such like and in this respect we giue them no more honour nor worship then the Protestants vse to doe to Churches in England by keeping their hats of kneeling c. for as they doe that to such places rather then to theyr own houses because they are the houses of God so doe we reuerence holy Images because they are holy things putting vs in remembrance of God and heauenly things Neither doe we this without warrant of holy Scripture for Iosue 5. v. 15. an Exod. 3. v. 9. Iosue and Moyses are commanded to put of their shoes because the earth was holy wheron they stood which was nothing but a reuerence vnto that earth made holy by the presence of God or an Angell and if a piece of ground must haue beene reâ—erenced because it was holy why not all other things which are consecrated or referred to the worship and reuerence of God The second respect which we haue in worshipping holy Images is particular to them as they are Images and representations of other things and in this respect all the acts of externall reuerence or worship which we exhibite to them is not directed to them as the ende or reason of our worship but it is only to passe by meanes of them to that which is represented by them where it wholy and only rests as in a thing intended to be worshipped by it Thus when wee doe any reuerence to an Image of the Virgin Mary respecting it merly as her Image the reuerence or worship passes by meanes of that to the B. Virgin and there only rests and terminates it selfe and it is impossible to honour an Image as an Image otherwise for being in its proper nature nothing else but a representation of such or such a person or thing all which is done to it is intended by it to that which it represents neither is it possible at least in this life to giue any honour to God or his Saints otherwise then by meanes of one Image or other eyther corporall of spirituall for it is impossible to honour or worship any thing vnlesse we thinke vppon that which we worship and it is impossible to thinke of any thing vnlesse there be framed in our heads or vnderstandings a representation of that thing which we thinke of now nothing can be represented without some representation as is cleare and euery representation is an Image and likenesse of that thing which is represents So that we always honour whomsoeuer we honour through that Image of our thought which we frame of them and all our acts of honour of worship passe through that interiour imagination or thought which we haue framed to the obiect or thing which is represented by it Now for the better help of our imagination or internall thought we vse some externall thing as an obiect of our senses to excite vs to such thoughts and keepe vs more liuely and fixedly in them thus words and discourses wherin the things which we intend to worship are described or signifyed help vs to a more strong and attentiue thought of them and are the Images of the eare through which as through representations of what we worship we giue honour to that which they represent to vs thus pictures and images paynted or carued help the eye to frame a more full and ferme imagination or thought of that we worship now we haue warrant enough in holy Scripture to giue honour or adoration to such things as helpe vs to thinke of God and haue a reuerence giuen them to that end Thus in the 98. Psalme alias the 99. v. 5. Adorate scabellum pedum eius worship or adore his footstoole which was nothing but the Arke of the Testament as all agree and notwithstanding here is a command to worship it Your English translation to auoyd the force of these words translates it in this manner worship at his footstoole as though indeed no worship at all were commanded to be giuen to it but only that God were to be worshipped at it But this is another manifest fraud for the hebrew word and greeke is the very same here with that of the 20. of Eodus lo tishtachaue lachem and here ve hishtacauou la hathom ragluau and in Exod. 20. because they will exaggerate the command against holy Images it must be thou shalt not bow down vnto them and here Psalm 98. v. 5. because they feare that the people might gather from hence that creatures and Images such as were the two Cherubins in the tabernacle putting vs in mynd of the true God were to be worshipped it must be with them worship at his footstoole Thus they change and chop the words of holy Scripture to serue their own turnes at their pleasure so far that euen two Psalmes before Psalm 97. v. 7. they translate the same word and phrase in hebrew worship him all yee Gods and here it must not be worship his footstoole but worship at bis footstoole nay in hundreds of other places of Scripture where the same word and manner of speech is in the Hebrew either attributed to God or men or Idols or false Gods they translate worship or worship not the things forbidden or commanded only here forsooth because it makes quite against them if it be truly translated they will needs haue it worship at his footstoole but both the hebrew and greeke and the Septuaginta and the ancient vulgar Translation haue it plaine enough bow down vnto his footstoole or worship his footstoole whence I gather that it is warranted in holy Scripture to giue reuerence and worship as I before explicated to such things as put vs in mynd of Allmighty God and consequently to holy Images And as this is cleare in Scripture so is the practise thereof no lesse cleare euen amongst Protestants for what more common amongst the more moderate of them then to make a profound adoration at the name of Iesus which is nothing but a representation or Image of our Sauiour to the eare which practice seeing it is grounded according to them in those words Phil. 2.10 In the name of Iesus euery knee shall bow and those words extend themselues as much to that sacred name seen by the eye as heard by the eare brings in a necessity of granting a religious worship to that most diuine name when we see it eyther printed in a booke or carued in a stone c. what worship soeuer therefore a well minded Protestant should iudge to be giuen to that name thus ingrauen with out all superstition or Idolatry or breach of this commandement let him giue the same to any Image of our Sauiour and in the same maner or at least iudge that the like may lawfully be giuen to it and noe more in this point will be required of him to be esteemed conformable to the doctrine and practice of the Romane church what more generally practised before these troubles then to kneele in receiuing the coÌ„munion which is only a resemblance or
