serpent let them also be broken by their lawful superiour if no better remedie may be found But as that very brazen serpent duly worshipped many hundred yeares by the same people before they fell to idolatry as witnesseth S. Augustine * Lib. 3. de Trini cap. 10. where he reckoneth the brazen serpent among those signes which are worthy of religious worship so good Christians may worship all sorts of holy pictures so they think no god to dwell in them nor put any trust in the pictures but vse them onely to stir vp deuotion to keepe their minds from wandering after their domesticall affaires and to conserue the memory of Gods happy seruants R. ABBOT We are desirous to know where the superiours of the Romish Church haue broken any images to which godly honour hath bene giuen That it hath bene giuen to them it is confessed by Polydore Virgil as I haue before shewed acknowledging that a Polyd. Virgil. de inuent rer lib. 6. cap. 13. that part of pietie did litle differ from impiety and that the people did worship images not as figures but so as that they did put more trust in them then in Christ and the Saints to whom they were dedicated These words they deface and blot out with many other following which serue to the laying open of this wicked abuse but of the reforming of any abuse herein cōmitted we can yet vnderstand nothing And seeing Greg. de Val. plainly confesseth that they giue diuine worship to Images as hath bene shewed in the former section we must take this speech of M. Bishop to be vsed but for a shift without any meaning to haue their idols so roughly dealt with as he pretendeth Nay as the Pagans were made beleeue that b Ruffin hist lib. 2. cap 23. Persuaesio dispersa quòd si humana manus simulachrū illud contigisset terra dehiscens illico solueretur in Chaos repentè coelum rueret in praeceps if the image of Serapis were hurt or touched all the world would presently be dissolued so the Romish politicians perswade themselues that their golden world will soone come to nought if once they should offer to lay violent hands vpon their sacred and holy images As for that which he saith of the brasē serpent duly worshipped many hundred yeares it is a most impudēt lie neither is there so much as any shew of any thing whereupon he should so affirme The childrē of Israel had bin accustomed c 2. Kings 18.4 to burne incense to it Ezechias took knowledge of it which it seemeth some other godly kings before him had not done cōdemned it as wicked vnlawful to take away vtterly the occasion of that idolatry he brake the same brazen Serpent in peeces calling it in contempt because of the abuse of it a peece of brasse That it was worshipped then we find and for that cause was destroyed but that it was euer lawfully worshipped there is nothing to be found Yet M. Bishop very leudly seeketh to father this conceit vpon S. Austine d Aug. de Trinit lib. 3 cap. 10. Aliquādo ad hoc fit eadem species vel aliquantulū mansura sicut potuit serpens ille aeneus exaltatus in eremo sicut possunt literae vel peracto ministerio transitura sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur sed ista quia hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt honorem tanquā religiosa habere possunt stuporē tanquā mira non possunt As witnesseth Saint Austine saith he where he reckoneth the brazen Serpent among those signes which are worthy of religious worship The thing that S. Austine saith is this that to declare somewhat to vs from God sometimes a forme or kinde of thing is made either to abide for a while as might the brazen Serpent that was lift vp in the wildernesse and as letters or writing may or else to passe away as the seruice is performed as the bread made for that vse in receiuing the sacrament is consumed Hereupon he addeth But these things being knowne to men because they are done by men may haue honour as matters appertaining to religion but wonder as matters of maruell they cannot haue And what is here now whence M. Bishop should affirme that S. Austine accounted the brazen Serpent worthy of religious worship What doth he say more of the brazen serpent then he doth of letters and writing and will M. Bishop say that he will haue letters and writing to be worshipped Things appertaining to the vse of religion are to be honored by decent and seemly vsage as our Churches pulpits vestiments cups books and such like and yet they are not to be worshipped Saint Paul saith e 1. Tim 5.17 The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour and yet we hope M. Bishop will not vpon a good opinion of himselfe take vpon him to be worshipped f August contra ser Arian ca. 23. Honorat omnis qui adorat non autem adorat omnis qui honorat Euery one that worshippeth honoureth saith S. Austine but euery one that honoureth doth not worship Therefore Epiphanius saith of the blessed Virgine g Epiphan haeres 97. Sit in honore Maria Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus adoretur Mariam nemo adoret Deo debetur hoc mysterium c. Sancta est honorata at non ad adorationem Let Mary be in honour let the Father Sonne and holy Ghost be worshipped Let no man worship Mary this mystery belongeth vnto God She is holy and honorable but is not to be worshipped The brazen serpent then might be honored by being carefully kept as Manna was for the remembrance of the benefite thereby receiued but thereupon to assigne to it religious worship is a collectiō somwhat strange Seeing therefore the brazen serpent was neuer lawfully worshipped M. Bishop hath no argument from thence to prooue that good Christians may worship all sorts of holy pictures but M. Perkins argument standeth good that sith the brazen serpent erected by the commaundement of God himselfe yet when it was worshipped was therefore destroyed and abolished therefore much more all other images being erected onely of humane curiositie without commandement from God are to be defaced and destroyed when religious worship or seruice is done vnto them As for M. Bishops vses of his images to stirre vp deuotion to keepe the mind from wandering to conserue the memory of Gods happie seruants they are as I haue before shewed the vaine pretences of Idolaters neither is there any good effect to be expected from them to say nothing that these things are nothing to the point in hand which is the worshipping of them 13. W. BISHOP Now to the third argument which is iolly and worthy the wilde wit of a mad minister Christ would not so much as bow his knee vnto the diuell although he would haue giuen him the whole world for
S. Austine who telleth Macedonius the Lieutenant concerning them who being condemned to death had their liues and pardon begged by the Bishops that f August ep 54. Quosdam quâ—râ—â— manifesta sunt crimina à vestra seueritate liberatos à societate remouemus altaris vt poenitendo placare possiut quem peccando contempserant séque ipsos puniendo they kept many of them whose crimes were manifest from the participation of the sacrament that by repentance and punishing themselues they might appease him whom in their sinnes they had despised Hereupon he inferreth g NaÌ„ nihil aliud agit quem veraciter poenitet nisi vt id quod mali fecerit impunituÌ„ esse non sinat â—o quippe modo sibi non parcenti ille parcit cuius altuÌ„ iustumque iudiciuÌ„ nullus coÌ„temptâ—â— euadit For he which truly repenteth laboureth nothing else but not to suffer that euill which he hath done to be vnpunished for by that meanes when he spareth not himselfe he is spared of him whose secret and iust iudgement no despiser shall escape Which words being plainly deliuered of that repentance whereby God is appeased that he may not punish what do they make to the proofe of a punishment which they say God inflicteth when he is appeased Concerning this punishing of our selues I refer thee to that which before hath bin said by occasion of another sentence of S. Austine in the tenth section The other place is manifestly spoken of publike penitency S. Austin exhorting euery man in the guilt of those sins of which the Scripture teacheth that h Gal. 5.21 they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdome of God i August hom 50. Cùm in se protulerit seuerissimae medicinae sententiaÌ„ veniat ad Antistites per quos illi in ecclesia claues ministrantur acciptat satisfactionis suae moduÌ„ vt in offerendo sacrificio cordis contribulati denotus supplex id tamen agat quod non solum illi prosit ad recipiendam saluteÌ„ sed caeteris ad exemplum vt si peccatum eius non solum in graui eius malo sed etiam in scandalo est aliorum atque hoc expedire viâ—litati ecclesiae videtur antistiti in notitia multorum veletiam totius plebis agere poenitentiaem non recuset to pronounce sentence against himself of a sharp medicine to come to the Priests by whom the keyes of the church are ministred vnto him and of them to receiue the maner or measure of his satisfaction that being deuout and humble in offering the sacrifice of a troubled or contrite hart he may yet do that which may not onely do him good for the receiuing of saluation but others also by example that if his sin be not only to the grieuous hurt of himself but also to the scandal of others and it so seem to the Priest or Bishop expedient for the profit of the Church he refuse not to do penance in the knowledge of many or of the whole church This is again a repentance for the receiuing of the forgiuenes of sins saluation but no other satisfaction required not onely for the good of the offender but also for the good of other men and of the whole church whereas M. Bishops satisfaction concerneth only the man himselfe to be deliuered from Purgatory paines To the same effect is that which he citeth further out of the same Homily k Ibid. Non sufficit mores in melius commutare à factis malis recedere nisi etiaÌ„ de his qua factae sunt satisfiat Deo per poenitentiae dolorem It sufficeth not to amend our manners and to depart from euill doings vnlesse for those things which we haue done we satisfie God by sorrow of repentance To what end that satisfaction is vsed he sheweth presently after l Non enim dictuÌ„ est tantùm vt abstineatis à peccatis sed de praeteritis inquit Dominum deprecare vt tibi dimittantur For it is not said only that we should abstaine from sins but pray to God also saith he namely Ecclesiasticus for the things that are past that they may be forgiuen thee Here is all still for forgiuenes of sins but nothing of satisfaction when sin is forgiuen So when Gregory saith that m Greg in 1. Reg lib. 6. Non solum confitenda sunt pecâ—ata sed etiam poenitentiae austeritate delenda sins are not only to be confessed but also to be blotted