Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	ghost_n	holy_a	trinity_n	3,214	5	9.7060	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15422	Synopsis papismi, that is, A generall viewe of papistry wherein the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, together with an antithesis of the true Christian faith, and an antidotum or counterpoyson out of the Scriptures, against the whore of Babylons filthy cuppe of abominations: deuided into three bookes or centuries, that is, so many hundreds of popish heresies and errors. Collected by Andrew Willet Bachelor of Diuinity.	Willet, Andrew, 1562-1621.	1592 (1592)	STC 25696; ESTC S119956	618,512	654

and of the father and not the father of the sonne Ergo the sonne is God with and of his father Rhemist ibid. Ans. This place proueth that the sonne of God as he is the sonne is of God for to be the sonne of God the word the wisedome of God 1. Cor. 1.30 His image Heb. 1.3 doe belong vnto his person So then as he is the sonne the wisedome of God or the word so he is of God namely in respect of his person but as the sonne is God he is of himselfe neither taketh he his essence but person onely of his Father The Protestants THat we may fully know the state of this question we must first set downe certain propositions First we do worship one eternal omnipotent onely wise God one and the same in power essence eternitie but three in person the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost there is the same nature essence and deitie of them all though they be distinguished in person As there is one nature of the light the heate thereof and the shining brightnes Lucis splendoris caloris as Augustine putteth the example which three differ amongst themselues in propertie and quality yet haue one and the selfe same nature and substance God the father is as the light Iam. 1.17 God the Sonne is as the brightnes of his glory Heb. 1.3 God the holy Ghost is as the heate or fire Heb. 12.29 Thus these three are one in nature and essence but three in person 2. There is somewhat communicable to them all as the Godhead and diuine power and nature Somewhat incommunicable as the seueral proprieties of the persons for it is proper onely to the father to beget proper to the Sonne onely to be begotten proper onely to the holy Ghost to proceede from them both There is no essentiall difference in the Trinitie for there is one essence and diuine nature common to them all But there is both a real and rational difference The persons differ one from another really though not essentially But the persons differ onely rationally or in respect from the essence of the Godhead as the father and the sonne amongst men differ not essentially for they are both men But they are really verily and indeede distinguished for it is one thing to be the father another to be the sonne yet from their owne essence their persons onely differ in respect and relation not verily non re sed ratione for the father is a man the sonne also is a man but in one respect he is a father in an other he is man so likewise of the sonne yet one and the same is both father and man one and the same is both sonne and man so is it in the Trinitie Now to the poynt of the question which wee haue in hand The Sonne therefore in the blessed Trinitie is begotten of his fathers essence and hath the whole essence of his father not by propagation partition profluence but onely by communication The sonne is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sonne of himselfe because he is sonne of the father But he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is very God of himself The essence or Godhead of the Sonne is of himselfe not of the father for it is one and the selfesame essence which the father hath He is indeede Deus de Deo lumen de lumine God of God light of light But not as he is God is he of God but as he is the Sonne It is one thing for the person of the Sonne to be begotten of the essence of the Father which we graunt another thing for the essence of the Sonne to be begotten which we must not yeeld to So we conclude that Christ as he is the Sonne is of God the Father as he is God he is of himselfe Argum. 1. The essence of the Father is of himselfe not begotten of any but the essence and Deitie of the Sonne is the same and all one with his Fathers Ergo it is not begotten of any other Agayne he is not God whose essence is not of himselfe therefore if Christs essence be not of himselfe he should not be God Argum. 