likenesse of our Sauiours Passion with them and so giuing the reuerence of kneeling to it they properly worship an Image or similitude or remembrance 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 reuerence 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 brother 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 receiues visibly Nay how could he in conscience receiue kneeling ' or shewing any externall reuerence If they answer that they exhibit some reuerence to the externall signes as representations 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 intent that euen Protestants doe exhibite Religious reuerence to signes figures and representations 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 communion 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 reuerence 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 applyable 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 conceiued by all those whom I intend to informe 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 controuersie is beleeued and obserued noe more will or can be required for soe much as belongs 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 impossible to follow this doctrine and to commit Idolatrie in the worship we giue to any Image all therefore which is required to vnite a Protestant in this particular to the doctrine 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 Sauiour 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 exhibit the same reuerence when one sees the picture of our Sauiour and as he may now kisse that sacred name in deuotion to our Sauiour soe he hold it lawfull to kisse our Sauiours 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 worshipping 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 dedicated 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 manifest 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 practized by Christians
our Religion and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God and our Sauiours honour as authour of our faith and Religion Soe that hauing these references to Gods honour though those Acts of Religious worship tend immediately to the acknowledgement of some created supernaiurall excellence in that which wee worshipp by them yet that hinders not theyr beeing Religious acts in this larger sence As appeares by these following texts of Scripture where Moyses is commaunded to prescribe certaine ceremoniall rites in Sacrifices Holocausts amongst which one was that the brest right Shoulder of that which was offered in sacrifice should be giuen to the Priests as belonging to them by right and ordinance of God The giuing of these two parts of the thing offered to the priest was an action done immediately to a pure creature and not to God and yet it is called Religion as appeares by the words These things God commaunded to be giuen to them that is to Aaron and his ofspring as it is in the precedent words from the children of Israell by a perpetuall Religion in theyr generations Secondly S. Iames. Pure and vndefiled Religion with God and the father is this to visite the orphanes and widowes in theyr tribulation and to keepe himselfe vnspotted in this life where a worke of mercy to the pore is called Religion that is a worke proceeding from Religion and belongrg to Religion though done to creatures such as are orphanes and wedows All that I haue cited out of Scripture in the discouery of this second mistake will I hope haue coÌ„uinced the iudicious and well minded Reader that there is a Supernaturall created excellency communicated liberally from Allm God to some creatures infinitely below the diuine excellency of God and yet far aboue all naturall and ciuill worth which therefore must deserue honour and worship seeing that naturall and ciuill excellencies euen according to protestants though far inferiour to them deserue it which worship seeing it is done in acknowledgment of the Spirituall and supernaturall dignities which are only proper to Gods true religion and soe are religious excellencies may be rightly termed a religious worship in the fore named sense For seeing the humble acknowledgmeÌ„t of diuine perfections is deseruedly termed diuine worship and of ciuill perfections rightly styled ciuill worship soe the humble acknowledgment of religious perfections for the like reason is to be named Religious worship which will yet seeme lesse strange to an indiffereÌ„t eye if one consider that the some different degrees may be found in Acts of other vertues which are here fouÌ„d in worships I haue allready proued from Scripture that there are different kinds and degrees of feares and loues whence it followes that when one feares the iustice and wrath of some ciuill Prince or magistrate it may be called ciuill feare but when one feares the iustice and authority of an Apostle a Prophet c. whose power is drawn from Religion it may be named a Religious seare Thus the feare of Adam hiding himselfe from God was a diuine feare The feare of Adonias flying from king Salomon was a ciuill feare but the feare of the Primâ—tiue Christians of S. Peeter when Ananias fel down dead at his feete was a Religious feare And the same distinction is in differeÌ„t ordres of loue S. Peeter loued our Sauiour as his God and Redcemer with diuine loue Ifack loued Esau with a ciuill loue but the Primitiue Christians loued S. Paul with a Religious loue And in the same