out by austeritie of penance or repentance he speaketh of a penance for the blotting out of sin not of penance wheÌ„ the sin is already blotted out So doth Beda expresly apply his speech to the purging the blotting out the pardoning of sin n Beda in Psal 1. Delectatio seu voluntas peccandi quando ad satisfactionem venitur leuitèr eleemosynis alijs talibus purgatur consensuâ— verò non nisi graut poenitentia deletur consuetudo autem nonnisi recta ponderosa satisfactione absoluitur Delight or desire to sin when we come to satisfaction is lightly purged with almsdeeds such like but consent is not blotted out by great repeÌ„tance but custome of sin is not pardoned but by iust and waightie satisfaction Thus gentle Reader of all that M. Bishop hath cited yea and of all that Bellarmine hath cited there is not one that speaketh to the point in question as touching satisfaction after forgiuenesse of sins No it is a late deuice of the Schoolmen which when they had set it abroch they desired to colour and to giue it tast by citing sentences of the Fathers as touching satisfaction when as the Fathers speake of satisfaction in one meaning and they apply them in another But I suppose I haue not yet giuen thee full satisfaction vnlesse I further adde somewhat as touching the auncient Fathers vsing of this terme of satisfaction It is therefore to be vnderstood that the same was first applyed to that publike penance whereby open and notorious offenders did satisfie the Church that is giue sufficient and approued testimonie and assurance of their true and vnfained repentance for their sinnes When any in the time of persecution had fallen by renouncing the name and faith of Christ or had otherwise committed any great and scandalous trespasse to the grieuance of his brethren to the obloquie of religion and slaunder of the Church but especially to the offence of almighty God and prouoking of his wrath both against himselfe and them also with whom he liued he was by the publike censure of the Church secluded from the Communion and cut off from the societie of the faithfull and godly as vnworthy to be reckoned a member of Christ or partaker of the hope that is by him But yet there was alwaies hope of restitution remaining to them who vpon conuenient triall were found penitent and grieued for the euill which they had done To this purpose therefore they were enioyned
of all conditions neither did import any thing that should belong to any deuided sorts or societies of meÌ„ but what all Christians should alike performe to God what are they but deuisers of new worship and seruice vnto God who vnder the colour of those vowes do now bring in select and speciall acts exercises of religion peculiar onely to some men If all Christian deuotions signified by those vowes were found amongst the Iews as hath bin said and these select and peculiar deuotions were not found certain it is that these deuotions are but superstitions and haue no warrant from the old Testament to be practised in the new Now then to come to that which M. Bishop saith albeit there is no man but well knoweth that a promise is more then a bare acceptance yet wholly to take away that cauil we terme a vow a solemne promise whereby a man in speciall manner bindeth himself to that which he voweth Albeit where there is a promise made to keepe Gods commandements who but an absurd man wil hold it for an absurdity to affirme that in the breach there is a double trespasse because to the obseruation he was tied with a double bond both absolutely by dutie and respectiuely by couenant and promâ—se and therfore must needs be said to violate his dutie the one way and his fidelitie the other Otherwise why doth God vpon h Deut. 5.27 a promise to keepe his lawes so often charge his people in speciall manner for dealing i Psal 78.8 vnfaithfully with him calling them in that respect k Deut. 32.20 children in whom is no faith no fidelitie or trust l Esa 30.9 lying children m Chap. 57.4 a false or lying seed with sundry other speeches in sundry places to the like effect It was therefore but a Romish distemper of M. Bishops eies that made him vnable to see gold from drosse and caused him to take that for an error which coÌ„mon vnderstanding should informe him to be a truth As for that which he telleth vs that by our definition we make all couenants with God and promises to him to be vows we answer him that we do indeed take all serious and solemne promises to God to be very fitly contained vnder that name not but that in precise manner of speaking there is a difference to be made betwixt them but because we are not much scrupulous of distinction of words terms where saue only in circumstance there is no difference betwixt the things themselues no difference I say at all in that respect wherein they are questioned betwixt the Papists and vs. For the onely difference is this that vowes properly so called are vttered as by examples I haue shewed before with condition of obtaining somewhat at Gods hands but other othes and couenants and promises are absolutely and simply made According to this strict rule of speaking it is onely a couenant and promise that we make to God in Baptisme to forsake the Diuell and all his workes to beleeue in God and to serue him but it is a vow when a man in sicknes by way of repentance of his former life saith If the Lord will be mercifull vnto me and vouchsafe to restore me to health againe I will forsake all my former euill wayes and betake my selfe faithfully to his seruice The matter then on both sides is one the same and the difference is onely in forme of speaking which being no other we make no doubt of calling both by the name of vowes neither is there any question in that behalfe because the Papists terme absolute promises Vowes as well as we But M. Bishop out of the drosse of their schooles taketh vpon him to teach vs another difference that a vow is a promise to God of some better good the same proceeding out of our owne free choise and liberty whereas other promises may be of necessary duties not being at our choise but whereto we are tied otherwise Where he leaueth vs to guesse what he meaneth by some better good the words importing a comparison and therefore implying a reference to some other good then which that is better which we promise by a vow This mysterie Thomas Aquinas shall open for vs who saith that n Thom. Aquin. sum 22. qu. 88. art 22. in corp Dicitur maius bonum in comparatione ad bonuÌ„ quod comunitèr est de necessitate salutis this better good is so called in comparison of that good that is commonly necessary for the obtaining of saluation meaning thereby that it is better then those vertues and good workes which in common belong to the dutie of euery Christian man Which fancie of theirs is very fond vaine because when of old the vow was sacrifice and the common dutie was mercie the vow could not be said to be of a better good then was the common dutie for that mercie was better then sacrifice as God himselfe gaue to vnderstand saying o Ose 6.6 I will haue mercie and not sacrifice Yea it hath bene before shewed that of old the thing principally intended in vowes was matter of common dutie though included for the time as it were in the shell of those outward ceremonies and therefore vowes cannot be said to be of better good then common dutie We see the speciall matter of Iacobs vow before mentioned to haue bene that that concerneth euery man for the obtaining of saluation Then shall the Lord be my God before which neither the building of a house to God nor the giuing of a tenth of his goods to God could be preferred as a better good And who doth not vnderstand and see that in this assertion of a better good in their vowes they affirme that that is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures How doth he vow a better good who in the vow of continencie burneth with fleshly lust when the Apostle so plainly saith p 1. Cor. 7.9 It is better to marry then to burne How do they vow a better good in their vow of pouertie and beggery when as our Sauiour saith q Act. 20.35 It is a more blessed thing to giue then to receiue How do they in their vow of obedience tie themselues to a better good in making themselues slaues to the rules of men then other men do in following the commaundements of God when as the Scripture saith r 1. Corin. 7.23 Be ye not made the seruants of men These are very peeuish and absurd deuices bred in corrupt and rotten braines and no way sauouring of Christian vnderstanding As for that which he addeth that a vow must proceed of our owne free choise and libertie and that no vow is made without a mans free choise to bind himselfe whether he vndrstand it of vowing or of the thing that is vowed there is no necessitie therof For albeit it be true that a man is not alwayes tied to vow but sometmies is at libertie whether to
Gods word this we allow Secondly that it be so made that it may stand with Christian libertie that is that it make not such things necessarie in conscience which Christian religion leaues at libertie This rule of his is flat repugnant to the nature of a vow and contrary to himselfe For he saith a little before that a Christian may vow fasting prayer almes-deeds I then demaund hauing vowed these things is he not bound to performe them Yes or else he breakes his vow with which God is highly displeased * Deut 23. Eccles 30. An vnfaithfull promise displeaseth God Then is it manifest that all vowes do abridge vs of our libertie and make that vnlawfull for vs which before our vow was lawfull which is so euident of it selfe that I maruell where the mans wit and memorie was when he wrote the contrary His other rules that a vow be made with good deliberation and with consent of our superiours and not onely of things possible but also of the better sort Quaest 88. we allow for they are taken out of our Doctors See S. Thom. R. ABBOT That which M. Perkins saith is true that in the law of Moses the ceremoniall worke it selfe was a part of the worship of God and was to be done in it selfe by way of obedience to God He speaketh not of the act of vowing simply by it selfe as M. Bishop falsly wresteth his words but of the vow of a ceremoniall dutie in the way of seruice to God which if M. Bishop do not acknowledge to be abolished he must become a Iew and practise the sacrifices and offerings prescribed by Moses law But of this he telleth vs that we shall heare more hereafter and we are content to wait his leisure As touching vowes vnder the Gospell M. Perkins affirmeth that they may be made as touching the performance of some outward bodily exercise for some good ends and purposes