Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	image_n	worship_n	worship_v	2,495	5	9.2639	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56600	An answer to a book, spread abroad by the Romish priests, intituled, The touchstone of the reformed Gospel wherein the true doctrine of the Church of England, and many texts of the Holy Scripture are faithfully explained / by the Right Reverend Father in God, Symon, Lord Bishop of Ely.	Patrick, Simon, 1626-1707.	1692 (1692)	Wing P745; ESTC R10288	116,883	290

they do not give Latria to Images is another egregious untruth for they expresly say in the Ceremoniale that Latria is due to the Cross for which reason it is ordered to take place of the Imperial Sword when they are both carried together Neither he nor any any one else whatsoever he vapours dare break in pieces or tear a Crucifix or Picture solemnly consecrated to be worshipped not with an inferior sort of Worship as he pretends for that the greatest Men in his Church acknowledge is down-right Idolatry And therefore maintain that the Image and the Person represented by it are worshipped as one Obect with the same act of worship What the Council of Trent saith hath been considered by a number of our Writers who have shown that the Prayers wherewith Images are consecrated the Pilgrimages that are made to them the Prayers to the Wood of the Cross do suppose they expect vertue yea very great benefit from them and that notwithstanding all their distinctions the worship of them is Idolatry Thus much I have thought good to add in this place that I may not be less careful than he for the preservation of our People from being deceived by those who mince this matter of Image-worship Concerning which I may truly say as Dr. Jackson hath done that the Primitive Church abandon'd it as the Liturgy of Hell L. That no man hath seen God in any form and that therefore his Picture or Image cannot be made Answer IN the First Edition of this Book they condemned us for saying No man hath seen God at any time so well are they skilled in Scripture where we find those very words I. John 18. but having been soundly lash'd for this foul Ignorance by Bishop Mountague now they have altered the words they think more wisely tho still with a contradiction to St. Paul who saith of God that no man hath seen him nor can see him Which is as much we think as if he had said no man hath seen him in any form because his words import that it is impossible one should see him at all From whence it is a plain consequence that his Picture or Image cannot be made And nothing but stupid superstition that horrid blindness where with those are struck who fall into Idolatry could make any man affirm the contrary Their Ancient Schoolmen it is well known absolutely condemn the making any Picture of God but only as in Christ he took upon him our Nature Nay the Second Council of Nice as blockish as they were had so much sense remaining as to condemn the making of an Image of God when they established the Worship of Images And John Damascen himself saith it is the highest madness and impiety to make any Figure of the Deity But time hath wrought mens minds into this Madness and one would think a real frenzy possess'd this man when he thought of the III. III. Gen. 8. Gen. 8. which only saith They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden to prove God hath been seen in a Corporal form As if hearing were seeing or one could paint the form of a sound or of motion To what Impiety may not such men arrive who can satisfy themselves with such Arguments XXVIII Gen. 12. Nor is there the least mention of anyform wherein the Lord appeared to Jacob XXVIII Gen. 12. But if there had it would be the highest impiety to call that the picture of God who hath no form no shape no figure or lineaments and therefore cannot be Painted God speaking to Moses face to face XXXII Exod. 11. XXXII Exod. 11. doth not imply God to have a face but only that he spake most familiarly to him as one Friend speaketh to another His own Menochius goes farther for his Interpretation is By an Angel appearing in corporeal and humane shape God spake most familiarly to him And indeed it is the opinion of his Order the Jesuits and of all later Divines in the Roman Church very few excepted that God never appeared but by the Ministry of Angels Which answers what he alledgeth out of VII VII Dan. 9. Dan. 9 To which Menochius also gives this farther satisfaction That every thing which is here attributed unto God signifies only the splendor of the Divine Majesty which in one word may be called Glory This is the only thing that can be represented which it is impossible for any one to describe As for VI. Isa 1 5. 1 Kings XXII 19. There is not the least signification of any form wherein the Divine Majesty appeared His reasonings upon these Texts are so weak that they are not worthy any ones notice But lest he should be wise in his own conceit let him take this rational account from Abulensis an Author of his own Church why no Image of the Trinity should be made First For fear of Idolatry lest the Image it self should be worshipped 2dly For fear of Error and Heresy in attributing to God corporiety and essential differences such as we see those Three Figures represent This is sufficient to convince any man who is not drunk with the cup of fornication mentioned by St. John in the Revelation We hear not a word of Fathers to countenance this Doctrine which is a shrow'd sign it is so far from being Ancient that they speak directly against it And it is observable that they bring in the Gentiles excusing their making Images of their Gods just as the Papists now excuse themselves and as this man argues That Images were unto men instead of writings or Scriptures upon which fixing their sight they might have some Conceptions of God They are the words of Athanasius in his Oration against the Gentiles And so Eusebius tells us Porphyry said That men by Statues as by Book● have learnt to know the Doctrine of the Gods Behold the Fathers whom they follow Thus the Sworn Enemies of Jesus Christ were wont to discourse LI. That Blessing or Signing with the sign of the Cross is not founded in Holy Scripture Answer IT is uncertain what he means by this proposition whether he make Blessing and Signing with the sign of the Cross Two several things or the same If he mean that we say Blessing things or Persons is not founded in Scripture he is a notorious Calumniator for we Bless our Children and our Meat But if he mean That Blessing by Signing with the sign of the Cross is not founded there he saith true for we find no Precept or Example for such a way of Blessing Anciently indeed when the Cross of Christ was counted foolishness Christians used to sign themselves in the Forehead with this sign in token that they gloried in the Death of Christ which was nothing else but to make a confession of their Faith and to testify in what esteem they had Christ Crucified The use of the sign upon such an occasion is not to be condemned nor the use of it in their Benedictions Whereby they