2. Our Sauiour himselfe sayth As the Father hath life in himselfe so hee hath giuen to the Sonne also to haue life in himselfe Iohn 5.26 The Sonne then hath life in himselfe Ergo hee is GOD of himselfe Augustine vpon these wordes writeth Non quasi mutuatur vitam nec quasi particeps vitae sed ipse vitam in se habet vt ipsa vita sibi sit ipse He did not as it were borrow life of his father neither is made partaker of life but he hath life in himself he is life vnto himselfe But lest any man should thus mistake the wordes of the text that because the Father gaue to the Sonne to haue life in himself therefore hee gaue him to be God for to haue life in himselfe is to bee God Augustine thus expoundeth them Dedit filio vitam habere in se breuiter dixerim genuit filium He gaue to his Sonne to haue life in himselfe in fewe wordes He begat his Sonne As if we should say the Father which hath life in himselfe that is is God gaue to his Sonne to haue life in himselfe that is begat God the Sonne he begat him not as he was God but as he was his Sonne yet because of the neere vniting and coniunction of the person with the Godhead and diuine power to haue life in himselfe which really cannot be distinguished but onely in respect as we haue shewed the Father is said also to giue vnto the Sonne to be God and to haue life in himselfe not directly or properly but obliquely and by a consequent because his Sonne whom he begat from all eternitie must also necessarily be God And that it cannot be the proper meaning that God the Father gaue to the Sonne power to haue life in himselfe it appeareth by the words themselues for as the Father hath life in himselfe euen so hath hee giuen to the Sonne but the Father hath life in himselfe without beginning from any other Ergo so hath the Sonne There should els be a contrarietie and repugnancie in the speech for if Christ receiued life from his father he could not haue it in himselfe It must therfore of necessity be vnderstood of the person in the Trinity not of the diuine essence And so we determine that it is true in the concrete in concreto if wee say Deus Pater genuit Deum Filium God the Father begat God the Sonne but not in abstracto Deitas Patris genuit Deitatem Filium that the Godhead of the Father begat the Godhead of the Sonne But in respect of his person onely as he is the Sonne the second person in Trinitie so is hee begotten and hath his beginning of God But in respect of his diuine nature as he is God hee is begotten of none but of himselfe as God the Father

his Priesthood in setting vp another sacrifice Ergo your spirit is not of God 3 The Catholike Church is so called because it embraceth the whole and onely doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Ephes. 2. vers 20. But the Romane Church receiueth many things contrary to scripture and addeth many things vnto it as it shall appeare throughout this whole discourse Ergo. 4 The Catholike Church hath the name because it is dispersed ouer the whole earth Acts 1. vers 8. But so was neuer the Romane faith which is now professed as we haue shewed before Quaest. 3. de Eccles. Not. 2. Ergo ex Amand. Polan THE SECOND PART THE CHVRCH OF Rome is not a true visible Church The Papists THeir arguments are as wee haue heard Quaest. 3. of the notes of the Church error 28 grounded vpon their succession miracles gift of prophesiyng answered sufficiently afore Not. 4.5.6 Wee neede not nor must not for breuities sake repeate the same things often Protestants WE denie vtterly that they are a true visible Church of Christ but an Antichristian Church and an assembly of heretickes and enemies to the Gospell of Iesus Christ. 1 That cannot bee a true Church where the word of God is not truely preached nor the Sacraments rightly administred according to Christs institution So are they not in the Popes Church For the word is not sincerely taught but they haue added many inuentions of their owne and doe preach contrarie Doctrines to the Scripture the Sacraments also they haue not kept for first they haue augmented the number they haue made fiue more of confirmation orders penance Matrimonie extreame vnction beside the Sacraments of Christ they haue corrupted In baptisme beside water they vse spittle salt oyle Chrisme contrarie to the institution and they lay such a necessitie vpon this Sacrament that al which die without it say they are damned In the Lordes Supper they haue turned the Sacrament to a sacrifice made an Idol of bread chaunged the Communion into priuate masses taken the cup from the lay people and many other abhominations are committed by them Ergo neither hauing the word nor Sacraments according to the institution they are no true Church 2 They which are enemies to the true Church and doe persecute the members thereof are no true visible Church they cannot be of that Church which they persecute as Bellarmine saith of Paul how could he bee of that Church which he with al his force oppressed de eccles lib. 3. cap. 7. But they persecute the Saints of God are most cruel towards them as their consciences beare them record Ergo. 3 The habitation of Antichrist cannot be the Church of Christ so is theirs the Pope himselfe is Antichrist for who else but hee sitteth in the temple being an enemie to Christ. 