by externall proportion and shape and it is unreasonable to say that Portraicts and Pictures of God Physically impossible to the Art of Craftsmen are forbidden only whereas the Lords word setteth down to us no precepts for Art as for painting Musick speaking right Latine whereas the Lord forbiddeth universally Gods pictures in any thing in heaven on earth or under the earth Deut. 4. 15. Take ye therefore good heed to your selves for ye saw no manner of Image on the day that the Lord spake to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire Gregor de Valent. saith We give not divine honour to the creature as to God or to Christ for that honour pertaineth to God or Christ which conciliateth to him reverence due to God only and that opinion of divine honour is conciliated to God or Christ Coram in imaginibus before and in or through the Image Ans The people of God had not that opinion every way of Egypt and their horses that they had of God and yet when they Isa 31. give that to Egypt and horses which is due to God to wit their Faith and confidence that they could save in the time of trouble therefore interpretatively they made Gods of them otherwayes they knew literally that Pharaohs horses were flesh and not spirit but Morally and spiritually they knew them not to be no Gods to save them It is no more absurd that the Prophets say The Idol hath eyes and see not and that it is not God though by sense they knew it not to be God but by representation they trusting in the Idol as in God then it was for Isaiah to say The horses of Egypt are flesh and not spirit A wife if she give her body to a stranger though not with that opinion of love and respect which is only due to her husband is yet an harlot and the people who sware by Iehovah and by Malcome who worship Iehovah and Ieroboams Calves and those who worship the Image of an Ash-Tree representing Iehovah Isa 40. 18. Isa 46. 6 7. did not give honour to Malcom to the Calves to the Images Sicut Iehovae as to God See Roinalds Answer But saith he we cannot worship God but we must conceive some Image of God in our minde are we therefore Idolaters because in these Images we worship God and Valent. saith and so doth the Formalist Lindsey say That God may be adored before the Sacramentall elements as Images Ans We are not forbidden to adore God in the inward conception of minde Deut. 4. Ye saw no manner of similitude but not yea thought no manner of thoughts of God 2. The internall image of God in the minde is the objective conception of God as conceived in the minde there is no hazard of Idolatry there for that Image is not adorable at all because then it must be conceived by a new different Image and that new different Image must be cognoscible by another new Image and so in infinitum The externall Image is both made an active object to represent God and when we religiously bow to it it is made an object passive that is adored with God Lastly If the Iews and heathen had adored their Images as they were such creatures consecrated and as essentially Gods the Lord would not have rebuked them for making an Ash Tree the similitude of a God as he doth Isa 40. 18. Isa 44. 9 c. And all that I said in the former question proveth the same So that though Divine honour in the Act of kneeling before the elements be intended to Christ yet because the elements are there as actuall signes and Vicegerent Images of Christ if we kneel to Christ Religiously through them we give them divine honour though we should intend to honour Christ Iesus only SECT III. Whether Papists and Formalists give that divine honour that is proper only to God and his son Iesus Christ to Images and the elements of Bread and Wine I. Con. TO adore Images is to give worship to God before Images or in or through the Images without any Faith of a Godhead or divine power in the Image according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome I prove this out of their Councels The Councell of Trent saith Due honour and veneration is due to the Images not because it is believed that there is any Divinity and vertue in them for the which they should be worshipped but because the honour given to them is referred to the samplar which they represent that by these Images vvhich vve kisse and before vvhich vve uncover our head and bow dovvn vve may adore Christ and the Saints which these Images resembleth Hence 1. the Image doth but as a memorative object excite the affection to give honour to God in and through the Images but 2. Let these words be examined the Councell denyeth any divinity to be in Images but if they mean no divinity really to be in Images so they say nothing against us for we do not ascribe to Papists that they teach there is a reall God-head in the Image but that all that is really in it is Wood Gold or Mettall and so did the Gentiles believe their Images to be teaching books Hab. 29. Ier. 10 8. Deut. 4. 19. Isa 40. 18. 46. 6 7. Act. 17. 29. and gold and silver but say they What needed the Prophets to prove that gold and silver could not see nor hear nor deliver in time of trouble reason would here convince them to be ten times blinde who believed any such thing Ans The Prophets do well to do so Nor that the Heathen believed there was any Godhead in them formally but because they ascribed actions to these images that were due to living creatures and made them to be such as did see hear move deliver So Isaiah proveth Egypts horses not to be God but flesh yet they did not believe there was a Godhead in the horses but Consequenter by good consequence when they laid that hope on the horse that they were to lay upon God he had need to say the horse vvas flesh and not God So when men give to these things bowing of the body and say unto a stock Thou art my Father God may prove the stock is not a living man and hath no sences to convince them the more that they can far lesse be Gods Vicar for a Vicar or Deputy creature representing the living God should be such as can do what God doth else we should put on it the honour due to God But if the Councell mean They have no divinity in them but by way of representation because they be Vicaria dei signa signes resembling the Creator God Now if this be denyed the images must be naked memorials before which people do adore God as Mirandula Durandus and others said and yet latter Papists say more of their own Images But I would have it remembred that there be two sorts
his glory laid down in the hand of any creature as it dishonoureth the Husband that his wife give her body to another representing his person For this cause Bernardus Puiol faith Images are properly to be Adored contrary to that which Durandus saith And Azorius saith It is the common opinion that Images are to be worshipped with Latreia the highest honour due to God So saith he Thomas Alexander Bonaventura Richardus Albertus Paludanus Alman Marsilius Capreolus Cajetanus caeteri juniores sic sentiunt The fourth expression of wit is this distinction of Vasquez That that internall submission to God as to the Creator and chief God is due to God only and that the image seeing it is a Creature is not capable of that high honour But the externall act of kissing and kneeling he will have due to the image for the excellency of the Samplar And so he denyeth contrary to Suarez That the image separated from the Samplar or the humanity of Christ separated from Divinity can be Adored But if externall Adoration may be given to images so also internall submission Thou shalt not bow down to them Religiously it is expounded in the second Commandment Thou shalt not Worship them It is grossenesse in Vasquez to say The Worshipping of images was forbidden the Iews in the second Commandment as a Ceremoniall inhibition because of the Iews propension to idolatry But Act. 17. 29. Paul expoundeth the second Commandment Forbidding the similitude of God And the Athenians were not under the Law of Ceremonies Ioannes de Lugo saith This is a probable opinion But it is clear Cornelius a devout man one who feared and worshipped God whose Prayers were heard in heaven for Christs sake knew that Peter was a man which lodged in the house of Simon a Tanner yet his Religious externall bowing though he knew Peter was not God but a Divine man resembling God by Peter is rebuked as idolatry Act. 10. v. 25 26. I cannot help Ioan. de Lugo to say That Peter forbade Cornelius to worship him not because it was a sin but for modesties cause But 1. Peters Argument striketh against idolatry ver 26. Stand up he forbiddeth Religious kneeling for I my self also a man The very Argument that Paul and Barnabas useth Act. 14. â—er 15. We also are men c. and used against the idolatry of Lystra expresly condemned in that place And the Angels Argument against the idolatry of Iohn Rev. 19. 10. I am thy fellow servant Worship God Ergo externall Religious bowing should not be given to any save to God 2. Peter and the Angel should have opened the Jesuits and Formalists distinction if worshipping of Saints and dumbe images be worshipping of God and the honour principally of inward acknowledgment of the Supremacy and Soveraignty of God be intended in bowing to images and modesty should not forbid honouring of God And whereas Ioannes de Lugo saith Iohn was forbidden to Worship the Angel to signifie that our nature in Christ was advanced to a dignity above the Angels But 1. then it is unlawfull to any to worship Angels 2. Nor is it Lawfull to give the Virgine Mary Divine worship as Suarez saith 1. For her excellency in touching Christ 2. For her Grace and Sanctity 3. For her mothers place in bearing Christ because her nature in Christ is not exalted above the nature of other believers for the nature common to all believers and Eadem specie was assumed by Christ 3. The Angel saith Worship God he therefore believed the Worshipping of Angels was not the Worshipping of God All these fight against Religious bowing before the elements in due regard of so Divine mysteries the Bread would say if it could speak See thou do it not for I also am a Creature The fifth trick of wit is a distinction of Suarez That one and the same act of Adoration may be given and is given in externall Worship to the image and to God but in reference to God it is Latreia the high Honouring of God and in reference to the image it is an inferior Veneration So do our Formalists say as Burges saith Adoration and Veneration differ not but by mens will and if it be lawfull to Adore God before the Ark Why not at the Sacrament The Bread and the Wine are Christ significative as the Ark had the title of Iehovah by occasion of the elements not as they are but as they signify we may tender a knee-worship not at all to them but only to God or Christ And again he holdeth it lawfull to Adore the elements but then Adoration as given to the elements is Veneration and Adoration in a large sence 1 Chron. 29. 20. The people Worshipped God and the King The outward Adoration was one as the word by which it is expressed was one but the Religious and Civill worship were distinct in the minde and intention of the worshippers Edward the 6. Book saith Kneeling is to eschew prophaning of the Sacrament Opposit to prophaning is externall Religious honouring expressed by kneeling and that is Adoring Hence one and that same Adoration and externall bowing is given to Bread and to Christ but the minde and will of the Adorer maketh the same act in reference to Christ Adoration or Latreia of the highest degree of honour but in reference to the Bread lawfull Veneration of an inferior nature Answer 1. If it were possible that the Wise could transmit her body in the act of Harlotry by or through a strange Lover to her Husband her will and minde might change Adultery if she saith she giveth her body to a stranger but in her minde and will intendeth to bring forth children to her own Husband So if divers acts of the minde make Religious kneeling to a stock or Bread lawfull if one should Adore the man Iudas as a memoriall of Christ his intention of will might save his Soul if he say I give one and the same externall worship to Iudas and to Christ Or if Cornelius should say I give one and the same knee worship to Peter and to Christ but in my intention they be far different For I Worship Iudas and Peter in that act with Civill homage Commanded in the fifth Commandment as they be Christs Apostles and represent him but in that same I Worship Christ with the highest honour called Latreia Vasquez and Burges make them one externall Worship The three Children might have kneeled to the Image of Nebuchadnezzer for their minde and will as Formalists say might have put another signification of honouring the Lord Iehovah upon their knee-worship and externall kneeling could not have been denyed to the Lord Iehovah and so the three Children should not have given Divine honour and knee-glory to the Image and they were fooles who did hazard their bodies to the fire But wisemen think if they had given knee-worship what ever their heart thought they should
