The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication

SECT. I.

This Question is most necessary, both against Papists and Formalists: But first remember, that Raphael de la Torres, a late Schoolman, maketh seven Adorations: 1. Bowing of the knee. 2. Prostration. 3. The lifting up of the eyes. 4. Of the hands to Heaven. 5. Kissing. 6. Knocking on the Breast. 7. Uncovering of the head: Though this last be not Adoration, but a National sign of Reverence, and is not everywhere Adoration; yet Abulensis saith, the Jews did pray and Sacrifice with covered heads: So saith Virgil, and Lod. Vives: Therefore the Corinthians had this from the Grecians as a civil sign of gravity, which should not be banished from God's worship; and if it be appropriate to an Idol, it should in that case be made Veneration: But no Reverence at all is due to an Idol. Jesuits, as Suarez▪ and others, and Formalists, Morton, Burgess, Hooker teach us, That Religious bowing before a creature, if there be no intention of Adoring, is not Adoration: But it is to be considered;

1. Bowing of the knee Physically or civilly▪ is indifferent and is not Adoration: for we bow to Kings, and Artificers may bow the knee to drive a nail in a bed, and yet are not Adoring; but Religious Adoration, whither ye will or not by natures impression is a Religious note of Religious submission.

2. I consider four acts of the soul that may convoy external Adoration. 1. One of the mind, a consideration of the excellency of what we Adore: 2. A will to submit to this excellency: 3. The judgments diting this to be honest to submit: 4. A purpose or intention habitual or actual of Adoring; many of these may be where there is no Adoring: and the Religious external bowing of the body is essentially Adoring, when that bowing is in a state of worship: kneeling before consecrated Elements for Reverence of either God or the Elements, must be Adoration, though we should wash it with foul water, and say, that there is no intention to tender God's glory to these Elements.

3. Let it be considered what is said by the Jesuit Joannes de Lugo, the Popes Professor at Rome, which I propound with some change: 1. There is a purpose of external Adoring, with an inward submission of the heart; whether this be an habitual or actual intention, it▪ is sure it is an Adoration, when it cometh forth in a gesture of Adoring. 2. A will to bow the body in scorn and derision, as the Soldiers bowed the knee before Jesus; and this being not in a state of worshipping, but in a state and • ase of disgracing, is not Religious bowing or Adoration: This is not a natural expression of inward submission, but rather of disgrace. 3. There is a willed or voluntary Religious bowing for fear, for gain, or for glory; yet without any internal estimation of the excellency of the thing Adored. This Suarez denieth to be worshipping, it being only a feigning of worship, not a worshipping.

But I prove the contrary: 1. Because then no enacted worshipping of Idols, were indeed a worshipping of an Idol, and yet all the time that the Adorer boweth his knee to the Idol, though he have no inward purpose of heart to Adore the external bowing, must be a natural expression of actual submission to the thing before which we bow, and a conciliating of an opinion with others, of Religious eminency and subjection of Divine dignity, to that thing before which we kneel. 2. Religious kissing of the Calves of Samaria, Hos. 8. is a natural expression of Religious love to these Calves, though the kisser have no intention of worshipping▪ 3. Act. 14. 11, 12, 13. The men of Lystra are reproved for Sacrificing, and so for Adoring-men; 15. Sirs, Why do ye these things for we also, are men of like passions as you, and Preach to you that ye should turn from these Vanities to the living God? Barnabas and Paul rebuketh the men of Lystra, because they worshipped men with human passions; yet did they not intend to worship men, for they were to them in that act of worshipping, God's in men's shape, as they say, v. 11. God's are come down to us in the likeness of men; if they conceived them not to be men indeed, but God's come down from heaven; then could they not intend to worship men, but God's: So John would not, nor had any purpose to worship a created Angel; but taking him to be God, he fell down and worshipped, as is clear by the Angels reproof, Rev. 19. 10. He said unto me, See thou do it not, I am thy fellow servant: Likewise, Act. 17. The Athenians set up an Altar not to the Pourtraict of gold, which yet they worshipped, v. 2. 4, 5. but intended not to worship it; But the God which made heaven and earth, whom Paul preached: So are the Gentiles said to offer to Devils, not to God▪ what they offer, 1 Cor. 10. 20. Deut. 37. 17. Psal. 106. 37. and 2 Chron. 11. 15. Peroboams Calves are Devils; and yet they intended not to worship Devils, but God, that brought them out of the Land of Egypt, 1 King. 12. 28.

4. If Religious kneeling require that we intend to worship everything, before which; as an object, we do Religiously kneel; then Religious kneeling should not signify in ernall submission of the heart by natures impression or Divine institution; but by the voluntary and the free institution of him that kneeleth: But this • a • ter is absurd, for if kneeling should signify, what it doth signify by our free and voluntary appointment: Then we might 1. put upon natural gestures what sig • ific • tion we pleased, and were not to stand to the signification which God and nature have put upon kneeling. 2. So it were in man's power to impose upon Religious kneeling to God, civil courtesy, such as a subject expresseth to his Prince, or a son to his Father, and it were free to us to kneel to a stock, and that Religiously, and yet put upon kneeling the negative reverence, that we give to the Bible; and it were in the three children's will to kneel to N • buchadnezzars Image, and impose this signification on the g • sture, that they were kneeling to God only, all which are manifestly false: so Field saith, kneeling hath institution from the instinct of nature.

Ans. That external bowing is not true, but false: I distinguish, it is not true Morally, because it is a false sign, and a sinful abusing of worship, for there ought to be a bow • d heart, when there is a bowed knee, but if the meaning be, this external bowing is not true metaphysically, and partaketh not of the nature of Religious worshipping, it is false, for it is truly worship, and the essence and definition of worship agreeth to it: for from Religious bowing there resulteth by the nature of the external Act, which is of divine institution, an honoring of that before which we do bow, as before a proposed object, what ever be the present purpose or intention of the bower: else if I bow to an Idol intending, and conveying in my heart-purpose all honor to God only, I should not worship an Idol: The three Children cast into the fiery Furnace did but refuse external bowing to Nebuchadnezzar, and would hazard upon burning quick, before they should give that to the Image; for the Kings commandment was not, that all should give and convey in purpose of heart to that Image all divine glory, but only Religious prostration before it; yet the three Children say, Dan. 3. Well, be it known to thee, O king, that we will not serve thy God's, nor worship thy golden Image, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They expressly refuse knee-bowing, & the reason is, because if ye bow your knee Religiously to a stock, it is not in your power or free choice, to stay the flux and motion of Religious honor off, or from the stock; but because Religious bowing doth not convey honor to the thing before which ye bow by your free will, but by God and natures institution, even as weeping naturally expresseth sorrow, laughing, gladness, so doth Religious bowing signify Religious honoring, without any act of the free choice of the worshipped intervening. It is impossible to adore God, in and through an Image, and give no Religious reverence to the Image at all; as it is impossible to hear the word and tremble at it; and yet none of that Religious trembling be bounded and terminated upon the Word; as it is impossible to kneel to the Kings Ambassador conveying all and whole that civil honor to the King, but some honor must redound to the Ambassador; a father cannot love the Doctor for his sons cause, but some love he must confer really upon the Doctor, if not absolute, yet relative, for his sons cause. Jacob could not kiss Joseph his sons coat, and yet refer that whole expressed affection to Joseph and nothing at all to the coat, for then should there be no reason, why he should kiss the coat, rather then the skin of the beast supposed to be the devourer of his son; if therefore the Communicant should kiss the Sacramental Bread, as he boweth Religiously before it, as the object of his Sacramental worship, which he receiveth, I hope it would be thought very like the kissing of the Calves of Samaria, and a Religious expression of love to the bread, and by the same case, Religious bowing to God, by the intervening of bread a representative object, must be an expression of Religious honoring of Bread, but no Religious honoring by Religious bowing can be expressed, but Adoration of bread; for as I have proved, it is not in our free Election that Religious kneeling signify what honor we please, as if it were in our power, that Religious kneeling signify Religious, or civil honor, or more, or less Religious honor, but our will or thoughts cannot change the nature of things; kneeling is essentially Religious, as Johannes Delugo defineth it, Nota submission is internae.