2. Thes. 2. Where haue you a citie in the world built vpon seauen hilles but Rome Apocalyps 17.9 But of this matter we shall of purpose intreate afterward Ergo. they are not a true visible Church THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING COVNCELS A Councel is nothing else but an assembly and gathering together of the people of God about the affaires and businesse of the Church and they are of two sortes either vniuersall in the name of the whole Church or particular which are either National when the learned of a whole Realme are called together or Prouincial when as the Churches of one Prouince doo assemble into one place to consult of Religion There may be two especiall occasions of Councels the one for resisting and rooting out of heresies as the Apostles and elders met together Act. 15. against those which would haue imposed the Iewish ceremonies vppon the beleeuing Gentiles So the Councell of Nice was celebrated the yeare of the Lorde 327. to confound the heresie of Arrius who denied Christ as he was God to be equall to his Father In the Councel of Constantinople Anno 383. or there aboute the heresie of Macedonius was condemned which denied the holy Ghost to bee God In the Ephesine Councel the first Nestorius heresie was ouerthrowne which affirmed Christ to haue two persons Anno 434. The Councel of Chalcedon was collected Anno 454. about the heresie of Eutiches which held that there was in Christ but one nature after his incarnation so confounding his humanitie and diuinitie together The other cause of the calling of Councels is to prouide establish holsome Lawes decrees and constitutions for the gouernement of the Church so the Apostles called the brethren together Act. 6. to take order for the poore And in the Councell of Nice an vniforme order was established for the celebration of Easter which before had much troubled the Church The questions betweene vs and the Papists concerning Councels are these First whether generall Councels be absolutely necessarie Secondly by whome they ought to be called Thirdly of what persons they ought to cōsist Fourthly who should bee the president of the Councel Fiftly concerning the authoritie of them Sixtly whether they may erre or not Seauenthly whether they are aboue the Pope Eightly of the conditions to be obserued in generall Councels of these in order THE FIRST QVESTION CONCERNING the necessitie of Councels The assertion of the Papists THey seeme in wordes to affirme that Generall Councels are not absolutelie error 29 necessarie for the Primitiue Church was without any Councel for the space of 300. yeares and more yet they hold that some Councels either generall or particular are of necessitie to be had Bellarmine de concil lib. 1. cap. 11. And yet this is to be maruelled at that they should so much stand for Councels seeing they might vse a farre more compendious way in referring all to the determination of the Pope whome they boldly but very fondly affirme that hee cannot erre Although they seeme not to lay a necessitie vpon Generall Councels yet in truth they doo contrarie for they allowe no Councels at all without the Popes consent and authoritie neither thinke it lawfull for any Nation or Prouince to make within themselues any innouation or change of Religion So in the assembly at Zuricke Anno 1523. For the reformation of Religion Faber tooke exception against that meeting affirming that it was no conuenient place nor fit time for the discussing of such matter but rather the cognition and tractation thereof belonged to a generall Councel Sleid. lib. 3. And further they hold that what hath beene decreed in a Councel cānot be dissolued but by the like Councel as if the Councel of Trent were to bee disanulled it must be done by the like Synod Bellarmine de cōcil lib. 3. ca. 21. Which Councel they affirme to haue been general therefore another general Councel must by their opinion necessarily be expected before it can be reuoked The confession of the Protestants WE doe hold that generall Councels are an holesome meanes for the repressing and reforming both of errors in Religion and corruption in manners and that true generall Councels ought to