as when a man seeing himselfe prone to drunkennesse doth by vow bind himselfe for a time to the forbearing of wine and strong drinke or vpon occasions tieth himselfe to set fasting and prayer and reading of the Scriptures and giuing of some set almes and such like But as touching such vowes he deliuereth certaine cautions to be obserued The first M. Bishop alloweth that our vow be agreeable to the will and word of God The second he vnderstandeth not and therefore cauilleth at it It is required that our vow stand with Christian libertie that is that by vowing we intangle not our consciences with any opinioÌ„ of the necessity of the things themselues which we haue vowed as if any worship or holinesse consisted in those externall and formall obseruations but that in our practise of them we know that in themselues they are no matters of conscience nor do yeeld vs any part of righteousnesse with God Now this which M. Perkins applieth against the conceipt of the very things themselues which a man hath vowed M. Bishop construeth as if he meant it of being at liberty from the performing of his vow But a man may religiously performe his vow and yet know that the thing it selfe is of no value with God which he performeth and therefore M. Perkins wits did not faile in deliuering but M. Bishops in vnderstanding Those other conditions that such vowes must be made with consent of superiours and of things that are in our power to do and agreeable to our vocation and calling and with good deliberation and for a good end M. Bishop approueth also and therefore not questioning whence they were taken and telling him that our vprightnesse appeareth therin if we be content to take of them what is consonant agreeable to the truth we so let them go 3 W. BISHOP Now to the points in difference First the Church of Rome saith M. Perkins teacheth that in the new testament we are as much bound to make vowes as was the Church of the Iewes we say no Considering that the Ceremoniall Law is now abolished and we haue only two Ceremonies by commandement to be obserued for parts of Gods worship Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord. Answer What is not your Holy-day seruice which you call diuine seruice any part of Gods worship in your owne opinions Can a publike assembly instituted to honour God by prayer and thankesgiuing with externall ceremony of time place apparell kneeling standing and sitting be no part of Gods worship in your irreligious Congregations assembled together against Christ and his catholike Church be it so But admitting as you do your seruice to be good it could not truly be denied to belong vnto the worship of God But to the matter of difference you grow very carelesse in your reports of our doctrine for we hold that neither in the old nor new law any man is bound to vow but that it is and euer was a councell and no commandement neuerthelesse a thing of great deuotion and perfection in both states intrinsecally belonging and much furthering to the true worship of almightie God which we proue in this sort In a vow are two things the one is the good which is vowed called the materiall part for example Fasting c. The other the promise it selfe made to God which is the forme the materiall parts do belong vnto their seuerall vertues but this promise and performance of it be substantiall parts of Gods worship For by promising of any good thing vnto God we acknowledge and professe that God is the soueraigne goodnesse it selfe and taketh great pleasure in all good purposes and determinations therefore to honour and worship him we make that good promise againe in performing that good seruice of God we testifie that he is most maiesticall reuerend and dreadfull And consequently that all promises made to him are to be accomplished most diligently and without delay wherein we honour and worship him as contrariwise they doe much dishonour him who breake with him as if hee were of no better account then to be so deluded This thing in it selfe is so certaine and cleare that he who denies it must needes either be ignorant in the nature of a vow or not know wherein the true worship of God consisteth for according vnto the holy Scriptures it selfe all good dâ—edes done to the glory of God be acts of the true worship of God And Saint Anne * Luk. 1. did worship God by fasting and prayer And * Phil. 4. almes bestowed on Gods prisoners is called a sacrifice pleasing and acceptable to God And it is said * Iac. 5. to be a pure religion before God to visite Orphanes and widdowes If then all other vertuous duties done to the glory of God be parts of his true worship much more vowes which by speciall promise dedicate a good deede to Gods honour they then being of their owne nature speciall parts of his true worship of God it followeth necessary that at all times they were and may be vsed to the
true worship of God that they were in practise before Moses Law is euident by that vow which Iacob made * Gen. 28. of setting vp a stone which should be called the house of God and of paying the tenthes of all his goods Out of which vow we also gather that God holdeth for agreeable any kind of good seruice offered vnto him out of our owne deuotion albeit he hath not commaunded it for no such thing as Iacob there vowed was commanded him but he being well assured that it would be well taken by God which was offered of good will to his greater honour he vowed it and is in holy Scripture commended for it Againe that when Saint Paul * Colos 2. seemeth to disalow voluntarie worship he must be vnderstood to speake either of erronious or of friuolous and foolish things promised to God which do not properly serue to the setting forth of his honour R. ABBOT Our diuine seruice our praiers and thanksgiuings to God our hearing of his word and receiuing of his sacraments are indeede the worship of God and our publike assemblies are instituted hereby to honour God but as for the externall ceremonies of time place apparell kneeling standing and sitting if M. Bishops wits stood right he would know that they are things accidentall to the worship of God but no parts thereof God is not honoured by our meeting at such a time or by being in such a place or by wearing such or such apparell or by our kneeling or standing or sitting but by the things which according to his commaundement we do in the vsage of these things The Church was wont to forbeare kneeling in their praiers from Easter to Whitsontide and yet we suppose M. Bishop is not so absurd as to say that therefore they failed to do to God some part of his worship A number of apish gestures for many hundred yeeres were wanting in the masse and was there some part of Gods worship wanting all that while This matter needeth not to be stoode vpon nor would there haue bene occasion to speake of it at all but that mens senses commonly faile them most when they thinke to vse them most acutely against God He calleth our congregations irreligious and saith they are assembled against Christ and his Church but God hath iustified our congregations to theiâ— shame and confusion and for the maintenance of them hath so shewed his prouidence power that as the Aegyptians said a Exod. 14.25 The Lord fighteth for Israel against the Aegyptians so the Romish idolaters haue bene forced to say The Lord fighteth for the English congregations against vs. But to come to the matter he findeth fault with M. Perkins his report of their doctrine and therefore himselfe reporteth it that they hold that neither in the old nor new law any man is bound to vow but that it euer was a counsell and no commandement yet neuerthelesse a thing of great deuotion and perfection in both states and intrinsecally belonging to the true worship of God Where as touching ceremoniall vowes he saith truly that in the old law no maÌ„ was expresly bound to vow but that those vowes were matters of perfection in the old law if we will take it vpon his word we may but how to proue it he cannot tell it is a meere dotage neither is there any ground whereupon to affirme that euer they were taken so to be Nay euen then was it true which Origen saith b Origen in â—â—um hom 24. Seâ—â—tipsuâ— Deo offètre hoc est perfectius emineâ—tuâ— omnibus votis quod qui facit imitator est Christi To offer a mans selfe to God was a matter of greater perfection and eminencie then all vowes which he that doth saith he is the follower of Christ But as touching vowes promises of spirituall duties and seruices which were figured in those ceremoniall deuotions it is vtterly false which he saith whether in the old or new law that we are not bound vnto them and his owne words do plainly shew the coÌ„trary For he telleth vs that vowes do intrinsecally belong to the true worship of God and who doubteth but that God hath required and commaunded whatsoeuer belongeth intrinsecally to his worship and seruice For if they be not commaunded there is no necessity of them If there be no necessity of them then the religion and worship of God may stand perfect without them If the worship of God may stand without them then they do not intrinsecally belong to the true worship of God But because the true vowes are intrinsecally and essentially belonging to the true worship of God therefore we must vnderstand and know them to be commaunded of God and that he hath not left any intrinsecall part of his true worship to depend vpon our will And this will yet further appeare by Maister Bishops proofe who setting downe the matter and forme of a vow the matter the good thing which is vowed the forme the promise it selfe made to God telleth vs that this promise and the performance of it are substantiall parts of Gods worship For by promising saith he of any good thing to God we acknowledge and professe that God is the soueraigne goodnesse it selfe Now if vowes be a substantiall part of Gods worship and yet not commaunded of God then some part of the substance of Gods worship hangeth vpon our discretion and choise whether to yeeld it him or not and wee may yeeld him a maimed worship wanting some part of the substance of it and yet commit no trespasse against him So likewise if vowes be the acknowledging and professing of the soueraigne goodnesse of God and yet not commaunded of God we may without sinne forbeare some part of the acknowledgement and profession of the soueraigne goodnesse of God If thereby wee testifie that he is most maiesticall reuerend and dreadfull and yet God haue not commaunded them we may refuse to giue this testimony without any impeachment of the maiestie of God But God is not worshipped in that sort he hath not left our acknowledgement of him arbitrary to the discretion of our will He hath commanded vs c Psal 96.8 to giue vnto him the glory of his name that is the glory that belongeth is due vnto him and if vowes be a part of that glory as M. Bishop telleth vs they be they cannot be exempted from that commandement Christ hath commanded vs d Mat. 22.21 to giue to God the things that are Gods If vowes be a substantiall part of the worship of God we are tied to giue the same vnto him neither may we thinke our selues bound for one part onely and at our own liberty for the other Now all this paines that he taketh to proue that vowes are a part of the worship of God is but lost as touching vs because he fighteth without an aduersary proueth that which we deny not but it giueth vs aduantage against them to charge them with