Ans. Qui been distinguit been solvit: Our third distinction doth well answer this: The naked material action of bowing Physically considered, wanting all Religious will of adoring is not an honoring; if a Carpenter bow before an Image to drive a nail in it, he doth not worship the Image, because that is an action, In statu artis, non in statu Religions; In a state of Art, not in 〈◊〉 Religious state: But the voluntary bowing before anything in a state of worship, or Religion, as its here, is Adoration; for there is voluntary bowing in a Religious way of a state, but there is not required a particular intention to Adore the sign, that is accidental to the nature of worship.

Ans. 1. The Antecedent is not universally true, and is a begging of the question, because external adoring of an Idol may be without intention to adore an Idol. 2. Though the Antecedent were true; that an absolute Adoration of God requireth the intention of the doer, as it is not true; Lawfull and sincere Adoration indeed requireth the intention, but not absolute adoration: Though (I say) it were true, yet it followeth not that a relative adoration requireth an intention of giving co-adoration or relative worship to the sign.

Suarez. 3. Objecteth: The honoring of one thing cannot properly be called the honoring of another thing different therefrom, except that honoring be some way referred by the mind, to that other thing, or except they be partakers one of another; but the Image, and first samplar, or prototype are different things, therefore the honoring of the first samplar cannot be called the honoring of the Image, except the honoring by the intention be referred to the Image. I answer, The Image and Samplar are one in a sinful imagination, as Jehovah and the Golden Calf are one, but it followeth not, that there must be two distinct intentions, one in adoring the Prototype, and in coadoring the Image another: But he who intendeth to honor the King in his Ambassadors person, needeth not two intentions, one by which he intendeth to honor the King, another whereby he intendeth to honor his Ambassador.

SECT. II.

LEt these considerations go before.

1. That the Jews believed the Image to be God by way of representation, not essentially or really; they believed the Image to be God objective, commemorative, representative, relative, declarative, significative; Non essentialiter, non per se, non realiter.

2. There is an honor or negative r • verence due to any Image of God, ordained by himself, or to any mean of honoring God, because it is such, though it cannot be expressed in the act of Adoration; but the question is, if the honor of adoration, either relative or absolute be due to the Image?

3. The Jews intended to honor Jehovah in their Images, what inferior intention they had to honor the Image, we are now to inquire.

4. We bow our knee two ways before a creature, either before a creature as an object by accident, as while we pray, there of necessity must be before us some creature, a wall, a Table, a Pulpit, none of these are adored, because they are before us by accident, as having no Religious state. The Image before the Jew, and the Sacramental elements before the kneeler, cannot be thus present: 2. The creature is before the kneeler, of Religious purpose, as a Religious object.

5. The Creature is Religiously present before the kneeler two ways, 1. Active. 2. Passive. 1. In the mere and naked act of teaching and exciting the memory, so that when that act is past, I turn from the creature, and adore the Creator; So at the sight of the Sun or Moon being taught and instructed of the wisdom and power of God, in creating such excellent creatures, I am to turn from them, and adore the Lord of these creatures. Thus the creatures are kindly and per se objects in the act of teaching, but not objects at all in the act of adoration: 2. The creatures are objects passive, when bodily bowing in a religious state is directed toward the creatures really and bodily present by a commandment of the Church, or of purpose, and so they are made objects of Adoration.

I. Conclusion. The relative expression of God which is in the works of God, is no formal ground of any Adoration of the creatures. 1. Because Adoration upon this ground, though the creatures, the Hoast of Heaven be excellent, is forbidden, Deut. 4. 19. 2. Not only Images (which cannot represent God) and the Sacraments, but all the creatures, even, Rats, Mice, Flies, Frogs, Worms, Judas and wicked men, yea, and Devils are to be worshipped, because all things having being, are shadows and footsteps of God, their cause, first Author, and last end, Psal. 19. 1. Psal. 103. 22. Rom. 1. 19, 20. Act. 17. 27, 28, Prov. 16. 4. Rev. 4. 11. Rom. 11. 36, 37▪ 3. Because God is really, and by the diffusion of his blessed essenc • , present in all creatures, it followeth not that we should Adore them: The Formalists upon this ground, that Christ is really present in the Sacrament, though the manner we know not, think that Christ should be Adored in the Sacrament, according to that, Verbum audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus. But if this be good Logic, because we know not the way of the Spirit, and how the bones grow in a woman with child, Eccles. 11. v. 5. And God, where he worketh, is present by the immediation of essence and power, though we know not the way of his presence, we are to Adore the soul of man, and the bones of a young child in a woman's belly; & though they should say that God-man Christ is in a more powerful and efficacious manner present in the Sacrament, then in the works of nature; yet should it follow, that God is to be worshipped in the works of nature also▪ for Magis & minus non variant speciem, for then we could not conclude anything but this: Though there be not so real a ground of Adoring Lice and Frogs, as Adoring of the Sacrament: Yet there is a ground, seeing God is, in the realli • y of his blessed essence, present in all creature • .

