These words from the Scripture Adimantus propounded Yet remember not only there but also here concerning the zeal of God he so blames the Scriptures that he adds that which is commanded by our Lord God in those books concerning the not worshipping of images as if for nothing else he reprehends that zeal of God but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images Therefore he would seem to favour images which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their miserable and mad sect meaning the sect of the Manichees who to comply with the Pagans did retain the worship of images And now the three testimonies are verified and though this was an Unnecessary trouble to me and I fear it may be so to my Reader yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this that in S. Austins sense that which Romanists do now the Manichees did then only these did it to comply with the Heathens and those out of direct and meer superstition But to clear this point in S. Austins doctrine the Reader may please to read his 19. book against Faustus the Manichee cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that which the Jews did in this viz. that which was written Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is one God thou shalt not make an idol to thee and such like things and in the latter place he affirms that the second Commandment is moral viz. that all of the Decalogue are so but only the fourth I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul he says Sic nempe errare meruerunt qui Christum Apostolos ejus non in sanctis condicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question and does great effort to the Roman practices E. W. pag. 57. E. W. takes notice of it and his best answer to it is that it hath often been answered already He says true it hath been answered both often and many ways The Council was in the year 305. of 19. Bishops who in the 36. Canon decreed this placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere It hath pleas'd us that pictures ought not to be in Churches That 's the decree The reason they give is ne quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur lest that which is worshipped be painted on the walls So that there are two propositions 1. Pictures ought not to be in Churches 2. That which is worshipped ought not to be painted upon walls Pag. 57. E. W. hath a very learned Note upon this Canon Mark first the Council supposeth worship and adoration due to pictures ne quod colitur adoratur By which mark E. W. confesses that pictures are the object of his adoration and that the Council took no care and made no provision for the honour of God who is and ought to be worshipp'd and ador'd in Churches illi soli servies but only were good husbands for the pictures for fear 1. they should be spoiled by the moisture of the walls or 2. defaced by the Heathen the first of these is Bellarmines the latter is Perrons answer But too childish to need a severer consideration But how easie had it been for them to have commanded that all their pictures should have been in frames upon boards or cloth as it is in many Churches in Rome and other places 2. Why should the Bishops forbid pictures to be in Churches for fear of spoiling one kind of them they might have permitted others though not these 3. Why should any man be so vain as to think that in that age in which the Christians were in perpetual disputes against the Heathens for worshipping pictures and images they should be so curious to preserve their pictures and reserve them for adoration 4. But then to make pictures to be the subject of that caution ne quod colitur adoratur and not to suppose God and his Christ to be the subject of it is so unlike the religion of Christians the piety of those ages the Oeconomy of the Church and the analogy of the Commandment that it betrays a refractory and heretical spirit in him that shall so perversely invent an Unreasonable Commentary rather than yield to so pregnant and easie testimony But some are wiser and consider that the Council takes not care that pictures be not spoil'd but that they be not in the Churches and that what is adorable be not there painted and not be not there spoiled The not painting them is the utmost of their design not the preserving them for we see vast numbers of them every where painted on walls and preserved well enough and easily repair'd upon decay therefore this is too childish to blot them out for fear they be spoiled and not to bring them into Churches for fear they be taken out Agobardus Bishop of Lions above 800. years since cited this Canon in a book of his which he wrote de picturis imaginibus which was published by Papirius Massonus and thus illustrates it Recte saith he nimirum ob hujusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis patribus definitum est picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere Nec quod eolitur adoratur in parietibus deping atur Where first he expresly affirms these Fathers in this Canon to have intended only rooting up this superstition not the ridiculous preserving the pictures So it was Understood then But then 2. Agobardus reads it Nec not Ne quod colitur which reading makes the latter part of the Canon to be part of the sanction and no reason of the former decree pictures must not be made in Churches neither ought that to be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored This was the doctrine and