wracke And as their cause was not good so neither were the meanes that they vsed for they brought S. George and S. Denys into the field against the Turkes and left Christ at home If the Israelites could not be deliuered from the Philistims by the presence of the Arke but thirtie thousand fell before them and all because of their sinnes let not men thinke that popish Saints can defend them while their liues remaine vnreformed at home 2. That the heathen are not to be prouoked to warre but vpon iust cause that is when they prouoke vs it appeareth by the example of the Israelites who as they came from Aegypt sent vnto the King of Edom and Moab that they might haue leaue to walke through their land but they not granting so much yet the people of God offered them no violence but went a longer iourney about Iudg. 11.17 Augustine sayth Sapiens gesturus est iusta bella sed multo magis dolebit iustorum necessitatem extitisse bellorum A wise man will take iust warre in hand but it more grieueth him that he hath iust cause to warre And what he meaneth by iust warre he further sheweth Iniquitas partis aduersae iusta bella ingerit gerenda sapienti The iniquitie or iniuries of the aduerse part doth giue vnto a wise man occasion of iust warre Iust warre therefore ariseth when men are prouoked by iniuries THE EIGHT QVESTION CONCERNING holy and festiuall dayes THis question hath diuers parts First of holy dayes in generall Secondly of the Lords day Thirdly of the Festiuall dayes of Christ and the holy Ghost Fourthly of Saints holy dayes Fiftly of the time of Lent THE FIRST PART OF HOLY DAIES in generall The Papists error 58 FIrst they hold that holy and festiual daies are in themselues and properly and truely more sacred and holy then other daies are Bellarm. cap. 10. proposit 2. Apocalyps 1.10 I was in the spirit saith the Apostle on the Lords day God reuealeth such great things to Prophets rather vpon holy daies then prophane daies Ergo some daies holier then other Rhemist Apocal. 1. sect 6. The Protestants Ans. FIrst God giueth not his graces in respect of times but according to his owne pleasure Times of praier he chooseth often and of other godly exercises not for the worthines or holines of the times but for the better disposition of his seruants in such exercises to receiue them yet this was not perpetually obserued for God appeared to Moses keeping of sheepe Exod. 3. to Amos following his herd Amos 7. Secondly wee grant that the Lords day being commanded of God and so discerned from other daies may be said to be holier then the rest in respect of the present vse but not in the nature of the day for then could it not haue been changed from the last day in the weeke to the first as water in Baptisme is holier then other waters because of the sacred vse not in it selfe as by a qualitie of holines inherent And as for other festiuall daies which haue not the like institution they are appoynted onely of the Church for Christian policie orders sake for the exercise of religion But this now popish before time Iewish distinction of daies as being by their nature ho●●er then other is flatly against the Apostles rule Rom. 14.5 One putteth difference betweene day and day and Galath 4.10 You obserue daies and moneths times and yeeres Augustine saith Nos dominicum diem pascha celebramus sed quia intelligimus quo pertineant non tempora obseruamus sed quae illis significantur temporibus Cont. Adimant cap. 16. We keepe the Lords day and the feast of Easter not obseruing the times but remembring what is signified by those times that is for what cause they were ordained Ergo obseruers of times are reproued The Papists 2. THey affirme the keeping and sanctification of holy dayes to be necessary errour 59 Rhemist annot Galath 4. sect 5. and that we are bound in conscience to keepe the holy dayes appointed of the Church although no offence or scandale might follow and ensue vpon the neglecting of them Esther 9. Mardocheus and Esther appoint a new festiuall day not instituted of God and bind euery one to the obseruing therof that none should faile to obserue it ver 27. Ergo men bound in conscience to keep festiuall daies Bellarm. ca. 10. The Protestants Ans. FIrst though we refuse not some other festiuall daies yet we acknowledge none necessary more then are of the holy Ghosts appointing in the Scripture Secondly we deny that the constitutions of the Church for holy dayes do bind Christians in respect of the dayes them selues in conscience to keepe them otherwise then they may giue offence by their contempt and disobedience to the holesome decrees of the Church for it selfe in it owne nature is indifferent neither can the Church make a thing necessary in nature which God hath left indifferent nothing bindeth absolutely in conscience but that which is necessary by nature wherefore keeping of holy dayes being not enioyned but left indifferent in the word bindeth no otherwise then we haue said Thirdly the example of Esther sheweth that the Church hath authoritie to appoint for ciuill vses dayes of reioycing that festiuall day then begun did not binde the obseruers in conscience no otherwise then they were bound in all lawfull things to obey their gouernours for their consent was required and they promised both for themselues their seede to keepe that day Esther 9.27 Whereby it appeareth that they were not bound absolutely in conscience to obserue it Augustine speaking of the Sabboth saith thus haec est dies quam fecit Dominus exultemus laetemur in