II. Con • lusion. The Idolatrous Jews did not. Adore the golden Calf, as a crea • ure, but as God by representation, Exod. 32. 4. And when Aaron had made thereof a golden Calf, they said, These be thy God's O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt. 5. And when Aaron saw it, he built an Altar before it, and Aaron made Proclamation, and said▪ To morrow is a Feast to Jehovah. Now that they believed not the golden Calf to be really and essentially Jehovah, is more then evident: 1. Because they believed not Moses to be essentially God, but their guide and leader under God; but this Calf they made to supply the want of Moses, v. 1. The people gathered themselves together against Aaron, and said unto him, Up▪ make us gods which shall go before us: For as for this Moses the man that brought us up out of the Land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. They made then the Calf only a visible God under Jehovah, to lead them in Moses his place. 2. There is no reason why they should have made Aaron rather the maker of the Calf then another; but because he being the Lord's Priest, they thought by his holiness, the God head of Jehovah did slide into this Calf; and so they held the Calf to be a thing different from Jehovah. 3. They say to Aaron, Make us gods: Ergo, they believed Jehovah to be before this made Calf. 4. They saw the Calf melted before their eyes, & knew it was made of their ear-rings. 5. They call it Jehovah, & yet they made it Jehovah, and therefore they differenced betwixt the Calf & Jehovah: for they knew that Jehovah brought them out of Egypt before the Calf was framed, but the Calf was an Image of that Jehovah. Bellar. and Gregor. de Valent. say, They worshipped not Jehovah, but a vain Idol: Else how is it said, Psa. 106. when they made this Calf, that they forgot the Lord, if they worshipped God in the Calf, they were mindful of God. It is vain reasoning this, the wife that taketh another Husband to bed with her, Morally forgetteth her husband; and to worship God in a memorative sign forbidden of God, is a forgetting of God, and a false God indeed. 2. Those who acknowledge that the Heathen believe that some Godhead dwelt in Images, and gave Responses and Answers out of them; do thereby acknowledge, that the Image itself had not the honor of giving Responses, as God hath, but that the enclosed Godhead gave these Responses, and therefore the enclosed Godhead was that which they worshipped. So Aquinas, and Vasquez saith, The Heathen acknowledged a Godhead to dwell in the Images: And Bellarmine saith, It is not improbable that the Jews believed that they worshipped the true God in an Idol: Papists then may take to them Heathens Idolatry, for Heathens worshipped God in Images, and not Images as they are such: and Abulensis, and Cajetan in the Commentaries of the first Edition, on Exodus, said this same. 3. Though the Jews believed the Calf to be essentially God, yet it was God as God▪ that they intended to worship, not the work of men's hands as such: Papists believe that the Image is not God, and yet give the highest worship that is to them. 4. Bellarmine saith with us, when he saith, They saw a Calf in Egypt and Adored it, they believed Jehovah himself to be a Calf, therefore they made the image of a Calf, and Dedicated it to Jehovah. But (I Answer) That Image so Dedicated, they worshipped as Jehovah, and called the very material Calf Jehovah, and Dedicated it to the Honor of Jehovah; therefore they believed the Lord Jehovah, and the Calf Dedicated to his Honor, (which Calf also they worshipped) to be two divers things, as the Image and the thing signified are Relata and opposite: Ergo, they believed not that that Image which Aaron had made, was Jehovah essentially; therefore in setting up that Image, they worshipped it not as a creature. All the Prophets (saith he) proveth that the Idols are not gods, because they speak not, they neither see, nor hear, Isa. 46. Psal. 113. But (say some Papists) there was no question if they did see and hear by way of naked representation, because they represented gods and men in shape, who see and hear. Ans. first, If all granted they were living things, which did hear and see by representation; the Prophets did well to prove, they should not be trusted in, nor feared as Images, nor should that Godhead within them enclosed, be feared, because it cannot speak with the mouth, nor see, nor hear, nor walk, with their eyes, ears, and feet: and so it was a vain thing to make it a representation of God, who by serving these dead things did help them. But the Prophets strongly prove these Images, and the supposed Godheads in them, were dumb, deaf, blind, and dead; and therefore neither sign, nor supposed deity represented by the sign, was to be Adored. Also, Isa. 40. 18. To whom then will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto him? 19. The Workman melteth a graven Image, and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, &c. Isa. 46. 5, 6. To whom will ye liken me? and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike? 9. I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me. Then it is more then clear that they made a likeness, a comparison, and a similitude betwixt the golden Image and Jehovah: Ergo, they believed not that the Image was essentially God; for everything like to another, must be divers from that to which it is like (they being relatives and opposites) the one cannot be essentially the other; and he proveth they are not God by representation, Isa. 46. They cannot move out of their places, except they be born upon Asses or men's shoulders: And this is the Holy Ghosts Argument, I am God, Ergo, there is none like me by representation to be worshipped: All assimilation or comparative likeness made by man, betwixt Jehovah and God, is an Idolatrous assimilation; yea the Lord's Argument, Isa. 46. is this, everything made like unto me, before which ye fall down to worship, as a memorative Image of me, must be a living thing at least, that can move out of his place, and answer your cry when ye pray, and save you out of trouble, ver. 7. Isa. 46. And yet it is but a likeness of God, ver. 6. Now I Assume, but the Papists Image, and the Formalists Sacramental elements before which they Religiously kneel, cannot move out of their place, nor answer the Prayers of those who bow to them, nor save them out of trouble: Ergo, they cannot be Adored as Images, with Religious bowing▪ nor can they say, the Images or Sacramental elements can teach and represent God. I Answer, So did the Jewish Images represent God, and yet God convinceth them of Idolatry, Isa. 40. 18. Isa. 46. 6, 7. Ier. 10. They were but Doctrines of Vanity and Lyes, and Hab. 2 19. Woe be to him who saith to the Wood, Awake, and to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach. And though the Sacramental elements be lawful teaching and representing signs, as being the Ordinances of Christ Jesus; yet the office of teaching cannot elevate and extol them to the state of Religious worship, because though the elements be lawful Images, and in this they differ from Jewish and Popish Images; yet that which is Adored must be such as can hear Prayers, Isa. 46. 7. though it be the Image of God. But the Sacramental elements are not such as can hear Prayer, &c.

Also, that the Adoring of Images is not forbidden by a Ceremonial Law only, is clear: 1. By God's Argument, (Isa. 40. 18.) To whom will ye liken me? That is, no created thing can represent God, which is of man's devising (for the elements of God's institution do represent Christ) and Isa. 46. 9. I am God, and there is none beside me: Ergo, no invention of man can represent me. This Argument is taken from God's nature, and therefore is of perpetual verity. 2. The Apostle Paul in the New-Testament repeateth this same Argument, Act. 17. to the heathen Athenians who were tied by no Ceremonial Law of God, ver. 29. We ought not to think that the God-head is like unto Gold; You see these people are challenged of Idolatry, who did but erect an Altar to the golden likeness and Image of God, and yet they did not worship that golden Image, as such; but they worshipped in, and by the Image, v. 23, 24. The God preached by Paul who made the world.

