Images is not prohibited or condemned Exod. 20 c. but some kind onely Passing by the Assumption Protestants denie the consequence of the first Proposition and to the Proofe thereof they say That although some kind and manner of making Images is forbidden by the Commandement to wit such as is intended and prepared for worship yet all making of Pictures or Images to wit for Historie and Ornament is not prohibited But our Aduersarie opposeth this Answer saying IESVIT If they answere That we are not absolutely forbidden to make them but onely not to make them with purpose and intention to adore them they discouer much partialitie and not so much reuerence to Gods expresse Word as they pretend for the words of Gods Law are as cleare and expresse against making of Jmages as against worshipping them Thou shalt not make them thou shalt not adore them If then Protestants to excuse their Custome of making of Images may to Gods expresse word Thou shalt not make them adde by way of explication with purpose and intention to adore them why may not Catholickes to defend from note of impietie a continued Christian Custome to Gods word Thou shalt not adore any Jmage adde by way of explication as God or with diuine worship resting in it How can they truely boast they bring Gods cleere word for themselues and against vs which is no 〈◊〉 cleere and expresse against their Image-making than against our Jmage-worship If the place be difficill why build they their Faith vpon it against vs If it be cleere why be they forced in their owne defence to depart from the expresse Text ANSWER The summe of this disputation reduced to forme is as followeth If to Gods expresse word Thou shalt make vnto thy selfe no grauen Image c. we may adde by way of explication Thou shalt make no Image with intention to worship Then to Gods expresse word Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them we may also adde by way of explication Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them as God or as Gods proper Image or with diuine worship resting in the Image for the word of God is as cleere and expresse against making of Images as against worshipping of them But Protestants affirme the former and they expound the first branch of the Commandement saying that the sence of it is Thou shalt make no Image with intent to worship it Ergo To Gods expresse word Thou shalt not bow downe c. we may adde by way of explication Thou shalt not bow downe to worship them as God or with diuine honour resting in the thing And if Protestants denie the latter they are partiall in affirming the former The consequence of the Proposition is againe denied For although we may expound the former part of the Commandement with this Explication With intent to worship yet we may not expound the latter part by saying Thou shalt not bow downe c. that is although thou maiest worship some Images according to some maner of worship yet thou maiest not worship vnlawfull Images expressing the verie Deitie nor any Image by resting finally and absolutely in them And the reasons whereupon we ground our deniall of the Consequence are these First Moses himselfe repeating the law concerning Images saith Yee shall make you no Idoll 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 Image c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bow downe vnto it Leuit. 26.1 Secondly the brasen Serpent and the Cherubins were lawfully made euen by Gods appointment in the old Testament and yet their worship was vnlawfull 2. Reg. 18 4. And some of the best learned Papists acknowledge that the Cherubins might not be worshipped Thirdly Iesuit Vasques saith That in the old Law euerie similitude or pourtraiture was not forbidden to be made but all worship and adoration of Images and all making of an Image or pourtraiture appointed or accommodated to worship was forbidden Yea besides Tertullian and Damascen the greatest number of Papals expound the first part of the second Commandement by the latter branch to wit Gerson Ferus Caietan Alphonsus Castro Oleaster Ystella Turrecremat and Aquinas himselfe hath these words Non prohibetur illo praecepto Exod. 20. facere quamcunque sculpturam vel similitudinem sed facere ad adorandum It is not forbidden in that precept Exod. 20. to make any grauen Image or similitude but to make the same to worship it And from the former I inferre That although some Pictures and Images may be made yet none of them may be worshipped and therefore we are compelled to expound the first words of the second Commandement with limitation to wit Thou shalt make vnto thy selfe no Image with an intent to worship it but on the contrarie we may not expound the second clause of the Commandement by adding the Iesuits Exposition which is Thou shalt not bow downe to them or worship them as God or with diuine worship resting in the Image The first clause of the Commandement Thou shalt make no grauen Image admits an explication and qualification as it is apparant by the brasen Serpent and by the Cherubins and by the confession of learned Papists If our Aduersaries giue instance in the Arke of the Testament saying that the same was adored I answer two things First there is a difference betweene the Arke and Images because God was present by an extraordinarie Grace vnto the Arke according to a couenant made with the Israelites Exod. 25. 22. whereas there is no such promise or couenant concerning Images Secondly the Israelites did not adore the materiall Arke but they worshipped God himselfe before the Arke and that by a speciall commandement 1. Sam. 1.19 Psal. 99.5 But that the second clause of the Commandement admits a qualification cannot be prooued by any testimonie or example of holy Scripture yea the contrarie is manifest and learned Papists affirme That although some kind of Images might be made in the old Testament yet no Images formed by humane inuention might be adored as I haue formerly shewed out of Aquinas and others pag. 209. And consequently the Iesuits speech is false when he affirmeth The word of God is as cleere and expresse against making of Images as against worshipping them IESVIT Secondly their exposition is not onely violent against the Text but also incongruous against the sence for Gods prohibition of a thing doth also forbid the intention thereof In the precept Thou shalt not kill the intention of murther is sufficiently forbidden so that he who makes a sword with purpose to murther his enemie sinnes against the Precept Thou shalt not kill wherefore if Gods Precept had beene thus Thou shalt not weare about thee any weapon Thou shalt not kill the prohibition of wearing weapons should haue beene absolute and not onely with purpose of murther In like manner Gods Precept Thou shalt not adore Images