any intention or purpose to adore therefore this externall Adoration is a false signe and signifieth not a thing as it is and so is no worship Ans That externall bowing is not true but false I distinguish it is not true Morally because it is a false signe and a sinfull abusing of worship for there ought to be a bowâ—d heart when there is a bowed knee but if the meaning be this externall bowing is not true metaphysically and partaketh not of the nature of Religious worshipping it is false for it is truly worship and the essence and definition of worship agreeth to it for from Religious bowing there resulteth by the nature of the externall Act which is of divine institution an honouring of that before which we do bow as before a proposed object what ever be the present purpose or intention of the bower else if I bow to an Idol intending and conveying in my heart-purpose all honour to God only I should not worship an Idol The three Children cast into the fiery Furnace did but refuse externall bowing to Nebuchadnezzar and would hazard upon burning quick before they should give that to the Image for the Kings commandment was not that all should give and convey in purpose of heart to that Image all divine glory but only Religious prostration before it yet the three Children say Dan. 3. Well be it known to thee O king that we will not serve thy Gods nor worship thy golden Image 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They expresly refuse knee-bowing the reason is because if ye bow your knee Religiously to a stock it is not in your power or free choice to stay the flux and motion of Religious honour off or from the stock but because Religious bowing doth not convey honour to the thing before which ye bow by your free will but by God and natures institution even as weeping naturally expresseth sorrow laughing gladnesse so doth Religious bowing signifie Religious honouring without any act of the free choice of the worshipped intervening It is impossible to adore God in and through an Image and give no Religious reverence to the Image at all as it is impossible to hear the word and tremble at it and yet none of that Religious trembling be bounded and terminated upon the Word as it is impossible to kneel to the Kings Ambassador conveying all and whole that civill honour to the King but some honour must redound to the Ambassador a father cannot love the Doctor for his sons cause but some love he must confer really upon the Doctor if not absolute yet relative for his sons cause Jacob could not kisse Joseph his sons coat and yet refer that whole expressed affection to Ioseph and nothing at all to the coat for then should there be no reason why he should kisse the coat rather then the skin of the beast supposed to be the devourer of his son if therefore the Communicant should kisse the Sacramentall Bread as he boweth Religiously before it as the object of his Sacramentall worship which he receiveth I hope it would be thought very like the kissing of the Calves of Samaria and a Religious expression of love to the bread and by the same case Religious bowing to God by the interveening of bread a representative object must be an expression of Religious honouring of Bread but no Religious honouring by Religious bowing can be expressed but Adoration of bread for as I have proved it is not in our free Election that Religious kneeling signifie what honour we please as if it were in our power that Religious kneeling signifie Religious or civill honour or more or lesse Religious honour but our will or thoughts cannot change the nature of things kneeling is essentially Religious as Iohannes Delugo defineth it Nota submission is internae 2. Suarez objecteth Adoration is a voluntary action proceeding from the will of the Adorer and therefore excluding this will it is not Adorations but only the materiall action of adoring also adoration is honouring but none can honour without an intention of honoring and therefore he who externally giveth signes of honour to an Idol without an intention to honour the Idol doth not truly honour and adore the Idol but only dissembleth Ans Qui bené distinguit benè solvit Our third distinction doth well answer this The naked materiall action of bowing Physically considered wanting all Religious will of adoring is not an honouring if a Carpenter bow before an Image to drive a naile in it he doth not worship the Image because that is an action In statu artis non in statu Religionis In a state of Art not in 〈◊〉 Religious state But the voluntary bowing before any thing in a state of worship or Religion as it s here is Adoration for there is voluntary bowing in a Religious way of a state but there is not required a particular intention to Adore the signe that is accidentall to the nature of worship Suarez objecteth The eâ—â—â—nce of Adoration requireth the intention of the Adorer therefore the adoring of this or that thing requireth a proportionable intention of adoring the thing Ans 1. The Antecedent is not universally true and is a begging of the question because externall adoring of an Idol may be without intention to adore an Idol 2. Though the Antecedent were true that an absolute Adoration of God requireth the intention of the doer as it is not true Lawfull and sincere Adoration indeed requireth the intention but not absolute adoration Though I say it were true yet it followeth not that a relative adoration requireth an intention of giving co-adoration or relative worship to the signe Suarez 3. Objecteth The honouring of one thing cannot properly be called the honouring of another thing different therefrom except that honouring be some way referred by the minde to that other thing or except they be partakers one of another but the Image and first samplar or prototype are different things therefore the honouring of the first samplar cannot be called the honouring of the Image except the honouring by the intention be referred to the Image I answer The Image and Samplar are one in a sinfull imagination as Jehovah and the Golden Calf are one but it followeth not that there must be two distinct intentions one in adoring the Prototype and in coadoring the Image another But he who intendeth to honour the King in his Ambassadors person needeth not two intentions one by which he intendeth to honour the King another whereby he intendeth to honour his Ambassador SECT II. Whether the Idolatrous Jevvs were charged with the crime of Idolatry because they adored the creature as such or because they adored the Godhead in with or under the creatures shape and whether or no do Papists commit Idolatry with them in this point LEt these considerations go before 1. That the Jews believed the Image to be God by vvay of representation not essentially or really they believed
the Image to be God objective commemorative representative relative declarative significative Non essentialiter non per se non realiter 2. There is an honour or negative râ—verence due to any Image of God ordained by himself or to any mean of honouring God because it is such though it cannot be expressed in the act of Adoration but the question is if the honour of adoration either relative or absolute be due to the Image 3. The Jews intended to honour Jehovah in their Images what inferiour intention they had to honour the Image we are now to inquire 4. We bow our knee two wayes before a creature either before a creature as an object by accident as while we pray there of necessity must be before us some creature a wall a Table a Pulpit none of these are adored because they are before us by accident as having no Religious state The Image before the Iew and the Sacramentall elements before the kneeler cannot be thus present 2. The creature is before the kneeler of Religious purpose as a Religious object 5. The Creature is Religiously present before the kneeler two wayes 1. Active 2. Passive 1. In the meer and naked act of teaching and exciting the memory so that when that act is past I turne from the creature and adore the Creator So at the sight of the Sun or Moon being taught and instructed of the wisdom and power of God in creating such excellent creatures I am to turn from them and adore the Lord of these creatures Thus the creatures are kindely and per se objects in the act of teaching but not objects at all in the act of adoration 2. The creatures are objects passive when bodily bowing in a religious state is directed toward the creatures really and bodily present by a commandment of the Church or of purpose and so they are made objects of Adoration I. Conclusion The relative expression of God which is in the works of God is no formall ground of any Adoration of the creatures 1. Because Adoration upon this ground though the creatures the Hoast of Heaven be excellent is forbidden Deut. 4. 19. 2. Not only Images which cannot represent God and the Sacraments but all the creatures even Rats Mice Flyes Frogs Worms Iudas and wicked men yea and Devils are to be worshipped because all things having being are shadows and footsteps of God their cause first Author and last end Psal 19. 1. Psal 103. 22. Rom. 1. 19 20. Act. 17. 27 28 Prov. 16. 4. Rev. 4. 11. Rom. 11. 36 37 3. Because God is really and by the diffusion of his blessed essencâ— present in all creatures it followeth not that we should Adore them The Formalists upon this ground that Christ is really present in the Sacrament though the manner we know not think that Christ should be Adored in the Sacrament according to that Verbum audimus motum sentimus modum nescimus But if this be good Logick because we know not the way of the Spirit and how the bones grow in a woman with childe Eccles 11. v. 5. And God where he worketh is present by the immediation of essence and power though we know not the way of his presence we are to Adore the soul of man and the bones of a young childe in a womans belly though they should say that God-man Christ is in a more powerfull and efficacious manner present in the Sacrament then in the works of nature yet should it follow that God is to be worshipped in the works of nature also for Magis minus non variant speciem for then we could not conclude any thing but this Though there be not so reall a ground of Adoring Lice and Frogs as Adoring of the Sacrament Yet there is a ground seeing God is in the realliâ—y of his blessed essence present in all creatureâ— II. Conâ—lusion The Idolatrous Jews did not Adore the golden Calf as a creaâ—ure but as God by representation Exod. 32. 4. And when Aaron had made thereof a golden Calf they said These be thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt 5. And when Aaron saw it he built an Altar before it and Aaron made Proclamation and said To morrow is a Feast to Iehovah Now that they believed not the golden Calf to be really and essentially Iehovah is more then evident 1. Because they believed not Moses to be essentially God but their guide and leader under God but this Calf they made to supply the want of Moses v. 1. The people gathered themselves together against Aaron and said unto him Vp make us gods which shall go before us For as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the Land of Aegypt we know not what is become of him They made then the Calf only a visible God under Iehovah to lead them in Moses his place 2. There is no reason why they should have made Aaron rather the maker of the Calf then another but because he being the Lords Priest they thought by his holinesse the God head of Jehovah did slide into this Calf and so they held the Calf to be a thing different from Iehovah 3. They say to Aaron Make us gods Ergo they believed Iehovah to be before this made Calf 4. They saw the Calf melted before their eyes knew it was made of their ear-rings 5. They call it Iehovah yet they made it Iehovah and therefore they differenced betwixt the Calf Iehovah for they knew that Iehovah brought them out of Aegypt before the Calf was framed but the Calf was an Image of that Iehovah Bellar. and Gregor de Valent. say They worshipped not Iehovah but a vain Idol Else how is it said Psa 106. when they made this Calf that they forgot the Lord if they worshipped God in the Calf they were mindefull of God It is vain reasoning this the wife that taketh another Husband to bed with her Morally forgetteth her husband and to worship God in a memorative signe forbidden of God is a forgetting of God and a false God indeed 2. Those who acknowledge that the Heathen believe that some Godhead dwelt in Images and gave Responses and Answers out of them do thereby acknowledge that the Image it self had not the honour of giving Responses as God hath but that the inclosed Godhead gave these Responses and therefore the inclosed Godhead was that which they worshipped So Aquinas and Vasquez saith The Heathen acknowledged a Godhead to dwell in the Images And Bellarmine saith It is not improbable that the Iews believed that they worshipped the true God in an Idol Papists then may take to them Heathens Idolatry for Heathens worshipped God in Images and not Images as they are such and Abulensis and Cajetan in the Commentaries of the first Edition on Exodus said this same 3. Though the Iews believed the Calf to be essentially God yet it was God
as God that they intended to worship not the work of mens hands as such Papists believe that the Image is not God and yet give the highest worship that is to them 4. Bellarmine saith with us when he saith They saw a Calf in Aegypt and Adored it they believed Jehovah himself to be a Calf therefore they made the image of a Calf and Dedicated it to Jehovah But I Answer That Image so Dedicated they worshipped as Iehovah and called the very materiall Calf Iehovah and Dedicated it to the Honour of Iehovah therefore they believed the Lord Iehovah and the Calf Dedicated to his Honour which Calf also they worshipped to be two divers things as the Image and the thing signified are Relata and opposite Ergo they believed not that that Image which Aaron had made was Iehovah essentially therefore in setting up that Image they worshipped it not as a creature All the Prophets saith he proveth that the Idols are not gods because they speak not they neither see nor hear Isa 46. Psal 113. But say some Papists there was no question if they did see and hear by way of naked representation because they represented gods and men in shape who see and hear Ans first If all granted they were living things which did hear and see by representation the Prophets did well to prove they should not be trusted in nor feared as Images nor should that Godhead within them inclosed be feared because it cannot speak with the mouth nor see nor hear nor walk with their eyes eares and feet and so it was a vain thing to make it a representation of God who by serving these dead things did help them But the Prophets strongly prove these Images and the supposed Godheads in them were dumbe deafe blinde and dead and therefore neither sign nor supposed deity represented by the sign was to be Adored Also Isa 40. 18. To whom then will ye liken God Or what likenesse will ye compare unto him 19. The Workman melteth a graven Image and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold c. Isa 46. 5 6. To whom will ye liken me and make me equall and compare me that we may be alike 9. I am God and there is none else I am God and there is none like me Then it is more then clear that they made a likenesse a comparison and a similitude betwixt the golden Image and Iehovah Ergo they believed not that the Image was essentially God for every thing like to another must be divers from that to which it is like they being relatives and opposites the one cannot be essentially the other and he proveth they are not God by representation Isa 46. They cannot move out of their places except they be born upon Asses or mens shoulders And this is the Holy Ghosts Argument I am God Ergo there is none like me by representation to be worshipped All assimilation or comparative likenesse made by man betwixt Iehovah and God is an Idolatrous assimilation yea the Lords Argument Isa 46. is this every thing made like unto me before which ye fall down to worship as a memorative Image of me must be a living thing at least that can move out of his place and answer your cry when ye pray and save you out of trouble ver 7. Isa 46. And yet it is but a likenesse of God ver 6. Now I Assume but the Papists Image and the Formalists Sacramentall elements before which they Religiously kneel cannot move out of their place nor answer the Prayers of those who bow to them nor save them out of trouble Ergo they cannot be Adored as Images with Religious bowing nor can they say the Images or Sacramentall elements can teach and represent God I Answer So did the Iewish Images represent God and yet God convinceth them of Idolatry Isa 40. 18. Isa 46. 6 7. Ier. 10. They were but Doctrines of Vanity and Lyes and Hab. 2 19. Woe be to him who saith to the Wood Awake and to the dumbe stone Arise it shall teach And though the Sacramentall elements be lawfull teaching and representing signes as being the Ordinances of Christ Jesus yet the office of teaching cannot elevate and extoll them to the state of Religious worship because though the elements be lawfull Images and in this they differ from Iewish and Popish Images yet that which is Adored must be such as can hear Prayers Isa 46. 7. though it be the Image of God But the Sacramentall elements are not such as can hear Prayer c. Also that the Adoring of Images is not forbidden by a Ceremoniall Law only is clear 1. By Gods Argument Isa 40. 18. To whom will ye liken me That is no created thing can represent God which is of mans devising for the elements of Gods institution do represent Christ and Isa 46. 9. I am God and there is none beside me Ergo no invention of man can represent me This Argument is taken from Gods nature and therefore is of perpetuall verity 2. The Apostle Paul in the New-Testament repeateth this same Argument Act. 17. to the heathen Athenians who were tyed by no Ceremoniall Law of God ver 29. We ought not to think that the God-head is like unto Gold You see these people are challenged of Idolatry who did but erect an Altar to the golden likenesse and Image of God and yet they did not worship that golden Image as such but they worshipped in and by the Image v. 23 24. The God preached by Paul who made the world Hear what Suarez Bellarmine and Papists say It is not Lawfull to represent God by a proper and formall similitude which representeth his essence but it is Lawfull to represent him by Images Analogically signifying such a forme or shape in the which he appeared in Scripture according to these metaphors and mysticall significations that are given to him in Gods word Ans 1. Why should not unwritten Traditions which to Papists are Gods word expresse to us Gods nature in Images no lesse then the written word 2. The Heathen did represent God by the Image of a man with eyes nose tongue ears head hands feet heart understanding all which are given to God in Scripture yet were they Idolaters in so doing because God saith Isa 46. 9. I am God and there is none like to me 3. If we may portraict God according to all metaphors given unto him in Scripture then ye may Portraict him in the shape of a Lyon a Leopard a Bear a Man full of wine a Theef stealing in the night an unjust Iudge a Gyant a man of War on horse-back c. All which were folly and we might worship a Lyon a Bear an unjust Iudge a theef stealing in the night a man mad with the spirit of jealousie 4. The Essence and specifick nature of nothing in Heaven and earth can be portraicted or painted no more then Gods essence all painted things are but such and such things