manifest and abhominable idolatry in that confessing vowes to be a substantiall part of the worship of God they communicate this honour to the Saints and make vowes to them of fastings praiers pilgrimages churches altars tapers and what not a thing so voide of all testimonie of Scripture as that Bellarmine is content to say e Bellar. de cultu sanct ca 9. Cum scriberentur scripturae sanctae nondum caeperat vsus vouendi sanctis that when the holy Scriptures were written the custome of vowing to Saints was not yet begun It is nothing therefore against vs that he alledgeth that Iacob made a vow thereby to proue that there was vse of vowes before the time of Moses law but whereas he saith that the things which Iacob vowed were out of his owne deuotion and not commanded of God he speaketh it but at all aduenture and hath no ground for that that he saith For if his reason be because we do not read that any thing was commanded to Iacob in that behalfe we may likewise argue that he did all other deuotions out of his owne heart and receiued them not by commaundement from God because we reade nothing of any such commaundement But it is true which Origen saith that f Origen cont Cels lib 7. Nemo qui oculis animae cernit alio modo DeuÌ„ colit quà m sicut ipse docuit no man that seeth with the eies of his soule worshippeth God otherwise then as he himselfe hath taught and which Hilary saith that g Hilar. de Trinit lib. 4. Neu potest aliâ—er de Deo quà m vt ipse est de se testatus intelligi we may not vnderstand otherwise concerning God then as he himselfe hath witnessed of himselfe M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to make Iacob as blind as he himselfe is that he should go about to worship God with deuotions of his own deuice He receiued instruction of the will of God from the fathers that were before him he had also immediate reuelation illumination from God himself We see that God afterwards in the law giueth commandement of the same things of building altars and paying tithes and vndoubtedly God gaue not commaundements of things which he had learned of Iacob but which Iacob had bene taught by him Yea and because the Apostle S. Paul condemneth h Col. 2.23 will worship or voluntary religion that is all such deuotions as men vndertake of their owne deuice thereby giuing to vnderstand that God neuer approueth any such surely we may wel resolue that Iacob would not be guilty of any such presumption but would first open his eare to learne of God what to do before he would put forth the hand to do any thing vnto God But saith M. Bishop S. Paul when he seemeth to disallow voluntary worship must be vnderstood to speake either of erronious or of friuolous and foolish things promised to God which do not properly serue for the setting forth of his glory Where we see the very patterne of an erroneous and friuolous and foolish answer The Apostle simply taxeth will worship as erroneous and friuolous and foolish and M. Bishop telleth vs that he meaneth that will worship that is erroneous or friuolous and foolish He must be vnderstood of friuolous and foolish things saith M. Bishop and the Apostle telleth vs that he speaketh of such things as i Ibid. haue a shew of wisedome and therefore not to sight but onely to spirituall iudgement are friuolous and foolish And therfore doth the Apostle make them erroneous and affirme that k Ver. 24. they perish in the vsing because they are after the doctrines and commandements of men alluding to that which our Sauiour in the Gospel citeth out of the Prophet l Mat. 15.9 In vaine do they worship me teaching for doctrines the precepts of men but M. Bishop will haue vs thinke that the Apostles meaning is not to reproue generally the doctrines and commandements of men but onely some that be erroneous In a word set them one against another and hearken well what they say The Apostle saith voluntary religion or worship is erroneous because it is after the doctrines and commandements of men Maister Bishop saith all voluntary worship is not erroneous but onely that that is erroneous But here we must thinke that when he thus tooke exception against promising to God friuolous and foolish things he was quite out of the remembrance of the vowes of their religious orders We must in charity be perswaded that he thought not of them because he would haue considered that in condemning the vowing of friuolous and foolish things he should condemne them as in which there are so many fantasticall and friuolous toies as touching their apparell and other vsage as that we may wonder that euer such drunken deuices could come from sober men if at least they were sober that were the deuisers of them And if he had remembred them or when he doth remember them I meruaile what qualification or distinction he would haue vsed or will vse to salue the matter that so ridiculous fooleries should be thought as properly seruing to the setting foorth of the honour of God Albeit it may be that though being subtile and wise hee afterwards pro forma disputeth in the behalfe of those vowes that hee may not walke too openly yet carying still a splene to the Iesuites and for their sakes to all the rest hee would first giue vs to vnderstand that in his mind he accounteth all those vowes as superstitions and wholy condemned by the sentence of the Apostle We are very desirous to construe his meaning the best way 4. W. BISHOP Now that Vowes should be frequented in the state of the Gospell besides the euidence of Saint Paules Vowe * Act. 18. and diuerse other such like the Prophet Esay did foretell in these words * Esa 19.18 They shall worship him with sacrifice and gifts and they shall vow vowes vnto our Lord and performe them To which Maister Perkins answereth first that by such ceremoniall worship as then was in vse the Prophet doth expresse the spirituall worship of the new Testament This exposition is voluntarie and nothing proper For what is more vild and absurd then to declare that Christians shall make no Vowes to say that they shall make Vowes as though one contrarie were fit or would serue to expresse the other This exposition being very vnmeete Maister Perkins adioyneth a second that in the new Testament wee haue vowes of Morall and Euangelicall duties but such are not any part of Gods worship so that first you shall haue no vowes at all Secondly the winde being changed you shall haue them but as no parts of Gods worship as though Morall and Euangelicall duties vndertaken and performed to Gods greater glory be not the very sinewes and substance of his seruice and worship R. ABBOT By the euidence of a Act. 18.18 S. Pauls vow it
as of Fasting Prayer c. to be parts of Gods worship and that they tend vnto a state of perfection We say flatly no holding that lawfull vowes be stayes props of Gods worship but not the worship it selfe this is long since confuted But here M. P. setteth vp a rotten prop or two to vphold his ruinous building saying S. Paule saith plainly * 1. Tim. 4. Bodily exercise profiteth litle but godlines profiteth much Where are you good sir We treat here of vowes which are formally actions of the mind what do you now about bodily exercises Vowes are principall parts of that godlinesse which is so profitable And if by bodily exercise fasting and other corporall paine or labour be vnderstood then we say that such things of themselues would profite little but being directed to the chastising of the rebellious flesh to the end we may lesse offend and better serue God then they may much profite vs. But let vs heare M. Perkins his second reason against such vowes Gods kingdome standeth not in outward things and therefore his worship standeth not in outward things Answer Gods kingdome in it self standeth not in outward things and as it is in vs also it doth consist chiefly in inward worship by faith hope charitie and religion in whose kingdome vowes hold an honorable rank but a great part of this worship among vs depends of outward things for be not the two only parts of Gods worship among Protestants as M. Perkins saith in this question Baptisme our Lords Supper both which partly consist in outwardly both speaking doing And is not faith which is the roote of all Christian Religion gotten by outward preaching and hearing R. ABBOT Here M. Bishop sheweth himselfe againe in his right colour for whereas M. Perkins mentioning vowes of things not commanded addeth for example as of meates drinkes attire c. he in steede hereof putteth in as of fasting and prayer c. that he might make his Reader beleeue that M. Perkins affirmed prayer to be no part of Gods worship Well he must keepe his wont and it fitteth well the cause that he hath in hand The thing that M. Perkins propoundeth is this that lawfull vowes of things not commanded are stayes and proppes of the worship of God but not the worship it selfe This M. Bishop saith is long since confuted but where he cannot tell But for proofe hereof M. Perkins first alledgeth the words of S. Paule a 1. Tim. 4 8. Bodily exercise profiteth little but godlinesse is profitable for all things To these words M. Bishop giueth an answer that fully confirmeth what M. Perkins saith But first he beginneth merily Where are you good Sir Here M. Bishop what would ye we treate here of vowes saith he which are formally actions of the mind what do you now about bodily exercises Yea but M. Bishop you haue told vs before of good vowes and considerate vowes and therefore we presume you allow not of all vowes as if a man should vow the b Esa 66 3. killing of a man or the cutting off of a dogges necke You will tell vs then that good vowes are such as whereby we vow good things and then we answer you that vowes indeed take their condition and qualitie from the things themselues that are vowed and therefore that those onely vowes are the true worship of God whereby we vow those things that