And if they like of this answer they will giue vs alsoe leaue to apply the same to the passage of S. Iohn Reu. 22. v. 8.9 not that S. Iohn committed any Idolatry or false worship willingly and sinfully but that the Angell vppon good ground eyther thought or at least feared that S. Iohn tooke him to be our Sauiour soe gaue him presently the worship due to the Diuine Person which he thought him to be for though it be wholly improbable that Cornelius gaue diuine worship to S. Peeter Act. 10. because he was noe heathen but a true beleeuer and soe knew that diuine honour was to be giuen to God only and religious and fearing God as appeares v. 11. and soe was far from cōmitting Idolatry and knew well enough that S. Peeter was a man v. 5. and the 6. and soe could not suppose him out of ignoranee to be God and though it seeme as improbable that S. Peeter conceiued that Cornelius intended to worship him with diuine honour seeing he was sufficiently informed that he was a true beleeuer and Professour of the law of Moises v. 22. yet many ancient fathers teach that S. Iohn did really thinke that this Angell which appeared to him was not an Angell but our Sauiour or at least it was very incident to the Angel to conceiue or feare being ignorant of S. Iohns intention that he tooke him to be our Sauiuor because the Angel sayd in the precedēt verse behould I come quickly which was the vsuall phrase speech which our Sauiour vsed to S. Iohn when he appeared to him as is manifest chap. 2. v. 6. chap. 3. v. 21. c. 16. v. 15. c. 22. v. 12. and must necessarily haue beene pronounced eyther by our Sauiour himselfe or by an Angell in his place and speaking in his name because these words I come quickly as is cleare in all the afore cited places and particularly chap. 22. v. 12. presently following can neyther be meant nor verifyed of any one but of our Sauiour and this to haue been the opinion of S. Iohn by reason of those next precedent words Behold I come quicly may haue some ground in the text it selfe here cited by the opponent And when I had heard and seene I fell down to worship c. for the seeing of those strange visions and hearing those precedent words Behold I come quicly Soe proper to out Sauiour gaue this occasion to worship the Angel as taking him to be our Sauiour and therefore the Angel presently disabused him and let him vnderstand that he was not our Sauiour but a creature and seruant of God as appeares in this text obiected v. 8. and 9. if it should be obiected that c. 21. v. 9. S. Iohn affirmes that this very Angell which he worshipped was one of the seauen Angells who caried the viols filled with the last plagues and therefore could not thinke that it was our Sauiour I answer that though in the begining and continuance of this vision he seemed to him to be an Angell yet when he heard him pronounce words proper to our Sauiour he might haue sufficient reason to thinke that his former apprehension was amisse and that whatsoeuer he seemed before yet it was our Sauiour appearing vnder the forme of that Angell If it be further obiected that S. Iohn writes expresly that it was one of the Seauen Angells which appeared to him and therefore could not after doubt of it it may be answeared that when the Euangclist writ this he was wholy assured that it was an Angell because the Angell had before this was written determinaetly assured him that he was not our Sauiuor yet whilst the vision happned before it was eyther written or the Angell had rectifyed the iudgment of S. Iohn he had ground inough to thinke it was our Sauiour when he heard those words proceede from him behould I come speedily Neyther is it any wonder that S. Iohn was ignorant of some things concerning the visions which appeared to him For he thought that none could be found worthie to open the seauen seales and therefore wept and was as much forbidden to weepe by the Angell c. 5. v. 4. as to worship c. 19. v. 10. Hee aeknowledges alsoe that hee knew not who they weare who appeared in white Stoles c. 7. v. 13. Though these answeares may satisfye all that is opposed against them yet because the matter is in it selfe obscure and leaues a probability on both sides I rather sticke to the other answer that though S. Iohn knew it was noe more then an Angell yet the Angell refused the worship he gaue him at S. Peeter did that of Cornelius And yet whatsoeuer may be thought of these two answers that which is most cleare and vnquestionable is a third answers That though S. Iohn knew that he who speake to him was an Angel and not our Sauiour and soe gaue him the worship only due to an Angel yet the Angel being ignorant of S. Iohns intention might diseruedly feare or conceiue that he tooke him to be our Sauiour and soe gaue him diuine worship and therefore he presently dissabused him telling him that he was one of his fellow seruants c. And each of these answers may be equally applyed to the like text Reuel 19. for out of the same ground of Act. 10. it may be sayd that he refused this worship though in it selfe lawfull as S. Peeter did that of Cornelius or that he supposed him to be our Sauiour and soe gaue him diuine honour which was no way due