ea This is the day which the Lord hath made let vs reioyce and be glad therein Psal. 118.24 This onely holy day he saith is of the Lords making and therefore of all other necessary to be kept THE SECOND PART OF THE Lords day The Papists THe seuerall pointes wherein our aduersaries and we doe differ about the errour 60 Christian Sabboth are these First the principall exercise of the Sabboth say they is for the people to come to the Church and heare Masse which their abominable and idolatrous sacrifice they make the proper worke of the Sabboth Catechism Roman pag. 649. The Protestants THe Sabboth was ordayned for the people to assemble together to heare the word read Act. 15.21 preached and to receiue the Sacramets Act. 20.7 and to offer vp their praiers these were the proper exercises of the Sabboth as for the popish sacrifice of the Masse we finde no mention at all thereof in Scripture The Papists error 61 2. WE dissent about the rest of the Sabboth they allow such workes to be done vpon the Sabboth as shal be permitted by the Prelates and Ordinaries and such as by long custome haue bene vsed Bellarm. cap. 10. The Protestants WE holde that as the Lords day was instituted of

was the duetie of Angels to worship him Ergo hee merited not his glorification by his death which was due vnto him euen at his first incarnation Argum. 3. If Christ merited his owne glorification then hee also merited the hypostaticall vnion that his manhood should bee ioyned to his Godhead in vnitie of person for his glory maiestie and power giuen to his manhood doth issue and arise from the vniting of his Godhead therewith in one person but his humanity deserued not to be vnited to the Godhead Nemo tam caecus est sayth Augustine No man is so blind that he dare say that Christ by his well liuing merited to be called the Sonne of God And hee prooueth it out of the first of Luk. vers 35. Therefore shall that holy thing bee called the Sonne of God not for any workes going before but because the holy Ghost came vpon her Wherefore the diuine glorie which Christ hath was not merited but his owne it was from the beginning which glory the humane nature in Christ is made partaker of not for any merite but because it is vnited to the Godhead in the same person through the abundant and vnspeakable grace and loue of God vnto mankinde which of his free grace rather tooke vnto himselfe the nature of men then of Angels Wherefore Christ by his perfect obedience and blessed sacrifice hath merited abundantly for vs remission of sinnes and eternall life but by his merites he hath gayned nothing for himselfe neither had he any respect to the bettering of his own estate in his sufferings but onely to pay a raunsome for vs. THE TWENTIETH GENERALL CONTROVERSIE CONCERNING THE COMMING OF CHRIST TO iudgement which appertaineth to his whole person as he is both God and man THis controuersie hath two partes First concerning the signes which must come to passe before his appearing Secondly of the time and maner of his appearing The first part contayneth three questions Frst whether the Gospell bee already preached to the whole world Secondly whether Henoch and Elias shall come in the flesh before the day of iudgement Thirdly of the great persecutions toward the end of the world THE FIRST QVESTION WHETHER the Gospel be already preached thorough the worlde The Papists error 106 THey denie that the Gospell hath beene already published to all nations of the worlde for there are many great countries which neuer heard of the Gospell as they affirme But before the comming of Christ to iudgement they say it shal be preached to the whole world Bellar. de Roman p●ntif lib. 3. cap. 4. Argum. 1. Math. 24.14 Christ sayth This Gospell of the kingdome shall be preached thorough the whole worlde for a witnes vnto all nations then shall the end come The end of the world shall immediately follow the generall preaching of the Gospell which if it hath been performed it is most like to haue been done in the Apostles time then the world should haue ended long agoe Bellarm. ibid. Ans. This word Then doth not alwaies in the scripture signifie a certaine and definite time presently to follow as Math. 9.1 Then he entred into a ship and so forth Luke also setteth foorth the same storie cap. 5.18 Then brought they a man lying in a bed But in saying Then they haue not relation to the same time for they keepe not the same order in rehearsing the storie Matthew setteth downe one thing that was immediatly done by our Sauiour Christ before and Luke another And so is the word Then vsed in other places not to describe a consequence of time with relation to that which went before but absolutely without any such respect to name the time present only wherein any thing is done So tunc then signifieth as much as in illo tempore in that time not which shall immediately follow