inconsequent to conclude That because the Protestants receiued the Scriptures from the Roman Church therefore they receiued them to wit immediatly from the vniuersall Church The Minor proposition to wit the Protestants receiued the Scriptures from no other Church than from the Romane may be taken in a double sence For either it may be vnderstood originally and by way of authoritie that is The Protestants receiued the Scriptures both originally and deriuatiuely from and by the authoritie of the Romane Church onely or else it may bee vnderstood indicatiuely The Protestants receiued the Scriptures by the hand of the Romane Church and were first of all instructed and told by that Church that the same were diuine Bookes yet they receiued them not onely or principally from that church but also from the Primitiue Church which led them originally to the Apostles themselues And besides the former Tradition by reading and studying the holy Scriptures they learned sufficient matter out of those heauenly bookes to confirme them that they were diuine and of God Philemon receiued S. Pauls Epistle by the hand of Onesimus he did not esteeme Onesimus a seruant who had beene a fugitiue an infallible witnesse in himselfe but the argument and contents of S. Pauls Epistle persuaded him that S. Paul was the Author A man may receiue the Kings Proclamation from off a pillar or his great Seale by the hand of a meane clarke So likewise the bookes of holy Scriptures are first conueyed vnto vs by Ecclesiasticall testimonie and Tradition but they containe heauenly veritie and doctrine within themselues which persuade the diligent readers and learners of them that they are diuine IESVIT The Maior I prooue If Protestants haue not the Text of Scripture by and from the one holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church they cannot be certaine they haue the true incorrupt Text the Apostles deliuered and recommended as Diuine to the first 〈◊〉 seeing the Tradition of any other Church is fallible and may deceiue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they themselues liued not in the Apostles dayes to see with their owne eyes what Copies the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall Text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the Authoritie of the holy Catholike Apostolike Church ANSWER The Argument whereby the Aduersarie confirmeth his Maior is this If the Protestants receiue the Scriptures from any other but the Holy Catholique Church they cannot be certaine that the same are incorrupt because a fallible Witnesse may deceiue Answ. They which receiue the Scriptures from the hands of a corrupt Church may be deceiued if there be not some other infallible meanes besides the Testimonie of that Church to assure them But if that Church be onely a Messenger to deliuer and there be found in the thing deliuered that which is certaine and infallible in it selfe to wit the Testimonie of the Apostles and of the Spirit of God speaking in and by those Scriptures Acts 24. 25. then they which immediately receiue the Text of the Scripture from a fallible Church may be certaine that they are not deceiued It is not necessarie that the Messenger by and from whose hands wee receiue immediately the Text of the Scriptures should be infallible in all things for then wee must receiue them from the hands of no particular Church or particular Councell vnconfirmed by the Pope or from any particular Pastour of the Church because these are fallible And according to our Aduersaries Tenet infallibilitie of Iudgement is found onely in the Pope and Councell confirmed by him And from hence it will in like sort follow that for the first two or three hundred yeeres beginning from the death of the Apostles in which time there was no generall Councell yea for certaine Ages after generall Councels began vntill the Canon of the Scripture was expressely assigned by some generall or particular Councell confirmed by the Pope Christians should haue remained vncertaine touching the sacred Authoritie of Diuine Scripture because the meanes by which they receiued them immediately were fallible The Authoritie of the holy Scripture dependeth vpon the immediate Messenger which deliuereth the Bookes vnto vs no more than the Authoritie of the Kings Proclamation dependeth vpon the Sergeant who proclaymes it or sets it vpon a Pillar to be read of all men but vpon the first Diuine Witnesses which wee know to be the Authors of the Scripture not because Pope Paul the fifth or Clement the eight say so but because the Witnesses themselues affirme it in their Scripture or deliuer that in their Scripture by which it is prooued to such as are eleuated by Grace and taught of God IESVIT Now the Minor That they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparent For what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the Text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition of Ancestors time out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles which is accordingly acknowledged by M. Whitaker and others but particularly by Luther himselfe Ergo the Romane Church is the one holy Catholike Apostolike Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the Text of Scripture ANSVVER The Protestants receiuing the Bookes of holy Scripture by the hand of the Roman Church proueth not the said Church to be the onely holy Catholike and Apostolike Church any more than the receiuing of Baptisme by Heretikes or the Old Testament by the Synagogue of which the Pharisees were a part proue the same to be the true infallible Church IESVIT And if the true Apostolicall Text then also the true Apostolicall Sense ANSWER The sequele is denyed For it is not necessarie that they which truly deliuer the Text shall also truly deliuer the Apostolicall sense and on the contrarie a lying sence may be deliuered by them which retaine the true and incorrupt Letter of the Text as appeareth by the Pharisees Arrians Donatists and many other Heretikes IESVIT This I proue If the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but together with the Text the true sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posteritie then they who by Tradition receiue from the Apostles the true Text must together receiue the true sense But all principall Protestants affirme No man doubteth but the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not onely the Text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Fathers that from the Apostles together with the Text descends the Line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense ANSVVER The Assumption of the former Argument to wit The Apostles together with the Text deliuered the true sense of all their Scriptures to those people to whom they wrote is vncertaine They deliuered no doubt the sense of the Scriptures