belong to his true worship Whence it followeth that where bodily exercises are vowed by which God is not worshipped the sentence of the Apostle is rightly alledged against the taking of those vowes for anie worship of God that bodily exercise profiteth little but godlinesse is profitable for all things We see the Apostle setteth downe bodily exercise for one thing and godlinesse for another and thereby teacheth vs that bodily exercise by it selfe is no part of godlinesse and if bodily exercise be no part of godlinesse then vowes of bodily exercise can be no part thereof It is but at randon therefore that M. Bishop saith that vowes are principall parts of that godlinesse that is so profitable because they are no parts of that godlinesse but when that godlinesse it selfe is the thing which we vow But now he addeth If by bodily exercise fasting and other corporall paine or labour be vnderstood then we say that such things of themselues would profite little but being directed to the chastising of the rebellious flesh to the end we may lesse offend and better serue God then they may much profit And what is this but that that M. Perkins saith that such things are stayes and proppes and helpes of the worship of God but in themselues they are no part of Gods worship The mortifying of fleshly lusts the auoyding of sinne the yeelding of our obedience to God these are things wherein God is worshipped But fasting and such other exercises are onely helpes to these and no part of them and therefore the vowes thereof as M. Perkins saith are no otherwise to be reckoned but as props and stayes and not as partes of the worship of God Poperie hath wickedly taught men to recken of them as meritorious workes and satisfactions for sinne yea not onely for a mans owne sinnes but for other mens sinnes also These are impious and damnable conceipts and farre from that which the Scripture hath taught vs to conceiue of all outward things But against that opinion of vowing such outward and bodily seruice Maister Perkins further vrgeth that the kingdome of God standeth not in outward things as eating drinking and such like alluding to the words of the Apostle c Rom. 14.17 The kingdome of God is not meate and drinke but righteousnesse and peace and ioy in the holy Ghost and he that in these things serueth Christ pleaseth God and is approoued of all men The Apostle would thereby haue it vnderstood that we are no whit the nearer to the kingdome of God by eating or not eating by drinking or not drinking by wearing or not wearing this or that or by any such like things belonging to the externall conuersation and life of man By outward things then we vnderstand not all things that are done outwardly but onely those things the vse whereof properly belongeth to the outward man The preaching and hearing of Gods word the ministring and receiuing of the Sacraments are things outwardly done but they are things belonging not to the outward but to the inward man M. Bishops exception therefore as touching these things is nothing to the purpose but the argument standeth good that because the kingdome of God consisteth not in such outward things as belong to the outward man therefore Popish vowes are to be condemned as superstitious and as hauing no ranke in anie true religion whereby men make vowes of such outward things to become thereby the nearer to the kingdome of God Nowe marke gentle Reader that as M. Bishop began this Section with one lye so he endeth it
but one commaundement and therefore that which they make but one must be deuided into two His other reason is of the same moment as the former that reward and punishment belonging alike to all the commaundements must be placed either with the first or with the last But Maister Bishop considereth not that there is a punishment or threatning annexed also vnto the third commaundement and yet it is no argument to say that therefore it must be the first Againe hee considereth not that God annexeth that promise and threatning to the second commaundement not for the order but for the matter of it to moue his people so much the more attentiuely to regard it as giuing to vnderstand that it most highly prouoketh him to haue the honour that belongeth to him giuen to stockes and stones and that men should fall downe to the workes of their owne hands And this the Scripture most plentifully teacheth vs that God in so high manner detesteth this aboue other sinnes as that for this y Rom 1.24.26.28 he giueth men ouer to their owne hearts lusts to vile affections to a reprobate sense to do those things that are not conuenient that by all filthinesse and vncleannesse they may dishonour themselues who haue in so base and vile sort dishonored him Very pregnant example whereof we haue in the Church of Rome which since it gaue entertainment to this idolatry hath made it selfe a verie sinke of sinne stinking and lothsome both to Christians and Infidels neuer ceasing running headlong from one corruption to another from one wickednesse to another vntill it had made vp a full measure of all abhomination and became according to the words of S. Iohn z Iohn 18.2 an habitation of diuels the hold of all foule spirits and a cage of euery vncleane and hatefull bird Now therefore God knowing how prone and readie his people were to this grosse idolatrie whereof they presently gaue example in worshipping the golden Calfe giueth them a speciall warning in this behalfe telleth them that he is a ielous God and thereby signifieth that as the ielousie of the husband cannot endure that the wife vnder any pretence yeeld the vsage of her body to another nor can be satisfied by hauing it answered to him that she doth it not as to her husband but onely as to her husbands friend and for loue to her husband so he cannot brooke the communicating of his worship vnder any pretence to idols and images to blockes and stones nor taketh it for answer that we account them not as gods but do it thereby to honour God but most seuerely reuengeth this filthy polluting of the religion that is due vnto him This is the cause of annexing the threatning to this second commaundement and very simply doth the Romane Catechisme gather thereof the confounding of it with the first 5. W. BISHOP But M. Perkins goeth on and saith that our distinction betweene Image and Idoll that an Image representeth a thing that is but an Idoll a thing supposed to be but is not is false and against the auncient writers who make it all one We proue the contrary first by the authoritie of the ancient Doctors Origen * Hom. 8. iâ— Exod. and Theodoret * Qu. 38. in Ex. who in expresse words deliuer the same difference of Image and Idoll which is taken out of S. Paul * 1. Cor. 8. saying that an Idoll is nothing in the world that is such idols as the heathen take for their gods are nothing formally that is though they be great peeces of wood or stone materially yet they represent a thing that is not that is such a thing to be a god which is nothing lesse Let M. Perkins but quote one place in the whole Bible where they are vsed both for one I will cite some where if you vse the one for the other you must offend all good Christian eares as where a man is said to be made after the image of God may you say after the idoll of God Christ is said to be the image of his Father will you call him the idoll of his Father Surely he cannot denie but the seuenth generall Councell holden about nine hundred yeares past and gone is so farre off from making Image and Idol all one that it doth accurse all them who call the image of Christ and his Saints Idols But Tertullian * De Jdololâ—â— saith M. Perkins affirmeth them to be all one not so neither for he maketh Idolum a diuinitie of eidos which signifieth a forme or similitude so that Idolon is but a small similitude or slender image not so much for the quantitie as for that it representeth but darkely Eustathius an excellent Greeke interpreter vpon the eleuenth booke of Homers Odissea describeth Idolum to signifie a vaine and vanishing image as the shadow of a man a ghost or phantasticall imagination And so it cannot be that all prophane Authors vse these two words indifferently seeing both in proper signification and by the declaration of the learned there is great difference betweene them But Saint Stephen cals the golden Calfe an Idoll so it was indeed What is that to the purpose And Saint Hierome sayth that Idols are the images of dead men adde that are taken for gods True many Idols be Images all such as truly represent any person that was once liuing here but no Images be Idols vnlesse it be taken for a god And so Idols requires besides the Image that it be made a god or the image of a false god R. ABBOT Here is nothing but fraud and falshood and a ridiculous shifting of the commaundement of God by an idle distinction of Idols and Images They tell vs that the second commaundement forbiddeth Idols onely and not Images when as in truth euery Image to which deuotion or worship is performed is no other but an Idol The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke signifieth originally the same that Imago doth in Latine that is an image forme or shape as appeareth by the vse of the word generally amongst all prophane authors But by Ecclesiasticall vse the signification thereof is restrained and it is made the proper name of those Images to which any religious seruice or deuotion is done The name of an Image then continueth more general in signification noting euery forme or likenesse of any thing described or shaped to whatsoeuer purpose or intent as is the Princes Image vpon the coyne and the likenesses of men beasts birds trees flowers wherewith embroderers painters grauers caruers adorne and beautifie their workes and in a word euery impression and forme whereby one thing carieth the resemblance of another The Image then of it selfe is but an Image and seruing barely to resemble any creature it hath no offence in it but adde worship vnto it and spirituall deuotion and it becommeth thereby an Idoll and the deuotion that is done vnto it is idolatry that is the worship of an