to him because he there vsed the phrase of our Sauiour when he sayd scribe write as appeares in the three first chapters and chap. 14. v. 13.14.15 neyther can it be clearly proued that any one commaunded S. Iohn to write saying to him Scribe write but our Sauiour saue only in this place through the whole Reuelation and then it was spoken in the name and person of Christ by the Angell soe that S. Iohn had great reason to thinke that it was the voyce of our Sauiour and therefore gaue him the honour due to our Sauiour till he was better informed or according to the third and clearest answer the Angel had reason to thinke that S. Iohn worshipped him when he heard him vse that phrase of our Sauiour with diuine worship as taking him to be our Sauiour though S. Iohn knew that he was but an Angel and soe gaue him only the worship which was due to an Angel And thus much for the text of S. Iohn The text of S. Paul mistaken Against the worshipping of Angels Let no man beguile you of your reward in voluntary humility and worshipping of Angells intruding into those thinges which he hath not seene vainly puffed vp in his fleshly minde The First mistake The vvorshipping of Angells missapplyed I Answer that this text speakes of a worshiping of Angells wherby they are made equall to Christ or that Christ is depending of them which containes
4. would be contrary to the Psal. 98. alias 99. v. 5. where we are commanded to worship or adore the footstoole of God which was nothing but the Arke of the Testament with the two goulden Cherubins in the holy of holyes Adore or worship his footstoole saith there holy Dauid where the very same hebrew word and phrase is vsed which is in Exod. 20. v. 4. Some ignorant reader may happily say that those pictures of the Cherubins Exod. 25. were commanded only to the Iewes and to be vsed in the old law and so tutch not christians any thing I answer first the forbidding of Images is also only in the old Testament Exod. 20. v. 4. c. Secondly that command Exod. 25. to make some Images was brought to shew that all kind of Images were not forbidden Exod. 20. v. 4. and consequently that some images might be lawfully made and seeing there is now no prohibition forbidding all Images giuen to Christians it is lawfull for them to make holy Images like to the Cherubins Exod. 25. Seeing therefore one place of holy Scripture cannot be contrary to another for then the one should be false and so could not be the word of God as it is supposed to be they must necessarily be reconciled and made to agree And seeing the Images of the Cherubs are so expresly commanded to be made by Allmighty God himselfe that there is no way to deny or avoyd it if a christian will reconcile and agree these two places he must grant that all kind of Images euen such as are no more Idols nor lesse truly sacred and holy Images then those Cherubs in the Tabernacle were are not forbidden in the commandement Exod. 20. v. 4. for if they were then God should forbid Exod. 20. what be commands Exodus 25.18 and so contradict himselfe And what is sayd about the vnderstanding of the word grauen Image is respectiuely to be applied to the word worship for if all kind of worship of Images be forbidden in the commandement Exod. 20.4 then holy Dauid will contradict Gods command when be commands the Israelites to worship his footstoole where those Images of the Cherubs were There is therefore no other possible meanes to reconcile those two commands but by saying that Exod. 20. forbids not all kind nor can be vnderstood of that which holy Dauid commandes but only such a worship as is wholy vnlawfull superstitious and Idolatrous wherby the creature is worshipped and prayed to as God and the Image made an Idol or a false God wich is neither commanded nor allowed in any place of holy Scripture but alwayes forbidden and condemned Neither can it be sayd that Allmighty God Psal. 98. dispensed with his command giuen Exod. 2. for if there were forbidden all kind of Images as being superstitious and Idolatrous and iniurious to Gods honour and so of themselues or intrinsecally as the schoole speakes vnlawfull and all kind of reuerence or worship exhibited to them as in it selfe dishonorable to God as ProtestaÌ„ts vnderstand this command Then it cannot be sayd without most high blasphemy that God dispensed with this command for then he should dispence with men to commit superstition Idolatry and dishonour to him by a command to do them which were to make him not only authour but euen fauorer and commander of sin Neither can it auayle Protestants to say as some others haue sayd that the making all kind of Images and all reuerence to them was forbidden to the Iewes Exod. 20. v. 4. though not vnlawfull in themselues by reason of the great danger they were in to be broughr into Idolatry by them as appeares in the brazen serpent and their perpetuall falling vppon euery light occasion into Idolatrie This I say nothing auayls Protestants first because I haue already shewed that it is Idolatry only and Idols which are here forbidden Secondly because if this command of forbidding all kind of Images and worship of them though good and holy in themselues was only directed to the Iewes as long as they were in so eminent danger of falling by reason of them into Idolatry superstition c. then it cannot be pressed now against Christians whom it touches not they being not in any such danger of committing heathenish Idolatry but destroying it and rooting it out through the whole world and so it will be lawfull for them to make and worship according to my former explications holy Images as hauing no command to the contrary From what I haue now sayd will easily appeare how little reason the Romain Church hath to blot those words Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any Idol c. out of the commandement as vulgar Protestants are