of deputed or Vicar-Images some that do only signifie as the darknesse of the Skie going before the morning light in the East that doth nothing at all which the morning light doth but nakedly signifieth that the Sun is rising There be other Depute signes that can exercise acts which the samplar would do if it were present as the deputy is not a naked Vicar or depute signe of the King for he doth not only signifie the Kings minde but can do Royall Acts in the Kings name Images are depute signes of God of the first sort that do only rub the memory and understanding and therefore deserve no honour except the honour due to the means of worship as the Bible Sacraments which deserve not Adoration but onely a Negative Reverence or a not dispising or contemptuous handling of them Images being unlawfull meanes and not Commanded of God deserve no Veneration at all and though it be true that the Ambassadour deserve Princely Honour for the Princes Place whom he representeth yet he can act the person of the Prince and is not a naked deputed sign but Images are therefore convinced to be unlawfull deputies representing as Idolaters made them to be Isa 40. 18. Isa 46. 6 7. Because they can do no acts at all nor exercise any actions proper to the samplar for Psal 115. v. 6. They have mouths but they speak not eyes they have but they see not 7. They have eares but they hear not and therefore should not be trusted in as in means and deputed representations of God for which cause the Prophet inferreth ver 8. They that made them are like unto them so are every one that trusteth in them ver 9. O Israel trust thou in the Lord. Therefore Religious trusting in them is Idolatry But the Canon of Trent saith this same of their Images to wit that there be no Godhead or vertue in them 2. If the worship of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the higher service due to God be given to Images as I prove hereafter then also some deity or Divine vertue for Gods highest honour can no more be communicated to any save to God then the Godhead it self for a Relative Godhead is as due to stocks as a relative worship 3. If the Tridentine Canonists will have divine Adoration given to God Coram imaginibus before Images or at their presence as only memorative signes active objects exciting us to worship God then is our Thesis proved But if they mean that God is Adored Coram imaginibus before images as not only memorative and active objects but also before them as passive objects that are compartners under God of some divine adoration then I say 1. they contradicted themselves for Gods highest honour called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can not be given to them but by a figure because they are Gods have divinity in them only by a figure and not really for Suarez Vasquez denieth that we can fix our hope and faith in Images or make prayers to them Nisi modo figurativo tropo duriore by a figure and a hard troop and most improperly and by that same reason must be given to stocks and stones most improperly and that is men do religiously bow before them as before memorative objects 2. Gabriel Vasquez saith well There can be no footstep of holinesse in the image beside the excellency of the samplar nor any divine vertue wherefore it should be worshipped for there is nothing in the image of it self but that which is senslesse and lifelesse and spiritlesse and no man can in a Religious way submit himself to such a creature Hence it must be a naked memorative sign and therefore the kissing of the Image though Physically it be reall and not Metaphysicall yet moral it is not propper seeing all religious affection in that kissing is transferred to God And we know Vasquez alloweth that every thing as it is a being and resembleth God the first being is to be Adored and so stones Frogs the Devil Judas lips that kissed Christ are to be Adored So their seventh pretended Synod faith That the Honour due to God is not to be given to images according to our faith only at the beholding of Pictures we are put in minde of the samplar And the same saith Mr. Lindesey is the way of Adoring God in the Sacrament But so the Gentiles as saith Arnobius and Lactantius yea and the Apostle Paul â—aith Adored images yea and God would not forbid similitudes of God to be Adored except he did teach that the heathen Idolaters worshipped similitudes and so the Papists in that vulgar verse said they Adored not the Images but the thing signified by the Images Effigiem Christi dum transis semper Adora Non tamen effigiem sed quod designat Honora Let me adde these reasons to prove they cannot Adore the Image but as a memorative sign 1. The Image and the elements in any consideration either as creatures or as the honourable act of representation is put upon them are but creatures for the act of representation is a temporary Godhead and maketh them but Time-Gods Ergo they cannot be Adored 2. If there be two Adorations here one given to God and another to the Image and if both be divine honour there must be two collaterall Gods if Adoration prove Christ to be God two divine honours put upon things one upon God and another upon the Creature there must be two Gods or then the Creature remaining a Creature must have Communion with Gods high honour which is Idolatry 3. Images and elements are either worshipped for themselves or for some other thing if for themselves they are God for only God for himself is worshipped with Divine honour if for God they be worshipped then it is an inferiotr and improper worship and therefore they must be worshipped as memorative objects 4. Images and elements if they partake of externall worship proper to God Why may not Sacrifices and Incense be offered unto them and faith and hope fixed on Images They do not partake of internall worship for as Vasquez saith well inward worship consisteth in Apprehensione primi principii in motu ad illud in apprehension of the first Author and Creator of all things and in the wills motion toward it But this apprehension cannot be put upon Images or elements therefore they be here significant objects only So their second Councell of Nice as Epiphanius a Deacon in name of the Synod saith Images were present before the kneelers as our elements are only as memorative objects 2. That the singular affection of Adoring was bounded only upon God And Concilium Senonense saith Images are to be Adored not because there is any Godhead in them but for the memory of the samplar And Concilium Moguntinum Images are not propounded that we should worship them but that we may call to minde the things which
have obeyed the King yet they professe disobedience Dan. 3. 18. We will not worship thy graven image 2. Neither think we the Athenians gave that same honour to the similitude Act. 17. 29. of God that they gave to the God that Paul Preached who made Heaven and earth v. 23 24. Yet in giving Worship externall to both they were Idolaters ver 29. Nor did the men of Lystra give the same heart-heart-honour to the Deities of Iupiter and Mercury which they gave to the shapes of men yet are they Idolaters in that 3. Mr. Burges saith Israel 1 Chron. 29. 20. in one and the same act externall Worshipped God and the King because one and the same word expresseth honour both to God and the King But how shall we call that act Civill or Religious or mixt and did they transmit Latreia divine honour through the King to God he hath a Metaphysicall faith who beleeveth such dreames because one word is used to expresse both the worshipping of God and the King therefore it was one externall act of worshipping and differenced in the minde and intention of the worshippers the consequence is most weake 1 Sam. 12. 18. All the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel Prov. 24. 21. My son feare the Lord and the King is it one manner of feare really that is both religious to God and to Samuel and to the Lord and the King because one word expresseth both I see not but one the same action of bowing may be made to God to Christ to the water in Baptisme to the Bible to the Sun and Moon and we might kneel and Adore a Toad a straw and Satan as they represent Gods wisdom and power and through that same externall knee-worship also Adore God What may we not then Religiously Adore all things and Creatures as they represent God the first being Presentemque refert quaelibet herba Deum A man may Adore himself his own hands his legs his Mothers Wombe that bare him c. As for Adoring of the Ark and foot-stool of God 1. Ioan. Gisenius a Lutheran saith The Iews had precept and promise to Worship God before the Ark we have no Command to tye externall Adoration to any place or Creature 2. Didoclavius saith It is lawfull to Adore God before the Ark and the Symboles of his immediate presence because God is there to receive his own Worship himself by an immediate indwelling presence For saith Mr. Weames He appeared in glory above the Ark betwixt the Cherubims and it was a type of Christ who dvvelt in our flesh but it is not lavvfull to Worship him before the Symboles of his grace 3. The Ark was a type in the act of teaching we grant but that it was in the act of Adoring God who was immediately present and a Symboll Vicegerent of God we reade not There is no need of mediate signes where God is immediately present and Adored as he was in the Ark they were to fixe both senses and thoughts immediately upon God 4. They were to worship not the Ark but the precept is incurvate vos scabello Worship tovvard the Ark. Arias Mont. turneth it Worship to the Ark The Greek Fathers of the second Nicen. Councel ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue would have the Lord Commanding to Adore his foot-stool whereas the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a note of the Dative case and often it signifieth motion to a thing or at a place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad dextram and doth not absolutely signifie the accusative case Musculus ad Scabellum he maketh it the Ark of the Testament Calvine the Temple Iunius maketh it well to signifie the measure of bowing bow to the foot-stool or ground or pavement of the Temple where the Lords feet are as he sate on the Cherubims 1 Chron. 28. 1. For there is no ground for Adoring the Ark but the words are to be read Exalt the Lord our God and bow your selves to wit to Iehovah who sheweth himself or dwelleth at his foot-stool that is betwixt the Cherubims 2 Sam. 6. 1. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at his foot-stool is not constructed with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incurvate vos Jesuits and Formalists devised that construction but it is to be constructed with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to be repeated from the former part of the verse Bow your selves to Jehovah who dwelleth in the Ark or in the Temple A familiar eleipsis to the Hebrews Psal 5. 8. I will bow my self to the Iehovah dwelling in the Temple of thy holinesse as we are taught Our Father which art in Heaven So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is a description of God from the place where he dwelt and exhibited his presence to his rude people 4. It is ignorance in Burges to prove God may be Adored in the elements because they are as excellent Symbols of Gods presence as the Ark for created excellency is no ground of Adoring the elements except it be a Godhead and uncreated excellency We condemne Pope Anastasius who directeth Reverend bowing at the hearing of the Gospel and not of the Epistles as if the Gospel were holier then the Epistles But if Adoration may be given to the elements because knee-worship signifieth according to humane institution and mans will and are taken from customes of men and so doth signifie lesse honour then is due to God Let me be resolved of this doubt words of Prayer signifie according to mens institution and their will no lesse then Religious gestures do and we may say to a stock Thou art my Father and it is in our will that Father signifie a representative Father not an infinite and Independent Father such as God only is And if the image in externall kneeling be Adored Per aliud or co-adored with the Samplar because it is one with the Samplar Why may we not pray to the image and fixe our faith and hope on the image and elements by co-adoration or in relative praying and trusting in them Yet the Fathers of Trent for shame deny that we should pray to images and put our trust in them yet do Formalists turn the enunciative words of Christ This is my body in an optative mood and a Prayer The body and blood of Christ they mean the elements in their hands preserve thee to eternall life And we are not ignorant that faith and hope are ascribed to the Crosse and this sung in the Church of Rome O crux ave spes unica Hoc passion is tempore Auge piâ—â— justitiam Reisque dona veniam A Learned Papist Raphael de la Torres saith plainly It is lawfull to pray to images so the inward devotion be directed to God But if the Iews in their Idolatrous worship acknoweledged the image to be but a representation of God and a Book Jer. 10. 8. They did no wrong who said Ier.