Ans. 1. Why should not unwritten Traditions (which to Papists are God's word) express to us God's nature in Images, no less then the written word? 2. The Heathen did represent God by the Image of a man, with eyes, nose, tongue, ears, head, hands, feet, heart, understanding, all which are given to God in Scripture, yet were they Idolaters in so doing, because God saith, Isa. 46. 9. I am God, and there is none like to me. 3. If we may portraict▪ God according to all metaphors given unto him in Scripture, then ye may Portraict him, in the shape of a Lyon, a Leopard, a Bear, a Man full of wine, a Theef stealing in the night, an unjust Judge, a Giant, a man of War on horse-back, &c. All which were folly; and we might worship a Lyon, a Bear, an unjust Judge, a thief stealing in the night, a man mad with the spirit of jealousy. 4. The Essence and specific nature of nothing in Heaven and earth, can be portraicted or painted, no more then God's essence; all painted things are but such and such things by external proportion and shape; and it is unreasonable to say that Portraicts and Pictures of God, Physically impossible to the Art of Craftsmen, are forbidden only (whereas the Lord's word setteth down to us no precepts for Art, as for painting, Music, speaking right Latin) whereas the Lord forbiddeth universally God's pictures in anything in heaven, on earth, or under the earth, Deut. 4. 15. Take ye therefore good heed to yourselves, for ye saw no manner of Image on the day that the Lord spake to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire.

Ans. The people of God had not that opinion every way of Egypt, and their horses, that they had of God; and yet when they, Isa. 31. give that to Egypt and horses, which is due to God, to wit, their Faith and confidence, that they could save in the time of trouble, therefore interpretatively they made God's of them; other ways they knew literally, that Pharaohs horses were flesh and not spirit: but Morally and spiritually they knew them not to be no God's to save them: It is no more absurd that the Prophets say, The Idol hath eyes and see not, and that it is not God, though by sense they knew it not to be God, but by representation they trusting in the Idol as in God, then it was for Isaiah to say, The horses of Egypt are flesh and not spirit: A wife, if she give her body to a stranger, though not with that opinion of love and respect which is only due to her husband, is yet an harlot, and the people who sware by Jehovah, and by Malcome, who worship Jehovah, and Jereboam's Calves, and those who worship the Image of an Ash-Tree, representing Jehovah, Isa. 40. 18. Isa. 46. 6, 7. did not give honor to Malcom, to the Calves, to the Images, Sicut Iehovae, as to God. See Roinalds Answer. But (saith he) we cannot worship God, but we must conceive some Image of God in our mind, are we therefore Idolaters, because in these Images we worship God? and Valent. saith, and so doth the Formalist Lindsey say, That God may be adored before the Sacramental elements as Images. Ans. We are not forbidden to adore God in the inward conception of mind, Deut. 4. Ye saw no manner of similitude, but not, yea thought no manner of thoughts of God. 2. The internal image of God in the mind is the objective conception of God as conceived in the mind there is no hazard of Idolatry there, for that Image is not adorable at all, because then it must be conceived by a new different Image, and that new different Image must be cognoscible by another new Image, and so in infinitum. The external Image is both made an active object to represent God, and when we religiously bow to it, it is made an object passive, that is adored with God.

Lastly, If the Jews and heathen had adored their Images, as they were such creatures consecrated, and as essentially God's, the Lord would not have rebuked them for making an Ash Tree the similitude of a God, as he doth, Isa. 40. 18. Isa. 44. 9, &c. And all that I said in the former question proveth the same. So that though Divine honor in the Act of kneeling before the elements be intended to Christ, yet because the elements are there as actual signs, and Vicegerent Images of Christ, if we kneel to Christ Religiously through them, we give them divine honor, though we should intend to honor Christ Jesus only.

SECT. III.

I. Con. TO adore Images is to give worship to God before Images, or, in, or through the Images without any Faith of a Godhead, or divine power in the Image according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. I prove this out of their Councils. The Council of Trent saith, Due honor and veneration is due to the Images, not because it is believed, that there is any Divinity and virtue in them, for the which they should be worshipped; but because the honor given to them is referred to the samplar, which they represent; that by these Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our head and bow down; we may adore Christ, and the Saints which these Images resembleth: Hence 1. the Image doth but, as a memorative object, excite the affection to give honor to God, in, and through the Images; but 2. Let these words be examined, the Council denieth any divinity to be in Images, but if they mean no divinity really to be in Images, so they say nothing against us; for we do not ascribe to Papists that they teach there is a real God-head in the Image, but that all that is really in it, is Wood, Gold, or Mettall, and so did the Gentiles believe their Images to be teaching books, Hab. 29. Ier. 10, 8. Deut. 4. 19. Isa. 40. 18. & 46. 6, 7. Act. 17. 29. and gold and silver; but say they, What needed the Prophets to prove that gold and silver could not see, nor hear, nor deliver in time of trouble, reason would here convince them to be ten times blind, who believed any such thing. Ans. The Prophets do well to do so: Nor that the Heathen believed there was any Godhead in them formally, but because they ascribed actions to these images, that were due to living creatures, and made them to be such as did see, hear, move, deliver; So Isaiah proveth Egypt's horses not to be God, but flesh, yet they did not believe there was a Godhead in the horses, but Consequenter, by good consequence, when they laid that hope on the horse, that they were to lay upon God, he had need to say the horse was flesh and not God: So when men give to these things, bowing of the body, and say unto a stock, Thou art my Father: God may prove the stock is not a living man, and hath no senses, to convince them the more, that they can far less be God's Vicar; for a Vicar or Deputy creature representing the living God, should be such as can do what God doth; else we should put on it the honor due to God: But if the Council mean, They have no divinity in them, but by way of representation, because they be Vicaria dei signa, signs resembling the Creator God; Now if this be denied, the images must be naked memorials before which people do adore God, as Mirandula, Durand and others said, and yet latter Papists say more of their own Images: But I would have it remembered, that there be two sorts of deputed or Vicar-Images; some that do only signify, as the darkness of the Sky going before the morning light in the East, that doth nothing at all which the morning light doth, but nakedly signifieth that the Sun is rising: There be other Depute signs that can exercise acts, which the samplar would do, if it were present, as the deputy is not a naked Vicar or depute sign of the King, for he doth not only signify the Kings mind, but can do Royal Acts in the Kings name: Images are depute signs of God, of the first sort, that do only rub the memory and understanding, and therefore deserve no honor except the honor due to the means of worship, as the Bible, Sacraments, which deserve not Adoration, but only a Negative Reverence, or a not despising or contemptuous handling of them, Images being unlawful means, and not Commanded of God, deserve no Veneration at all; and though it be true, that the Ambassador deserve Princely Honor, for the Princes Place, whom he representeth; yet he can act the person of the Prince, and is not a naked deputed sign, but Images are therefore convinced to be unlawful deputies representing (as Idolaters made them to be, Isa. 40. 18. Isa. 46. 6, 7.) Because they can do no acts at all, nor exercise any actions proper to the samplar, for Psal. 115. v. 6. They have mouths, but they speak not, eyes they have, but they see not, 7. They have ears, but they hear not; and therefore should not be trusted in, as in means and deputed representations of God, for which cause the Prophet inferreth ver. 8. They that made them, are like unto them, so are everyone that trusteth in them. ver. 9. O Israel trust thou in the Lord. Therefore Religious trusting in them is Idolatry: But the Canon of Trent saith this same of their Images, to wit, that there be no Godhead or virtue in them. 2. If the worship of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the higher service due to God, be given to Images, as I prove hereafter, then also some deity or Divine virtue; for God's highest honor can no more be communicated to any, save to God, then the Godhead itself; for a Relative Godhead is as due to stocks, as a relative worship. 3. If the Tridentine Canonists will have divine Adoration given to God Coram imaginibus, before Images, or at their presence, as only memorative signs, & active objects exciting us to worship God, then is our Thesis proved: But if they mean that God is Adored, Coram imaginibus, before images, as not only memorative and active objects, but also before them as passive objects, that are compartners under God of some divine adoration; then I say 1. they contradicted themselves, for God's highest honor called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , cannot be given to them but by a figure, because they are God's, & have divinity in them only by a figure, and not really: for Suarez & Vasquez denieth that we can fix our hope and faith in Images, or make prayers to them, Nisi modo figurativo & tropo duriore, by a figure, and a hard troop, and most improperly and by that same reason must be given to stocks and stones most improperly, and that is, men do religiously bow before them, as before memorative objects. 2. Gabriel Vasquez saith well, There can be no footstep of holiness in the image, beside the excellency of the samplar, nor any divine virtue wherefore it should be worshipped; for there is nothing in the image of itself, but that which is senseless, and lifeless, and spiritlesse and no man can in a Religious way submit himself to such a creature? Hence it must be a naked memorative sign, and therefore the kissing of the Image, though Physically it be real, and not Metaphysical, yet moral it is not propper, seeing all religious affection in that kissing is transferred to God. And we know Vasquez alloweth, that everything, as it is a being, and resembleth God the first being, is to be Adored, and so stones,—Frogs, the Devil, Judas lips that kissed Christ, are to be Adored.