made beleeue by a most false aspersion of their ministers for if they make nothing at all against her as I haue shewed why should she blot them out But that I may giue a full and coÌ„pleat answer to this mistake of common people which I haue learned by long experience to be one of the greatest stumbling blocks that hinders them from imbracing Catholike Religion because say they we leaue out the second Commandement I will breefly cleare this poynt and conuince euidently that it is a mere deuise to catch the ignorant hauing neither truth nor substance in it For first there neuer was yet so much as one sole Bible of ours in whatsoeuer language place tyme or edition which hath not these words which Protestants call the seeond commandement as fully and compleatly as any Protestant Bibles haue and I challenge the best versed amongst them to produce one only in the whol world which hath them not and that the more ignorant who vnderstand English only may haue what assurance they are capable of in this particular let them presse their ministers to shew them the Remish Bible set out by Romain Catholike Diuines and there Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. they shall find all the sayd words fully an intyrely Secondly not only in all our Bibles but in our larger and fuller Catechismes this whole commandement is expressed So Catechismus Romanus set out by order of the late Councill of Trent parte 3. pag. 298. n. 8. and Canisius his Catechisme de Charitate Decalogo 1. q. 5. p. 74. 75. where setting down the commandements he puts the first thus Non habebis Deos alienos coram meâ—non facies tihi sculptile vt adores illud Thou shalt haue no other Gods before me thou shalt not make to thy selfe any Idol to adore it and then cites the commandements all at large as fully as they stand in the Protestant Bibles Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. And in an English Catechisme called a Summary of Controuersies composed by P.C. of the Society of Iesus and printed in the yeare 1639. The third edition chap. 3 q. 5. pag. 68. hath it thus Thou shalt not haue any strange Gods before me thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image to worship it And in the same maner are they
which is not set down in expresse words in the new Testament I answer that that is manifestly vntrue and must be confessed to be soe euen by Protestants themselues for they can neuer find any expresse mention in the new Testament that nothing is to be beleeued or practized lawfully by Christians saue that which is expressed in the new Testament 2. that any churches were made or to be made amongst Christians distinct from dwelling houses 3. that fonts for baptisme were put in those churches 4. that childeren were euer actually baptised in those fonts 5. that God-fathers and God-mothers were to be vsed in Baptisme of childeren 6. that any spirituall kindred arises by vertu of Baptisme betwixt those God-fathers and God-mothers on the one side and the childeren Baptized theyr Parents respectiuely on the other If therefore none of those can be found mentioned expressely in the new Testament with what shew of reason can Protestants demand that the worship of Images should be mentioned in the new Testament seeing they practice these particulars noe lesse then we the worship of Images But in these and such like religious practices it is sufficient euen according to the Protestant Principle of sole Sctipture that eyther there be expresse mention made of them eyther commanding or allowing them in the old Testament which is neuer reuoked or dissallowed in the new as is that of the worship of Images or at least that the lawfullnesse of them can be deduced from the old or new Testament by a good consequence drawn according to the rules of right reason as the worship of Images is manifestly from the 13. of the Reuel now cited for if the worship of the Image tend to the honour of him who is represented by it as is there euident and that it is lawfull to doe all that which tends to the honour of our Sauiour then it follows ineuitably that the worship of his Image is lawfull and the like is of the Images of Saints Thus haue I indeauored to discouer the different mistakes of Protestants in the texts of Scripture cited by them against the vse of holy Images taught and peactized in the Romane Church and with all the strange mistranslations inuented by them to make holy Scripture speake to the vulgar against the doctrine and practice of the Romane Church in this particular and this may sfuffice for the second Controuersie THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE Concerning Iustification The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered in the Council of Trent touching this Point Sess. 6. can 1. SI quis dixerit hominem suis operibus quae vel per humanae naturae vires vel per legis doctrinam fiunt absque diuina per Iesum Christum gratiâ posse iustificari coram Deo Anathema sit It any one shall say that a man can be iustified by his workes which are done by the force of humaine nature or by the doctrine of the law without diuine grace through our Lord Iesus Christ let him be accursed Ibidem can 2. Si quis dixerit ad hoc solùm diuinam gratiam per Iesum Christum dari vt facilius homo iustè viuere ac vitam aeternam promereri possit quasi per liberum arbitrium vtrumque sed aegrè tamen difficulter possit anathema sit If any one shall say that diuine grace through Iesus Christ is giuen only to this end that a man may more easily liue iustly and deserue eternal life as if he could doe both though with labour and difficulty by his freewill let him be accursed Ibidem can 3. Si quis dixerit sine praeuenienâ—e Spiritus sancti inspiratione atque eius adiutorio hominem credere sperare diligere aut poenitere posse sicut oportet vt ei iustificationis gratiâ conferatur anathema sit