or respect tho no Worship nor Adoration to things that have no sense in them Therefore he might have kept to himself his first Scripture Exod. III. 5. which is brought to prove this not the worshipping of any Creature For putting off the shooes was a respect paid to earthly Princes in those Countries when they came into their presence Ps XCIX 5. In the next place XCIX Psal 5. instead of our Translation Worship at his footstool which he promised to stick unto he gives us their own Adore the footstool of his feet expresly contrary to the Original and to the most ancient Translations particularly the Chaldee Paraphrase which runs thus adore or worship in the House of his Sanctuary for he is holy Which is so plain and literal an Interpretation that Jansenius and Lorinus himself follow it And they among the Ancients who follow the Vulgar Translation thought it so horrible a thing to worship his Footstool thereby underdanding the Earth which is called God's footstep that they expound these words of Christ Hear St. Austin upon the place I am afraid to worship the Earth lest he that made Heaven and Earth condemn me observe that and yet I am afraid not to worship the Footstool of my Lord because the Psalmist saith Worship the Footstool of his Feet What therefore shall I do In this doubt I turn my self to Christ whom here I seek and find how without impiety the Earth may be worshipped without Impiety may be worshipped the Footstool of his Feet For he took Earth from the Earth Flesh being of the Earth and he took Flesh of the Flesh of Mary He must have a brow of brass if he can read this and not be put out of countenance But if they had any shame left they would not draw in St. Hierom to conuntenance this Impiety Whom this man quotes again though he tells us not in what Epistle to Marcella we may find it to prove that the Ark was worshipped in regard of the Images that were set upon it that is the Cherubims A foul Forgery For he only saith the Tabernacle was venerated that is had in honourable regard because the Cherubims were there Veneration is one thing and Religious Worship is another And his meaning is no more than this that they reverenced the Sanctuary as God commanded Moses because of a Divine presence there It was the more impudent to alledg him because he is the Father who saith * L. W. in Ezek. c. 16. We have one Huband and we worship one Image which is the Image of the Invisible Omnipotent God i. e. Christ What he intends by alledging II. Philip. 10. for a proof that Images are to be worshipped I cannot imagine unless he be so sensless as to take the Name of a thing for an Image of it And he could not but know also that when we bow at the Name of Jesus we worship our Lord Christ His long Discourse of the brazen Serpent mentioned XXI Numb XXI 8. Numb 8. is as impertinent For there is no proof that it was an Image nor the least signification that it was set up to be worshipped If it were why did Hezekiah break it in pieces for that very reason because in process of time People burnt incense to it He ought to have known also That Vasquez as I shew'd before together with Azorius both learned Jesuits with a great many other of the best Writers of his own Church acknowledge that no Image among the Jews was set up for worship And Azorius expresly confutes his most learned Dr. Saunders for abusing the Testimony of some Fathers to prove the contrary As this man doth those whom he hath named particularly their Pope Gregory the Great who is known to all the World to have been against the Worship of Images though he earnestly contended to have them in Churches But I refer the Reader to Bishop Montague for satisfaction about his Fathers some of which are forged others say nothing to the purpose and John Damascen was no Father but a superstitious Monk because contrary to his custome he takes notice of some of our Objections against Image-worship and endeavours to answer them which may seem to require consideration though I think the most ordinary Reader might be left to grapple with him His Answer to the first Objection of Hezekiah's breaking the brazen Serpent seeing it the cause of Idolatry if it have any sense in it is an audacious reflection upon that good King nay upon the Holy Ghost who commends him for what he did Whereas this man going about to prove that the abuse of a good thing ought not to take away the use of it doth as good as say Hezekiah should not have broken it but left it as a Monument of God's Mercy to them without destroying it What is this but censuring him instead of answering us His Answer to the next is an impudent denial of their Principles and of their Practice For their greatest Writers say it is the constant Opinion of Divines that the Image is to be worshipped with the same worship wherewith that is worshipped of which it is the Image So Azorius The third is no Answer to what we charge upon them but a false Charge upon us Who do not fall down before the Sacrament and worship it as an Image of Christ but worship Christ himself when we receive it upon our Knees The Fourth is a fresh piece of Impudence in denying Images to be set up in Churches with a special intent that People should worship or adore them and in affirming That the worship is given them as it were by a consequence and rather because it may be lawfully given than because it is principally sought to be given For their great Cardinal Bellarmin * L. 2. de Imag. c. 21 22. to name no other expresly saith That the Images of Christ and of the Saints are honoured not only by accident and improperly but per se and properly so that they terminate the Veneration as they are considered in themselves and not only as they represent their Exemplar And their Opinion savours of Heresie in that Church who say that they are not set up to be worshipped Of which this man I believe was sensible when he tells us They are partly set up in Churches to stir up our minds to follow the Example of those holy men whose Images we behold Which supposes this not the whole end for which they are set up but that they are partly intended for another purpose What that is he durst not confess for fear he should confute himself For he knew that the stirring up of Peoples minds to follow the Saints is but a small part of the reason for which Images are set up in Churches the great end is that they may be worshipped His distinction between an Idol and an Image is as vain as all the rest as our Authors have demonstrated a thousand times and that