manner as I haue allready Proued Moyses worshipped the infinit maiesty of God with a diuine worship the children of Iacob worshipped the power and excellency of Ioseph with a ciuill worship but rhe Sunamite worshipped Elizeus and the captaine of fifty men Elias whose authorities were deriued known and acknowledged only from faith and Religion with Religious worship And the giuing such a Religious worship as this which I haue described to a creature is soe far from derogating any thing from the due worship of God or from ascribing any worship proper to him to any creature that it would be an insufferable iniury to God And horrid Sacriledge to affirme that he is to be worshipped with any such worship for that were to acknowledge in him only a created finite imperfect excellencie which were to make him an Idoll a false God Neyther can his honour be any thing diminished by exhibiting this kinde of Religious worship to a creature indued with spitituall graces for his honour cannot be iniured but by giuing to a creature the wotship proper and due to him only seeing therefore this is no worship due to him neyther only nor at all it cannot be any way a preiudice to his honour For as ciuill and religious feare and loue commanded to be giuen to creatures is no way preiudicious to the diuine feare and loue which we-owe to God Soe neyther can ciuill nor religious worship commaunded to be exhibited to creatures as I haue proued be preiudicious to the highest diuine worship which we owe to God And thus much Allm God seemes to say by his Ptophet Isay. I am the Lord this is my name I will not giue my glory to any other nor my praise to Idols where he saith not I will not giue glory to any other for that would be contrary to the words of the Psalmist speaking of man in his first creation Thou hast crowned him with glory and honour but I will not giue my glory to an other that is that infinite glory which properly belongs to God only wich is specifyed in the precedent words I am the Lord this in my name soe that God wil neuer giue that which is his proper name and title to be Lord of all things to an other which is yet more expressely set down by the same Prophet And I will not giue my glory to an other heare o Iacob and Israell whom I call I I my selfe am the firrst and I am the last And my hand also layd tbe foundarions of the earth and my right hand measured the heauens c. This is that glory proper to him alone of being the eternall God creator of heauen and earth which he will not giue to an other which soe long as he keepes inuiolable to him selfe all vnder glories limited and created which are like soe many little motes compared with the infinite extent and light of his glory he both liberally giues himselfe and wills they should respectiuely be giuen to his creatures If not withstanding all these euidences both of Scripture and Reason any one should remayne soe strangely willfull and immouable by force of education and continuall custome from his infancie as to deny all kind of Religious worship in how large a sence soeuer it be taken to be lawfully exhibited to any saue God alone I say if any such should be found soe long as he yeelds to the thing it selfe that is to
And if they like of this answer they will giue vs alsoe leaue to apply the same to the passage of S. Iohn Reu. 22. v. 8.9 not that S. Iohn committed any Idolatry or false worship willingly and sinfully but that the Angell vppon good ground eyther thought or at least feared that S. Iohn tooke him to be our Sauiour soe gaue him presently the worship due to the Diuine Person which he thought him to be for though it be wholly improbable that Cornelius gaue diuine worship to S. Peeter Act. 10. because he was noe heathen but a true beleeuer and soe knew that diuine honour was to be giuen to God only and religious and fearing God as appeares v. 11. and soe was far from cōmitting Idolatry and knew well enough that S. Peeter was a man v. 5. and the 6. and soe could not suppose him out of ignoranee to be God and though it seeme as improbable that S. Peeter conceiued that Cornelius intended to worship him with diuine honour seeing he was sufficiently informed that he was a true beleeuer and Professour of the law of Moises v. 22. yet many ancient fathers teach that S. Iohn did really thinke that this Angell which appeared to him was not an Angell but our Sauiour or at least it was very incident to the Angel to conceiue or feare being ignorant of S. Iohns intention that he tooke him to be our Sauiuor because the Angel sayd in the precedēt verse behould I come quickly which was the vsuall phrase speech which our Sauiour vsed to S. Iohn when he appeared to him as is manifest chap. 2. v. 6. chap. 3. v. 21. c. 16. v. 15. c. 22. v. 12. and must necessarily haue beene pronounced eyther by our Sauiour himselfe or by an Angell in his place and speaking in his name because these words I come quickly as is cleare in all the afore cited places and particularly chap. 22. v. 12. presently following can neyther be meant nor verifyed of any one but of our Sauiour and this to haue been the opinion of S. Iohn by reason of those next precedent words Behold I come quicly may haue some ground in the text it selfe here cited by the opponent And when I had heard and seene I fell down to worship c. for the seeing of those strange visions and hearing those precedent words Behold I come quicly Soe proper to out