image which by a common name is called the honour Worship and Adoration tendred to the image in a bodily manner and being done before the image tendeth to the honouring of the samplar but the outward action of Praising Praying Sacrificing is commonly called Praising Praying Sacrificing in relation to the Samplar to wit God and no way in relation to the image or to things without life neither are they by accident referred to the images only they be tendred to God before images Coram illis But I Answer This is but to beg the Question for we deny that from Adoring the image there resulteth any Adoring of God but a great dishonouring of his Name 2. Durandus Mirandula Hulcot deny that Adoring of God Coram imaginibus tanquam signis memorativis before the images as memorials of God should be an Adoring of the images And Suarez saith If images be only remembrances and memorials in the act of Adoration this taketh much honour from the images and is saith he An Adoring of the Samplar but not an Adoring of the image Though Vasquez expounding Gregories minde which superstitious man calleth them good books contradict Suarez in this yea and himself also for he saith The enemies of images he meaneth the Reformed Churches who use them only for memorials and books it is a lye that we use them as books will not bow their knee to them for then saith he they should Adore them and therefore saith Vasquez if Christ be not in very deed in his presence in the Sacrament present the knee-worship is tendred to bread and wine which is saith he Idolatry therefore either our Formalists are Transubstantiators or Idolaters or both by this learned Iesuites judgement and why by this same reason may we not say against Vasquez that the bodily offerings of prayers prayses and sacrifices to God before the Image as the Image is an honouring of the Image by prayer they say to the tree of the Crosse Auge piis justitiam reisque dona veniam Increase righteousnesse in us and give remission of sinnes O tree crosse to guilty sinners Names at Rome goe as men will but the honour it selfe is put upon the dumbe wood which is due to Christ O it is but a figure say they yea but say we prayers and praises in a bodily manner and vocally are tendred to the wood yet if the wife commit adultery with her husbands brother because he representeth her husband I thinke the matter should be washen with Inke and badly excused to say O the loving wife for strong love to her husband committeth figurative adultery and that bodily harlotry is referred to the brother of her husband by accident and to her husband kindly and per se for himselfe The same way if Formalists bow their knee to bread that such a holy mystery be not prophaned We know they cannot understand civill or countrey non-prophanation that they intend for kneeling and evill maners at the Lords table doe well consist together Now religious non-prophanation by knee-worship is adoring of these mysterious elements Ergo they make prayers and sing praises and offer sacrifices to the bread Let them see to this and answer to it if they can The sixt evasion of wit I find in Johannes de Lugo who saith 1. That the image and samplar making one and the same object by aggregation the inward affection besides externall knee-worship is given to both but to the Image relatively and for God or the samplar and not for proper divine excellencie in it and therefore the Councels saith he call it not adoration in spiritu but it is tendered to God absolutely 2. We give adoration of internall submission to God or the samplar as the debt of potestative justice but we doe not so worship the Image we have no civill or politick communication with the Image because it is not a reasonable creature and therefore the worship of the Image is as it were a materiall and livelesse action when we uncover our head to the Image by that action we would say or signifie nothing to the Image but to the samplar or to God onely 3. The inward submission that we tender to the Image is not that we submit to it as to a thing more excellent then we for that were a foolish lye yet saith he that the man might fulfill the cup of the iniquity of his Fathers we kisse not the Image in recto directly tendring honour to it but to God and the samplar before it 1. Because then I should adore my owne breast when I knocke upon it adoring the Eucharist 2. Because so I bow to the wall before me 3. If I have no honourable opinion of the Image I doe not adore it at all 4. By kneeling to the Image I have a will of submitting externally my affection to the Image I yeeld to it as a thing above me giving to it the higher place 4. The act of adoration is simply terminated upon the Image as a thing contra distinguished from the samplar though it be adored with the same action with which the samplar is adored Thus the â—eâ—uite Answ But here all men may see many contradictions and that he casteth downe all that formerly he hath said â—â— Images even as they represent God are dead things and lesse then a redeemed Saint Ergo I can give them no submission of externall honour 2. I signifie and say nothing of honour to the Image even as it respecteth God and representeth him because the dignity of representing God doth not elevate it to be a reasonable creature therefore I cannot honour it and it were a foolish lye to say that the Image as representing God were a reasonable creature 3. As it representeth God it cannot heare payers nor deliver in trouble as the Holy One of Israel can doe Ergo by the Holy Ghosts argument I cannot bow to a lye Esa 44. 17. and 46. 9. Hab. 2. 19. 20. it made not the heaven and the earth but by a figure because it representeth the maker of heaven and earth wherefore it should have but figurative honour at the best and that is no reall honour Jer. 10. 8 11 12 4. There is no debt of justice due to the dumb wood or element honour of externall submission is a debt of potestative justice due to a superiour the Images and Elements are not my superiour 1. They be meanes I the end 2. They bee void of life and reason which I have 3. They are not redeemed sanctified and to be glorified as I am Ioan. de Lugo answereth As I may love Peter for the goodnesse that is not in Peter but in another as I may love and desire good to Peter for the goodnesse that is in his father and not in himself and so pay the debt of affection to him for another so I may honour an Image for the debt of honour that I owe to the samplar represented by the
Barnabas Angels and Cornelius forbade men to worship them 9. It is a shame to adore a beast endowed with sense and life farre more to adore a dumbe and livelesse creature August ps 113. Chrysostome is against Images 1. Because the Law of God forbiddeth them 2. God must be honoured as he willeth himselfe 3. It is a depressing of soules to worship Images It commeth from Satan to take Gods glory from him it is mockerie that man should be the creator of God the Creator of all things Cyrillus Alexandrin who lived An. 415. saith We neither beleeve the martyrs to be gods nor doe we adore them Damascen a superstitious man much for Images acknowledgeth two things 1. That Images are but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwritten traditions 2. He ackowledgeth that the brazen Serpent the Cherubims were made for signification not for imitation or adoration i Gregorius Magnus though he be alledged by Papists for adoration of Images Yet in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Massilia An. 600. he forbiddeth the adoration of Images and alloweth onely the Historicall use of them as is observed by Fran. White by Hospinian and Catol testum veritatis and this man being the first who brought Images into the Church hath this Caveat atque indica saith he to Sirenus quod non tibi ipsa visio historiae quae pictura teste pandebatur displicueri◠sed illa adoratio quae picturis fuerit in competenter exhibita si quis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe adorare vero imagines omnibus modis divita sed hoc solicitè admoneas ut ex visione rei gestae ardorem conjunctionis percipiant in adoratione solius Trinitatis prosternantur It is cleare that this man teacheth an adoration of Images though he make them onely bookes to the rude This same Gregorius will have the signe of the crosse adored because when the Devill came to a Iew sleeping in the night in the Temple of an Idoll the Iew being afraid signed himselfe with the Crosse and the Divell fled but when doth Iewes come in any Christian Churches or Idoll-Temples who abhorre the name of Christ and so hate both the Crosse and Christ and what can be proved from a fact of Sathan In the eighth age Beda Imaginum cultus adoratio the worshipping and adoring of Images is unlawfull 1. Because they have no office in the doctrine of the Gospell 2. We are forbidden to adore salute or worship them 3. The d Church is not taught to seeke the Lord by Images but by faith and good workes 4. The Apostolique Church did not worship God in Images 5. Images want documento antiquitatis antiquity example and the Scripture 6. We frustrate God of worship due to him 7. Peter Paul Angels forbad to worship them but God only We forbid the Church saith the civill Law to be obscured with Images Have the Image of God saith Ephrem in thy heart non colorum varietate in ligno not in Images and colours Who can make saith Damascen a representation of the invisible God Gretserus saith the Iewes would not admit of Ensignes and Trophies of the Romans for fear Images should be hidden under them So said Josephus before him Their own men say with us Hulcot who lived an 1346. saith Latreia divine worship belongeth to God onely the Image is not God neither the Crosse saith Ioan. Pic. Mirandula Concl. 3. nor the Image of Christ is to be adored adoratione Latreia eo modo quo ponit Thomas with divine worship the guise of Thomas Aquinas Peresius Ajala a Popish Bishop for adoration of Images saith he there is neither Scripture nor Church tradition nor consent of Fathers nor good reason to make it good For saith Gabriel Biel The image either considered in it self as it is mettall or stone or as it is a holy signe is a sensible Creature to which Latreia Divine honour should not be given and the Romish Decrees saith We commend you that you forbid images of Saints to be Worshipped The Doway Doctors say Idols have eyes and cannot see c. Now if they have Images of God and Christ which can see and hear and speak we exceedingly desire to know Alexander Allensis Durandus say That images in themselves and properly are not to be Worshipped Geo Cassander wisheth That they had continued in majorum suorum sententia in the minde of their forefathers and that the Superstition of people in Worshipping images had been suppressed The Councell convened by Constantius Capronimus condemneth Worshipping of Images or placing them in Churches 1. Because it is forbidden in the second Commandment 2. The Picturing of Christ is a dividing of the two Natures 3. It is against the Ancients Epiphanius Nazianzen Chrysostome Athanasius Amphylocius Theodorus Eusebius Pamphili The Councell of Nice is builded upon lies Adrian Bishiop of Rome writeth to the Councell of Nice That the Emperour Constantine being a Leaper and labouring to cure his Leprosie by shedding of innocent Babes blood Peter and Paul appeared to him by night in a Vision and bade him go to be Baptized by Sylvester and that he to be cured by Sylvesters Baptizing builded a Temple with the Images of Peter and Paul This is as true as the Image of Christ spake to Tho Aquinas at Naples Bene Scripsistti de me Thoma Why is not all Evangell that Aquinas hath written then For their own Platina saith The story of Constantines Leprosie is a fable and Socrates saith That Constantine was sick when he was 65. years and he maketh no mention of his leprosie so Hospinianus saith and our own Simson saith That Sylvester and Marcus his successor were both dead before Constantine was Baptized Genebradus a Papist saith down right that the Councell of Frankford condemned the second Nicene Councell But Bellarmine Suarez Sanderus ' Alanus deny that the Doctrine of the second Nicene Councell for Adoring images is Condemned by the Councell of Frankford they say it is onely expounded and that the right way of Adoring images is made manifest Yea saith Nauclerus Sabellicus and Blandus The Councell of Frankford reserveth due honour to images and saith nothing against the Councell of Nice But this is to deny daylight at Noon-day For Annonius is most clear in it and Abbot Vspergens the Book of Charles the Great saith the same The Synod of Frankford was convened An. 794. of purpose to condemne the second Synod of Nice called the seventh pretended and false Synod Aventinus saith expresly Scita Grecorum in Synodo Nicena decreta de imaginibus adorandis in concili◠francofurtensi rescissa abolita sunt and Vspergensis saith in this Synod it was decreed Vt septima universalis Synodus nec septima nec
that beare no fruit were to be cut down as not so necessarie for mans life Now this reason is morall and perpetuall and so are houses to sence off the injuries of the clouds a Manslife except they bee forbidden by a positive law of God and so necessarie as without the â—se of houses no worshipping of God can be ordinarily And therefore in the second place as we use Gold Silver Tamples and materiall houses though abused to Idolatrie because the Lord hath created them for our use his law of Creation warranting us to use them so can we not refraine from the use of them though abused by Papists except wee have a speciall positive law to warrant us to refraine from the use of these necessarie creatures of God so usefull for the life of man For according to the grounds of these against whom we now dispute the Garments of silke or cloth of Gold that hath covered Popish Images the Gold and Silver of the Popish Images though melted and dissolved into innocent mettall the Materiall Temples builded to the honour of Saints are to be cast away and utterly abolished as unlawfull to be used in any sort for the Jewes according to the Law Deut. 7. 19. 20. might make no use of the gold or silver of the Heathen-Image and Achan brought a curse on himselfe for the simple taking for his use the wedge of Gold and the Babilonâ—sh Garment Now we have no law in the New Testament to abandon the use of the creatures for as Cornelius was not to count that meat uncleane which God â—ad clâ—nsed Act. 10. 