So their seventh pretended Synod faith, That the Honor due to God is not to be given to images, according to our faith, only at the beholding of Pictures we are put in mind of the samplar: And the same saith Mr. Lindesey, is the way of Adoring God in the Sacrament. But so the Gentiles, as saith Arnobius, and Lactantius, yea, and the Apostle Paul • aith Adored images; yea, and God would not forbid similitudes of God to be Adored, except he did teach that the heathen Idolaters worshipped similitudes, and so the Papists in that vulgar verse said, they Adored not the Images, but the thing signified by the Images.

Let me add these reasons to prove they cannot Adore the Image, but as a memorative sign: 1. The Image and the elements in any consideration, either as creatures, or as the honorable act of representation is put upon them, are but creatures; for the act of representation is a temporary Godhead, and maketh them but Time-God's; Ergo, they cannot be Adored. 2. If there be two Adorations here, one given to God, and another to the Image, and if both be divine honor, there must be two collateral God's; if Adoration prove Christ to be God, two divine honors put upon things, one upon God, and another upon the Creature; there must be two God's, or then the Creature remaining a Creature, must have Communion with God's high honor, which is Idolatry. 3. Images and elements are either worshipped for themselves▪ or for some other thing; if for themselves, they are God, for only God for himself is worshipped with Divine honor; if for God they be worshipped, then it is an inferiotr, and improper worship, and therefore they must be worshipped as memorative objects. 4. Images and elements, if they partake of external worship proper to God: Why may not Sacrifices and Incense be offered unto them, and faith and hope fixed on Images? They do not partake of internal worship: for as Vasquez saith well, inward worship consisteth in Apprehensione primi principii, & in motu ad illud; in apprehension of the first Author and Creator of all things, and in the wills motion toward it. But this apprehension cannot be put upon Images or elements, therefore they be here significant objects only.

So their second Council of Nice, as Epiphanius a Deacon, in name of the Synod saith, Images were present before the kneelers, as our elements are, only as memorative objects. 2. That the singular affection of Adoring, was bounded only upon God: And Concilium Senonense saith, Images are to be Adored, not because there is any Godhead in them, but for the memory of the samplar: And Concilium Moguntinum, Images are not propounded that we should worship them, but that we may call to mind the things which we are to worship. If therefore we Adore God at the presence of the elements, as memorative signs we do Adore the elements; but if the kneeler direct all his worship before the elements, to Christ up at the right hand of the Father: Why then (as Lactantius said well to the Gentiles ) do they not turn away their senses and eyes off the elements? For Christ is not substantially enclosed in them, and lift them up toward heaven, where they believe Christ to be? But in so doing the elements should not be received as Sacraments, for in the act of receiving we are to fixe our souls upon the visible elements: If the Athenians did believe the golden image, Act. 17. 29. was essentially God, and kneeled to it as to God; Paul did in vain rebuke them for believing that the Godhead was like silver or gold; and if the men of Lystra believed the shapes of men, and the likeness of men to be essentially God, and in that respect gave the honor of Sacrificing due to God, to these shapes; then the Scripture in vain should bring these men of Lystra in, as putting a difference betwixt the shapes of men, and the Godhead of Jupiter and Mercurius, to which they were about to give Divine Sacrifice. And if Formalists kneel before the elements, and give a transitive glory to Christ through them, they are in the same sense Idolaters that the Gentiles were. So the Council of Moguntine, and Alphonsus de Castro deny that they Adore the letters of the Name (Jesus) drawn with base ink▪ or the Tree of the Cross; but they Adore the signified thing: Yea, saith Waldensis, He that beholdeth the image, almost forgetteth the image, while as he is ravished with the thing signified: as many see a man clothed, and yet being asked, they cannot declare the color of his clothes, the mind is so much set upon the man: Yea, the Adorer may hate the painted image of Christ, because the rude ignorance of the painter, when he Adoreth Christ in the same image, though he may love some moral representation in it. This Doctrine is taught by Gregorius, and by Adrianus, and approved by a Council at Rome under Stephanus the third.

II. Conclusion. Grosser Papists go a subtiler way to work, and do avouch that the very Latreia and supreme worship that is proper to God, is given to the Image.

Though the creature saith Suarez cannot, Primo, & per se, principally, kindly, and of itself be worshipped or adored with Latreia, the supreme worship due to God, yet it may be co-adored, with the same honor that is given to Christ, as is the Kings purple Robe: So the first Distinction is of Adoration and co-Adoration, or Adoration kindly, and by itself, and Adoration with another. Henriquez saith, It is a fault that it is not preached to the people, that the image of Christ is to be adored with supreme worship called Latreia . Crabrera saith, many Schoolmen are of this mind; and so doth Azorius Archangelus Rubeo Jacobus de Graphiis, Let us worship (saith he) every Image with that same worship, with which we worship the samplar: That is, let us bestow the worship highest of Latreia, upon the Image of God and Christ, and the sign of the Cross, as it bringeth us in mind of Christ's suffering: The second distinction is, that the Image is truly properly adored, as the material object no less then the samplar: Hence they reprove Durand, Picus Mirandula, Hulcot, and others, who say that Images are improperly adored, & Raphael de la Torres answering to that of Durand and Mirandula, That Images are adored by accident, in respect that before them, and at their naked presence, as before memorative objects, we adore God and Christ (saith he) (are adored by accident) is thus to be understood, Images are adored, Ration Alterius, by reason of another, Vel per aliud, by another thing, but this argueth not that Images are improperly adored, hereby only is denied that there is any adoration of the proper excellency of the thing adored. Hence he would say that the borrowed honor of Adoration given to the Image is truly and properly the Adoration that is due to God, but it is given to the Image in reference to God, and not for any inherent Excellency that is in the Image: For (saith he) If we do not properly adore the Image, we do but exercise the material action of kissing and kneeling to the image, without any internal affection of submission to the Samplar: He addeth that it is enough that the intention of submission is referred to the samplar, and the external Adoration to the Image, for if any shall (saith he) kiss the earth (as the rude multitude in some place doth) upon an intention of inward submission of heart to God, Nequaquam vere & proprie adorat terram, he doth not truly and properly adore the earth, but only he exerciseth a material action of kissing toward the earth: But I answer, all this is vanity, for such a one worshippeth the earth, but referreth the internal submission to God, and all this, is to say the Image doth truly partake of the Religious honor ( Latreia ) due to God only.