Sauiour gaue this occasion to worship the Angel as taking him to be our Sauiour and therefore the Angel presently disabused him and let him vnderstand that he was not our Sauiour but a creature and seruant of God as appeares in this text obiected v. 8. and 9. if it should be obiected that c. 21. v. 9. S. Iohn affirmes that this very Angell which he worshipped was one of the seauen Angells who caried the viols filled with the last plagues and therefore could not thinke that it was our Sauiour I answer that though in the begining and continuance of this vision he seemed to him to be an Angell yet when he heard him pronounce words proper to our Sauiour he might haue sufficient reason to thinke that his former apprehension was amisse and that whatsoeuer he seemed before yet it was our Sauiour appearing vnder the forme of that Angell If it be further obiected that S. Iohn writes expresly that it was one of the Seauen Angells which appeared to him and therefore could not after doubt of it it may be answeared that when the Euangclist writ this he was wholy assured that it was an Angell because the Angell had before this was written determinaetly assured him that he was not our Sauiuor yet whilst the vision happned before it was eyther written or the Angell had rectifyed the iudgment of S. Iohn he had ground inough to thinke it was our Sauiour when he heard those words proceede from him behould I come speedily Neyther is it any wonder that S. Iohn was ignorant of some things concerning the visions which appeared to him For he thought that none could be found worthie to open the seauen seales and therefore wept and was as much forbidden to weepe by the Angell c. 5. v. 4. as to worship c. 19. v. 10. Hee aeknowledges alsoe that hee knew not who they weare who appeared in white Stoles c. 7. v. 13. Though these answeares may satisfye all that is opposed against them yet because the matter is in it selfe obscure and leaues a probability on both sides I rather sticke to the other answer that though S. Iohn knew it was noe more then an Angell yet the Angell refused the worship he gaue him at S. Peeter did that of Cornelius And yet whatsoeuer may be thought of these two answers that which is most cleare and vnquestionable is a third answers That though S. Iohn knew that he who speake to him was an Angel and not our Sauiour and soe gaue him the worship only due to an Angel yet the Angel being ignorant of S. Iohns intention might diseruedly feare or conceiue that he tooke him to be our Sauiour and soe gaue him diuine worship and therefore he presently dissabused him telling him that he was one of his fellow seruants c. And each of these answers may be equally applyed to the like text Reuel 19. for out of the same ground of Act. 10. it may be sayd that he refused this worship though in it selfe lawfull as S. Peeter did that of Cornelius or that he supposed him to be our Sauiour and soe gaue him diuine honour which was no way due to him because he there vsed the phrase of our Sauiour when he sayd scribe write as appeares in the three first chapters and chap. 14. v. 13.14.15 neyther can it be clearly proued that any one commaunded S. Iohn to write saying to him Scribe write but our Sauiour saue only in this place through the whole Reuelation and then it was spoken in the name and person of Christ by the Angell soe that S. Iohn had great reason to thinke that it was the voyce of our Sauiour and therefore gaue him the honour due to our Sauiour till he was better informed or according to the third and clearest answer the Angel had reason to thinke that S. Iohn worshipped him when he heard him vse that phrase of our Sauiour with diuine worship as taking him to be our Sauiour though S. Iohn knew that he was but an Angel and soe gaue him only the worship which was due to an Angel And thus much for the text of S. Iohn The text of S. Paul mistaken Against the worshipping of Angels Let no man beguile you of your reward in voluntary humility and worshipping of Angells intruding into those thinges which he hath not seene vainly puffed vp in his fleshly minde The First mistake The vvorshipping of Angells missapplyed I Answer that this text speakes of a worshiping of Angells wherby they are made equall to Christ or that Christ is depending of them which containes
Readers memory least the contrary misconceipt amongst Protestants of our doctrine in this poinct might alienate his affection from our Religion If any one desire to haue the inuocation of Saints and Angels thus explicated prouued by Scripture he may please to examine Iob. 5.1 Call if there be any which will answer the and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne where the seauenty Interpreters haue it in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is turne the to some of the holy Angels And Gen. 48. v. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all 〈◊〉 blesse these Laddes which is a plaine inuocation of an Angel as in the former verse 15. the like speech was an inuocation of God And lastly the first of Samuel 28. v. 7. to the 22. where the Scripture affirmes expresly 1. thrice ouer that Samuel himselfe appeared v. 15.16.20 2. that Saul worshipped him and Samuel did not forbid him and soe accepted of it v. 14. 3. that Saul desired Samuel to assist him and soe inuoked him v. 15. 