sentiment of the wise and good men above 800. years since By which also the Unreasonable supposition of Baronius that the Canon is not genuine is plainly confuted this Canon not being only in all copies of that Council but own'd for such by Agobardus so many ages before Baronius and so many ages after the Council And he is yet farther reproved by Cardinal Perron who tells a story that in Granada in memory of this Council they use frames for pictures and paint none upon the wall at this day It seems they in Granada are taught to understand that Canon according unto the sense of the Patrons of images and to mistake the plain meaning of the Council For the Council did not forbid only to paint upon the walls for that according to the common reading is but accidental to the decree but the Council commanded that no picture should be in Churches Now-then let this Canon be confronted with the Council
sufficient testimony and confession of enemies and of all men that were fit to bear witness that these Books were written by such men who by miracle were prov'd to be Divini homines Men endued with God's Spirit and trusted with his Message and when it was thus far proved by God it became the immediate sole Ministery of intire Salvation and the whole Repository of the Divine will and when things were come thus far if it inquir'd whether the Scriptures were a sufficient institution to salvation we need no other we can have no better testimony than it self concerning it self And to this purpose I have already brought from it sufficient affirmation of the point in Question in the preceding answer to I. S. his first Way in his fourth Appendix 3. It is possible that the Scriptures should contain in them all things necessary to salvation God could cause such a Book to be written And he did so to the Jews he caused his whole Law to be written he engraved in Stones he commanded the authentick Copy to be kept in the Ark and this was the great security of the conveying it and Tradition was not relied upon it was not trusted with any law of Faith or Manners Now since this was once done and therefore is always possible to be done why it should not be done now there is no pretence of reason but very much for it For 1. Why should the Book of S. Matthew be called the Gospel of Jesus Christ and this is also the very Title of S. Mark 's Book and S. Luke affirms the design of his Book is to declare the certainty of the things then believed and in which his Friend was instucted which we cannot but suppose to be the whole Doctrine of salvation 2. What end could there be in writing these Books but to preserve the memory of Christ's History and Doctrine 3. Especially if we consider that many things which were not absolutely necessary to salvation were set down and therefore to omit any thing that is necessary must needs be an Unreasonable and Unprofitable way of writing 4. There yet never was any Catholick Father that did affirm in terms or in full and equivalent sense that the Scriptures are defective in the recording any thing necessary to salvation but Unanimously they taught the contrary as I shall shew by and by 5. The enemies of Christian Religion oppos'd themselves against the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures and suppos'd by that means to conclude against Christianity and they knew no other repository of it and estimated no other 6. The persecutors of Christianity intending to destroy Christianity hop'd to prevail by causing the Bibles to be burnt which had been a foolish and unlikely design if that had not been the Ark that kept the Records of the whole Christian Law 7. That the revealed will of God the Law of Christ was not written in his life-time but preached only by word of mouth is plain and reasonable because all was not finished and the salvation of man was not perfected till the Resurrection Ascension and Descent of the Holy Ghost nor was it done presently But then it is to be observed that there was a Spirit of infallible Record put into the Apostles sufficient for it's publication and continuance But before the death of the Apostles that is before this Spirit of infallibility was to depart all was written that was intended because no thing else could infallibly convey the Doctrine Now this being the case of every Doctrine as much as of any and the case of the whole rather than of any part of it it must follow that it was highly agreeable to the Divine wisdom and the very end of this Oeconomy that all should be written and for no other reason could the Evangelists and Apostles write so many Books 4. But of the sufficiency of Scripture we may be convinc'd by the very nature of the thing For the Sermons of Salvation being preach'd to all to the learned and unlearned it must be a common Concern and therefore fitted to all capacities and consequently made easie for easie learners Now this design is plainly signified to us in Scripture by the abbreviatures the Symbols and Catalogues of Credenda which are short and plain and easie and to which salvation is promis'd Now if he that believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God 1 John 5. 10. hath eternal life John 17. 3. that is so far as the value and acceptability of believing does extend this Faith shall prevail unto salvation it follows that this being the affirmation of Scripture and declar'd to be a competent foundation of Faith the Scripture that contains much more even the whole Oeconomy of salvation by Jesus Christ cannot want any necessary thing when the absolute necessities are so narrow Christ the Son of God is the great adaequate object of saving Faith John 17. 