If any one shall say that without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost and his assistance a man can beleeue hope loue and repent as he should doe to haue the grace of iustification bestowd vppon him let him be accursed Here I demand vppon what ground the 13 of the 39 English Protestant Articles speakes thus of the scoole men of the Roman Church Workes done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his spirit are not pleasant to God for as much as they spring not of faith in Iesu Christ neyther doe they make men meet to recriue grace or as the schoole Authors say deserue grace of Congruity I would gladly haue those schoole Authours named and cited who affirme contrary to the expresse words of the Council of Trent so great a semi-Pelagian Heresie as this is whereof they are here accused And if none attall can be produced how great an vntruth is conteyned in this article where it is said not as some of the schoole Authours but as the schoole Authours say that is eyther vniuersally or commonly affirme whence may clearly be collected that those new Prelates and Doctours who composed those 39 articles which haue been euer since they were composed esteemed the summe and substance of the Protestant Religion and faith in England were eyther grosly ignorant in the doctrine of the schoole Authours and exceeding temerarious in affirming that of them which they neuer vnderstood or insufferably deceiptfull and malitious in accusing them against theyr own knowledge and conscience of holding generally an errour which not soe much as any one of them euer held but the quite contrary Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 8. Cùm verò Apostolus dicit iustificari hominem per fidem gratis ea verba in eo sensu intelligenda sunt quem perpetuus Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus tenuit expressit vt scilicet per fidem ideo iustificari dicamur quia fides est humanae salutis initium fundamentum radix omnis iustificationis sine quâ impossibile est placere Deo ad filiorum eius consortium peruenire gratis autem iustificari ideo dicamur quia nihil eorum quae iustificationem praecedunt siue fides siue opera ipsam iustificationis gratiam promeretur si enim gratia est iam non ex operibus alioquin vt idem Apostolus inquit gratia iam non est gratia When the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by fayth and gratis or freely those words are to be vnderstood in that sence which the perpetuall consent of the Catholicque Church allwayes held and expressed to wit that we are said to be iustified by faith because faith is the beginÌ„ing of mans saluation the foundation and roote of all iustifieation without which it is impossible to please God and to come into the number of his childeren But we are said to be iustified gratis because none of these things which goe before iustification whether it be faith or workes deserue the grace of iustification for if it be grace it is not of workes otherwise as the same Apostle says grace would not be grace Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 10. Sic ergo iustificati
the likenesses or Images of our Sauiour the Saints and thus the common people of our nation ordinarily vnderstand it and their ministers and teachers nuzzle them vp in this errour Fourthly yet further to extend the words of this commandement to all sorts of holy likenesses and similitudes though in the little catechisme contayned in their common prayer-booke they put the commandement thus nor the likenesse of any thing mhich is in heauen aboue c. which was lesse intolerable yet in their Translations from the yeare 1638. they adde another any to the text thus nor any likenesse of any thing that they may be sure to include all And though in their later Translations they put the word any any Image any thing in a different letter to signify to the more learned that it is not in the originall yet in theyr little Catechisme they are still put in the very same letter with the rest as if they were no lesse in the originall then the other words which may be noted for an other fraud and I finde these words of Exodus thus translated in a booke called the confession of faith reprinted at London for the Compaignie of Stationers 1652. all the words being in the same leter pag. 167. Thou shalt not make vnto thee any grauen Image nor any likenesse of any thing Lastly for serue they haue put worship as I haue now declared So that in these few words thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image nor any likenesse of any thing c. thou shalt not bow down vnto them nor worship them are six mistakes corruptions or additions to the text And though some of these in themselues may be iudged to be of no great moment and might passe amongst such as with a sincere meaning should admit some of them in their translation yet in our new Reformists who labour all they can to presse this text to common people aboue all others against vs and about the meaning wherof wee are in great Controuersy and who professe reiecting all other Translations to stand closely and strictly to the hebrew text they are wholy inexcusable Now if any illitterate Protestant much deuoted to his ministers and teachers and confident of their sincerity in Translating God's word should not be brought by what I haue yet sayd to beleeue that they would put Image in the place of Idol and adde other words to the text which are not in the originall thereby deceiuing the people for a cleare and vndeniable proofe of their partiality and deceit in this particular let him examin the 11. chapter to the Romans v. 4. and the first of the Kings c. 19. v. 18. and his own eyes will tell him that they haue added the word Image to the text for he shall find in the Translations of the yeare 1648. and about that tyme these words Rom. 11. v. 4. who haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal