∣tion — and to help us to think of God, pa. 126. That outward images and represen∣tations may help our imagination in con∣ceiving of the object, yea, and raise our affections, Philosophy tells us: but in the act of worshipping God, the danger of using images is great, least they possess our mindes and carry away what belongs to the thing represented; as St. Aug. on Psalm 113. shews how hard it is for him that prayes, beholding an image (such is the manner in the Church of Rome) to keep his mind from thinking, the image heareth and helpeth him; where also he tells us that the Heathens who would

seem to be of a more refined religion, * 1.27 * 1.28 al∣ledged in excuse of their worship such respects as these, of helping and fixing the imagination, and conveying the worship to the thing represented. We allow not only the historical use of images, but in some sort the affective also: yet that on∣ly as to meditation and preparation; not for or in the exercise of prayer or wor∣ship: much less to be the medium or in∣strument of coveying the worship; here∣by images in the Church of Rome become great stumbling blocks to the people that are not capable of the nice distinctions and limitations, which their learned ones are fain to use in defence of this image∣worship.

[unspec XV] Again he seeks warrant for his holy images as things that put us in mind of God, * 1.29 from our bowing at the name of Jesus: and is so courteous as to say; what reverence a Protestant would judge to be given to that name printed or ingraven: let him say the like may be given to any image of our Sa∣viour, and no more will be required, so he pa. 128. But a Protestant may say; first, if he bow at the name of Jesus, he has a Text will bear him out, Phil. 2.10. which cannot be said of doing so to an image: Secondly, he may say, that the adoration done at the name of Jesus in

our holy offices, is given to Christ only as the object, but is circumstantially deter∣mined ad nunc, by or at the naming of him, that is, such worship is given to Christ at the hearing of that name, or when he is named: and if upon sight of that name printed or engraven, any man worship Christ, then is that name the oc∣casional motive of his worship; now as for an image as it may not be the object of worship (in which point the Romanists do require more then a Protestant can yield) so it may be the occasional motive of wor∣ship, as should a man upon sight of a Cru∣cifix worship the Lord Christ, lifting up his heart, putting off hat, and bowing; and in that we may say the image deter∣mines the worship circumstantially as to the nunc, the time (worship being given upon the sight of it) but should not de∣termine it ad hic, to do it towards the image, for fear of making it any object of the worship, or medium in conveying the worship to the thing it representeth, and minded us of; and in all this there is no more of worship done to the image, then there would be to an iron chain, which he, that was bound with it in his captivity, looking upon, takes occasion to remem∣ber Gods mercy in his deliverance, and so worships God uncovering his head and bowing.

[unspec XVI] Again, he seeks pretence for his holy Image-worship, * 1.30 from our kneeling at the Communion: that if we say we afford any reverence to the sacred signes, it must be religious, and then (saith he) I have my intent, pa. 130, 131. This seems to be fairly spoken; but here's the cunning: to go very low in their doctrinal conces∣sions, but still hold up the practice, for there they may easily exceed and extend it as occasion requires. But first, reve∣rence speaks less then adoration or worship; far less then that adoration, which is al∣lowed in the Church of Rome to images.

Secondly, we do not make our kneeling at the Communion a signe or profession of that reverence we have towards the holy signes: there being other reasons of it. But we express our reverence towards them, by handling them duly as be∣comes such holy things, using them only in that holy administration: taking or∣der with the remainder, that no unde∣cent usage happen unto them; all wor∣ship and adoration that is performed in the use of them, is given to God: and not belongs any way to them but only cir∣cumstantially, in as much as it is done towards them; because that which they represent and convey unto us, is the great motive of our worship and adoration