A third distinction is here, of Gabriel Biel on the Canon of the Mass, In the Adoring of images (saith he) and of other things which are adored by accident, though there be an external act of bowing both to the images and the samplar, yet there be two internal acts which are different, whereof one is terminated and bounded upon the image, not absolutely as it is such a material thing of stone, or metal, but as it is an image: This is an acknowledgement whereby I esteem the Image a thing ordained to represent Christ, or a complacency whereby I rest on such a thing, as to be honored for Christ, and the other i • a recognition, and acknowledgement immediately terminated and bounded upon the samplar, whereby it is acknowledged to be the chiefest good. But the truth is, Religious geniculation before the image, or at the presence of the image (saith Durand) as if the samplar were there present, is one and the same adoration given to the image and the samplar; and all that Gregorius de Valentia saith against this, is, that Durand minus circumspect • locutus, he spake not so warily, as need were: And so did their seventh pretended synod speak, as Leontius expoundeth them, Non liguorum aut colorum naturam adoro, absit, and Vasquez saith, They displease some in so speaking, but they mean well: They meant all that which our Formalists do▪ and there is no discord (saith Gabriel Biel ) in re, in the matter itself; for both say; 1. that the creature should not be adored with the highest honor ( Lateria ) of itself, as if it were the object of Adoration: 2. Both teach that the mind and affection is carried toward the samplar, which is adored: 3. Both mean that the adorer exerciseth some act upon the image, as it representeth the samplar, only the diversity is, if this act terminated on the Image, should be called an adoring of the Image; and all these three Formalists do to the elements in the supper: Hence I require of the Formalists, one difference betwixt the objective presence of the elements before the kneeler, in the act of receiving, and the objective presence of the Heathens image of God, Isa. 40. 18. & 46. 6, 7, 8. and the Papists image of dumb wood, and blind stone: Mr. Lindsey answered me once in a conference, That the elements were present as the Ordinances of God, but the Popish and Heathen images as the inventions of men. I replied to him, That is no answer: for images and elements (I know) do differ, Physicâ specie; The Sun adored by Persians, and Satan by Indians differ. Satan and the Sun, are not Ejusdem speciei, of that same nature, but it is idolatry to worship either; images and bread in the kind of means of worship differ, but, as touching the objective presence before the kneeler kneeling to these, there is no difference: as 1. To memorative objects: 2. As to objects vicarious and standing in the room of Christ: 3. At their presence and through them God is adored. Suarez, is not content with the doctrine of Durand here, By this, images are (saith he) but occasions, Vel signa excitantia hominem ad prototypum adorandum, non vero • es quae adorantur, or signs moving the m • n to adore the samplar, but they are not things adored: for (saith he) the man, who seeing a beautiful creature, ariseth in • is mind to the consideration of the Creator, and therefore praiseth and loveth th • Creator, cannot be truly said to praise and love that fair creature, though • the presence of that creature have stirred up the love of the Creator, and by this means images are reserved only for memory. Thus he will have images adored with the same worship that is given to God: But I answer: 1. if he shall kiss that creature and direct Religious bowing toward it, and and through that external Religious act, convey his worship to God, and give no other external adoration and sign of heart submission to God, then that which is tied and alligated of purpose to that fair creature, as Papists and Jews did of old, who kissed the calves, and fell down before the images, as Isa. 44. 17. which yet were but memorials of Jehovah teaching them of Jehovah, Esa. 40. 18. Esa. 46. 6, 7. Hab. 2. 18, 19. Such a one should also worship that fair creature: Our Formalists do not make the elements memorative signs representing Christ, for that they have by divine institution, but upon that ground they kneel before them, and tie, by the Churches Commandment, the external Religious bowing toward them, and that (saith the act of our new Assembly at Perth) in reverence of God, and in due regard (Religious regard they must mean) of so divine a mystery, and in remembrance of so mystical a union: 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 2. God hath no other external bowing made to him in the act of receiving, then is made before these elements, in due regard of so divine a mystery, and because of so mystical union; the union is real, whether it be by consubstantiation, or transubstantiation, they will not define, the Lord Jesus is present in the elements, in a more real and spiritual manner, then he is in any groundless image of metal or wood; and therefore the image and elements do most really partake even by Durand and Hulcot, and Mirandula their mind of that worship of ( Latreia ) due to God; only Durand (as Vasquez, and Gregor. Valent. say) spake not so warily, but not so grossly, as to say, What ever is given to God, is given to the image: 2. It is not in the Adorers power that kneeling should be a sign of less worship, as referred to the image, and of greater, as referred to God; for the same material kissing, and Religious Prostration, which would immediately be conveyed to Christ, if he were in person present in the image and elements, is done to the image and elements, and Religious kissing, and Religious kneeling signifieth internal divine submission of heart to God, as the first author of all, and the last end, not by man's will, but by divine institution. 3. Kneeling to God is a protestation (saith Gregor, de Valent.) That we are willing to raise an opinion of excellency in God, as this excellency is in some manner, and relatively in the image. If therefore kneeling of its own nature, without any act of man's will, or the Churches institution, wanting God's Word, do conciliate an opinion of excellency; to whomsoever kneeling is directed, in this it must conciliate the same opinion: if then it it be given to Images and elements, it must be a protestation that we are willing to conciliate an opinion of Divine excellency in these lifeless creatures, which is all we give to God by kneeling. 4. It is not enough that Valentia saith, This honor belongeth to Christ, in so far as it conciliateth to Christ the honor due only to God, and is expressed by kneeling, & it belongeth to the images so, as Coram, & in illis, before, and in them this opinion is conciliated to Christ: But if the image be God only representatively, and by way of signification, then is it not God of itself and really, Quod est tale tantum significative, non est tale per se, & realiter, as a painted man is not of itself, and really a man; the word ( Jesus ) as written with base ink, is not infinite Jesus, the mighty God, the Prince of Peace, really, but only in mere signification: therefore to give God's honor and external Religious bowing (which essentially doth note the highest excellency of God) to them, is Idolatry: It is a vain thing to say, The Ambassador is not really the King; yet the real honor due to the King, is done to him. I Answer, where the King declareth that it is his will, that his Ambassador be really honored as himself; this is not the giving of the Kings glory to another against his will: But here expressly contrary to that ( Thou shalt not bow down to them ) expounded especially of similitudes, Deut. 4. 15. Ye saw no manner of similitude. The glory of Religious bowing contrary to God's will, ( Who will not give his glory to another ) is given to images, and to Bread. 2. It redoundeth kindly to the King, who is absent, and to be obeyed in his absence, that His Vicegerent and Deputy be honored as himself, and presupposeth an infirmity in the King that he cannot be in many places to receive immediately the honor due to him, and therefore will have that due paid to himself, mediately, by the honored person of a Deputy. God infinite is in all places, to receive immediately the pay of Religious knee-honor, and it dishonoreth God to have his glory laid down in the hand of any creature; as it dishonoreth the Husband that his wife give her body to another, representing his person: For this cause Bernardus Puiol faith, Images are properly to be Adored, contrary to that which Durand saith: And Azorius saith, It is the common opinion that Images are to be worshipped with (Latreia) the highest honor due to God: So (saith he) Thomas, Alexander, Bonaventura, Richardus, Albertus, Paludanus, Alman, Marsilius, Capreolus, Cajetan, & caeteri juniores sic sentiunt.