vpon the generall publishing of the Gospel but which God hath appoynted We must also consider who it is that sayth Then namely God himselfe with whom a thousand yeares is as one day and one day as a thousand yeares Christ Then may come many hundred yeares after and yet it shall be true that then shall the end be But we rather take the first sense that Then is here taken indefinitely as it is thorough the whole chapter as vers 21. Then shall be great tribulation which cannot haue relation to that which he spake of before for then it must be vnderstoode of the destruction of Ierusalem but our Sauiour meaneth by Then the time towards the ende of the world as vers 29. Immediately after the tribulation of those dayes the Sunne shal be darkened Then shall the signe of the Sonne of man appeare Argum. 2. We see the Gospel hath been preached in great countreyes of late which neuer heard the Gospel afore as it is thought Rhemist Math. 24. sect 4. Ans. 1. They speake doubtfully they cannot tell as it is thought say they 2. They meane the preaching of their Friers in those newe found countreyes which was not the preaching of the Gospel but of vile superstition not to conuert the people to God but to robbe and spoyle them and make a pray of them killing slaying them without al mercy reade Benzo in historia noui orbis 3. We deny not but that the Gospell may be reuiued and renued in many countreyes where notwithstanding it was planted many yeares afore As this countrie of ours in ancient time called Britanie was first instructed in the faith by the preaching of Ioseph of Arimathea as Gildas saith or as Nicephorus saith by Simō Zelotes yet after that the foundation of the faith thus begun it was confirmed afterward in king Lucius daies by the preaching of Fagane Damiane which at Lucius request were sent into the land from Eleutherius B. of Rome and so may it come to passe in other countreyes a second preaching therefore taketh not away the former but confirmeth and reuiueth it The Protestants THat the Gospell was by the Apostles preached to all the knowen and inhabited nations of the worlde we cannot but affirme being so taught by the scriptures Argum. 1. Our Sauiour saith to his Apostles Ye shal be my witnesses to the vttermost partes of the earth Act. 1.8 which is spoken to the persons of the Apostles not in them to all Pastors and preachers as some expound it for in the same vers there is mention made of the comming of the holy Ghost and howe first they should begin to witnesse at Ierusalem which things were indeede so accomplished in the Apostles Saint Paul also Rom. 10.18 expoundeth that place of the Psalme Their sound is gone forth into all the worlde of the Apostles Agayne seeing the Apostolicall calling and gift is now ceased neither are we to looke that men should be immediatly called from heauen and the preaching of the Gospell to all nations is an Apostolicall worke for the which the Apostles also receiued the gifts of tongues seeing now we haue neither Apostolike

be lawfull to worship them Fourthly what manner of worship it should be THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE DIFFErence betweene Idols and Images The Papists THere is great difference say they betweene an Image and an Idoll an Image called in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the true similitude of a thing an Idoll 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 error 38 in Greeke translated simulachrum doth represent that which is not as were the Idols of Venus Minerua women Goddesses which was a meere deuised thing Images they confesse they haue but no Idols Bellarm. cap. 5. First S. Paul sayth 1. Corinth 10. That an Idoll is nothing that is doth represent a thing that is not as such were their heathenish Idols Bellarm. Ans. First the place is not so vnderstood for the Apostle sayth That things offered to Idols also are nothing which were not made to represent any thing But his meaning is this that of themselues they are nothing to breede offence neither were it needfull to shunne eating of Idoll sacrifices or to abhorre an Idoll but that they are abused and turned to the seruice of diuels as it followeth in the next verse Therefore an Idoll is not sayd to be nothing because it representeth a thing imagined but that of it selfe being but wood or stone or such like it were not offensiue if it were not abused to idolatrie Secondly all the portraictures of the Heathen were not Idols in this sense for Iupiter Mars Apollo Hercules whose images they had were men sometime liuing Thirdly you haue images representing nothing as the pictures of Angels of God the Father of the holy Ghost which haue no shape nor likenes Againe you haue also your imagined Saints as S. George S. Christopher for there were neuer any such and therefore you haue Idols as well as the Heathen The Protestants THough the name Idoll haue an odious signification in the English tongue yet neither the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor the Latine simulachrum doe sound so euill vnto the eares and in many places of the scripture we may in differently reade idoll or image for all worshipping of Images is idolatrie If we will distinguish them they are thus rather to be seuered An Idoll is that image which is set vp with an intent to be worshipped an Image is a generall name as well to vnlawfull pictures set vp for idolatrie as lawfull which haue but a ciuill vse But that the Papists Idols are images thus we proue it Argum. 