prime foundation of Christianitie is Christ himselfe 1. Cor. 3. 11. 1. Pet. 2.6 The Church is the seruant and Spouse of Christ the House of God whereof Christ himselfe is the grand Lord and Builder But wee haue learned in the Gospell That the seruant is not greater than his Lord Ioh. 13. 16. Hereupon S. Augustine Enchyrid cap. 56. Good order requireth that the Church be placed after the Trinitie as an House after the Inhabiter his Temple after God and the Citie after the Founder And if the Aduersarie replie That although it be a lesse Article in regard of the Obiect yet the denyall thereof is of greater consequence because it maketh men guiltie of Heresie c. I answere Granting that the denyall of the whole Article being rightly expounded maketh men Heretickes but I denie that a Christian which beleeueth this Article is no Hereticke if hee beleeue and maintaine any Errour against the plaine Doctrine of the holy Scripture which hee knoweth or which hee is bound Necessitate 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 to know beleeue and maintaine Saint Hierom vpon the Galathians saith Whosocuer to wit in waightie points vnderstandeth the Scriptures otherwise than the sence of the holy Ghost whereby they were written requireth may bee called an Hereticke although hee depart not out of the Church Tertullian saith Whatsoeuer in points Diuine and Sacred is repugnant to Veritie is Heresie Albertus saith Hee is an Hereticke which followeth his owne opinion and not the iudgement of the Scripture Occham Hee is an Hereticke which with a pertinacious minde imbraceth any Errour the contradictorie doctrine whereof is contained in holy Scripture Two things constitute an Hereticke First Errour and false Doctrine as the materiall Secondly Malicious and pertinacious adhearing to the same or defending the same as the formall A man may haue both these without any explicite denying the Article of the Catholicke Church For the Trueth which hee gainesayeth may be plainely deliuered in the holy Scripture and hee may reade the same and haue sufficient meanes to know it in the Scripture and maliciously or inordinately resist the holy Ghost speaking by the Scriptures Act. 7.51 Our Sauiour condemneth some for Heretickes calling them false Prophets Murtherers and Theeues Mat. 7.15 Ioh. 10.5 Not because they opposed the present Church for some of these were principall Rulers of the Iewish Church Mat. 23.1 but because they taught and beleeued contrarie to the Scriptures Mat. 22.29 Saint Augustine d. Bapt. c. Don. li. 4. c. 16. speaketh not altogether as the Iesuit 〈◊〉 him but saith onely That hee would not affirme of such a person who being baptised in the 〈◊〉 Church beleeued as Photinus the hereticke did supposing the same to be Catholicke Faith that he was an hereticke he absolutely affirmeth not that such a person was no Hereticke but that hee would not pronounce him an Hereticke before hee was conuicted And hee speaketh of Heretickes not as they were in foro coeli according to the iudgement of God but in foro Ecclesiae according to Ecclesiasticall Censure Neither doth hee speake of persons sufficiently conuicted by plaine euidence of holy Scripture and maliciously and inordinately resisting the Truth but of simple Errants misled and seduced through ignorance or infirmitie Doctor Field whose learned Treatise of the Church is nibbled at by Papists but yet remaines vnanswered by them is censured by this Obiectour for saying without any Proofe that an Errant against a fundamentall point is an Hereticke though he erre without pertinacie But the Iesuit reporteth amisse when hee saith Doctor Field deliuered this Assertion without Proofe for in the Margine of his Booke he confirmeth the same by the testimonies of Gerson and Occham two famous Doctors of the Roman Church And it is remarkeable that the Iesuit censuring the Doctour himselfe produceth no Argument out of diuine Authoritie to confirme his owne Position but resteth onely vpon the single testimonie of one Father which as I haue alreadie shewed speaketh not to his purpose IESVIT Hence Jinferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold against the Romane Church which I haue prooued to be the true Catholicke Church For he that holds any priuate opinion so stiffely as rather than forsake them he denyes and abandons the Catholike Church a mayne Article of his Creed erreth fundamentally as is cleare But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stifly as thereupon they haue denied and abandoned the Catholicke Church to wit the Romane ANSWER The mayne Proposition of this Section to wit Protestants 〈◊〉 fundamentally according to the second kinde of erring c. is denied and the Assumption of the Syllogisme whereby the Obiectour laboureth to prooue the same is palpably vntrue For Protestants maintaine no priuate opinion either stiffely or remissely whereby they haue denied and abandoned the true Catholicke Church First They maintaine no doctrine as matter of Faith but that which is deliuered in holy Scripture and which consenteth with the Primitiue Church either expresly or virtually But such doctrine is not priuate opinion because the holy Ghost which is the supreame gouernour and directour of the Church and the Prophets and Apostles which were inspired from heauen are the Authours thereof Secondly The Romane Church is not the Catholicke Church but an vnsound part of the generall visible Church as it is prooued by the Learned of our part whereunto the Aduersaries haue as yet made no replie IESVIT Neither doth it import that they retaine the word hauing reiected the sence seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter beleeued makes men Christians Neither is it enough to say that they beleeue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the onely Elect a meere fancie but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by sucsion of Bishops which thus I prooue ANSWER We retaine both the words and the sence of the Article and the Catholicke Church in the Apostles Creed in respect of the militant part thereof is a Church of right beleeuers and especially of iust and holie persons and principally and intentionally and as it comprehendeth both the militant and triumphant the congregation of all the elect for this Church is the mysticall and liuing bodie which Christ saueth Ephes. 5. 23. It is the Church of the first borne which are written in Heauen Heb. 12.23 It is the Church builded vpon the Rocke against which the gates of Hell shall not preuaile either by Haeresie Temptation or mortall Sinne Math. 16. 18. Math. 7.24 And if it be a meere fancie to hold this then Gregorie the Great with many other of the antiēt Fathers were fantasticks for teaching in this manner But the Church of the Creed is not alwaies the Church Hierarchicall for the Church in the