where these three words the Image of are added to the text being neither in the greeke Latin nor hehrew for it should be who haue not bowed the knee to Baal Not as they haue it to the Image of Baal the word Image being added of putpose as it seemes to create a hatred in the harts of the common people against the vse of holy Images seeing them so expresly forbidden in their Bibles euen in the new Testament Now that it may vnanswerably appeare that this word Image is added to the text looke into this very text cited by S. Paul out of the first of the Kings c. 19. v. 18. in their own Bible and you shall find it thus all the knees which haue not bowed vnto Baal without these words the Image of Baal And that they may vndoubtedly know that these words are added to the text in those later Translations let them peruse this place in the more ancient Translations of King Edwards or Queene Elizabeths tyme and they mill find this text to the Rom. c. 11. v. 4. without this addition thus which haue not bowed the knee to Baal as indeed it should be And though in the latter Translations those words the Image be put a different print or letter which may signify to such as are learned that they are not in the originall yet this may reasonably be called into question because the word of which hath a necessary relation to the two fotmer words the Image is put in the same print or letter with Baal and the rest of the text which is in the originall thus which haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal and for what belonges to the vnlearned who are most in danger to be seduced by such shifts as these they are commonly ignorant of the reason why some words are in different or lesse letters and all they find in the text they take to be equally Scripture and the word of God as I haue had experience of about a hundred togeather who all esteemed the words the Image to be no lesse Scripture then the rest of that text yea I found one who very eagerly and strongly vrged this text against Images telling me and glorying in it that Images were condemned expresly in the new Testament by these words of S. Paul Neither can it stand with the rules of true and sincere Translatours to adde when they please and when it makes for theyr aduantage and indangers the deceiuing of the vnlearned in matters of Religion as here it doth by adding certaine words which are neither found in the hebrew greeke nor Latin as these are not though it be in a different letter In the Bibles printed 1648. at London by Robert Barker I find the said words in the same letter with the rest thus which haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal by which the vnlearned Readers cannot iudge but that these words the Image of are as much the word of God as the rest seeing them all in the same print and leter with the other words of the text especially when they marke that in a hundred other places the words which are not in the originall are printed in a different leter from the others in that very Bible which makes it probable in a high degree if not certaine that the maner of printing in this text is a mere corrupt dealing of our aduersaries and a wilfull adding to the word of God to incense the ignorant against Images M. Fulck in his English translation and commentaries vppon the new Testament Printed at London by the deputies of Christopher Barker 1589. exuses this addition by alleadging that in the greeke text here in S. Paul Rom. 11.4 the article is of the feminine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore must agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 image beeing also of the feminine gender which word though it be not expressed in the greeke yet saith Fulck it is to be vnderstood and soe might lawfully be expressed in the English translation But that this
answer is a mere euasion grounded vppon a false principle I will presently make manifest for first it is not the custome of Greeke authours speaking of the statues or Idols of theyr Gods to expresse them in the feminine as referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the masculine article as referred to the God whose name that statua beares Secondly Acts 19.35 those words which M. Fulck and other Protestants vnderstand of the statua or Image of Diana are not put in greek with the feminine but with the masculine or newter gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby is manifest that when the greeks speake of theyr Idols and statuas they referre them not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the feminine but rather to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the newter gender or some such like word Thirdly in the 1. of Kings 19.18 whence this text of Rom. 11.4 is taken the Septuagint haue it in the masculine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet both this place and that of S. Paul must necessarily be vnderstood to speake of the same thing and in the same sence which seeing the Protestants will haue to be only the statua or picture of Baal it must needs follow that the reason why S. Paul hath it in the feminine gender is not because it speakes of that visible and artificiall Idol for 1. Kings 19.18 speaking also of that hath it in the masculine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This therefore is not the Reason but S. Paul puts it in the feminine and the Septuagint in the masculine gender because Baal was a common name to the Idols of the heathens which weare adored by the Iews thus nothing is more familiar in the old Testament then to put that word in the plurall number Baalim because it was common to many false Gods which weare comprised in that name now those Gods some were males and some femalls and soe of both genders amongst which Astarthes Queene and Goddesse of Sidonia was the most famous where of familiar