them in these words Thou shalt not bow downe to them Answ If it be onely forbidden to make the image of God and to adore it then the making and worshipping of the image of Christ or of any other creature is not there prohibited and so this second commandement more then thrise alledged will not serue the turne against any other Image but God onely And in plaine reason according also to M. Perkins his owne confession the commandements of the first table touch onely our dutie towards God that we giue him all his due honour and do not giue any part thereof vnto any thing else whatsoeuer Wherefore diuine and godly worship is onely there spoken of and not such worship as we giue vnto any creature or to the picture of it And consequently there is nothing there against the worshipping of our holy images Obserue that there is a soueraigne worship due to God as to the creator and gouernor of all the world and to giue this to any creature is idolatry Another honour by infinite degrees inferiour yet absolute in it self is ascribed vnto Angels and men as creatures endued with reason and made after the likenesse of God and to exhibite this to whom it is due is ciuilitie and not idolatry This honour may be deuided into two parts because these creatures are like to God as wel in their naturall powers and qualities as in their supernatural And that honor which is giuen to man or Angel in respect of any natural qualitie may be called morall or ciuil but that which is attributed vnto them in regard of their supernaturall gifts may wel be called religious and spirituall because it is due vnto theÌ„ onely for their spirituall and religious qualities There is a third kind of worship yet meaner then the other which is a kind of dependant and respectiue worship as when a seruant is honoured or cherished not for his owne but for his masters sake And this is that worship which we allow vnto images which for the Saints sake whom it doth represent we do either reuerently regard or take off our hat or bow our knee vnto it This third kind of worship being all we allow vnto pictures were he not that vnderstands it more then halfe franticke that should thinke it a great desparagement vnto the incomprehensible worship of God that to one of his seruants pictures I should yeeld some such pettie reuerence or that God should forbid this in the forefront of his ten commaundements nothing lesse R. ABBOT It is true that the commaundements of the first table do touch onely our duty towards God requiring that we giue him all his due honor and do not giue any part thereof to any thing else whatsoeuer Therefore the second commandement for preseruing entirely the honour of God forbiddeth the making of any image whereby to represent or resemble him and not onely so but any image whatsoeuer to bow downe to it or to worship it yea not only the making and worshipping of Images but also the worshipping of the creatures themselues any whatsoeuer either in heauen or earth Both the words of the commaundement and the Scriptures of particular lawes that are referred vnto it do plainly shew that all these things are to be vnderstood therein Now then seeing the law saith both of images and of creatures Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them it must follow that they who make the images of Saints and doe bow downe to them and worship them do trespasse against this commandement and therefore the commandement is by M. Perkins rightly and well applied against Popish Images But M. Bishop telleth vs that onely diuine or godly worship is there spoken of and not such worship as they giue to any creature or to the picture of it And we acknowledge that onely diuine and godly worship is there spoken of but diuine or godly worship we say is all manner worship pertaining to godlinesse and religion and therfore that they in giuing religious worship to Saints and to their images do contrary to the commaundement giue vnto them diuine and godly worship But M. Bishop with a distinction of worship taketh vpon him as do his fellows to mock God and albeit they commit all absurdity of idolatry yet by a school-trick will make him beleeue that they do him no wrong at all He telleth vs of a soueraigne worship due to God and of ae religious or spirituall worship due to Angels and Saints and of a dependent and respectiue worship due to Images But what is not the soueraigne worship of God a religious and spirituall worship or what do they make of their worship of images is there no religion therein and do they account it onely a profane and carnall seruice If on all parts there be religious and spiritual worship as he wil not deny what a wise part doth he play to giue vs a distinction of three members whereof one comprehendeth all Well howsoeuer he fumble in his termes yet we must take vpon vs to vnderstand his meaning well enough namely that they make three kinds of worship one belonging to God another to Angels and Saints and a third to Images They are wont to make but two kinds latria to God and doulia to Angels and Saints and both these seuerally to be performed to their images and we can hardly take M. Bishops word for any warrant that they are now minded otherwise It hath bene their common rule that a Thom. Aquin. p. 3. q. 25. art 3. ex Damascen Honor imaginis ad prototypum peruenit the honor of the image redoundeth to him whose image it is Therefore Thomas Aquinas resolueth that b Jbid. in corp EadeÌ„ reuerentia exhibetur imagini Christi ipsi Christo Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latriae consequens est quòd eius imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda the same reuerence is giuen to the image of Christ and to Christ himselfe and because Christ is to be worshipped with the worship of latria that is diuine and godly worship it followeth that his image also is to be worshipped with the same worship of latria Therefore Andradius saith as hath bene c Sect. 1. before shewed We denie not but that we worship the crosse of Christ with this worship of latria So then inasmuch as the Saints are to be worshipped with the worship of doulia therefore they hold that their Images are in like sort to be worshipped Bellarmine simpereth somewhat at the matter and telleth vs that d Bellarmin de Imag. sanct c. 23 Admitti potest imagines posse coli impropriè per accidens eodem genere cultus quo exemplar ipsuÌ„ colitur it may be admitted that improperly and accidentally images may be worshipped with the same kinde of worship wherewith their principals are worshipped but one of his fellow Iesuites affirmeth simply and plainely that e Azor. Inâ—â—itut lib. 9 cap. 6.
creaturae exhiberemus eam seruitutem quae vni tantum debetur Deo For if to any of the most excellent Angels saith he we should of wood and stone build a temple or church we should yeeld to the creature a seruice which is due to God only But this they did as Erasmus there noteth n Erasm ibid. in margine Hoc nunâ— fit quibus libet diuis to euery of the Saints accordingly as Boniface the fourth o Platinan Bonif a Pantheon à Phoca obtinuit conâ—ecrauâ—tque in honorem beatae virginis omniuÌ„que martyrum consecâ—ated the Pantheon of the Romanes to the honour of the blessed Virgin and all the Martyrs according as they are taught to pray at comming into a Church p Horae virg Mariae secund vsum Serum Sancti dei in quorum honore commemora tione haec sancta dedicata est Ecclesia haec altaria consecrata c. O ye Saints of God in the honor and remembrance of whom this church was dedicated and these altars consecrated c. Where it appeareth also that they consecrated altars to the Saints and to their honour yea insomuch that in Churches they had many times their peculiar chappels and altars and Priests our Ladies chappell our Ladies altar our Ladies Priest and so for other Saints whereas S. Austin also testifieth that to be honoured with an q Aug. de verb Do. ser 6 Quòd pro nomine accipiant illam statuam ara testatur Quid illic faciat ara si illud noÌ„ habetur pro numine altar is a thing proper to God onely Albeit here they except that they offer not their sacrifice to any but to God only namely that in their masse they do not say r Triden concil sess 6. cap 3 Vnde nec sacerdos dicere solet offero tibi sacrificiuÌ„ Petre vel Paule c. We offer vnto thee O Peter or Paul but reserue this as peculiar to him onely who hath crowned them A goodly matter that of all the worship that belongeth to God they keepe one onely act or office entire vnto him Albeit here they do but halt and dally with God because howsoeuer they pretend to offer to God onely yet they professe Å¿ Bellarmin de sanct beatitud cap. 7. Sacrificia tam Eucharistiae quaem laudum et precum iâ— eorum honorem Deo publicè offeruntur to offer to God in honour of the Saints and whereas our Sauiour Christ hath instituted that sacrament to be celebrated as a diuine and godly worship t 1. Cor. 11 24.25 in remembrance of him they herein ioyne the Saints in fellowship with him and professe the same holy celebration to be performed and done u Concil TrideÌ„t vt supra In honorem memoriam sanctorum ecclesia missas celebrare consueuit in remembrance of them And yet it is to be obserued further that sacrifice is not to be vnderstood onely of propitiatory sacrifice as they affirme their masse to be but of all consecrated and holy offerings concerning which generally God hath said x Exod. 22.20 He which sacrificeth or offereth to other gods but to the Lord onely shall be slaine Where y Lyra. ibid Per immolationem hic prohibitam intelligitur prohibita oblatio libatiâ— â—hurificatio talia quae fiebant in templo ipsi Deo directè by immolation or sacrifice saith Lyra is vnderstood to be forbiddeÌ„ oblation drink offering burning of incense and such other things which in the temple were done directly to God himselfe Hereby then it is plaine that all manner of religious and holy offering is to be accounted a peculiar honour of God alone and therefore did Epiphanius condemne the Collyridian heretickes as making a god of the Virgine Marie in that by way of deuotion z Epiphan haeres Panem proponunt offerunt in nomen Mariae c. Sanctum erat Mariae corpus at non Deus c. they offered a cake vnto her or in her name But this the Church of Rome doth and teacheth men to do they offer to their idols and images all manner offerings of gold and siluer and iewels and whatsoeuer else may serue for the vse of them who make their profit of those offerings and therefore cannot be cleared of offering sacrifice to the Saints and their images that is of giuing them in this respect also the worship that belongeth to God only Thus as a Prou. 30 2â— the harlot in the Prouerbs eateth and wipeth her mouth and saith I haue committed no iniquitie so the harlot of Rome going a whoring from God bestoweth vpon her idols all the worship honour of God and doth to them all that she doth to God and in the meane time pretendeth that it is not diuine or godly worship but onely an inferiour kind of worship that she doth assigne vnto them Which because it is more manifest then that it can be denied the Valentian Iesuite to take away the inconuenience thereof arising that they are guiltie of Idolatry