But thirdly, what boldness is this, by the reverence due to the sacred sacramental signes instituted of God, to challenge like reverence to images invented by man, * 1.31 and not capable of that holy use? They have a kind of relation to the thing represented, such as arises from representation, which is the weakest relation: not such as arises from dedication to holy use, of which, as I said, images are not capable; being such things as God will not accept of, if dedi∣cated to worship: and therefore not ca∣pable of that reverence which belongs to holy things piously dedicated by man: much less of that which holy things insti∣tuted by God may expect; and yet much less capable of that honour and adoration, which is allowed in the Church of Rome. And what if this Author saith, he has his in∣tent, as satisfied with so slender a reve∣rence to be given to his holy images? It behoves them to speak and write warily of such points in English: but which of their Latine controversie-writers would or could say, he had his intent, if no more were yielded then this Author pretends to be satisfied with? There being two re∣spects upon which (as the Romish writers dispute it) worship is held due to images: either propterse for their own sakes, as a reverence is due to holy things, or propter

exemplar for the things sake which they represent: * 1.32 the Cardinal disputes honour and worship is due to them in both res∣pects, and so could not have his intent, if only a reverence were given to them, such as is to holy things dedicated: though in∣deed they are not capable of so much; as was said before; nor would Azorius (though disagreeing with the Cardinal) have his intent: who casting off the first respect (as deserving little or no honour) holds only to the second. * 1.33 The image (saith he) is not worshipped with a double, but one single honour, and that for the ex∣emplars sake— and that honour is the wor∣ship of Latria, if to the image of Christ; of Hyperdulia, if to the image of the blessed Virgine; and of Dulia if to the images of the Saints. This is down-right, and scarcely can be excused from idolatry, even in the opinion of the Cardinal, * 1.34 pas∣sing his judgement upon that doctrine, which yields Latriam to the Image for the exemplars sake.

Let us now hear what St. * 1.35 Aug. saith to the Allegation (such as Mr. Spencer made) of things dedicated to holy use, as about the Sacrament. He shews a difference between them and images, as to this point of reverence. For albeit, (saith he) they be made of the same mettal, and are

work of mens hands, as images are, * 1.36 yet by that ministry those vessels are consecra∣ted, and call'd holy, in his honour, to whom for our salvation we do service by them. And it is not said of them as of images, they have eyes and see not, mouths and speak not — this he adds to shew the danger of images (by reason of their representation) when used in holy duties: for as he saith there, * 1.37 the form of the image, like to one having life, much prevails upon the affections of silly men; and more to this purpose this Father hath there; which see added below in trial of Antiquity, Chap. of Images.

[unspec XVII] One plea more he has, and it is fetched from, Rev. 13.15, 16. * 1.38 which speaks of worshipping the image of the beast: where∣upon he argues to this purpose. If wor∣ship of the image tend to his honour, that is represented by it, (as is evident by that place;) and it be lawful to do all that tends to the honour of our Saviour, then the worship of his image and so of all the Saints is lawful, pa. 133. As if he should reason thus; if the Devil or Antichrist or that accursed thing (as he calls it) will have, and takes it for an honour to have his image worshipped; then is it so with Christ or God; who saith notwithstand∣ing I am a jealous God — And albeit the

reverence done to the Emperours image tends to his honour, because this is but civil respect, of conveying which the image is capable; yet is it far otherwise in this religious worship; for there the representation of God or Christ or Saint by images for worship, is like the stamp∣ing of the Kings image upon adulterate money without his leave: which is so far from passing currant among his subjects, or that he takes it for his honour, that he will command it, notwithstanding his image on it, to be defaced and cut in pie∣ces. Again it is too unreasonable for him, either to take image in that place of Rev. 13. for such a material representation we speak of; or to draw the argument from that image of the beast, to such material representations; (much like the argu∣ments their Nicen Council makes for wor∣shipping these material images, from what some Fathers had spoken of worship∣ping Christ as the image of the Father:) In that place of the Revel. is meant one power, state and government, which for likeness may be call'd the image of the former: and it is probable, that image speaks some state among Christians, that shall imitate or be like the first beast or Heathen Rome: and I know not wherein one can be like the other, more then in

erecting a new kind of Idolatry or image∣worship, and in persecuting the gain∣sayers, that will not receive the mark or worship the beast. So that this Author and those of his communion may be concern∣ed in this prophesie more then they are aware of; I am sure they can have no ad∣vantage from hence for their image-wor∣ship.