15. So neither are we to count Silver and Gold and houses uselesse which God in the Creation made Good and usefull for our life and therefore no morall contagion can adhere so to these creatures as we are utterly to disuse them as creatures cursed because they were abused except it can be proved that the abuse of them hath deprived us of the necessarie use that they have by the law of Creation for certaine it is as the killing of the sucking infants of the Amalakites was typicall and tyeth not us to kill the young children of Papists so was the disusing or not using of Gold Silver and Houses abused to Idolatrie typicall And before I come to the second Conclusion An house for the worship of God is amongst the things that are necessarie by way of dis-junction in speciè not in individuo that is a house is necessarie in its Physicall use to fence off our bodies the injuries of Sunne Aire and heaven but not this house for another house may serve the turne as conveniently But some object Then this or this house Dedicated superstitiously to the religious honour of a Saint ought to be removed out of the worship of God 1 because by your owne confession Thâ—â— individual house so abused is not necessarie God may will be worshipped without this house though it never had been in rerum naturâ 2. From the worshipping of God in so Superstitious a place many truly godly are so scandalized that for worshipping God in such Superstitious and Idolatrous places they have Separated from your Church conceiving that in so doing you heale the wounds of the Beast It is true it may be their weaknesse yea but be it so that it were their wickedness that they are scandalized yet by your doctrine in things not necessarie you are not to doe any thing by which either the weake or the wicked may be scandalized as is cleare in the eating of meats Rom. 14. Ans This argument may 1. be retorted against these who hold with us the same doctrine of Scandal for without eating of Swines flesh my life may be preserved and a malitious Iew may be and necessarily is highly scandalized that I who possibly am a Iew converted to the Christian faith doe eat Swines flesh before him for he conceiveth me to be an Apostate from Moses his law therefore I should abstaine from eating Swines flesh before a Iew who out of Malice is scandalized by my doing a thing not necessarie hic nunc But the conclusion is absurd nor doe I think that many truly godly of the Strictest Separation doe stumble at our Churches out of wickednesse Many truly Godly and Sincere refuse to come to our Churches whereas many scandalous well lustered hypocrites who knoweth nothing of the power of godlinesse but are sitten downe in the Scorners Chaire are admitted to the Lords Supper and as the former cannot be excused so I pray God that the latter draw not downe the wrath of God upon both Kingdomes 2. Things not necessarie which actively produce scandall must not be only indifferent Physically in their naturall use as This or this house but they must be indifferent both Physically and Morally for the Meats spoken of Rom. 14. at that time were both wayes indifferent 1. They were not necessary but indifferent Physically in an ordinarie providence both then and now for ordinarily my life may be preserved and suffer little losse by not eating Swines flesh or such meats in case of extreame necessitie of sterving if any could have no other meat they might eat then as the case was Rom. 14. because Mercie is better then Sacriâ—â—â— at alltimes 2. These things Rom. 14. were indifferent Theologically or Morally in their owne nature 1. v. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him 2. Because v. 17. The kingdome of God is not meat and drink Sure in Moses his time to abstaine from such meats and eat such as the Lambe of the Passeover the Manna to drinke of the water of the Rock was worship and so some part of the kingdome of heaven but it is not so now saith Paul 3 Paul clearly maketh them Morally indifferent 1 Cor. 8. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are wee better morally and before God neither if we eat not a e we Morally theworse Now this Temple or House Physically is indifferent and not necessarie for the worship of God for men may be defended from the injuries of Sunne and aire Though this house had never been in rerum naturâ But this Temple or house though dedicated to a Saint is not Morally indifferent but Morally necessarie so as if you remove it from the worship because abused to Idolatrie and give it in no use in the defending of our bodies from the injuries of the Wind Raine and Sunne you Iudaize and doe actively scandalize the Iewes and harden them in their Apostasie and so this house though abused to Idolatrie is not indifferent Morally as the meats Rom. 14. But the using of it is necessarie and an asserting of our Christian libertie as to eat blood and things strangled and Swines flesh even before a Iew so to use all houses for a physicall end to defend our bodies from heat
But what wonder For Hooker holdeth that we have no other way to know the scripture to be the Word of God but by Tradition which Popish Assertion holden by him and Chillingworth to me is to make the Traditions of men the object of our Faith Hooker About things easie and manifest to all men by Common sense there needeth no higher Consultation because a man whose wisdom is for weighty affairs admired would take it in some disdain to have his Counsel solemnly asked about a toy so the meannesse of some things is such that to search the Scriptures of God for the ordering of them were to derogate from the Reverend Authority of the Scripture no lesse then they do by whom Scriptures are in ordinary talking very idely applied unto vain and Childish trifles Ans 1. It is a vain comparison to resemble God to an earthly wise man in this for a King of Kings such as Artaxerxes if he were building a stately Palace for his Honour and Magnificence would commit the drawing of it the frame the small pins rings bowles to the wisdom of a Master of work skilled in the Mathematicks and not trouble his own Princely head with every small pin but this is because he is a man and cometh short of the wisdom skill and learning of his servants 2. Because how his Honour and Magnificence be declared in every small pin of that Palace is a businesse that taketh not much up the thoughts of a stately Prince The contrary of both these are true in the Lord our God his wisdom is above the wisdom of Moses and Moses cannot frame a Tabernacle or a Temple for Gods Honour in the least pin or sâ—uffer with such wisdom as the only wise God can do 2. The Lord is more jealous and tender of his own Honour in the meanes and smallest way of Illustrating of it Yea in the smallest Pin then earthly Princes are for earthly Princes may Communicate with their inferiours the glory of curious works set forth as speaking monuments of their honour the Lord who will not give his glory to another never did communicate the glory of devising worship or the Religious means of worshipping and honouring his glorious Majesty to men 2. God hath thus â—ar condiscended in his wisdom to speak particularly in written Oracles of every Pin Ring tittle Officer of his house of every Signe Sacrament Sacramentall never so mean and small Ergo It is no derogation from the dignity of Scripture to have a mouth to aske counsell where God hath opened his mouth to give Counsell in written Oracles 3. There is nothing positive in Gods worship so small as that we may dare to take on us to devise it of our own head 4. Hooker contradicteth himself he said the Ceremonies have their authority from God and though unwritten have the self same force and authority with the written Laws of God pag. 44. Here he will have the unwritten positives so small and far inferiour to written Scripture that to aske for scripture to warrant such small toys is to derogate from the reverend Authority and Dignity of the Scripture so Ceremonies pag. 46. are but Toyes unworthy to be written with Scripture but p. 44. They have the self same force and authority with written Scripture Hooker It is unpossible to be proved that only the Schoole of Christ in his word is able to resolve us what is good and evil for what if it were true concerning things indifferent that unlesse the word of the Lord had determined of the free use of them there could have been no Lawfull use of them at all which notwithstanding is untrue because it is not the Scriptures setting down things indifferent but their not setting them down as necessary that doth make them to be indifferent Ans Then because the scripâ—ure hath not forbidden the killing of our children to God as a â—alse worship against the second Commandment but only as an act of Homicide against the sixth Commandment and hath not forbidden all the Jewish Ceremonies so they have a new signification to point forth Christ already come in the flesh these must all be indifferent For let Formalists give me a Scripture to prove that Circumcision killing of Children sacrificing of Beasts are any wayes forbidden in this notion but in that they are not commanded or set down in the word as not necessary 2. Such Divinity I have not read That only the Schoole of Christ is not able to resolve us what is good and evil I mean Morally good and evil For Hooker pag. 54. Book 2. saith The controversie would end in which we contend that all our actions are ruled by the word If 1. we would keep our selves vvithin the compasse of morall actions actions which have in them vice or vertue 2. If we vvould not exact at their hands for every action the knowledge of some place of Scripture out of vvhich vve must stand bound to deduce it Then it is like the School of Christ the word can and doth teach us what is a Morall action good or ill an action in vvhich there is vertue or vice and to me it is a wonder that the Old and New Testament which containeth an exact systeme and body of all Morals whither naturall or Civill or supernaturall should not be the only rule of all Morals Now I finde that Mr. Hooker saith two things to this 1. That Scripture doth regulate all our Morall actions but not scripture only for the Lavv of nature and the most concealed instincts of nature and other principles may vvarrant our actions We move saith he we sleep vve take the Cup at the hand of our friend a number of things vve often do only to satisfie some naturall desire vvithout present expresse and actuall reference to any Commandment of God unto his glory even these things are done vvhich vve naturally perform and not only that vvhich naturally and spiritually vve do for by every effect proceeding from the most concealed instincts of nature his povver is made manifest But it doth not therefore follovv that of necessity we shall sin unlesse vve expresly intend the glory of God in every such particular Ans I speak of these more distinctly hereafter here I answer that as there be some actions in man purely and spiritually but supernaturally morall as to believe in Christ for Remission of sins to love God in Christ These the Gospel doth regulate 2. There be some actions naturally morall in the substance of the act as many things commanded and forbidden in the Morall Law and these are to be regulated by the Law of nature and the Morall Law 3. There be some actions mixed as such actions in which nature or concealed instincts of nature are the chief principles yet in and about these actions as in their modification of time place and manner and measure there is a speciall morality in regard of which they are to be ruled by the word
of adoring God Obedience is founded not formally upon Gods excellency properly so called but upon his jurisdiction and Authority to Command Adoration is the subjection or prostration of soul or body to God in the due recognition and acknowledgement of his absolute supremacy There is no need that Vasquez should deny that there is any internall Adoration for that Adoration is only an externall and bodily Worship of God can hardly be defended for there may be and is Adoration in the blessed Angels as may be gathered from Isa 6. 1 2 3. Hâ—b 1. 6. And it is hard to say that the glorified spirits loosed out of the body and received by Christ Act. 7. 59. Psal 73. 27. Into Paradice Luk. 23. 43. And so with him Philip. 1. 23. And Praying under the Altar Rev. 6. 9 10. And falling down before the Lamb and acknowledging that he hath Redeemed them Rev. 5. 8 9 10. do not Adore God and his Son Christ because they have nor bodies and knees to bow to him and yet they Adore him Phil. 2. 9 10. in a way suitable to their spirituall estate It is an untruth that Rapha de la Torres in 22. q. 84. Art 2. disp 2. n. 1. saith That Protestants detest all externall Worship now under the New Testament as contrary to Grace and Adoration of God in spirit and truth For things subordinate are not contrary we should deny the necessity of Baptisme and the Lords Supper and of vocall praying and praising under the New Testament which are in their externals externall worship I grant internall Adoration is more hardly known But 't is enough for us to say as externall Adoration is an act by which we offer our bodies to God and subject the utter man to him in sign of service and reverence to so supream a Lord so there is a heart-prostration and inward bowing of the soul answerable thereunto As the profession whither actuall or habituall in a locall and bodily approach or in verball titles of Honour in which we Honour great personages by bowing to them in prostration and kneeling is an act in its state Civill not Religious we intending I presse not the necessity of a â—ormall or actuall intention only to conciliate Honour to them suitable to their place and dignity so a profession whither actuall or habituall in a Religious bodily approach to God either by prayer or prostration or inâ—lination of the body tending to the Honour of God is a Religious act Now bodily prostration of it self is a thing in its nature indifferent and according as is the object so is it either Artificiall as if one should stoop down to drive a wedge in an image or civill if one bow to Honour the King or Religious when God and Divine things are the object thereof But with this difference the intention of the minde added to externall prostration to a creature reasonable may make that prostration idolatrous and more then civill honour Thus bowing to Haman Honoured by Ahasuerus who hath power to confer honours if people bow to him as to God is more then civill honour And Cornelius his bowing to Peter Act. 10. as to more then a man is Idolatrous and not civill honour and the Carpenters bowing to an Image as to a piece of Timber formed by Art is only Artificiall bowing and if any stumble at a stone before an Image and so fall before it it is a casuall and naturall fall whereas a falling down with intention to Adore had been Religious Adoring But when the object of bodily prostration or kneeling is God or any Religious representation of God whither it be the elements of bread and wine which are Lawfull Images of Christ or devised pictures or portraicts of God or Christ because these objects are not capable of artificiall naturall or civill prostration if therefore they be terminating objects of bodily kneeling or prostration these Religious objects to wit God and Religious things must so specifie these bodily acts as that they must make them Religious not civill acts though there be no intention to bow to God for bowing to God hath from the object that it is a Religious bowing though you intend not to direct that bowing to God as bowing to Jupiters Portraict is a Religious Worshipping of that Portraict though you intend not to worship the Portraict for the act and Religious object together maketh the act of prostration or kneeling to be essentially Religious though there be no intention to bow to these indeed the intention to bow to God maketh kneeling to God to be more Morally good laudable and acceptable before God then if therewere no such intention but the want of the intention maketh it not to be no Religious worship nor can it make it to be civill worship Hence let this be observed that intention of bowing can or may change that bowing which otherwayes were but civill if there were no such intention of over-esteeming the creature into a Religious bowing but neither our over or under-intention can change a Religious kneeling to God or to an Image into a civill kneeling because civill or naturall bowing to creatures is more under the power of an humane and voluntary institution of men then Religious bowing which hath from God without any act of mans free will its compleat nature When we kneel to Kings we signifie by that gesture that we submit our selves to higher powers not simply saith P. Martyr but in so far as they Command not things against the Word of the Lord. When we Adore God we Adore him as the Supream Majesty being ready to obey him in what he shall Command without any exception the Adoration of men signifieth a submission limited if it go above bounds it is the sinfull intention of the Adorer who may change the civil Adoration into Religious and may ascend But the Aderation of God cannot so descend as it can turn into Civill Adoration only keeping the same object it had before Worship is an action or performance or thing by which we tender our immediate honour to God from the nature of the thing it self 1. I call it an action because the passion of dying or suffering is not formally worship but only dying comparatively rather then denying of Christ or dying so and so qualified dying with Patience and Faith may be called a worship 2. I call it not an action only but a performance or thing because an office as the Priesthood the Ministery is a worship and yet not an action Sometime Time it self as the Sabbath Day is a Worship yet it is not an action So the Lord calleth it His Holy Day and undenyably the lewish dayes the High Priests garment and many things of that kinde were Divine or Religious performances things or adjuncts of Divine Worship but so as they are not meerly adjuncts of Worship but also worship for the High Priests Ephod was not only a civil ornament nor was it a