3. to know God and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ this is eternal life Now this is the great design of the Gospel and is reveal'd largely in the Scriptures so that there is no adaequate object of Faith but what is there 2. As to the Attributes of God and of Christ that is all that is known of them and to be known is set down in Scripture That God is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him that he is the fountain of wisdom justice holiness power that his providence is over all and mercy unto all And concerning Christ all the attributes and qualifications by which he is capable and fitted to do the work of redemption for us and to become our Lord and the great King of Heaven and Earth able to destroy all his Enemies eternally and to reward his servants with a glorious and indefectible Kingdom all this is declar'd in Scripture So that concerning the full object of Faith manifested in the whole design of the Gospel the Scriptures are full and whatever is to be believed of the attributes belonging to this prime and full object all that also is in Scripture fully declar'd And all the acts of Faith the antecedents the formal and the consequent acts of faith are there expresly commanded viz. to know God to believe in his name and word to believe in his Son and to obey his Son by the consequent acts of Faith all this is set down in Scripture in which not only we are commanded to keep the Commandments but we are told which they are There we are taught to honour and fear to love and obey God and his Holy Son to fear and reverence him to adore and invocate him to crave his aid and to give him thanks not to trust in or call upon any thing that hath no Divine Empire over us or Divine Excellence in it self It is so particular in recounting all the parts of Duty that it descends specially to enumerate the duties of Kings and subjects Bishops and people Parents and children Masters and servants to
Covenant in which they can receive the gift of eternal life which I take to be the proper reasons why the Church baptizes Infants all these are wholly deriv'd to us from Scripture-grounds But then as to that Reason upon which the Church of Rome baptizes Infants even because it is necessary and because without it children shall not see God it is certain there is no Universal or prime Tradition for that S. Austin was the hard Father of that doctrine And if we take the whole doctrine and practice together without distinction that it was the custom so to do in some Churches and at sometimes is without all question but that there is a tradition from the Apostles so to do relies but upon two witnesses Origen and S. Austin and the latter having receiv'd it from the former it relies wholly upon his single testimony which is but a pitiful argument to prove a tradition Apostolical * Secundum Ecelesiae observantiam a◠in Levit. c. 12. 13. Hom. 8. quem locum citat Perron haec autem verba non aiunt ab Apostolis hanc manasse observantiam Lib. de baptis cap. 18. He is the first that spoke it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been a tradition Apostolical And that it was not so is but too certain if there be any truth in the words of Ludovicus Vives In S. August de civit Dei l. 1. c. 27. saying that anciently none were baptiz'd but persons of ripe age which words I suppose are to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for the most part But although the tradition be uncertain weak little and contingent yet the Church of God when ever she did it and she might do it at any time did do it upon Scripture-grounds And it was but weakly said by Cardinal Perron Replique à la response du Roy Jaques p. 701. that There is no place of Scripture by which we can evidently and necessarily convince the Anabaptists For 1. If that were true yet it is more certain that by Tradition they will never be perswaded not only because there is no sufficient and full tradition but because they reject the Topick 2. Although the Anabaptists endeavour to elude the arguments of Scripture yet it follows not that Scripture is not clear and certain in the Article for it is an easie thing to say something to every thing but if that be enough against the argument then no Heretick can be convinc'd by Scripture and there is in Scripure no pregnant testimony for any point of faith for in all questions all Hereticks prattle something And therefore it is not a wise procedure to say The adversaries do answer the testimonies of Scripture and by Scripture cannot be convinc'd and therefore chuse some other way of probation For when that is done will they be convinc'd and cannot the Cardinal satisfie himself by Scripture though the Heretick will not confess himself confuted The Papists say They answer the Protestants Arguments from Scripture but though they say so to eternal ages yet in the world nothing is plainer than that they only say so and that for all that confident and enforc'd saying the Scriptures are still apparently against them 3. If the Anabaptists speak probably and reasonably in their answers then it will rather follow that the point is not necessary than that it must be prov'd necessary by some other Topick 4. All people that believe Baptism of Infants necessary