[unspec XVIII] I will but adde this one thing; had this image-worship been used in Irenaeus his dayes, and thought tending to Christs honour, then would those Hereticks he speaks of (who held our Saviour not to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament, that made the world and gave the Law) have had a fair plea: for how should they think him his Son, if allowing and taking it for honour, what was so cautioned against and abominated by God in the old Testament, and for which the Jews still do abominate Christian Religion, viz. the use of images in religious worship? It is a great piece of cunning in the Dra∣gon or Devil, to induce men to believe, that this service of images, and creatures, so strictly forbidden by Moses Law, is authorized by the Gospel, allowed by Christ.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pretended care for the people.
• * 1.2

  Vid. su∣pra in intro∣duct. ex Bel.
• * 1.3

  Of pictu∣ring God the Father.
• * 1.4

  Bel. de Imagin. l. 2. c. 8. Docent imaginem Dei non re∣cte fieri.
• * 1.5

  Difference in picturing of a Vision and History.
• * 1.6

  Historias & narratio∣nes Sacrae Script. Conc. Trid. Sess. 24.
• * 1.7

  The pre∣tended di∣stinction of Idol and Image.
• * 1.8

  The prohi∣bition of the Com∣mandment.
• * 1.9

  Ʋt infra, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 12.
• * 1.10

  Bell. de Imaginib. c. 24. Idolo∣latria est non solum cum adoratur ido∣lum relicto Deo, sed eti∣am cum ado∣ratur simul cum Deo, ut Exod. 20.22, 23. True diffe∣rence of Image and Idol.
• * 1.11

  The like∣ness of any — sorbid∣den in the Command∣ment.
• * 1.12

  Tertul de Idol. l. 5. Si∣tu eundem Deum obser∣vas, &c.
• * 1.13

  The wor∣ship forbid∣den.
• * 1.14

  Of our tran∣slating wor∣ship for serve.
• * 1.15

  Other need∣less excep∣tions against our transla∣tion.
• * 1.16

  Of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Rom. 11.
• * 1.17

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, statuam Baal sic. Vul. Lat.
• * 1.18

  Of Graven Images.
• * 1.19

  Worship towards the Ark no proof for Image-wor∣ship.
• * 1.20

  The Che∣rubin there no proof for Image∣worship.
• * 1.21

  Azor. par. 1. Instit. mor. l. 9. c. 6 qu. 7. Vasq. de Adorat. l. 2. disp. 4.
• * 1.22

  Their maiming of the Com∣mandment in their Ca∣techismes.
• * 1.23

  The divisi∣on of the Decalogue.
• * 1.24

  Aug. de decem chor∣dis, & qu. ••1. in Ex∣od.
• * 1.25

  Ʋt supra, Nu. 3.
• * 1.26

  The pre∣tended re∣spects upon which wor∣ship is gi∣ven to Ima∣tes.
• * 1.27

  Use of in ages.
• * 1.28

  Qui vi∣dentur sibi purgationis esse Religio∣nis: di••unt, simulachrum non colo utc Damonium: sed per offi∣••iem co••po∣ralem, ejus rei signum intueor quod colore debeo. August. in Psalm 113.
• * 1.29

  Bowing at name of Je∣sus no pre∣rence for Image∣worship.
• * 1.30

  Kneeling at Communi∣on no pre∣tence for it.
• * 1.31

  Images not capable of the reve∣rence due to holy things.
• * 1.32

  Bel. lib. de Enagin. c.
• * 1.33

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 part. 1. Instit. mo. l. 9. c. 6. qu. 9. Dupli∣••i honore non coli••ur Ima∣••••—
• * 1.34

  Bel. l. de ••mag. c. 24.
• * 1.35

  Instrumenta in usum ad∣ministran∣dorum sacra∣memorum.
• * 1.36

  —quo ipso ministerio consecrata— in ejus hono∣re, cui pro sa∣lute nostra inde servi∣tur.
• * 1.37

  — Valet in affectibus miserorum, &c. Aug. in Psalm 113.
• * 1.38

  Image of the beast made an ar∣gument for Image-wor∣ship.