Religions colour is supernaturally white ingenuous not whorish 2. Or then it addeth order of parts and this is by right grave and convenient circumstantiating of things in Gods worship and Paul dreamed never of Crossing to grace baptizing 3. Or it addeth due quantity Religious worship hath no quantity but time 4. It is against sense that order is commanded in the third Commandment but not Surplice Crossing because they are by accident orderly what agreeth essentially to the generall agreeth not essentially and necessarily to the speces and particulars which are by accident under that generall as what agreeth to a man agreeth not to white and black men Decency is commanded but by accident and by mans will Surplice is decent But then God commanding Sacraments should not command Bread and Wine sor they are by accident and by Gods will Sacraments he might have chosen other Elements yet the will of God commanding Sacraments commandeth this and this Sacrament also What agreeth essentially to man agreeth essentially to all men black and white If Gods will essentially concur to constitute decency in his own worship then must that same will essentially concur to constitute this decency in Surplice Crossing 2. It supposeth a great untruth that Crossing is not worship because not ordained of God but that proveth it is not Lawfull worship but not that it is non-worship for Crossing used to the honour of Baal and to edifie souls in performing their duty to Baal is essentially a worshipping of Baal otherwayes worshipping of Idols is not Worship and yet it is an Act of Religious honouring of the Idol 3. The Command that commandeth or forbiddeth the end commandeth and forbiddeth the means Thou shalt not murther forbiddeth the Master not to command his servant to ride an extreamly deep and impetuous River though the not riding of such a River be not set down in the word and it is not forbidden as an Arbitrary action If therefore decency binde the conscience then the decency of this Rite to wit Crossing bindeth the conscience Our Ceremonies are not Nationall for Crossing being a Religious Rite in all the world it s alike decent Ergo non Crossing in some Country cannot be undecent Things meerly Religious as all significant Ceremonies are of alike nature every where and admit not of heat and cold with divers climates are of good or evil manners with divers Nations therefore they must be determined in the word the man who Preâ—aced on our Service book said without some Ceremonies it is impossible to keep any order or quiet Discipline in the Church I am sure he must think that Paul preached in some Surplice that he might teach holinesse with his garments one way or other he hath a stronger Faith then I can reach without circumstances worship cannot be but without Romish dirt the Worship and Discipline are better kept then with such whorish busking Also whatever is a profession in fact of a false Religion by Ceremonies indifferent and yet proper to a false Religion is a denying of the true Religion but the using of these Ceremonies used by Papists and Iews is such Ergo The Proposition is Scripture Gal. 2. 14. Peter lived after the manner of the Iews in using the Religious materials of the Jews though he had no Iewish intention or opinion yea Acts 10. he disputeth against that So Circumcision Galathians 6. 14 15 is put for the Jewish Church Now Altars Organs Iewish Ephods or Surplice Masse cloaths and Romish Crossing bowing to Altars Images are badges of Iewish and Popish Religion We know the dispute betwixt Augustine and Ierome who defended Peters dâ—ssimulation Gal. 2. to gain the Iews But Augustine saith Epist 9. Si propterea illa Sacramenta celebravit Paulus quia simularet se judaeum ut illos lucrifaceret cur non etiam Sacrificavit cum Gentibus quia iis qui sine lege erant tanquam sine lege factus est ut eos quoque lucrifaceret Yea then as Augustine saith to Ierome Epist ad Hyeronym 19. We might use all the Iewish Ceremonies to gain the Ievvs and so fall in the Herersie of Ebion and the Nazarites Duvallius 2. Thom tract de legib q. 3. Art 3. would defend Peter in that but he saith Magis placet Barronii Responsio Tom. 1. Annal. an 51. Petrum venialiter peccasse As for Pauls Circumcising of Timothy Papists clear him Vasquez Tom. 1. in 12. disp 181. cap. 8. Loâ—o tempore accomodato He did it when he could not offend the Gentiles Aquinas 12. q. 103. Art 4. Yea so the Fathers as Augustine Epist 19. Chrysostom Cyrill Hyeronym Also Papists Bensonius tractat de fuga lib. 1. disp 1. q. 4. ad Articul 4. Vasquez Tom 1. 12. disp 182. cap. 4. Brove to use Iewish Ceremonies though with no Iewish minde is unlawfull Suarez Tom. de legib lib. 9. de leg Divin pos cap. 14. Vsus Circumcisionis ex prohibitione est factus malus actus malus non honestatur propter intentionem bonam Aquinas 22. q. 11. câ— 12. q. 103. Art 4. As one should mortally sin who should say Christum nunc nasâ—iturum Christ is yet to be incarnat So the using of the Iewish Ceremonies were a lie in fact Cajetan and Toletus acknowledge a lie in fact Salmeron in Gal. 5. q. 2. saith It is unlawfull to use the Iewish Ceremonies Aegidius Comick de actib supernatural lib. 2. disp 15. dub 3. â— 39. Nullo modo licet obullum finem uti Ceremoniis propriis falsae Religionis Vasquez 12. disp 182. â— 48. Patres Doctores communiter tenent non licere Lodo. Meratius Iesuita to 1. in Thom. tract de legib disp 19. Sect. 2. n. 5. Mentiti fuissent Apostoli usurpantes exteriores legis Mosaicae Ceremonias si non ex animâ— usurpabant tanquam sibi vere licitas ex animo vere colendi Deum per illas sicut ab aliis per easdem colebatur So Grego Valent. Tom. 2. disp 7. punct 7. q. 7. Soto de justif l. 2. q. 5. It is a Religious scandall to the users of these Ceremonies for Ceremonies devised by men of no necessary use in Gods worship are monuments of Idolatry snares drawing the practisers to Idolatry and so unlawfull as the High places Groves Images though not Adored of the Canaanites This Argument is so learnedly prosecuted by D. Ammes that I adde nothing to it QUEST V. Whether the Ceremonies especially kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacrament be guilty of idolatry VVHoever presumeth to invent a worship of his own committeth Idolatry interpretatively because he worshippeth a God whom he conceiveth is pleased with false worship But that is not the true God for he is pleased with no worship but what he hath prescribed himself but all inventers and practisers of humane Ceremonies worship such a God Also all who usurpeth the room and place of God give the glory of God to creatures but all Authors and practisers of
we are to worship If therefore we Adore God at the presence of the elements as memorative signes we do Adore the elements but if the kneeler direct all his worship before the elements to Christ up at the right hand of the Father Why then as Lactantius said well to the Gentiles do they not turn away their senses and eyes off the elements For Christ is not substantially inclosed in them and lift them up toward heaven where they believe Christ to be But in so doing the elements should not be received as Sacraments for in the act of receiving we are to fixe our souls upon the visible elements If the Athenians did believe the golden image Act. 17. 29. was essentially God and kneeled to it as to God Paul did in vain rebuke them for believing that the Godhead was like silver or gold and if the men of Lystra believed the shapes of men and the likenesse of men to be essentially God and in that respect gave the honour of Sacrificing due to God to these shapes then the Scripture in vain should bring these men of Lystra in as putting a difference betwixt the shapes of men and the Godhead of Jupiter and Mercurius to which they were about to give Divine Sacrifice And if Formalists kneel before the elements and give a transitive glory to Christ through them they are in the same sense Idolaters that the Gentiles were So the Councel of Moguntine and Alphonsus de Castro deny that they Adore the letters of the Name Jesus drawn with base ink or the Tree of the Crosse but they Adore the signified thing Yea saith Waldensis He that beholdeth the image almost forgetteth the image while as he is ravished with the thing signified as many see a man clothed and yet being asked they cannot declare the colour of his clothes the minde is so much set upon the man Yea the Adorer may hate the painted image of Christ because the rude ignorance of the painter when he Adoreth Christ in the same image though he may love some morall representation in it This Doctrine is taught by Gregorius and by Adrianus and approved by a Councel at Rome under Stephanus the third II. Conclusion Grosser Papists go a subtiler way to work and do avouch that the very Latreia and supream worship that is proper to God is given to the Image Though the creature saith Suarez cannot Primo per se principally kindly and of it self be worshipped or adored with Latreia the supream worship due to God yet it may be co-adored with the same honour that is given to Christ as is the Kings purple Robe So the first Distinction is of Adoration and co-Adoration or Adoration kindely and by it self and Adoration with another Henriquez saith It is a fault that it is not preached to the people that the image of Christ is to be adored with supream worship called Latreia Crabrera saith many Schoolmen are of this mind and so doth Azorius Archangelus Rubeo Iacobus de Graphiis Let us worship saith he every Image with that same worship with which we worship the samplar That is let us bestow the worship highest of Latreia upon the Image of God and Christ and the signe of the Crosse as it bringeth us in minde of Christs suffering The second distinction is that the Image is truly properly adored as the materiall object no lesse then the samplar Hence they reprove Durandus Picus Mirandula Hulcot and others who say that Images are improperly adored Raphael de la Torres answering to that of Durandus and Mirandula That Images are adored by accident in respect that before them and at their naked presence as before memorative objects we adore God and Christ saith he are adored by accident is thus to be understood Images are adored Ratione Alterius by reason of another Vel per aliud by another thing but this argueth not that Images are improperly adored hereby onely is denyed that there is any adoration of the proper excellency of the thing adored Hence he would say that the borrowed honour of Adoration given to the Image is truly and properly the Adoration that is due to God but it is given to the Image in reference to God and not for any inherent Excellency that is in the Image For saith he If we do not properly adore the Image we do but exercise the materiall action of kissing and kneeling to the image without any internall affection of submission to the Samplar He addeth that it is enough that the intention of submission is referred to the samplar and the external Adoration to the Image for if any shall saith he kisse the earth as the rude multitude in some place doth upon an intention of inward submission of heart to God Nequaquam vere proprie adorat terram he doth not truly and properly adore the earth but only he exerciseth a materiall action of kissing toward the earth But I answer all this is vanity for such a one worshippeth the earth but referreth the internall submission to God and all this is to say the Image doth truly partake of the Religious honour Latreia due to God only A third distinction is here of Gabriel Biel on the Canon of the Masse In the Adoring of images saith he and of other things which are adored by accident though there be an externall act of bowing both to the images and the samplar yet there be two internall acts which are different vvhereof one is terminated and bounded upon the image not absolutely as it is such a materiall thing of stone or mettall but as it is an image This is an acknowledgement whereby I esteem the Image a thing ordained to represent Christ or a complacency whereby I rest on such a thing as to be honoured for Christ and the other iâ— a recognition and acknowledgement immediatly terminated and bounded upon the samplar whereby it is acknowledged to be the chiefest good But the truth is Religious geniculation before the image or at the presence of the image saith Durandus as if the samplar were there present is one and the same adoration given to the image and the samplar and all that Gregorius de Valentia saith against this is that Durandus minus circumspectâ— locutus he spake not so warily as need were And so did their seventh pretended synod speak as Leontius expoundeth them Non liguorum aut colorum naturam adoro absit and Vasquez saith They displease some in so speaking but they mean well They meant all that which our Formalists do and there is no discord saith Gabriel Biel in re in the matter it self for both say 1. that the creature should not be adored with the highest honour Lateria of it self as if it were the object of Adoration 2. Both teach that the minde and affection is carried toward the samplar which