think that they sufficiently prove it from Scripture and Bellarmine though he also urges this point as an argument for Traditions yet upon wiser thoughts he proves it and not Unsuccessfully by three arguments from Scripture 3. Like to this is the pretence of the validity of the Baptism of Hereticks It is Cardinal Perron's own instance and the first of the four he alledges for the necessity of Tradition This he holds for a doctrine Orthodox and Apostolick and yet says he there is no word of it in Scripture Concerning this I think the issue will be short If there be nothing of it in Scripture it is certain there was no Apostolical tradition for it For S. Cyprian and all his Collegues were of an opinion contrary to that of the Roman Church in this Article Epist. ad Pompeium and when they oppos'd against S. Cyprian a Tradition he knew of no such thing and bad them prove their tradition from Scripture 2. S. Austin who was something warm in this point yet confesses the Apostles commanded nothing in it but then he does almost begus to believe it came from them Consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est si cut sunt multa quae universa tenet Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostolis benè praecepta traduntur quanquam scripta non reperiantur which in plain meaning is this We find a Custome in the Church and we know not whence it comes and it is so in this as in many other things and therefore let us think the best and believe it came by tradition from the Apostles But it seems himself was not sure that so little a foundation could carry so big a weight he therefore plainly hath recourse to Scripture in this Question Contra Donatist l. 4. c. 14. c. 17. 24. Whether is more pernitious not to be baptiz'd or to be re-baptiz'd is hard to judge nevertheless having recourse to the standard of our Lord where the monuments of this are not estimated by humane sense but by Divine authority I find concerning each of them the Sentence of our Lord to wit in the Scriptures But 3. The Question it self is not a thing necessary for S. Cyprian and the Bishops of Cappadocia and Galatia and almost two parts of the known world whose sentiment was differing from others yet liv'd and dyed in the Communion of those Churches who believ'd the contrary doctrin and so it might have been still if things were estimated but according to their intrinsick value Lib. 1. de Baptist cap. 18. And since as S. Austin says they might safely differ in judgment before the determination of this Question in a Council it follows evidently that there was no clear tradition against them or if there were that was not esteem'd a good Catholick or convincing argument For as it is not imaginable so great and wise a part of the Catholick Church should be ignorant of any famous Apostolical tradition especially when they were call'd upon to attend to it and were urg'd and press'd by it so it is also very certain there was none such in S. Cyprian's time because the sixth general Council approv'd of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage Can. 2. because in praedictorum praesulum locis solum secundùm traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est 4. It had been best if the Question had never been mov'd and
praying baptizing communicating we have precept upon precept and line upon line we have in Scripture three Epistles written to two Bishops in which the Episcopal Office is abundantly describ'd and excellent Canons established and the parts of their duty enumerated and yet no care taken about the Office of Father Confessor Indeed we find a pious exhortation to all spiritual persons that If any man be overtaken in a fault they should restore such a one in the spirit of meekness restore him that is to the publick peace and communion of the Church from which by his delinquency he fell and restore him also by the word of his proper Ministery to the favour of God by exhortations to him by reproving of him by praying for him and besides this we have some little limits more which the Church of Rome if they please may make good use of in this Question 1 Tim. 5. 20. such as are That they who sin should be rebuk'd before all men that others also may fear which indeed is a good warranty for publick Discipline but very little for private Confession And Saint Paul charges Timothy that he should should lay hands suddenly on no man that he be not partaker of other mens sins which is a good caution against the Roman way of absolving them that confess as soon as they have confess'd before they have made their Satisfactions The same Apostle speaks also of some that creep into houses and lead captive silly women I should have thought he had intended it against such as then abus'd Auricular Confession it being so like what they do now but that S. Paul knew nothing of these lately-introduced practices and lastly he commands every one that is to receive the Holy Communion to examine himself and so let him eat he forgot it seems to enjoyn them to go to confession to be examin'd which certainly he could never have done more opportunely than here and if it had been necessary he could never have omitted it more undecently But it seems the first Christians were admitted upon other terms by the Apostles than they are at this day by the Roman Clergy And indeed it were infinitely strange that since in the Old Testament remission of sins was given to every one that confessed to God turn'd from his evil way * Isai. 1. 