4. that Samuel prophesied truly what should become of Saul and the Israelites army under him as apprares in the next chapter which was a manifest signe that he who appeared was not the diuel but a true Prophete of God both because the diuel hath noe certaine knowledge of accidentall and casuall things to come as those which Samuel foretold were and because the Prophete Ierem. c. 28. v. 9. giues this for the signc of a true Prophete sent from God The Prophete which prophesieth of peace when the word of the Prophete shall come to passe then shall the Prophete be known that the Lord hath truly sent him That he who here appeared to Saul was Samuel hemselfe and that he truly prophesied is witnessed by Ecclesiasticus c. 46. v. 20. And after his death he prophesied and shewed the king his ende and lift vp his voyce from the earth in prophesie to blot out the wickednesse of the people which booke though it be not accounted canonicall by Protestants yet they must acknowledge it to be of greater authority then any they can alleadge of theyr party to proue that it was not Samuel neyther concluds the reason brought commonly by Protestants any thing against this for though Saul had recourse to that witch to raise him vp Samuel and she had consented to doe it yet the text sayes not that her conjuring raised him or that he was inforced to come by force of her witchcraft for first Samuel attributes his coming vp not to her but to Saul v. 15. why hast thou disquieted me secondly it seemes that soe soone as the woman had consented to Sauls petition that Samuel by the power of God preuenting her wicked conjurings came vp unexpectedly and suddainly and in a terrible and unusuall maner and therefore the text saies v. 12. And when the woman saw Samuel she cried out with a lowd voyce Thirdly That woman said not I raised but I saw Gods ascending from the earth where the Hebrew word Elohim Gods is vety ordinarily taken for good Spirits or Angels in the old testament These three texts may suffice for the present it being not my intention to proue but to defend THE SECOND CONTROVERSIE Concerning the making and worshipping of holy Images The Doctrine of the Romain Chruch concerning the use and veneration of holy Images deliuered in the Council of Trent sess 24. MAndat sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus vt fideles diligenter instruant docentes eos Imagines Christi Deiparae Virginis aliorum Sanctorum in templis praesertim habendas retinendas eisque debitum honorem venerationem impertiendam non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis diuinitas vel virtus propter quam sint colendae vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum vel quod fiducia in Imaginibus sit figenda veluti olim fiebat à Gentibus quae in Idolis spem suam collocabant sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur referrur ad Prototypa quae illae repraesentant ita vt per imagines quas osculamur coram quibus caput aperimus procumbimus Christum adoremus Sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt veneremur Id quod conciliorum praesertim verò secundae Nicenae Synodi decretis contra imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum THe holy Council commands all Bishops and all others who haue the office and care of teaching that they diligently instruct faithfull people teaching them that the Images of Christ of the Virgin Mother of God and of other Saincts are to be had and reteyned especially in churches and that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to them not that one beleeues that there is any diuinity in them or power for which they are to be worshipped or that one is to asck any thing of them or that confidence is to be put in them as anciently the gentiles did who placed theyr hope in Idoles but because the honour which is done to them is referred to those whom they represent Soe that through the Images which we kisse and before which we uncouer our heades and prostrate our selues we worship Christ and his Saints whose similitudes they are which doctrine is established by the decrees of Councils especially of the second Council of Nice Seeing therefore here the Council of Trent expresly commands that all Bishops and Paslours c. teach this doctrine to all faithfull Christians noe Aduersary of the Romain Church can eyther doubt in prudēce whether this be her doctrine nor in charity iudge or affirme vppon a mere coniecturall supposition without any certaine and particular information or proof that Romain Catholicques commonly and ordinarily pray to pictures and put theyr confidence and hope in them beleeuing that there is power life and diuinity in those carued or panited Images which they haue before them and soe hoping to be heard and helped by them as the heathens did by theyr Idoles this I say noe man can say or iudge in charity because he must eyther iudge that the Prelates and Pastours of our church are generally neglecting to teach the faithfull vnder theyr charge what they are here commanded which would be to accuse them of a high and hainous neglect or he must iudge that faithfull people beeing sufficiently taught this doctrine by theyr respectiue Pastours are proudly dissobedient to theyr Pastours and the whol church in doing the quite contrary to what thy are taught which were to condemne them of a greeuous sinne and that without any sufficient reason vppon a mere coniecture or voluntary and rash iudgement contrary to the expresse command of our Sauiour Luc. 6.37 Nolite iudicare non iudicabimini Iudge not and you shall not be iudged And as contrary to that of S. Paul Rom. 14.4 Tu quis es qui iudicas alienum seruum domino suo stat aut cadit VVho art thou who iudges an others seruant he stands or