frameth vs a new definition of Idolatry that it is not the giuing of the worship of God to a creature but b Greg. de ValeÌ„ de idololat lib. 2. cap. 1. Idolatriae genuina ratio creaturae diuinuÌ„ honorem habere sicut Deo the giuing of the worship of God to a creature as to God therby thinking that they are to be acquitted of idolatry for that albeit they giue diuine honor and worship to their images which he could not denie yet they giue it not to them as taking them to be Gods But S. Austin simply saith that c August de Trin. lib. 1. cap. 6. Idololatrae dicuntur qui simulachris eam exhibent seruituteÌ„ quae debetur Deo they are called Idolaters who giue to Images that seruice that is due to God which they doing by his own confession must consequently be affirmed to be idolaters Neither caÌ„ the distinctions vsed by M. Bishop and the rest whatsoeuer colours they set vpon them excuse them in this behalf because howsoeuer they terme it an inferiour worship which they do to Saints and Images yet it is religious worship or worship of religion and worship of religion is peculiar to God alone d August contrae Faust. lib. 14. cae 11. Apostolus creaturam laudat ei tamen cultum religionis exhibere vetat The Apostle saith S. Austine forbiddeth that worship of religion be yeelded to a creature e Jdem contrae 2. epist Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 4. Quis dicat non debere obseruare Christianos vt vni Deo religionis obsequio seruiatur Christians saith he are to obserue that with dutie of religion they worship God onely Therfore he saith as touching the Saints f Idem de vera relig cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum c. Honorandi sunt propter imitationem non adorandi propter religionem c. Honoramus eos charitate
non seruitute Let it be no religion with vs to worship dead men they are to be honoured for imitation not to be worshipped for religion we honour them by way of loue not by way of seruice To this purpose the same S. Austine very fitly obserueth that g Jbid. Et vni religantes animas nostras vnde religio dicta creditur religion is so called of tying our soules to God onely that we may conceiue that as Lactantius sayth h Lactan. instit lib. 1. cap. 20. Religio et veneratio nulla alia nisi vnius Dei tenenda est no religion or worship is to be holden but of God only In respect wherof hauing condemned images he vseth this exhortation that i Ibid. lib 2 cap. 18. Nihil aliud adoremus nihil colamus nisi solum artificis nostri parentisque vnicum numen we adore nothing worship nothing but the onely Godhead of our maker and Father k August contra Faust lib. 20. ca 5. Solus ille colendas est quo solo fruens beatus fit cultor eius He onely is to be worshipped saith S. Austine in the enioying of whom alone he becommeth blessed that worshippeth him l Origen contra Cels lib. 1. Et adhibemus animum qui docet solum hunc colendum esse caetera nihil esse aut esse quidem sed honore tantùm digna non cultu atque adoratione quae nulli creaturae concedi potest absque diuinitatis miuâ—â—a We hearken to him saith Origen who teacheth vs that God onely is to be worshipped and as for other things that they are nothing or that they are indeed but are worthy of honour onely not of adoration and worship which can be granted to no creature without iniury vnto God Now then what do they but mocke vs in telling vs of a diuers kind of worship to be performed by way of religion to God to Saints and Images when as in religion there is no worship to be done to any but to God alone They tell vs they giue not the same worship to Images or to the Saints as they do to God when as religion teacheth vs that no worship at all is due either to images or Saints but to God onely Albeit they lie therein as hath bene shewed inasmuch as by the common opinion of their Diuines the images of God and of Christ are to be worshipped with diuine worship because diuine worship is due to them that are represented thereby Now therefore whereas M. Bishop saith that all the worship which they do to Images is but reuerently to regard to put off the hat and to bow the knee to them he speaketh as a man ashamed of that which euery where and in all places is practised amongst them And it may be that he speaketh it but onely by equiuocation in respect of the very image it selfe for in m Bellarmin de Imagin sanctor cap. 21. In ipsa imagine verè inest aliquid sacrum nimirum similitudo ad rem sacram ipsa dedicatio siue consecratio diuino cultui Ergo ipse in se non solum vt prototypi vicem gerunt honore dignae sunt the very image it selfe saith Bellarmine there is some sacred matter namely the liknesse to a holy thing and the dedicating or consecrating of it to diuine worship and therefore Images themselues in themselues are worthy of honor and not only as they represent or beare the person of the principall His proposition more fully expresseth the same n Jbid. Imagines Christi Sanctorum venerandae sunt non solum per accidens vel impropriè sed etiam per se propriè ita vt ipsa terminent venerationem vt in se considerantur non solùm vt vicem gerunt exemplaris The Images of Christ and of the Saints are to be worshipped not onely accidentally or vnproperly but properly and in themselues so as that they determine the worship themselues as they are considered in themselues and not onely as they supply the place of their principall Thus haply M. Bishop by a cunning distinction telleth vs that they giue no more worship to images then that which he mentioneth because in one meaning they giue no more as they are considered in themselues but let him make the meaning what he will he knoweth well that in the deuotion of the people they haue all the same worship and seruice done to them as is done to God himselfe Albeit that which he himselfe mentioneth is a witlesse a senslesse and drunken deuotion like to the superstition that was derided in the Pagans who o Minut. Felix in Oct. apud Arno. Simulachro Serapidis denotato vt vulgus superstitiosus solet manum ori admouens osculuÌ„ labijs pressit at the sight of the image of Serapis or such like were wont going by to kisse the hand namely in token of doing reuerence thereto What a brutish and beastly absurditie is it that an vnderstanding soule should deiect it self to do reuerence to a block God hath said Thou shalt not bow downe to them and againe teacheth man to say p Esa 44.19 Shall I bow to the stocke of a tree The Prophet saith of Idolaters q Chap. 2.8.9 They worship the worke of their owne hands which their owne fingers haue made and a man bowed himselfe and a man humbled himselfe therefore spare them not He denounceth the vengeance of God to them who to stockes stones to the works of mens hands will doe euen those pettie reuerences which M. Bishop speaketh of Therefore whereas he saith This third kind of worship being all that we allow vnto pictures were he not that vnderstands it more then halfe frantike that should thinke it a great disparagement vnto the incomprehensible worship of God that to one of his seruants pictures I should yeeld some such petty reuerence or that God should forbid this in the forefront of his ten coÌ„mandements I answer with his own words Nothing lesse We see that like Caiaphas he speaketh the truth and is not aware Indeed it is nothing lesse then a franticke humour to be instructed by Gods commaundement and therupon to deny the doing of any worship to pictures and images but to affirme the same and to do such reuerences to pictures is a plaine token that Idolaters are like the idols which they worship altogether voide of vnderstanding and without the light of common sence Therfore rightly the Prophet saith r Psal 115.8 They that make them are like vnto them and so are all they that put their trust in them 12. W. BISHOP But let vs go on with M. Perkins his argument His second is The brazen Serpent was an image of Christ crucified appointed by God yet when the children of Israel burned insence vnto it Ezechias brake it in peeces * 4. Reg. 18. Answ So when Christians generally giue godly honour to images as those Israelites did to the
all things and himselfe is not seene Plato saith g Ibid. Vniuersi huius paâ—rem effectorem inuenire diffiâ—ile est cùm inueneris fieri non potest vt enuncies It is hard to finde out the father and maker of the world and when thou hast found him it is vnpossible to declare him yea he saith further that h Cyril cont Iul. lib. 1. De vno Deo Plato dixit nomen illi nullum congruere nique humanam cognitionem posse coÌ„preheÌ„dere sed appellationes quae de ipso dicuntur à posterioribus esse abusiueque de ipso dici no name is fitting to him and that no knowledge can comprehend him and the names that are giuen him are taken of after-effects and abusiuely spoken of him It were infinite to alledge all that might be here brought to shew that the Pagans and Heathens tooke the proper nature of God to be incomprehensible and therefore made not their images as to expresse the deitie but onely as signes and shadowes fitting the condition and state of men And if the heathen idolaters conceiued thus much more are we to think so of the Iewes that they well vnderstood that the maiestie of the immortall God could not be set forth by the figure or forme of any creature What when they made i Exod. 32.4 the golden Calfe and worshipped it doth M. Bishop imagine them to be such Calues as to thinke God himselfe to be like a Calfe They knew their Calfe could not set forth the proper nature of a Calfe and therefore must needes be farre off from thinking that it could resemble the proper nature of God So was it likewise as touching the Calues that were set vp at k 1. King 12.28 Dan and Bethel they were set vp as visible signes at which they should worship God but neuer did they think that the proper nature of God was described or resembled by thé As the Romanes at first worshipped l Clem Alexand. in protrept Romae antiquitùs statuaÌ„ Martis fuisse hastaÌ„ dicit scriptâ—â— Varro Mars their God of battell by a speare not because they thought him to be like a speare but because the speare imported his property and act so the Iewes worshipped God by a Calfe not thinking him to be like vnto it but thereby onely to betoken him who by the Oxe in the tillage of the ground ministreth bread for the sustenance of the life of man Now therefore Maister Bishop yeeldeth vnto them a good Apology and defence of all their idolatry committed in these Calues For they had to say for themselues that they trespassed not the commaundement of God because they did not intend by their Images to resemble the proper nature of God but did onely represent him in his