Israelites formed and worshipped a Golden Calfe they might by conceit and imagination apprehend and worship the true God but this imagination and apprehension was not sufficient to iustifie their Action Men may in their owne wisedome and intention conceiue and worship Images and other Signes as if they were one and the same thing with that which is the proper obiect of Worship but when they conioyne that which God hath diuided their foolish and erroneous fancie and imagination maketh not their Actions lawfull or pleasing to God Aristotle in the place obiected d. Memor cap. 1. in fine affirmeth not either verbally or in sense that there is the same motion of the Conceit and Affection into the externall Image and the Sampler for hee speaketh not of painted or carued Images but of the mentall Image and impression which remayneth in the memorie after the knowledge of things past And many Schoolemen denie that Aristotles testimonie is truly applyed to Aquinas his manner of worshipping Images among which are Durand Picus Mirandula 〈◊〉 Vasques c. It is also apparantly false that there is the same motion of the mind and will into the Image and the Sampler for these are euerie way two distinct Obiects and the one is a signe and the other a thing signified the one is the cause the other the thing caused and in some Images the Sampler is a nature increate the Image considered as an Image and in relation to the Prototype is a thing created the one is adored because of it selfe the other respectiuely because of the Sampler And therefore for as much as the Obiect is diuers and the manner of the Action is diuers the motion of mans heart towards the Image and the Sampler cannot be one motion but diuers euen as when I desire the meanes because of the end here are two distinct Actions and motions to wit Election and Intention IESVIT This Axiome of Philosophie that no man thinke it disauowed in Theologie the antient Fathers vniformely teach as a prime truth euident in reason S. Damascen S. Augustine S. Ambrose S. Basil S. Athanasius who writes An Image of the King is nothing else but the forme and shape of the King which could it speake would and might say J and the King are one the King is in me and I in him so that who adoreth me his Image doth therein adore the verie King Thus he shewing that the Kings Image is to be imagined and by imagination conceiued and honoured as the verie King ANSWER You affirme That the antient Fathers vniformely teach and that as a prime truth That the Image may and ought to stand for the Prototype and is by imagination to be taken as if it were the very Person and consequently that it is ioyntly to be worshipped First you say the antient Fathers teach this Doctrine vniformely secondly you adde That they teach this as a prime Truth But to prooue the first you produce onely fiue Testimonies of Fathers of which one is not very antient and touching the latter you bring nothing The Testimonies of the Fathers examined First Damascene d. Fid. lib. 4. cap. 12. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where his signe is there is Christ to wit by operation and grace First this Author liued 740 yeeres after Christ and is none of the antient Fathers Secondly it is confessed by your selues that hee was not Orthodoxall in all points For as Cardinall Bellarmine saith hee denyed the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne and in the matter of Images hee differeth from the antient which were before him Secondly Saint Augustine d. Doctr. Christ. l. 3. c. 9. saith Hee which vseth or worshippeth any profitable signe being of diuine Institution vnderstanding the vertue and signification thereof worshippeth not that which is visible and transeunt but that rather whereunto all such things are referred But Popish Images appointed for Worship are no Sacraments or Ceremonies or Signes of Diuine Institution but humane Traditions condemned by Saint Augustine both among Christians and Pagans Thirdly Saint Ambros. d. Dom. Incarn Sacram. c. 7. saith When we adore his Diuinitie and his flesh doe we diuide Christ When wee worship in him the Image of God and the Crosse doe wee diuide him This Father speaketh not of any Painted Image of God but of the inuisible Image Col. 1.15 Heb. 1.3 And by the Crosse he vnderstandeth the Passion of Christ as appeareth in his next words Etsi crucifixus est c. Saint Basil and Saint Athanasius spake by way of similitude not of all Images but of the Images of Kings which sometimes not alwayes in Ciuile vse and custome not in Religion may be taken and reuerenced for the principall But from a particular and from a similitude which halteth in many things you cannot conclude generally and absolutely Where is now the vniforme consent of Fathers which the Aduersarie glorieth in Damascene is not antient Saint Augustine speaketh of signes which haue diuine institution Saint Ambrose of Christ his Passion and not of Statues or Pictures Saint Basil and Athanasius speake by similitude obiter and by the way But which of these affirmes that Image Worship is a prime veritie But that the Reader may the better conceiue the weight of the Aduersaries Disputation for Worship of Images I will exhibit the same in a Logicall Resolution The Theme or Question is Whether artificiall Images of Christ and of the Saints are to be worshipped The first ground and Argument for the Affirmatiue is If the Samplers themselues are to be worshipped then the Images being liuely Portraitures and representations of those Samplers are to be worshipped The Consequence is denied for besides that all Images and among the rest the Images of Christ are not liuely Portraitures of Christ but dead shaddowes and imperfect and confuled delineations of his humanitie yet whatsoeuer they are artificially and by humane constitution they are not to be worshipped Religiously because no diuine Institution or Authoritie permitteth man so to doe and on the contrary part diuine Precept extant in the Morall Law prohibiteth the doing heereof OBIECTION II. If the Image represent the Sampler and stand for it and by conceit and imagination is one with it then it may and ought to bee worshipped c. But the first is true c. If the Argument be thus resolued the sequel is false for that which representeth another and standeth for another and is by imagination another partaketh not all the Rites and duties of that which it representeth but such onely as by lawfull ordination and by the nature of his kinde it is capable of but Painted and Carued Images neither by the nature of their kinde being things sencelesse liuelesse and destitute of Grace nor yet by any diuine Ordination are capable of Adoration The brasen Serpent was a figure and Image