The fourth expression of wit, is this distinction of Vasquez, That that internal submission to God, as to the Creator and chief God, is due to God only; and that the image, seeing it is a Creature, is not capable of that high honor. But the external act of kissing and kneeling, he will have due to the image, for the excellency of the Samplar. And so he denieth contrary to Suarez, That the image separated from the Samplar, or the humanity of Christ separated from Divinity, can be Adored: But if external Adoration may be given to images; so also internal submission: ( Thou shalt not bow down to them ) Religiously it is expounded in the second Commandment, ( Thou shalt not Worship them. ) It is grossness in Vasquez to say, The Worshipping of images was forbidden the Jews in the second Commandment, as a Ceremonial inhibition, because of the Jews propension to idolatry: But Act. 17. 29. Paul expoundeth the second Commandment, Forbidding the similitude of God: And the Athenians were not under the Law of Ceremonies. Johannes de Lugo saith, This is a probable opinion: But it is clear, Cornelius a devout man, one who feared and worshipped God, whose Prayers were heard in heaven for Christ's sake, knew that Peter was a man which lodged in the house of Simon a Tanner; yet his Religious external bowing (though he knew Peter was not God, but a Divine man resembling God) by Peter is rebuked as idolatry, Act. 10. v. 25, 26. I cannot help John. de Lugo, to say, That Peter forbade Cornelius to worship him, not because it was a sin, but for modesties cause. But 1. Peters Argument striketh against idolatry, ver. 26. ( Stand up, (he forbiddeth Religious kneeling) for I myself also a man ) The very Argument that Paul and Barnabas useth, Act. 14. • er. 15. We also are men &c. and used against the idolatry of Lystra, expressly condemned in that place: And the Angels Argument against the idolatry of John, Rev. 19. 10. I am thy fellow servant, Worship God; Ergo, external Religious bowing should not be given to any, save to God. 2. Peter and the Angel should have opened the Jesuits and Formalists distinction, if worshipping of Saints and dumb images be worshipping of God, and the honor principally of inward acknowledgment of the Supremacy and Sovereignty of God, be intended, in bowing to images, and modesty should not forbid honoring of God: And whereas Johannes de Lugo saith, John was forbidden to Worship the Angel, to signify that our nature in Christ was advanced to a dignity above the Angels. But 1. then it is unlawful to any to worship Angels. 2. Nor is it Lawfull to give the Virgin Mary Divine worship, as Suarez saith: 1. For her excellency in touching Christ. 2. For her Grace and Sanctity. 3. For her mothers place in bearing Christ; because her nature in Christ is not exalted above the nature of other believers, for the nature common to all believers, and Eadem specie, was assumed by Christ. 3. The Angel saith, ( Worship God ) he therefore believed the Worshipping of Angels was not the Worshipping of God. All these fight against Religious bowing before the elements, in due regard of so Divine mysteries: the Bread would say (if it could speak) See thou do it not, for I also am a Creature.

The fifth trick of wit, is a distinction of Suarez, That one and the same act of Adoration may be given, and is given in external Worship to the image and to God, but in reference to God, it is Latreia, the high Honouring of God, and in reference to the image, it is an inferior Veneration: So do our Formalists say, as Burgess saith▪ Adoration and Veneration differ not but by men's will; and if it be lawful to Adore God before the Ark, Why not at the Sacrament? The Bread and the Wine are Christ significative, (as the Ark had the title of Jehovah) by occasion of the elements, not as they are, but as they signify; we may tender a knee-worship, not at all to them, but only to God or Christ. And again, he holdeth it lawful to Adore the elements, but then Adoration as given to the elements, is Veneration, and Adoration in a large sense, 1 Chron. 29. 20. The people Worshipped God and the King: The outward Adoration was one, as the word by which it is expressed was one; but the Religious and Civil worship were distinct in the mind and intention of the worshippers. Edward, the 6. Book saith, Kneeling is to eschew profaning of the Sacrament. Opposit to profaning is external Religious honoring, expressed by kneeling, and that is Adoring. Hence one and that same Adoration and external bowing, is given to Bread and to Christ; but the mind and will of the Adorer maketh the same act in reference to Christ, Adoration, or Latreia, of the highest degree of honor; but in reference to the Bread, lawful Veneration of an inferior nature. Answer 1. If it were possible that the Wise could transmit her body in the act of Harlotry, by, or through a strange Lover to her Husband, her will and mind might change Adultery; if she saith, she giveth her body to a stranger, but in her mind and will intendeth to bring forth children to her own Husband: So if divers acts of the mind, make Religious kneeling to a stock or Bread lawful, if one should Adore the man Judas as a memorial of Christ, his intention of will might save his Soul; if he say, I give one and the same external worship to Judas and to Christ: Or if Cornelius should say, I give one and the same knee▪ worship, to Peter and to Christ; but in my intention they be far different: For I Worship Judas and Peter in that act with Civil homage Commanded in the fifth Commandment, as they be Christ's Apostles, and represent him; but in that same I Worship Christ with the highest honor, called Latreia: Vasquez and Burgess make them one external Worship. The three Children might have kneeled to the Image of Nebuchadnezzar, for their mind and will (as Formalists say) might have put another signification of honoring the Lord Jehovah, upon their knee-worship; and external kneeling could not have been denied to the Lord Jehovah; and so the three Children should not have given Divine honor and kneeglory to the Image, and they were fools who did hazard their bodies to the fire: But wisemen think, if they had given knee-worship (what ever their heart thought) they should have obeyed the King, yet they profess disobedience, Dan. 3. 18. We will not worship thy graven image. 2. Neither think we the Athenians gave that same honor to the similitude Act. 17. 29. of God, that they gave to the God that Paul Preached, who made Heaven and earth, v. 23, 24. Yet in giving Worship external to both, they were Idolaters, ver. 29. Nor did the men of Lystra give the same heart-honor to the Deities of Jupiter and Mercury, which they gave to the shapes of men; yet are they Idolaters in that. 3. Mr. Burgess saith, Israel 1 Chron. 29. 20. in one and the same act (external) Worshipped God and the King, because one and the same word expresseth honor both to God and the King. But how shall we call that act? Civil, or Religious, or mixed? and did they transmit Latreia, divine honor through the King to God? he hath a Metaphysical faith who believeth such dreams, because one word is used to express both the worshipping of God and the King, therefore it was one external act of worshipping, and differenced in the mind and intention of the worshippers; the consequence is most weak, 1 Sam. 12. 18. All the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel, Prov. 24. 21. My son, fear the Lord and the King, is it one manner of fear really, that is both religious to God, and to Samuel, and to the Lord, and the King▪ because one word expresseth both? I see not but one & the same action of bowing may be made to God, to Christ, to the water in Baptism, to the Bible, to the Sun and Moon, and we might kneel and Adore a Toad, a straw, and Satan, as they represent God's wisdom and power, and through that same external knee-worship also Adore God: What, may we not then Religiously Adore all things and Creatures, as they represent God the first being.