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 kneeling 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 commanded 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 reâ—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 reuerence or worship passes by meanes of that to the B. Virgin and there only rests and terminates it selfe and it is impossible to honour an Image as an Image otherwise for being in its proper nature nothing else but a representation 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 represented without some representation as is cleare and euery representation is an Image and likenesse of that thing which is represents 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 attentiue thought of them and are the Images of the eare through which as through representations of what we worship we giue honour to that which they represent to vs thus pictures and images paynted or carued help the eye to frame a more full and ferme imagination 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 reuerence 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 notwithstanding 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 creatures and Images such as were the two Cherubins in the tabernacle putting vs in mynd of the true God were to be worshipped 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 footstoole 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 commanded 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 Septuaginta 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 reuerence 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 Protestants for what more common amongst the more moderate of them then to make a profound 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 diuine name when we see it eyther printed in a booke or carued in a stone c. what worship 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 coÌ„munion which is only a resemblance or
thy God who sees not that there is noe shew at all of proofe in it as when the Scripture sayth Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue one might at least seemingly proue from this sentence that God only is to be serued but one shall neuer proue by the force of those words that God only is to be feared If a Protestant should reply that worship and serue seeme to signify the same thing and soe only being added to serue is as much as if it were added to worship I answer that if wee haue regard to the Greeke text in which only the difference betwixt worship and serue in Mat. the 4. v. 10. is clearly discouered there is a large difference betwixt those two words the one signifying properly and by mere force of the word worship in generall and soe vsed familiarly in holy Scripture to signify both rhe worship due to God and to men Saincts and Angells and the other a seruice due to God only and neuer applyed to the religious seruice of any creature which I shall here after make manifest Beside serue signifies more largely then worship for wee serue God by faith hope charitie obedience and all good workes done to his honour but wee worship 〈◊〉 him only by an act of Religion As appeares Hebr. 12.28 let vs haue grace wereby we may serue God acceptably with Reuerence and Godly feare MISTAKE II. Worship missapplied in this text Mat. 4.10 I Haue allready proued that this text commands not that God only should be worshipped because it saies not thou shallte worship the Lord thy God only but though it had said soe yet it were to be vnderstood not to forbid the exhibiting of all kind of worship to any saue God but only such worship as is proper to God alone and which without Sacrilege and Idolatry cannot be giuen to any but to God Thus though Saint Paul say that God only hath immortality yet that must be vnderstood of a most diuine infinite and vncreated immortaliâ—y proper to God alone and not of all kinde of immortalities for then S. Paul would contradict him selfe when he saith that our mortall bodies shall put on imusortality Thus when our Sauiour said none is good saue one that is God it must only be vnderstood of an essentiall incomprehensible goodnes for otherwise that text would be contrarie to S. Luke saying and behould there was a man named Ioseph which was a counseller a good man and a iust and to that of the Acts which speaking of S. Barnabas saith that he was a good man and full of the holy Ghost Now as there are different kinds of Immortalities and goodnesses the one infinitely perfect diuine essentiall and vncreared the other imperfect humane accidentall and created soe that the scriptures ascribing the one to God only and the other to creatures are easily reconciled and playnly vnderstood without any shew of contrariety or contradiction amongst them selues or iniury to God soe are there in Scrtpture different kindes of worships the one acknowledging and exhibiting honour to an Infinite diuine vncreated immortality and goodesse in the Person which he worships and the other a creaded and finite Thus in the text cited Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God though the word worship considered in it selfe signifie properly both these kinds of worships yet as it lyes here it must be taken