mention is made in the old Testament speaking of Baalim and Asteroth Seeing therefore that both S. Paul and the booke of kings speake of a generall worshipping of Baal through the whol kingdome of Israel which must be extended to all theyr false Gods whether men or woemen it might likewise be translated truly both in the masculine gender in the first of the kings and in the feminine in the 11. to the Romains as comprehending both And soe S. Paul hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the feminine not in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Image as Fulk would haue it bur in reference to Astarthes or other woemen Goddesses comprehended in that generall word Baal as Catholicque doctours vnderstand it for according to this exposition both the old and new Testament are easily reconciled but according to Fulk neyther can the old be here reconciled with the new nor the new with it selfe as I haâ—e declared whence appeares seeing this reason failes which Protestants foly alleadge for theyr defence that the word Image is here added to the text with out any sufficient reason and soe falsely and corruptedly I finde the like addition of the word Image Acts 19.35 aboue cited where though the greek word be of the masculine gender as I haue declared yet the word Image which is not in the originall as M. Fulk acknowledges is put into the English text thus of the Image which came down from Iupiter where there was noe reason at all to put Image seeing the greeke words are masculine but the Readeâ— may easily discouer by such indirect proceedings as these that it is not the gender but the generall disgust against holy Images which caused these additions for whether the greek article be masculine or feminine Image must come in as is euident from these two textsâ— Neyther is that which M. Fulk alleadges of any force for the greek words may be refered to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and be translated as our vulgar hath it Iouis Prolis Iupiters child hauing rather relation to the Person then to the Idol of Diana Or if it be referred to that Idol which was reserued with soe greate honour in the temple of Ephesus yet by reason of the great stupidity and brutality of the Heathens described in many places of holy Scripture as I shall here after declare that very Idol was held by them to be a true deity and the liuing Goddesse Diana and therefore they made soe loud and strong acclamations magna est Diana Ephesiorum great is Diana of the Ephefiens who was noe other then that dull and dead Idol which was adored by them in the temple of Ephesus But though they had been wiser then the ordinary strayne of Idolaters and soe had esteemed that Idol to be a mere representation of theyr Goddesse yet seeing that the originall hath noe word which signifies Image but vses a generall expression which is indifferent to the one or other of these explications why should not the English as well as the greek haue only sayd that which came down from Iupiter neyther expressiing Image nor any other determinate thing if they had as fully intended to follow the originall without all passion against holy Images as they predend it But that I may further lay open how vehemently they were transported in the first appearance of theyr new Church against the vse of Images I will breefly alleadge some other places of Scripture wherein theyr translations of the yeares 1562. and 1577. as M. Fulk acknowledges and 1589. they haue translated the greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshippers of Images 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Images Thus Ephes. 5.5 where the greek hath Idolater these traÌ„flations haue a worshipper of Images And Coll. 3.5 where the greek hath Idolatry they haue worshipping of Images and the like is Gal. 5.20 1. Ioan. 5.21 for Idoles in greeke they translate Images in the Bible printed 1562. and though in Fulks testament it be translated Idoles in the text yet in the margent he puts or Images Now how great a difference there is betwixt an Idol and an Image I haue all ready declared and M. Fulk acknowledges fol. 456. that the vse of our English speach hath made the name of Idol odious and of Image indifferent whence follows necessarily that the word Image according to him may signifie noe lesse a good then a bad representation but the word Idol allways a bad soe that the word Image or Images cannot be put absolutly in those places of Scripture where they are vniuersally to be vnderstood of things bad or vnlawful thus therefore 1. Iohn 5.2 where the Apostle saith Babes keepe your selues from Idoles being an indefinite and soe an vniuersall precept he commands Christians to keepe themselues from all kinde of Idoles what soeuer and soe is fitly and truly expressed by the word Idoles because that word is alwayes taken in our language euen according to M. Fulk
in an odious and bad signification but it can neyther fitly nor truly be expressed by the word Images put absolutly and with our any adjunct as it is in those first ttanslations of English Protestants babes keepe your selues from Images for then the precept could not be indefinitly and vniuersally vnderstood as it must be to keepe themselues from all Images whatsoeuer for all Christians should be here commanded to keepe themselues from all monie because it hath Images vppon it and the husband to keepe himselfe from his wife because she is an Image of God nay Christians to keepe themselues from Christ because he is the Image of his father But if Protestants would vse the word Image in this text fitly and truly they must haue added some adiectiue to it which would haue tyed it to signifie something which is vniuersally vnlawfull thus Babes keepe your selues from false Images or from bad Images c. but this they refused to doe first because there was noe such adiectiue