is adored 3. Both mean that the adorer exerciseth some act upon the image as it representeth the samplar only the diversity is if this act terminated on the Image should be called an adoring of the Image and all these three Formalists do to the elements in the supper Hence I require of the Formalists one difference betwixt the objective presence of the elements before the kneeler in the act of receiving and the objective presence of the Heathens image of God Isa 40. 18. 46. 6 7 8. and the Papists image of dumb wood and blinde stone Mr. Lindsey answered me once in a conference That the elements were present as the Ordinances of God but the Popish and Heathen images as the inventions of men I replied to him That is no answer for images and elements I know do differ Physicâ specie The Sun adored by Persians and Satan by Indians differ Satan and the Sun are not Ejusdem speciei of that same nature but it is idolatry to worship either images and bread in the kind of means of worship differ but as touching the objective presence before the kneeler kneeling to these there is no difference as 1. To memorative objects 2. As to objects vicarious and standing in the room of Christ 3. At their presence and through them God is adored Suarez is not content with the doctrine of Durandus here By this images are saith he but occasions Vel signa excitantia hominem ad prototypum adorandum non vero â—es quae adorantur or signes moving the mâ—n to adore the samplar but they are not things adored for saith he the man vvho seeing a beautifull creature ariseth in â—is minde to the consideration of the Creator and therefore praiseth and loveth thâ— Creator cannot be truly said to praise and love that fair creature thougâ— the presence of that creature have stirred up the love of the Creator and by this means images are reserved only for memory Thus he will have images adored with the same worship that is given to God But I answer 1. if he shall kisse that creature and direct Religious bowing toward it and and through that external Religious act convey his worship to God and give no other externall adoration and signe of heart submission to God then that which is tyed and alligated of purpose to that fair creature as Papists and Jews did of old who kissed the calves and fell down before the images as Isa 44. 17. which yet were but memorials of Iehovah teaching them of Iehovah Esa 40. 18. Esa 46. 6 7. Hab. 2. 18 19. Such a one should also worship that fair creature Our Formalists do not make the elements memorative signes representing Christ for that they have by divine institution but upon that ground they kneel before them and tie by the Churches Commandment the externall Religious bowing toward them and that saith the act of our new Assembly at Perth in reverence of God and in due regard Religious regard they must mean of so divine a mystery and in remembrance of so mysticall a union 2. God hath no other externall bowing made to him in the act of receiving then is made before these elements in due regard of so divine a mystery and because of so mysticall union the union is reall whether it be by consubstantiation or transubstantiation they wil not define the Lord Iesus is present in the elements in a more reall and spirituall manner then he is in any groundlesse image of mettall or wood and therefore the image and elements do most really partake even by Durandus and Hulcot and Mirandula their minde of that worship of Latreia due to God only Durandus as Vasquez and Gregor Valent. say spake not so warily but not so grossely as to say What ever is given to God is given to the image 2. It is not in the Adorers power that kneeling should be a signe of lesse worship as referred to the image and of greater as referred to God for the same materiall kissing and Religious Prostration which would immediatly be conveyed to Christ if he were in person present in the image and elements is done to the image and elements and Religious kissing and Religious kneeling signifieth internall divine submission of heart to God as the first author of all and the last end not by mans will but by divine institution 3. Kneeling to God is a protestation saith Gregor de Valent. That we are willing to raise an opinion of excellency in God as this excellency is in some manner and relatively in the image If therefore kneeling of its own nature without any act of mans will or the Churches institution wanting Gods Word do conciliate an opinion of excellency to whomsoever kneeling is directed in this it must conciliate the same opinion if then it it be given to Images and elements it must be a protestation that we are willing to conciliate an opinion of Divine excellency in these lifelesse creatures which is all we give to God by kneeling 4. It is not enough that Valentia saith This honour belongeth to Christ in so far as it conciliateth to Christ the honour due only to God and is expressed by kneeling it belongeth to the images so as Coram in illis before and in them this opinion is conciliated to Christ But if the image be God only representatively and by way of signification then is it not God of it self and really Quod est tale tantum significativé non est tale per se realiter as a painted man is not of it self and really a man the word Iesus as written with base ink is not infinite Iesus the mighty God the Prince of Peace really but only in meer signification therefore to give Gods honour and externall Religious bowing which essentially doth note the highest excellency of God to them is Idolatry It is a vain thing to say The Ambassadour is not really the King yet the reall honour due to the King is done to him I Answer where the King declareth that it is his will that his Ambassadour be really honoured as himself this is not the giving of the Kings glory to another against his will But here expresly contrary to that Thou shalt not bow down to them expounded especially of similitudes Deut. 4. 15. Ye saw no manner of similitude The glory of Religious bowing contrary to Gods will Who will not give his glory to another is given to images and to Bread 2. It redoundeth kindely to the King who is absent and to be obeyed in his absence that His Vicegerent and Deputy be honoured as himself and presupposeth an infirmity in the King that he cannot be in many places to receive immediately the honour due to him and therefore will have that due paid to himself mediately by the honoured person of a Deputy God infinite is in all places to receive immediately the pay of Religious knee-honour and it dishonoureth God to have
2. ver 27. to a stock Thou art my father and to a stone Thou hast brought me forth For condition maketh all if they speak by a figure for the Papists when they speak to the Crosse and call the Crosse their only hope the Crosse is not better born nor a stock it is but timber or dumbe wood Now how doth not the dumbe wood to which Prayers are made as if Christ himself were present partake of Prayers and Gods honour in an inferior and relative way For the wood standeth before him who prayeth to it as God by representation and as an actuall Vicegerent and tree-deputy of God and Christ it is no lesse worshipfull by mouth-worship by praying to it as to the passive object of Adoration as capable of knee-worship by bowing down to it and a distinction may save idolatry in the one as well as in the other And our Formalists bowing Religiously to bread do not Adore bread as our half Papists say and so may they pray to bread and not Adore bread for they are as well masters of Grammar to impose significations at their will upon words as they be Lords of gestures and Ceremonies to cause kneeling expresse Veneration to the images and to elements and not Divine Adoration Here two great Iesuites Suarez and Vasquez helpe the matter for Suarez saith There be some acts of worship as faith and prayer which precisely respect a reasonable and intelligent person therefore this prayer Haile crosse it is a figurative speech and a Metonymie continens pro re contenta and the speech is directed to him who was crucified and therefore a prayer saith this Idolater is considered ut petitio vel ut honor quidam either as a petition and so it is not directed but to God but as prayer is an honour expressed in such words and signes the image also is thought to be honoured by praying to it as the samplar to wit Christ is honoured soft words Answ 1. If praying and beleeving doe properly respect a reasonable creature so doth positive honouring which is esteemed by the law of nature praemium virtutis a reward of vertue now vertue morall to be a foundation of honour is as vainly given to a tree or a stocke as faith and prayer but to speak to any in prayer and make our requests known to them may be thought proper onely to a reasonable person who onely can understand our prayer and in reason answer our necessities which a stock cannot doe but secondly I answer a stock is by Analogie and as it is God representatively as capable of reason to answer and helpe us and pitty us in respect it can notably well represent the Majestie of God who can answer helpe and pitty as our Idolaters teach as it is capable of knee-worship and that honour which is given to God though in an higher degree for the formall reason why Images and elements are capable of knee-glory due to him who sweareth that all knees shall how to him is because they represent God and not because of themselves they have any divinity or Godhead in them Now the same formall reason holdeth here for the crosse stone tree or elements that are prayed unto in that religious state as they are the object of praying doe represent God therefore they are also capable of faith and prayer glory as of knee-worship or knee-glory 2. Faith hope and charity as Suarez saith in so farre as they are given to God for giving of honour to him as to the supream Lord they put on the nature of adoration and in that same place he defineth adoration to be the exhibition of honour due to any in the acknowlegement of excellency and submission and service due to him Now Suarez reprooveth Durandus and Pic. Mirandula because they denied that the Image was adored but would onely have honour given to God at the naked presence of the Image as a memorable signe but it is certaine as to trust in God and to pray to him is incommunicable to the creature so to adore any in acknowledgement of supreame excellencie is incommunicable to the creature therefore either the image is adored with the same knee-worship that is given to God and that improperly and by a figure as Durandus and Mirandula taught contrary to the mind of Suarez and idolatrous Iesuites and Fâ—rmalists or else prayers may be made to wood and stone as to God and that properly and without a figure as knee-worship is tendered to wood and stone by Iesuits doctrine propeâ—â—y and without a figure 3. Papists deny that sacrifices may be offered to Images yet they burne incense to images but that is not saith a Fransciscan Antonius Capellus a sacrifice for it is tendred to men to dead carions and to things that are blessed and requireth neither Altar nor Priest It is true they say so but burning incense to the brazen Serpent is condemned as Idolatry and Altar and Priest is not of the essence of a sacrifice but however as sacrificing is a recognition that we hold all we have of God and therefore we sacrifice creatures to him so any adoring of stocks is an acknowledgement that these stocks or stones are by way of representation that God of whom we hold all the creatures and doe not Papists for the honour of God make oblations to Ministers and burn incense to Saints and why may not prayers be offered to them also 4. It is a wild distinction where he faith that prayers as honour may be tendered to Images but not prayers as petitions whereas the very act of calling upon God in the day of trouble Psal 50. 15. is an honouring and glorifying God and praying to God is due to God as he is to be beleeved in and to be preached amongst men Rom. 10. 14. 15. And so is he worthy to be glorified as the subject of preaching then it is a vaine thing to difference betwixt petiâ—ioning to God and honouring God because in that I petition God in my necessities I submit to him as to God who can answer and heare prayers If therefore the Image and the wood be capable of the honour of praying it is also capable of the honour of petitioning so as we may as properly petition and supplicate the stocke as give to it the glory of prayers 5. If Formalists say in the third person the body Sacramentall of the Lord save thee they may upon the same ground say O thou Sacramentall body of the Lord save me for this is a prayer to God O that God would save his people no lesse then this O God save thy people the variation of persons in the Grammar maketh not the one to be a prayer and not the other Vasquez saith There is not alike reason why praises prayers and Sacrifices should be tendred to Idols knee-worship Adoration because from the affection of Adoring the samplar there is derived an externall note of submission to the
Image therefore it is not required to the essence of adoration that we acknowledge debt due to every thing adored for another it is sufficient a debt be acknowledged either to the Image or the samplar Answ The debt of love and the debt of honour are not alike I owe honour to superiours onely as superiours I owe love to superiours equals inferiours If I truly adore an Image I truly acknowledge excellency in the Image I truly yeeld to it a worthier place then I deserve to have my selfe saith de Lugo Ergo by the fifth Commandement according to the debt of justice I owe feare honour and reverence to it else I adore it by a figure which the Iesuite doth deny I am not afraid that they say Damascen a superstitious Monke alloweth Images to be adored So doeth that pretended seventh Synod or u the second Nicene Synod and Stephanus and Adrianus as we may read in Juo Nicephorus speaketh many fables for Images he sheweth us that Luke the Evangelist should have painted the Images of Christ and the Virgin Mary And that holy Silvester had the Images of Peter and Paul and shewed them to the Emperour Constantine and Canisius a fabulous man saith there appeared to Silvester at the dedication feast of Saint Salvators church the picture of Christ in the Wall but the originall of Images seemeth to be the vanity of man saith the Wiseman 2. The keeping of the dead in memory saith Cyprian ad defunctorum vultus per imaginem detinendos expressa sunt simulachra inde posteris facta sunt sacra quae primitus assumpta fuerunt solatia in aliis codicibus ad solatia 3. The blinde heathen wanting the light of Scripture began to worship Images Eusebius saith it began first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Heathenish custome it came that Peter and Pauls Images were first made Men did it saith Augustine ut Paganorum concilient benevolentiam to conciliate the favour of Pagans it may bee seene out of Gregorius Magnus saith Voetius that the worshiping of Images crept in but the sixt age In the first three hundred yeeres Images were not admitted saith our Country-man Patrick Sympson into the place of worship in the fourth fifth and sixt Centurie they were admitted into temples but for the most part without opinion of adoration In the second Nicene Councell an obscure age saith Petrus Molinaeus when the scriptures were taken away it is ordained that Images should be adored but not the Images of the Father Quoniamquis sit non novimus deique natura spectanda proponi non potest ac pingi But onely the Image of the Son This Councell was Anno 787. as saith Bellarmine But this wicked Fathers argument proves also that the Image of God the Father may be painted while they prove worshipping of Images because the Psalmist saith The Lord arose as a mighty man after Wine But Genebrard saith this Councell of Nice was controuled by a Councell in the West Barronius mentioneth two Epistles written by Gregorious 2. a defender of Images wherein he saith the Sonne may be painted not the Father This Councell was approved by Constantine Ireneus and a Greeke copie of the Synod sent to Adrian the Pope But 1. this wicked Synod did not maintaine adoration of Images such as Suarez Bellarmine Vasquez Periâ—rius c. now hold but onely veneration 2. Images were placed in the Churches saith Paul Diaconus multis contra dicentibus many speaking against iâ— And Bergomens saith the Emperour Constantine himselfe not long after did abrogate the Acts of this Synod and the Synod of Franckford condemned this Synod See Aventinus Hincmarus saith it is true they of Franckford allowed Images to be in Churches but not to be adored Vrspergensis saith that this synod did write a book against the second Councell of Nice called otherwise the seventh generall