1. The scripture calleth the Gentiles Idols images Rom. 1.23 there the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed Ergo idoll and image are taken for one they haue images set vp for religious or rather irreligious vses Ergo Idols Arg. 2. Apocal. 9.20 There is mention made of Idols of gold siluer brasse which cannot be vnderstood of the Idols of the Gentiles which were abolished long agoe and that prophecie is to be vnderstood of men liuing after the opening of the seuenth seale which is toward the end of the world Wherefore it must needes be vnderstood of the Papists who are the onely knowne people in the world that worship images Ergo they haue Idols Augustine taketh imago and simulachrum which is the Latine for the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all one for the loue of the dead sayth he images were first made whereof the vse of simulachers or Idols doe arise THE SECOND ARTICLE WHETHER IT BE lawfull to haue the images of the Trinitie of Christ or of the Angels The Papists error 39 THat Images may haue a good ciuill vse as for decencie or comelines of some worke or for vtilitie of storie it is of neither part denied but they further affirme that it is lawfull to expresse the Trinitie by pictures as God like an olde man and with the world in his hand Christ as he walked vpon the earth the holy Ghost in the likenes of a Doue the Angels with wings and these pictures they say are very meete and profitable to be set vp in Churches Rhemist Act. 17. sect 5. Arg. 1. To paint the Trinitie or any one of them as they appeared visiblie is no more inconuenient then it was vndecent for them so to appeare Rhem. ibid. Ans. You flatly controll the law of God which simply forbiddeth any similitude to be made of things in heauen or in earth to worship God by And Deut. 4.15 God expresly declareth that he would not appeare in any visible shape when he gaue the law lest the people should abuse that shape to make an image of God after it Lastly the argument followeth not for God sawe it was conuenient sometime by visible signes to appeare vnto men and yet seeth it to be inconuenient for pictures to be made to resemble him by for els he would neuer haue forbidden it Arg. 2. The angels were pictured in forme of Cherubims Ergo Spirits may be portraicted Ans. When you can shewe an expresse commandement for your images as the Israelites had for them we will yeeld that they are lawfully made Againe how followeth it God may command images to be made for the vse of religion Ergo men may for the law bindeth not the Lord who is the lawmaker But the law sayth thou shalt not make to thy selfe that is by thine owne authoritie any grauen image The Cherubims also were not made publikely to be seene and gazed vpon by the people but were set in the holy place so are not your pictures and images which are set vp openly in your Churches to entise people to idolatrie The Protestants TO set forth the Godhead and diuine nature by any picture or image is impossible and therefore both vnlawfull and inconuenient but to bring them into Churches and to make them for some vse of religion is a high steppe vnto grosse superstition 1. Such images of the Trinitie among the Papists are made to resemble the diuinitie and Godhead for to what purpose els should such images be made Fulk Act. 17. sect 5. They picture God the Father like an old man because in that forme he appeared to Daniel but how knowe they whether it were God the Father rather then God the Sonne who is as old as God the Father or then the whole Godhead They commend also the image of God the Father with the world in his hand which is a lying image and maketh simple people to beleeue that the world was made onely by God the Father which was the worke of the whole Trinitie Some of the Papists themselues as Abulensis Durandus Peresius doe hold that the image of God ought not to be made and that it is rather tolerated then allowed in the Church As for the images of Christ in the forme of a Lambe and the holy Ghost in shape of a Doue Bartholomaeus Caranza a papist sheweth that they were forbidden in the sixt generall Synode Canon 28. And this Bellarmine denyeth not Concerning the picture of Christ as he was man the Papists