16. 17. 18. that * Ezek. 18. 22. in the New Testament * Ezek. 33. 15. 16. to which liberty is a special priviledge * Isai. 30. 15. secundum and the imposed yoke of Christ infinitely more easie than the burden of the Law * LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Repentance is the very formality of the Gospel-Covenant and yet that pardon of our sins shall not be given to us Christians on so easie terms as it was to the Jews but an intolerable new burden shall be made a new condition of obtaining pardon And this will appear yet the more strange when we consider that all the Sermons of the Prophets concerning Repentance were not derivations from Moses's Law but Homilies Evangelical and went before to prepare the way of the Lord and John Baptist was the last of them and that in this matter the Sermons of the Prophets were but the Gospel antedated and in this affair there was no change but to the better and to a clearer manifestation of the Divine mercy and the sweet yoke of Christ The Disciples of Christ preach'd the same doctrine of Repentance that the Baptist did and the Baptist the same that the Prophets did and there was no difference Christ was the same in all and he that commanded his Disciples to fast to God alone in private intended that all the parts of Repentance transacted between God and our consciences should be as sufficient as that one of Fasting and that other of Prayer and it is said so in all for if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness It it is God alone that can cleanse our hearts and he that cleanses us he alone does forgive us and this is upon our confession to him his justice and faithfulness is at stake for it and therefore it supposes a promise which we often find upon our confessions made to God but it was never promised upon confession made to the Priest But now in the next place if we consider Whether this thing be reasonable to impose such a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples which upon their Fathers was not put in the Old Testament nor ever commanded in the New we shall find that although many good things might be consequent to the religious and free and prudent use of Confession yet by changing into a Doctrine of God that which at most is but a Commandment of man it will not by all the contingent good make recompence for the intolerable evils it introduces And here first I consider that many times things seem profitable to us and may minister to good ends but God judges them useless and dangerous for he judges not as we judge The worshipping of Angels and the abstaining from meats which some false Apostles introduc'd look'd well and pretended to humility and mortificatioh of the body but the Apostle approv'd them not and of the same mind was the succeeding ages of the Church who condemned the dry Diet and the ascetick Fasts of Montanus though they were pretended only for discipline but when they came to be impos'd they grew intolerable Certainly men liv'd better lives when by the discipline of the Church sinners were brought to publick stations and penance than now they do by all the advantages real or pretended from Auricular Confession and yet the Church thought fit to lay it aside and nothing is left but the shadow of it 2. This whole topick can only by a prudential consideration and can no way inferre a Divine institution for though it was as convenient before Christ as since might have had the same effects upon the publick or private good then as now yet God was not pleased to appoint it in almost forty ages and we say He hath not done it yet However let it be consider'd that there being some things which S. Paul says are not to be so much as nam'd amongst Christians it must needs look undecently that all men all women should come and make the Priests Ears a Common-shoar to empty all their filthiness and that which a modest man would blush to hear he must be us'd to and it is the greatest part of his imployment to attend to True it is that a Physician must see and handle the impurest Ulcers but it is because the Cure does not depend upon the Patient but upon the Physician who by general advertisement cannot cure the Patient unless he had an Universal medicine which the Priest hath the medicine of Repentance which can indifferently cure all sins whether the Priest know them or no.
the worship of images yet they were not Iconoclasts Indeed Claudius Taurinensis was but he could not put this story in for before his time it was in as appears in the book of Charles the great before quoted These things put together are more than sufficient to prove that this story was written by Epiphanius and the whole Epistle was translated by S. Hierome as himself testifies In Epist. 61. 