Councell A booke came out in France and after in Germany under the name of Charles the Great condemning by strong reasons the adoration of Images and answereth all the arguments of the Nicene Fathers on the contrary Tannerus the Iesuite saith this was a forged Booke But against famous and learned Authors saying the contrary and so Hincmarius and Ectius make mention of this book and Pope Adrianus as Hospinianus doth well observe doth approve of this Synod of Francford by his Letters written to the Emperour of Constantinople and the Patriarch Tharasius The first five hundred years saith Calvin images were not worshipped Cajâ—s Caligula a proud Tyrant commanded the Iews to set up his image in the Temple the Iews answered they should rather die then pollute the Temple of God with images as â—aith Iosephus and Eusebius and this fell out while the Apostles lived Ann. 108. Plunius 2. writeth to Trajanus under the third Persecution That Christians were men of good conversation and detested vices worshipped Christ and would not worship Images as that Letter beareth and Eusebius reporteth Adrian had a purpose as saith Bucol to build a Church for the honour of Christ void of Images See Symson that ancient Writer Justine Martyr in this Age Omnes imagines ad cultum proposit as simpliciter damnant Christiani Tertullian a most ancient writer who lived under Severus in time of the fifth Persecution as the Magdeburgenses testifie saith Nos adoramus oculis ad caelum sublatis non adimagines seu picturas and indignum ut imago Dei vivi imagini idoli mortu fiat similis saith he also and not only thinketh it unlawfull to represent God by an Image but also saith that Craftsmen who professe themselves Christians ought noâ— to make Images of God An ancient Writer Clemens Alexandrinus Non est nobis imago sensibilis de materiâ sensibili nisi quae precipitur intelligentiâ Deus enim qui solus est verè Deas intelligentiâ precipitur non sensu We have no sensible Image of sensible matter because God is taken up by the understanding not by the sense and Nihil in rebus genitis potest referre Dei imaginem This ancient Writer flourished saith Catolog Testium veritat Anno 150. or as Hospinian saith Ann 200. and Ireneus the disciple of Polycarpus an hearer of John the Apostle maketh it the Heresie of the Gnosticks that they held that Pilate made the Image of Iesus Et quod imagines baberent Christi Apostolorum atque Philosophorum easque coronarent ac colendas propoâ—erent Cyprian saith Idols or Images be not only against the Law of God but against the nature of man Origen said The Images of Christians are Christians indeed with Gods Image and Nos veno ideo non honor amus simulachrá quia quantuÌ„ possumus cavemnus ne inâ—idamus in eam crudelitatem ut et
aliquid diceretur quasi supervacua ab omnibus abdica tu est and the same saith Eginradus Geoâ— Cassander But the very Arguments in the Nicene Councell are set down and dissolved in the Frankford Councell as our own Master Simson observeth As the Nicene Councell reasoneth from the Cherubims and the brazen Serpent Frankfoord Answereth These were made at Gods Commandment images not so 2. Yea say they and with them Lorinus The Cherubims and brazen Serpent were not made to be Worshipped see these and many other Arguments set down and Answered by the Councell of Frankfoord As also saith the Learned Author of Catol Test Verit. The Arguments used by this Councell proveth that no Adoration is due to Images as may be hence collected As also out of the book of Charles against the dreames of Tarasius whose entry to the Priesthood was unlawfull and was a grosse Idolater and against the Idolater Pope Adrian Because 1. There is no holinesse in images either as they are figures or colours or as they are Consecrated 2. Because to Adore is to glorifie but only God is to be glorified 3. God Commandedus not to love images but men and sent his son in the flesh for men and not for images and if they be not to be believed on neither are they to be Adored 4. It cannot be proved that the honour of the image is the honour of the Samplar Christ said not What ye do to images ye do to me nor he that receiveth images receiveth me This Argument proveth that Veneration is not due to the Images as to books of the Trinity because that the Veneration of the Image is an honouring of God there must be an union betwixt the Images and God or Christ betwixt the Tree and Christ 1. There is no union lawfull that can be a Warrant of honouring any thing but an union Warranted of God betwixt Crossing in the Air and Dedication to Christs Service betwixt Surplice and Pastorall Sanctity There is no union nor is there a personall union betwixt Christ and the Image Nor 2. an union of parts as betwixt the shoulders and the head Nor 3. is there a Divine relative union as betwixt the mean or the end the Servant or the Lord for as John White saith well and the Scripture proveth all union betwixt God and the meanes of Worship which are to be reverenced as meanes of Worship in relation to God is by divine institution now certainly if by divine ordination there had been an union betwixt the Image and God then had it been lawfull to lay the Image in the heart to say How love I thy Image the painted pictures and wooden portracts of Christ the wood of the Crosse are my delight I hope in the wood I have taken images for my heritage they are sweeter to me nor the honey or the honey combe hovv pleasant are the wooden feet of these dead and senslesse Ambassadors of Christ who bring to my soul news of God or of my Redeemer Iesus Ambrose Gregorius Augustine Chrysostom saith The honour of the servant redoundeth to the Master when he is a servant by appointment of the Master and he that heareth faithfull Pastors heareth Christ who sent them And Athanasius and Basill to prove the honouring and adoring of Christ the substantiall Image of God to be the honouring of God the Father say The hearing of the Image or of the servant of the King is the hearing of the King But the Image is formally made an Image of God and the saints by mens imagination not by Gods word or his ordination Their own Peresius saith If the imagination were carried upon the image or samplar with one motion yet it cannot be concluded that the same is to be done in Adoration And we are not to worship God by our fantasies saith Augustine nor by our carnall thoughts Suarez Bellarmine Vasquez Gretserus buildeth all their Adoration of images upon the saying of Aristotle De memor remiscen cap. 2. Hence the Fathers of Trent dreaming Damascene doting Nicephorus if we believe Suarez make this a principle of their Bible of Idoll worship That God and the Image are one but we see not how they be one nor can we say that God is present in the Image as in a place for if he be present in the Image In loco ut sic as in such a place then he is there as in a consecrated place and by promise and so they must give us the word of God for Gods presence in Images but if God be present in Images as In loco simpliciter non ut in loco ut sic As he is in all places then is he not present in images as in images but as in all creatures and then let us say Amen to Vasquez who saith all things which have a being A Mouse and Frog are to be adored as having resemblance with God the first being And he saith this is the opinion of Cajetanus and citeth Leontius the dreamer who was at the Councell of Nice the seventh false Synod who saith all Creatures visible and invisible are to be adored And the Popes Professor Joannes de Lugo proveth by four great reasons that all creatures should be adored 1. Because all creatures are the effects and as it were the hand writing of God 2. Because we use to kisse and adore materiall places and the stone or field where an Angel or Saint hath been for the touching and propinquity of the place and that holy thing but Gods omnipresence sanctifieth all creatures Be doing then Masters kisse and adore the sanctified Devil and Hell fire but take heed you scald not your lips 3. We kisse and worship a gift of a Prince but all creatures even the most abject and contemptible are the gifts of God the Creator 4. Man in a speciall manner is the living image of God But true it is God is to be praised for all his creatures but externall Adoration before them and laying a part of Gods glory upon them for that is forbidden by your own for Leo the first saith the contrary and Salmeron saith The body of Moses was hidden of old for fear of Idolatry and the use of Images and pictures were by God forbidden to the Iews in the second command saith f Alexander Alens Albertus Bonaventura Martinus de Ajala Abulensis who I am sure have with them in this Albertus and Bonaventura that the Images of God because say they he is an invisible Spirit are forbidden by the Law of nature But I return to the Synod of Franckeford 5. Because images are void of senses and reason 6. It cannot be proved by the example of the Apostles Ergo say I Images are neither to be teaching books nor adored creatures 7. The ancient Fathers were ignorant of
civill use in our ordinarie dwelling to wit to fence our bodies in religious in naturall in civill actions from injuries of heaven clouds and sin The adjuncts of the Church as Crucifixes Images Altars Ravels Masse-clothes and the like are properly Monuments and instruments of Idolatrie because these are not necessary as is the materiall house nor have they any common and physicall influence in the worship as the Temple hath yea all the necessitie or influence that they have in the worship is only religious and humane flowing from the will of men without either necessitie from our naturall Constitution of body or any word of Scripture and therefore they are to be removed upon this ground because they are unnecessarie snares to Idolatrie Object This particular Temple or house builded for Saint Peter S. Paul S. Cutbert is not necessarie for the worship of God because other houses of as convenient use and necessitie may be had for the worship of God and this particular house ought to be demolished as Jehu 2 King 10. 27. destroyed the house of Baal and made it a draught-house as the law saith expresly Deut. 7. 25. The graven Images of their Gods shall yee burne with fire thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them nor take it unto thee lest thou be snared therein for it is an abomination unto the Lord thy God v. 26. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination unto thy house lest thou be a cursed thing like it but thou shalt utterly detest it and thou shalt utterly abhorre it for it is a cursed thing Or at least these Churches may be imployed for some other use then for the worship of God where they may bee snares Ans 1. We are carefully to distinguish betweene a law of Nature or a perpetuall binding Morall law which standeth for an eternall rule to us except the Law-giver himselfe by a supervenâ—ent positive law which serveth but for a time doe loose us from an obligation thereunto and a positive temporarie law God saith in an exoresse law of nature that obligeth us perpetually The sunne shall not be put to death for the sins of the father no Magistrate on earth can lawfully take away the life of the son for the sin of the father for this eternally obligeth Yet Saul was to destroy the sucking children of the Amalekites for the sinnes of their fathers but he had a positive temporarie command of God to warrant his fact 1 Sam. 15. 2. 3. none can inferre that we are from this law which was a particular exception from a Catholick perpetually obliging morall law that Magistrates are now to take away the lives of the sucking infants of Papists So this is perpetuall and morall and warranteth us for ever to use all the creatures of God for our use 1. Tim. 4. 4. Gen. 1. 27. 28. then we may lawfully use Gold Silver Houses all creatures for meats except some particular positive law or some providentiall emergent necessitie forbid us as the Ceremoniall lawes of the Jewes forbidding the eating of swines flesh and some other meats were no other thing but Divine positive exceptions from the law of nature and creation in the which God had created swines flesh and all these other forbidden meats for the use of Man and so by the same reason God hath ordained Church and houses to fence off us the injuries of Sunne and Aire in all our actions civill and religious except that by a peculiar Precept he forbid the use of the house of Baal to the Jewes to be a typicall teaching to us of Gods hating of Idols and Idolatrie but not of our demolishing and making uselesse all houses builded to the honour of Idols and Saints under the New Testament except wee had the like Commandement that the Jewes had These who oppose us in this can no more inhibite us by any law of God of the â—se of a creature granted to us by the law of the creation then they can interdyte us of the use of another creature nor are we more warranted to demolish Temples and materiall houses which have only a physicall and common use alike in all our actions Naturall civill and Ecclesiasticall or Religious then of eating swines flesh or of other meats forbidden in the Ceremâ—nial Law and to answer to the Argument this or that materiall house builded to the honour of Paul and Peter is every way as necessarie in the worship of God as a Temple builded of purpose for the worship of God though another house may conduce as much for the worshipping of God as this yea it hath the same very necessarie Use and Physicall conveniencie for the serving of God that any other house hath which was never builded for the honour of a Saint which I prove 1. because no creature of God that is usefull to us by the law of creation is capable of any morall contagion to makeâ— it unlawfull to us but from the meeâ— will of God as the Gold and Silver and Idol houses of the false Gods and Images of Canaan are inâ—â—â—secally and by the Law of creation as pure and morally clean as the Gold and Silver and Synagogues of the Jewes and had their Physicall and civill necessitie the one as the other had But from whence was it that the Jewes might make use of their owne Silver and Gold and houses and not of the houses or silver and gold of the heathen Gods and Idols Certainly this was from Gods meer positive will and command fobidding the Gold and houses of the Idols of Cannan and not forbidding the other the Adversaries can give no other reason therefore they must give us the same positive Commandement for not making use of the Gold and Silver and Temples of the Popish Idols and Saints under the New Testament that the Iewes had for refusing the Gold and Silver and demolishing the Temples of the heathenish Idols of Canaan And if they say Thâ—â— the very command that warranted the Iewes to abstaine from the use of the heatheâ—s Gold and Idol-temples doth warrant us to abstainâ— from the use of the Gold and Idol-temples of Papists It is answered we have no warrant from the Word but it shall warrant us as well to abstaine from swines flesh if it be replyed every creature of God eatable iâ— Good and may be received lawfully 1 Tim 4 6 Rom 14 14 I answer so all gold all silver all houses serving to â—â—ncâ— off the injuries of heaven and aire are good and fit for Mans use and now blessed in Christ under the New Testament except you say that it is not lawfull to make use of the Gold and Silver of a Papisâ—â— Image noâ— of crees of the Papists fields that bâ—aretâ—â—â— fruit for these also were discharged to the Iewes Deut 20. v. 19 20 and the reason why they â—ight not cut downe the tâ—â—â—â— thâ—â— beâ—â—â—â— fruit because these trees were mans life Deuter. 20 19 whereas tâ—â—â—â—