doth sufficiently forbid intention to adore them and so consequently forbids the making of Images with such an intention so that if not to make Jmages be nothing else than not to haue purpose to adore them a whole long sentence in the 〈◊〉 is superfluous and without any speciall sence which is scarcely credible ANSWER This Argument reduced to forme soundeth as followeth If Gods prohibition of a thing doth also forbid the intention thereof then it had beene sufficient for him to haue said Thou shalt not adore Images and the former clause Thou shalt make no grauen Image c. forbidding onely the making of Images with an intention to worship had beene superfluous and without any speciall sence But God held it not sufficient to say Thou shalt not adore Images and the former clause Thou shalt make no Image is not superfluous c. Ergo The former clause of the Commandement which saith Thou shalt make no grauen Image forbiddeth not the making of Images with an intention to worship And from hence it appeareth that the Protestants exposition of the second Commandement is not onely violent but incongruous I answer granting the antecedent part of the first Proposition for whensoeuer God forbiddeth any action he alwaies prohibiteth at least implicitely interpretatiuely the purpose and intention of doing the same But from hence it followeth not that because the worship of Images is prohibited in the words Thou shalt not bow downe to them c. therefore it was vnnecessarie and superfluous to say Thou shalt make no Images with intention to worship First touching such vices as man by nature and custome is prone vnto Abundans cautela non nocet abundant warning and caution is not superfluous Secondly we haue examples in the verie Decalogue that although inordinate concupiscence was prohibited in the seuenth and eight Commandement Thou shalt not commit adulterie Thou shalt not steale yet the intention and sensuall motion and desire to do this is prohibited also in the tenth Precept Thirdly we say not in our answer That the intention of adoring the Image being made is forbidden in these words of the Commandement Thou shalt make vnto thy selfe no grauen Image c. as these words are considered apart that is diuiding and parting the said words from those which follow Thou shalt not 〈◊〉 downe to them nor worship them But we conioyne the former and latter words and make the one materiall and the other formall and expound them in this sort Thou shalt make vnto thy selfe no grauen Image intending to vse the same contrarie to the words of the Law following which prohibite the Adoration of all created and artificiall formes When our Sauiour in the Gospell forbiddeth to looke on a woman to lust after her Matth. 5.28 We may not diuide the first and latter part for the looking on a woman without lust is onely materiall in the Action and it may be lawfull and in some case vertuous Ioh. 19.26 Luk. 7.44 But we must conioyne the Intention which is formall to the materiall aspect and then the same is vicious Iob 31.1 Genes 38.15 And there is nothing more common in the holy Scripture than for the former part of a Doctrine or Commandement to be expounded limited and receiue his kinde from the latter part Mark 10.11 Luk. 16.18 Psal. 37.21 Iob 31.26 27. Esay 5.8 11. Luk. 14.12 13. If it be obiected that there is a sof Pasuch or full point at the end of the Sentence which forbiddeth the making of Images I answer First That in the place of Leuiticus Cap. 26.1 There is no such period or full point Secondly Because the making of some kind of Images to wit visible Images and representations of God according to his Deitie Deut. 4. 16. is vnlawfull in it selfe secluding Adoration therefore the Spirit of God forbade both the making of Images to wit of false Gods and of the true God in manner aforesaid and also in the other Branch of the Commandement hee forbad worship and adoration of all Images whatsoeuer deuised by man IESVIT Besides as to make an Image to adore is Idolatrie so likewise to take it in hand or looke on it to that purpose Why then was not such looking on or touching with purpose of Adoration expressely forbidden as well as making Or if looking on them with intention to adore them be so included in the Precept Thou shalt not adore as there needs not that expression What need was there that making of Images with purpose of Adoration should be so largely and particularly expressed Wherefore whosoeuer is a Religious follower of Gods pure Word must either without explication condemne the making of Images together with their worship or else allow the worship of the Jmages if their Prototypes be adorable the making whereof he approoues ANSVVER Although to take in hand or to behold an Image or 〈◊〉 signe naturall or artificiall with intent to worship it be 〈◊〉 Iob. 31. 26. yet as God Almightie in other Commandements doth not alwayes literally and expressely set downe euerie particular action of sinne virtually and 〈◊〉 condemned in the same but deliuereth sufficient grounds from whence the vnlawfulnesse thereof may appeare and also in the Prophets and other diuine Scriptures declareth his owne will more fully Matth. 5. 21 28. So likewise in this Commandement concerning Images the vnlawfulnesse of handling beholding and the like are prohibited virtually and interprevatiuely 〈◊〉 in one of the Clauses of the Commandement but in both Clauses conioyned as aforesaid As for the Iesuits Interrogations Why then c. What need was there c. wee referre him to the Law-maker to challenge or demand reasons of him And as for our selues we rest vpon the reuealed will of God not daring to question or demand reasons of his actions IESVIT Hence I gather That the most naturall and truest Exposition of that Precept is that it forbids not onely the worship but also the making of any grauen Image But how To represent God according to his Diuine substance This sense is gathered out of the words precedent Thou shalt not haue strange Gods before me which is explicated in the consequent verse Thou shalt not make to thy selfe a grauen Image For he that makes to himselfe the Jmage of any thing as apt to represent God according to his Diuine substance and to conuey our imaginations directly to him doth make and hath false Gods because the true God is not imaginable nor is truly apprehended by imagination conformable vnto any Image ANSWER That is not the most naturall and truest Exposition of the Commandement which deliuereth onely a part and not the whole and entire sense But this Exposition of the Iesuit deliuereth onely a part and not the whole sense For our Aduersaries themselues confesse That the placing of Images of false Gods and of prophane persons in Oratories and Temples or of any other persons which are not worthie to be