101. ad Pammach But after all this if there was any foul play in this whole affair the cosenage lies on the other side for some or other have destroyed the Greek original of Epiphanius and only the Latin copies remain and in all of them of Epiphanius's works this story still remains But how the Greek came to be lost though it be uncertain yet we have great cause to suspect the Greeks to be the Authors of the loss And the cause of this suspicion is the command made by the Bishops in the seventh Council Syn. 7. Act. 8. Can. 9. that all writings against images should be brought in to the Bishop of C. P. there to be laid up with the books of other heretics It is most likely here it might go away But however the good providence of God hath kept this record to reprove the follies of the Roman Church in this particular The authority of S. Austin reprehending the worship of images De moribus Eccles. lib. 1. c. 34. was urg'd from several places of his writings cited in the Margent In his first book de moribus Ecclesiae Jam videbitis quid inter ostentationem sinceritatem postremo quid inter superstitionis Sirenas portum religionis intersit Nolite mihi colligere professores Nominis Christiani nec professionis suae vim aut scientes aut exhibentes Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsâ verâ religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti ut obliti sint quid promiserint Deo Novi multos esse sepulchrorum picturarum adoratores novi multos esse qui luxuriosissimè super mortuos vivant he hath these words which I have now set down in the Margent in which describing among other things the difference between superstition and true religion he presses it on to issue Tell not me of the professors of the Christian name Follow not the troops of the unskilful who in true religion it self either are superstitious or so given to lusts that they have forgotten what they have promis'd to God I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchers and pictures I know that there are many who live luxuriously over the graves of the dead That S. Austin reckons these that are worshippers of pictures among the superstitious and the vitious is plain and forbids us to follow such superstitious persons Sed illa quà m vana sint quà m noxia quà m sacrilega quemadmodum à magnâ parte vestrum atque adeò penè ab omnibus vâ—bis non observentur alio volumine oftendere institâ—i Nunc vos illud admaneo ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholicae maledicere definatis vituperando mores hominum quos ipsa condemnat quos quotidie tanquam malos filioâ— corrigere studeâ— But see what follows But how vain how hurtful how sacrilegious they are I have purpos'd to shew in another volume Then addressing himself to the Manichees who upon the occasion of these evil and superstitious practices of some Catholics did reproach the Catholic Church he says Now I admonish you that at length you will give over the reproaching the Catholic Church by reproaching the manners of these men viz. worshippers of pictures and sepulchers and livers riotously over the dead whom she her self condemns and whom as evil sons she endeavours to correct By these words now cited it appears plainly that S. Austin affirms that those few Christians who in his time did worship pictures were not only superstitious but condemned by the Church This the Letter writer denies S. Austin to have said but that he did say so we have his own words for witness Yea but 2. S. Austin did not speak of worshippers of pictures alone what then Neither did he of them alone say they were superstitious and their actions vain hurtful and sacrilegious But does it follow that therefore he does not say so at all of these because he says it of the others too But 3. neither doth he formally call them superstitions I know not what this offer of an answer means certain it is when S. Austin had complained that many Christians were superstitious his first instance is of them that worship pictures and graves But I perceive this Gentleman found himself pinch'd beyond remedy and like a man fastned by his thumbs at the whipping-post he wries his back and shrinks from the blow though he knows he cannot get loose In the Margent of the Dissuasive De fide symb c. 7. Contr. Adimant c. 13. there were two other testimonies of S. Austin pointed at but the * Pag. 27. Letter says that in these S. Austin hath not a word to any such purpose That is now to be tried The purpose for which they were brought is to reprove the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in the matter of images It was not intended that all these places should all speak or prove the same particular but that which was affirmed in the text being sufficiently verified by the first quotation in the Margent the other two are fully pertinent to the main inquiry and to condemnation of the Roman doctrine as the first was of the Roman practice The words are these Neither is it to be thought that God is circumscribed in a humane shape that they who think of him should fancy a right or a left side or that because the Father is said to sit it is to be supposed that he does it with bended knees lest we fall into that sacriledge for which the Apostle Execrates them that change the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man For for a Christian to place such an image to God in the Church is wickedness but much more wicked is it to place it in our heart So S. Austin Now this testimony had been more properly made use of in the next Section as more relating to the proper matter of it as being a direct condemnation of the picturing of God but here it serves without any sensible error and where ever it is it throws a stone at them and hits them But of this more in the sequel But the third testimony however it pleases A. L. to deny it does speak home to his part of the question Contr. Adimant c. 13. and condemns the Roman hypothesis the words are these See that ye forget not the testimony of your God which he wrote or that ye make shapes and images But it adds also saying Your God is a consuming fire and a zealous God