in the originall and and secondly because the addition of that adiectiue would haue made the text to haue had not soe much as any seeming force against the doctrine of the Romain Church for we should presently haue answered that our Images are neyther false nor bad but true and holy and soe not forbidden in that place Thus though the word desire be indiffereÌ„t to signifie as wel bad as good desires yet this would be a very absurd command keep your selues from defires for that were to oblige one to abstayne from all desires and therefore the Apostle when he giues a command about desires he speakes not indefinitly but expresses by the adiectiue which he adioynes what desires he meanes Abstinete vos à carnalibus desiderijs Keepe your selues from carnal desires all which are bad and vnlawfull whence appeares that Protestants by this theyr translation make S. Iohn and the holy Scripture to deliuer a commande not only false and senselesse but euen wicked and blasphemous for it must command Christians to keepe themselues from all Images and consequently not only from all Koyne and Company of men which are Images but euen from Christ himselfe who is the Image of his eternall father The like inconueniences follow from the other texts now cited where Image is put absolutly for Idoll for when the Apostle Ephes. 5.5 Reckons vp those hainous sinners who are excluded diâ—ng without repentance from the kingdome of heauen he calls an auaritious man an Idolater in the originall and the English Protestants make the text say an auaritious man which is a worshipper of Images now euery auaâ—itious man is truly called an Idolater because he commits spirituall idolarry in making his gould his God but an auaritious man cannot be truly termed a spirituall worshipper of Images absolutly taken for that supposes that all worshipping of any Image whatsoeuer is sinfull as all auarice is which notwithstanding is not only false but blasphemous for ciuil worship exhibited to the Image of some lawfull Emperour is not sinfull euen according to Protestants and diuine worship giuen to our Sauiour who is the Image of his father is not only not sinfull but most lawfull and holy The like follows from theyr translation of Gal. 5.20 where the Apostle giuing a catalogue of those capitall sinnes which vnrepented depriue a soul of eternall happinesse amongst many others names Idolorum seruitus in greeke Idolatry now as all the rest whensoeuer they are done are sinnes soe whensoeuer any kinde or act of Idolatry is committed it is a sinne but the Protestant changing Idolatrie into worshipping of Images must make the Scripture say that as whensoeuer any fornication adultery witchcraft idolatry or any other here named is commited sinne is committed soe when any kinde of worshipping of Images is committed sinne is committed which notwithstanding is manifestly false for neyther is the ciuil worship of an Emperours Image a sinne and much lesse the diuine worship of our Sauiour who is the Image of his father Thus is it made euident that whilst Protestants shew theyr vehement passions against holy Images they make the Scripture to speake not only falsities but euen blasphemies which the later TraÌ„slaters hauing obserued ashamed of soe foul errours haue corrected as any one may see theyr former and ancienter translations and haue restored Idoles Idolaters and Idolatrie to the respectiue texts which I haue aboue cited neyther is that which M. Fulk alleadges in defense of those ancient translations of any force at all for though the vulgar latinÌ„ translation translate the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes simulacrum and some amongst the ancients not only heathens but Christians take that latin word in a good sense yet according to the acception which it hath through the whol latin Bible it is neuer taken for any thing saue an Idol neyther cites M. Fulk soe much as any one text of Scripture where simulacrum is not taken for an Idol where as the word Image in all languages is familiarly taken not only in all authours both Heathens and Christians but also in holy Scripture for true lawfull holy and diuine Images Notwithstanding all that I haue sayd in manifest and vndeniable proofe of the false translation of the commandement Exod. 20. v. 4. c. yet to shew how little force these texts haue euen as they stand in the Protestant Bibles Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image c. to proue any thing against the vse of holy Images practised in the Romain Church I most easily answer that if they vnderstand by grauen Image such as are also Idoles as it is taken Isay. 44.17 Ps. 105.19 Ps 78.5 Iudg. 18. where that which v. 17. 18. 20. is called a graueÌ„ a molten Image v. 24. is called Gods in the ProtestaÌ„t Bibles in different other places as I haue already shewed nay through the whol Protestant Bible the word grauen Image is neuer taken but for an Idol or a false God for as much I euer could yet discouer in it then I grant that such Images are neither to be made worshipped nor serued but this concludes nothing at all against the Romain Church who abhorres detests and anathematizes all such Images with the wotshipping and worshippers of them But if they vnderstand by grauen Image an Image wich is no Idoll but a true representation of some holy person now in heauenly blisse such as where the images of the two Cherubins Exodus the 25. then I deny that such grauen Images are forbidden either to be made or worshipped according to the explication already deliuered Now the reason of this answer and distinction is cleare for if true Images of holy things and persons were forbidden Exod. 20. v. 4. then that place of Seripture would be contrary to the others Exodus the 25. which command them and if all kind of reuerence respect and worship be here forbidden to holy Images then this text Exod. 20. v.