that makes them venerable being in them but in the Prototype ANSWER Image worship may bee a scandall to Christian people although they offend not so rudely and grossely in their worship as Panims did and yet that Image worship hath beene a stumbling blocke to many Christians Papists themselues testifie Ludouicus Viues an eye witnesse of that he spake saith Non video in multis quod sit discrimen inter eorum opinionem de Sanctis id quod Gentiles putabant de dijs suis I cannot perceiue touching many things what difference there is betweene their opinion of Saints and that which the Gentiles had concerning their gods And if Christians were in no perill of Idolatrie by worshipping Images why doth Gerson complaine that superstition had infected Christian Religion and that people like Iewes did onely seeke after fignes and yeeld diuine honour to Images And the same Author affirmeth that some deuout people by aspect of Images were diuerted from holy cogitations and pure affections to carnall execrable and blasphemous thoughts And Cornelius Agrippa saith Dici non potest guanta superstitione ne dicam Idololatria penes rudem indoctam plebem alatur in Imaginibus conniuentibus ad haec Sacerdotibus hinc non paruum lucri questum percipientibus It is not to bee spoken how great Idolatrie is fostered among rude people by Image worship while the Priests conniue at these things and make no small gaine thereby Durandus Mimatensis saith That weake and simple people by indiscreet and too much vsing of Images may be drawne to Idolatrie And Gabriel Biel saith That some people are so foolish as that they thinke some deitie or sanctitie to be in Images whereby they are able to worke meruailes to conferre bodily health to deliuer from dangers nocuments and deceits and their ignorant simplicitie and indiscretion is such that they more reuerently adore faire Images than foule antient Images than such as are newly made such as are cloathed richly with gold and purple than those which are naked Cassander saith It is more manifest than that it can bee denied That the worship of Images and Idoles hath too much preuailed and the superstitious humour of people hath beene so cockered that nothing hath beene omitted among vs either of the highest Adoration or vanitie of Panims in worshipping and adoring Images Polydore also saith People are growne to such madnesse that this pietie of Image worship differs little from impietie for there are many rude and stupid persons which adore Images of wood stone marble and brasse or painted in windowes not as signes but as though they had sence and they repose more trust in them than in Christ or the Saints to which they are dedicated And Simon Maiolus a most eagre defender of Iconolatrie confesseth That some rurall persons esteeme Images as if they were God Therefore seeing such abuses and Idolatries are committed among Christians in the worship of Images as the former Authors report we haue no reason to beleeue the Iesuits bare word affirming that presupposing the diligence of the Church instructing ignorant people there can be no superstition or idolatrie committed in worshipping Images IESVIT Secondly such Idols as Panims adored many of them did by the Diuels meanes ordinarily speake giue answers moue and exercise other actions of life so that their speaking was not accounted miraculous and extraordinarie but rather their silence which speakings were verie potent to persuade men to beleeue what their ancestors told them that those verie stocks and stones were Gods or had a godhead affixed vnto them now these kind of things seldome happen in our Images scarce once in an age and when they happen they were taken as miracles wrought not by the Images or any vertue residing in them but by Gods infinite power nor are they brought to prooue any excellencie affixed vnto the Image but only that God liketh that we should honour our Sauiour and his Saints in their Images ANSWER The Iesuit confesseth that Popish Images did sometimes speake moue c. but then hee affirmeth that this happened by miracle and by the infinit power of God but he must remember that other learned Pontificians say That this latter happened sometimes by the fraud of the Diuel and cheating of Priests as well as the fotmer which he reporteth of Panims Gabriell Biel saith That by the permission of God punishing infidelitie miracles are sometimes wrought by the Diuell working by Images And Espencoeus hath these words That some in the second Nicene Synod propugned Images Doemonum spectris by Apparitions which proceeded of the Diuell William Malmesburie reporteth how the Crucifix vttered a speech concerning S. Dunstan But Polidore Virgill in his Chronicle speaking of the credit of this miracle saith It was thought by many that this was rather an Oracle of Apollo than of God and that it proceeded from the fraud of men and not from diuine power IESVIT Finally I dare say That vulgar and ordinarie Protestants in England by reading of the Bible in their mother tongue are in greater danger to beleeue that God is a body and hath all the parts thereof euen as hath a man than any the simplest Catholicke is to thinke an Image to bee God This is prooued to be likely because it is impossible to conceiue God otherwise than in the forme of a corporall thing and as the Oratour saith we easily flatter ourselues to thinke our shape the fairest and so the fittest for God Wherefore it is easie for men to assent to this error vnto which the best and greatest wits that euer were Tertullian and S. Augustine whilest he was a Manichee did assent much more easily therefore may ignorant people be deceiued herein through weakenesse of conceit and inclination of nature when they read the Scripture describing God as hauing the forme and shape of man with head face eyes eares hands feet On the contrarie side neuer any Christian did teach that the Image of Christ is truely Christ or a liuing thing nor euer did any man or woman except some few and these verie simple and sencelesse if such Histories be true fall into such foolish imagination ANSWER I perceiue whereat you aime in this odious comparison you would haue Gods booke buried in darkenesse and compell Christians to seeke Christ and his Apostles in painted walls and dead statues And whereas you say vulgar and ordinarie Protestants in England not in Scotland France Denmarke c. by reading of the Bible in their mother tongue and yet Tertullian and S. Augustine in whom you giue instance read the Bible in a Latin Translation are in greater danger to beleeue that God is a bodie c. than any the simplest Catholicke is to thinke an Image to be God It is answered That notwithstanding your I dare say you are not able to prooue that any person ciuile or rude