for the first kinde of highest and cheifest worship only but the very same word both in hebrew greeke latine and English in other places of Scripture must be taken for the Second kinde of lower and inferour worship acknowledging and intending only to expresse an imperfect limited and created goodnesse in the persoÌ„s or things worshpped Thus we read in Genesis The sones of thy father shall adore or worshipp thee Saith Iacob blessing his sonne Iuda And of the btetheren of Ioseph saluting theyr brother when his bretheren had worshipped him and nothing more ordinary in holy hcripture then worship giuen to persons in dignity and authority As therefore this Protestant position that God only is to be worshipped being vnderstood at it must here by the opponent that noe worship at h all is to be giuen to any saue God playnly contradicts those and the like places of Scripture Soe the Romaine Catholique position that some kinde of worship is to be exhibited to others then God is both euidently consonant to these texts and noe way dissagreeing from that of Mat. 4.10 and the like texts wich command vs to worship God nay though they should command vs to worship God only beecause such commands are all wayes to be vnderstood of that first and highest kinde of worship aboue mentioned neyther is there any possible meanes to reconcile different places of Scripture which seeme to ascribe to God only that which in other places is ascribed to creatures but by such distinctions of perfections or worships as I haue declared And this is soe cleare that it must be and is confessed by Protestans themselues who generally graunt that Religious worship is to be giuen to God only but ciuil worship to creatures wich distinction being once admitted the opponent will neuer be able to conuince any thing against the worship of Saincts and Angels out of Mat. 4.10 for if one will terme the worship giuen to Saincts and Angels a ciuil worship as I will presently demonstrate Protestants must doe if they make noe distinction betwixt religious worships then euen Saincts and Angles may be worshipped at the least with some kinde of ciuil worship euen according to Protestants notwithstanding thath text of Mat. 4.10 which according to them must be vnderstood to forbid only Religious worship to any saue God But because the common tenet of Catholique Doctours is that things created may be worshipped with some kinde of Religious worship I will make it euident out of Scripture that some Religious worship hath been and may be lawfully exhibited to creatures and soe not to God only Thus wee read in the bookes of kings that the captaine of 50 men worshipped Elias the Prophete and 50 men together the Prophete Elizeus and after the Sunamite receiuing her reuiued sone adored the same Prophete Thesame is of Moyses commanded to adore the grouÌ„d where on God stood and of Dauid commanding to worship the footstoole of God And least it should be thought that this manner of worshipping was only in vse in the ould testament wee haue an expresse president of it in the new for our Sauiour in the reuelation speakes to the Angell of philadelphia thus Behould I wil make them that is his enimyes come and worship before thy feet Now that it may appeare that these acts of worship were Religious and not meerely ciuill wee must know in generall that worship is nothing but an humiliation of our selues in acknowledgmeÌ„t of some goodnesse and excelleÌ„cie in that which wee worship Soe
as they vsed to doe of their ancient Kings and Queenes and intend to acknowledge them by that picture as such those very pictures would become Idols falsly representing what neither was is nor can be And the same rule is to be verifyed in the Catholike pictures of Saints for if they be only represented as holy persons as Martyrs as Virgins as glorious 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 malice should attribute any diuine power or any thing proper to God to them or account them Gods or Goddesses to such the pictures 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 that both according to the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pesel and the greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 former 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 representations of false Gods And this is further confirmed 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 English translation haue it grauen Image falsely as I noted before yet certayne it is that euen according 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 intended to represent them by way of Idolatry 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 correspondent to the thing which those Idols represent 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 condemned in holy Scripture almost throughout 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 Scripture 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 diuine honour prayed to it and put their hope in it This supposed as certaine it will presently 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 according to Protestants Seeing therefore the word bowing downe and worshipping in the Protestants translation is set downe in the two sayd places generally and without clearly expressing what kind of worship is meant we must gather the further explication of it out of other places of holy Scripture where it is more distinctly and clearly deliuered