effects which the coÌ„mandement forbiddeth not But this deuice serued not the turne neither did the people of God euer dreame that by this distinction they might take liberty to fet vp anie Image vnto God Yea and therefore doth Moses tell them as before was alledged that they saw no image in the day when the Lord spake vnto them because they should make none no not to represent him in his properties and actions because the appeared in no such Therefore doth he by the Prophet disclaime the likening of him and the setting vp of a similitude vnto him because he will no way be likened nor will haue any similitude to represent him in his properties and effects Therefore Origen telleth Celsus the Pagan m Origen cont Cels lib. 3. Communis sensus cogitare nos iubet noÌ„ delectari Deum hoc honore imaginum quae effigiem eius aut significationem reprasentent aliquam that common sence doth will men to thinke that God is not delighted with honour of images made by men to represent his likenesse or any signification of him yea n Ibid. li. 7. Quis â—anamentis non rideat eum qui post egregias illas et valde Philosophicas de Deo siue dijs disputationes statuas respicit et aut preces eis offeri aut per earum contemplationem tanquam signi aâ—euius coÌ„spicui cenatur animuÌ„â—rigere ad imaginationem intelligibilis numinis who saith he that hath his right wits will not laugh at him who after those excellent and very philosophicall disputations concerning God or the Gods doth looke to Images and either offereth praiers vnto them or by the contemplation thereof as of some visible signe goeth about to lift vp his mind to the cogitation of God thereby to be vnderstood Thus he wholy explodeth all vse of Images for any signification of God or any representing of him as thereby to be remembred or vnderstood of vs. We may not therefore so vnderstand the commandement of God as to leaue men at liberty to coÌ„mit idolatry and to hold themselues sufficiently excused for that they meane not by their Idols to resemble the proper nature of the Godhead But they further tell vs that God by that commaundement forbiddeth onely Idols that is as M. Bishop expoundeth either Images that are taken for Gods or Images of false Gods So then take away false Gods and here is no forbidding of Images at all they shall be a part of the religion and worship of the true God both in himselfe and in his Saints onely we must take heede that we do not admit by them any false God Thus they circumcise and pare the commandements of God and force them by their constructions into such compasse as that they may do what they list and yet not seeme to be within any checke of them But to this M. Perkins answereth that this should be to confound the first and second commandement the one forbidding all inward the other all outward idolatry which M. Bishop acknowledgeth to be distinction good enough to make two seuerall commaundements and yet will not be content to rest vpon that distinction He will not condemne it but yet neither will hee commend or follow it because he well knoweth that it condemneth them of hainous impietie and sacriledge against God for that they then in their ordinarie Primmers and Catechismes do wholy leaue out one of Gods coÌ„mandements and cannot denie but they do so Now they haue some colour for that they do as setting downe but a briefe and the capitall matter of the commaundement but if that distinction be admitted they haue nothing to excuse themselues of leauing out the whole commaundement And thus they do indeed to the vttermost of their power suppresse and conceale this second commaundement and whereas they cannot preuaile but that some will be reading yet they so order the matter that they shall take no knowledge of that in their reading least thereby they grow to any dislike or suspition of their idolatry But the distinction of those two commandements is manifest God in the one condemning all false gods in the other all false worship as namely in making any image vnto God or
in way of deuotion seruice to him or the image of any other thing whatsoeuer to yeeld thereto or otherwise without an image to yeeld to the thing it selfe any part of deuotion and religion which is a thing belonging to God onely And we cannot doubt but that there is one commaundement for preseruing the externall worship of God entire and pure to which as to the head these ten commandements o Philo Iud. de Decalog Leges sunt capitae legum particularium being not onely lawes but also heads or capitall points of particular lawes as Philo well noteth all the particular lawes as touching that matter of the worship of God are to be referred Which because they cannot be taken to be contained in any of the other three commandements therefore we must necessarily take this as a distinct commaundement to which all those particulars must belong And thus the Iewes whose testimonie in this behalfe is of great moment took them to be distinct as appeareth by p Ioseph Antiq. lib. 3. cap. 4. Primum praeceptum Deum esse vnum hunc solum colenduÌ„ secunduÌ„ Nullius animalis simulachruÌ„ adoranduÌ„ Sic Philo de Decalogo Iosephus and Philo reckoning the first commaundement that there is one God and he onely to be worshipped the second that no image of any creature is to be adored In the same sort doth Athanasius distinguish them q Athanas in Synop. Exod. Primum est Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus Alierum Non factes tibijpsi simulachruÌ„ c. The first is I am the Lord thy God the second Thou shalt not make to thy selfe an image or any likenesse Origen saith that r OrigeÌ„ in Exod. hom 8. Haec omnia nonnulli putant vnum esse mandatuÌ„ Quòd si ita putetur noÌ„ complebitur deceÌ„ numerus mandatoruÌ„ vbi tam erit Decalogi veritas some tooke those two commandements to be one but if we so take them saith he we shall not make vp the number of ten coÌ„mandements and where then shall be the truth of the name of the Decalogue namely which signifieth ten commaundements He saw well that there can be no reason of deuiding the last commaundement as we reckon it into two and therfore that there can be but nine vnles we distinguish the two first in such sort as hath bin said But the Romane catechisme M. Bishop telleth vs doth otherwise following therein the diuision of Austine and Clâ—mens Alexandrinus deuiding the Protestants lâ—st commaundement into two Where we see the course that they follow in the vse of the Fathers writings namely that howsoeuer they professe to stand to the generall accord and agreement of them yet if some one or two varying from all the rest doe serue their turne they leaue all the rest and the matter shall go with them As for the Schoole-doctors M. Bishop did but put them in to fill vp the roome for little reason is there that the streames of our religion should be taken to runne out of puddles that haue bene so lately digged and as well might he haue named himselfe and his fellowes as haue named them But by reason he will make it good that there is more reason to confound the two first commaundements then to make one of that which we call the last because the first forbidding inward and the second outward idolatry the outward and inward actions about the same obiect are not so distinct as the desiring of so diuers things as a mans wife for lechery and his goods of couetousnesse Which reason of his is alreadie ouerthrowne by that that hath bene said of the difference of two first commandements For thereby we see that as God and the worship of God are two distinct things so the commaundements must be diuers which instruct vs to conceiue of our dutie in respect of both The first commandement requireth of vs an acknowledgement of one true God the second requireth the true worspping of him A man may acknowledge one onely God and that he onely is to be worshipped according to the first commandement and yet breake the second commandement by worshipping him amisse as by setting vp an image whereby to worship him which he there forbiddeth to be done Therefore those termes of inward and outward idolatrie do not sufficiently distinguish those two commaundements because the first commaundement is broken by outward idolatrie in the outward professing and following of any false god and there is inward idolatry against the second commaundement in the inward framing of idol-seruice vnto the true God Here is then very materiall ground of difference betwixt the first and second commandement but a silly reason is it to alledge a difference of things coueted and desired to make thereby a diuision of the last commaundement The thing there forbidden is lust and concupiscence as the roote and fountaine of all sinne and wickednesse and therefore the Apostle setteth downe for the whole effect of that commaundement Å¿ Rom. 7.7 Thou shalt not lust and calleth it often t Ver. 8 9 10. the commaundement the commandement as to note that it is but one commandement which saith Thou shalt not lust He exemplifieth lust in the commandement by some obiects leauing the rest to be vnderstood but if we wil deuide the coÌ„mandement of lusting because the things are diuers that are lusted after there must be a necessitie of making more commandements because as there are lusts tending to couetousnesse and lechery so there are also that tend to disobedience to murther to lying and slaundering and such like and therefore by M. Bishops reason there should be so many seuerall commaundements against lust But to shew that that diuision which they follow is not good we may note that whereas they make the ninth commaundement Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife and the tenth Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house c. which order may not be broken if we will deuide the commaundements as they do Moses himselfe doth alter the same and setteth it downe as it was first endited thus u Exod. 20.17 Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife nor his seruant c. as it was after repeated thus x Deut. 5.27 Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house nor his seruant c. and by so indifferent placing of those two branches infallibly prooueth that they are not two commandements but one only If M. Bishop wil not yeeld this we would know how he will order the commandements as in the twentith of Exodus they were first deliuered from the mouth of God If he will make the ninth commandement Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house then he must say that the ninth and tenth do both serue to forbid the coueting of our neighbours goods If he will not say so he must accord with vs that those two which they deuide are