Catholicke But necessitie hath no Law for if the Scriptures may be suffered to speake Papistrie must fall like Dagon before the Arke IESVIT Catholickes on the contrary side though they boast not of Scriptures as knowing that nothing is so clearely set downe in it but malapert errour may contend against it with some shew of probabilitie yet haue Scriptures much more cleare and expresse than any that Protestants can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the Image of Christ crucified in the first Apostolicall Church S. Paul to the Galathians saith O ye foolish Galathians who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth before whose eyes Christ Iesus is liuely set foorth crucified among you The Greeke word corresponding to the English liuely set foorth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to paint foorth a thing insomuch as euen Beza Iesus Christus depictus crucifixus Iesus Christ painted crucified before your eyes so that we haue in plaine and expresse tearmes that Christ was Painted crucified in the Apostolicall Churches which the Apostle doth allow thence drawing an Argument to prooue the Galathians were sencelesse and sottish that keeping in their sight Christ painted as Crucified they would be saued by the Law and not by the merits of his Crosse for it was madnesse and folly to paint Christ and honour him as crucified and not to thinke that by his death vpon the Crosse he redeemed the world ANSVVER There is reason why Romists which stile themselues Catholickes but are not should bee sparing in boasting of Scripture but the reason assigned by the Aduersarie which is that Scriptures may be peruerted by Errants is vnsufficient for it is common to Tradition and to Histories and monuments of antiquitie to be peruerted and abused and the same happeneth not by the kind and nature of the Scripture but accidentally through the malice and subtiltie of man peruerting the right wayes of the Lord. And there is sufficient matter in the sacred Scripture to demonstrate veritie and to conuince Errants when they peruert the right sence And whereas you affirme in the next place that Romists haue Scriptures more cleare and expresse than any that Protestants can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the Image of Christ. First If this were true it prooueth not the question That Images ought to be worshipped but onely that they may bee vsed for Historie Ornament and Signification as the Cherubins and other Pictures of the Temple in the old Law for Vse being a generall and Worship a speciall you cannot conclude affirmatiuely from the former to the latter Secondly You depart from your owne receiued Principles when you indeuour to prooue Image worship by Scripture for the same according to your doctrine is a diuine Tradition and such a Tradition according to learned Bannes as is neither expresly nor infoldedly taught in holy Scripture Wherefore then doe you attempt to prooue Iconolatrie out of Scripture which being in your Tenet a Tradition is Doctrina tantum non Scripta a Doctrine altogether vnwritten It is a vaine thing to promise to fetch Treasure out of a Chest or water out of a flint stone in which a man himselfe confesseth there is none Thirdly St. Paul his Text Galath 3.1 Nullis machinis can by no ingens or deuices be wrested to your Tenet All Expositors antient and moderne which haue Commented vpon this Text are against you and you haue neither the letter nor matter of the Text fauourable to you The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vpon which you insist is translated by your owne Interpretors Proscribed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iud. v. 4. Prescribed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15.4 Haue beene written and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 3. 3. I haue written before And whereas you flye to Beza translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Depictus Painted before he telleth you in his Annotation that hee vnderstandeth not artificiall but Theologicall depainting not externall but spirituall to wit by the euident and powerfull Preaching and Doctrine of Saint Paul Christ Iesus was so liuely reuealed and set foorth to the vnderstanding of the Galathians as if they had indeed beheld him crucified before them And in this manner Chrysostome Theophilact and Oecumenius expound Saint Paul and with them agree your owne Doctors Aquinas Adam Sasbot Estius Cornelius Iustinianus Vasques Salmeron c. There is no small difference betweene vocall and spirituall depainting and betweene materiall or artificiall betweene painting vpon mindes and painting vpon materiall Tables betweene intellectuall beholding Christ Iesus crucified in the Storie of the Gospell or in the Sacrament and in a visible Statue or painted Table And therefore from St. Pauls affirming the former the Iesuits latter followeth not IESVIT I know that some Catholickes expound this place That Christ was painted out vnto the Galathians Metaphorically by preaching which I doe not denie but this doth not repugne with the other sence that he was also materially painted as crucified the which being more conforme to the natiue and proper signification of the words is not to bee forsaken but vpon euident absurditie especially seeing it hath more connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse which is to prooue the Galathians sencelesse in forsaking Christ crucified painted before their eyes for to forsake Christ crucified set forth by preaching as the Sauiour of the world though it be impious yet is not sencelesse yea rather Saluation by the Crosse of Christ did seeme follie vnto the Gentiles But to haue Christ painted as crucified before mens eyes honouring him by Christian deuotion in regard of his crucifixion and death and not to expect Saluation by him is sottish and senceles And of this materiall painting of Christ Athanasius expoundeth this place whom Turrianus citeth wherefore I may iustly say that we haue more cleere and expresse Scripture for the vse of Images than haue Protestants for their vulgar Translations ANSVVER First yeeld vs but one Father or learned Papist who in their Commentaries expound this place literally according to your sence Secondly It is neither comformable to the signification of the words for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to be written afore and not to be pictured before neither hath it any necessarie connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse c. For the Galathians being Christians conuerted from infidelitie and not Heathens or Iewes to whom the Crosse or death of Christ vpon the Crosse seemed foolishnesse 1. Cor. 1.18 were more sencelesse that is to say more void of right iudgement by forsaking Christ Iesus crucified which was by the preaching of the holy Ghost and Sacraments ordained by God euidently reuealed to their conscience and receiued by Faith than if they had forsaken him painted onely in a Crucifix for to forsake a thing written in the heart and beleeued
meanes by Catechising c. is a going about the bush the effect is vncertaine and vnsufficient to affoord distinct vnderstanding of an vnknowne language IESVIT Now that S. Paul did command that Seruice should be in such a language as euery woman in the Church might bee able to vnderstand it word by word is incredible nor are our Aduersaries able to prooue it ANSWER A most ridiculous Paralogisme for admitting that S. Paul descended not precisely to euery single word explained in such manner that euery particular woman might at the first hearing vnderstand the same yet the conclusion followeth not That he commanded not the common Seruice should be in a knowne language First your selues acknowledge that Preaching and Prophecying should be in a knowne tongue and yet euery word or perhaps euery sentence cannot speaking morally bee vttered so plainely that euery person shall at the first sight distinctly conceiue the meaning Secondly the ignorance of the distinct notion of euery word hindereth not sufficient edification when the ordinarie necessarie and common passages of the publike Seruice are intelligible IESVIT Neither can they shew by any records of Antiquitie that such a Custome was in the Primatiue Church yea the contrarie may more than probably bee shewed because the drift of the Church in appointing Liturgies or set formes of publicke Prayer at the Oblation of the Eucharisticall Sacrifice was not the peoples instruction but for other reasons First That by this publike Seruice a continuall daily tribute of homage of Prayer of Thankesgiuing might be publikely offered and paid vnto God Secondly That Christians by their personall assistance at this publicke Seruice might protest and exercise exteriourly Acts of Religion common with the whole Church represented by the Synaxis or Ecclesiasticall meeting of euerie Christian Parish Finally To the end that euerie Christian by his presence yeelding consent vnto the publicke Prayers Praises and Thankesgiuings of the Church and as it were subscribing and setting his Seale vnto them by this assisting at them might ordinarily participate of the graces benefits and fruits which the Church doeth obtaine by her Liturgies and publicke Oblations Now for this end there is no need that euery one should vnderstand word by word the Prayers that are said in the publicke but it suffiseth that the Church in generall and in particular Pastours and Ecclesiasticall persons dedicated vnto the Ministeries of the Church and who watch being bound to giue an account of soules committed vnto their charge haue particular notice of all the Prayers that are said and that all that will may be taught and instructed in particular if they will vse diligence and desire it ANSWER We can prooue by Records of Antiquitie that the publike Seruice was ioyntly performed by the Ministers and people in a language common to both And the drift of the antient Church in their Seruice was that God might bee honoured by voyce heart and minde of all which were present Iohn 4. 24. But God in the state of the Gospel is not honoured with dumbe shewes and with lip labour nor with Prayers and Praises which the Offerers vnderstand not The reasons which you produce to prooue That it is not necessarie for vnlearned people to vnderstand the Common Seruice or Liturgie are lame and disjointed First Although the sole or principall end of appointing set formes of publicke Prayer was not to teach or instruct people in knowledge but to worship God c. yet because the latter cannot intirely be performed without the former because they which come to God with sound of words without sence and vnderstanding of matter offer the sacrifice of fooles therefore the placing of the one excludeth not the other for although the end of priuate Prayer is to worship God Psal. 50. 15. yet our Aduersaries themselues holde it requisite that such Prayer be made in a knowne Language Also one end of celebrating and receiuing the holy Eucharist is to commemorate and shew foorth the Lords death vntill his comming againe 1. Cor. 11. 25 26 but without vnderstanding the Language wherein the Lords Supper is administred people cannot call to remembrance or shew foorth the Lords death at least wisè so clearly and distinctly as is fit for them to doe Secondly A distinct and explicite inward deuotion ioyned with externall saying Amen is more effectuall and pleasing to God than a confused and generall But when people vnderstand the publike Prayers and Seruice of the Church in a familiar Language they are inabled to conioyne distinctly and explicitly inward and outward deuotion mentall and vocall saying Amen Therefore it is most expedient and necessarie for the Church to celebrate Diuine Mysteries and offer publicke Prayers in a Language which the people vnderstand IESVIT Moreouer the Churches antiently euen in the purest times of Christianitie had Chancells into which Lay-men might not enter and so could not particularly and distinctly vnderstand the Prayers said by the publicke Minister of the Church within the said Chancels they did also vse to say a good part of the Liturgie secretly so that their voyce was not audible vnto any yea the Greeke Church did antiently vse a vaile wherewith the Priest was for the time of the sacred Oblation compassed about which are manifest signes that the Church did neuer thinke it necessarie that all the publicke Liturgie should be heard much lesse word by word vnderstood by the whole vulgar multitude present thereat ANSWER It is not certaine at what time Chancells began neither were all Lay Persons prohibited to enter for the Emperour had his seate within the Chancell vntill the dayes of Theodosius the Elder as Theoderit and Sozomene report And although Lay persons were not seated in the Quire or Chancell yet the Seruice was pronounced by the Ministers in that place with an audible voyce so as the people in the bodie of the Church heard the same Iustinian the Emperour made this Decree following Wee command that all Bishops and Priests within the Romane Monarchie shall celebrate the sacred Oblation of the Lords Supper c. not in secret but with a lowd and cleare voyce that the mindes of the hearers may bee stirred vp with more deuotion to expresse the praises of the Lord God for so teacheth the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. Honorius in gemma Animae lib. 1. cap. 103. It is reported that in antient time when the Canon of the Masse was openly recited c. Iohn Billet cited by Cassander saith In times past the Masse was pronounced with a lowd voyce whereupon Lay people knew the same c. And mumbling and whispering in the Masse is not much more antient than Pope Innocent the third The Liturgies also fathered vpon S. Basil and S. Chrysostome haue a knowne Mother to wit the late Roman Church but there is besides many other iust exceptions so great dissimilitude betweene the supposed Fathers and the Children that they rather argue the dishonest