Presentem{que} refert quaelibet herba Deum. A man may Adore himself, his own hands, his legs, his Mothers Wombe that bare him, &c.

As for Adoring of the Ark and footstool of God: 1. John. Gisenius, a Lutheran saith, The Jews had precept and promise to Worship God before the Ark, we have no Command to tie external Adoration to any place or Creature. 2. Didoclavius saith, It is lawful to Adore God before the Ark, and the Symboles of his immediate presence, because God is there to receive his own Worship himself, by an immediate indwelling presence: For saith Mr. Weames, He appeared in glory above the Ark, betwixt the Cherubims, and it was a type of Christ who dwelt in our flesh; but it is not lawful to Worship him, before the Symboles of his grace. 3. The Ark was a type in the act of teaching, we grant; but that it was in the act of Adoring, God who was immediately present, and a Symbol Vicegerent of God, we read not. There is no need of mediate signs, where God is immediately present, and Adored as he was in the Ark; they were to fixe both senses and thoughts immediately upon God. 4. They were to worship, not the Ark, but the precept is, & incurvate vos scabello, Worship toward the Ark. Arias Mont. turneth it, Worship to the Ark: The Greek Fathers of the second Nicene. Council, ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, would have the Lord Commanding to Adore his footstool; whereas the Particle ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) is a note of the Dative case, and often it signifieth motion to a thing, or at a place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad dextram, and doth not absolutely signify the accusative case. Musculus ad Scabellum, he maketh it the Ark of the Testament. Calvin, the Temple. Junius, maketh it well to signify the measure of bowing, bow to the footstool, or ground, or pavement of the Temple where the Lord's feet are, as he sat on the Cherubims, 1 Chron. 28. 1. For there is no ground for Adoring the Ark; but the words are to be read, Exalt the Lord our God, and bow yourselves, (to wit, to Jehovah, who showeth himself, or dwelleth at his footstool) that is, betwixt the Cherubims, 2 Sam. 6. 1. For the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at his footstool, is not constructed with the Verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 incurvate vos: Jesuits and Formalists, devised that construction, but it is to be constructed with the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is to be repeated from the former part of the verse, Bow yourselves to Jehovah who dwelleth in the Ark, or in the Temple: A familiar eleipsis to the Hebrews, Psal. 5. 8. I will bow myself (to the Jehovah dwelling) in the Temple of thy holiness, as we are taught, Our Father which art in Heaven: So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and it is a description of God from the place where he dwelt, and exhibited his presence to his rude people. 4. It is ignorance in Burgess to prove God may be Adored in the elements, because they are as excellent Symbols of God's presence as the Ark: for created excellency is no ground of Adoring the elements, except it be a Godhead, and uncreated excellency: We condemn Pope Anastasius, who directeth Reverend bowing at the hearing of the Gospel, and not of the Epistles, as if the Gospel were holier then the Epistles.

But if Adoration may be given to the elements, because kneeworship signifieth according to human institution, and man's will, and are taken from customs of men, and so doth signify less honor then is due to God: Let me be resolved of this doubt, words of Prayer signify according to men's institution and their will, no less then Religious gestures do, and we may say to a stock, ( Thou art my Father ) and it is in our will that ( Father ) signify a representative Father, not an infinite and Independent Father, such as God only is.

And if the image in external kneeling, be Adored Per aliud, or co-adored with the Samplar, because it is one with the Samplar; Why may we not pray to the image, and fixe our faith and hope on the image and elements by co-adoration, or in relative praying and trusting in them? Yet the Fathers of Trent for shame deny that we should pray to images, and put our trust in them: yet do Formalists turn the enunciative words of Christ ( This is my body ) in an optative mood, and a Prayer, The body and blood of Christ (they mean the elements in their hands) preserve thee to eternal life: And we are not ignorant, that faith and hope are ascribed to the Cross, and this sung in the Church of Rome:

A Learned Papist, Raphael de la Torres saith plainly, It is lawful to pray to images, so the inward devotion be directed to God: But if the Jews in their Idolatrous worship acknoweledged the image to be but a representation of God, and a Book, Jer. 10. 8. They did no wrong who said Ier. 2. ver. 27. to a stock, Thou art my father, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: For condition maketh all, if they speak by a figure; for the Papists when they speak to the Cross, and call the Cross their only hope, the Cross is not better born nor a stock, it is but timber or dumb wood: Now how doth not the dumb wood to which Prayers are made, as if Christ himself were present, partake of Prayers and God's honor, in an inferior and relative way? For the wood standeth before him who prayeth to it, as God by representation, and as an actual Vicegerent, and tree-deputy of God and Christ; it is no less worshipful by mouth-worship, by praying to it, as to the passive object of Adoration, as capable of knee-worship by bowing down to it; and a distinction may save idolatry in the one, as well as in the other: And our Formalists bowing Religiously to bread, do not Adore bread, (as our half Papists say) and so may they pray to bread, and not Adore bread, for they are as well masters of Grammar, to impose significations at their will upon words, as they be Lord's of gestures and Ceremonies, to cause kneeling express Veneration to the images, and to elements, and not Divine Adoration.

Here two great Jesuits, Suarez and Vasquez help the matter for Suarez saith, There be some acts of worship as faith and prayer, which precisely respect a reasonable and intelligent person, therefore this prayer (Hail cross) it is a figurative speech, and a Metonymy, continens pro re contenta; and the speech is directed to him who was crucified, and therefore a prayer (saith this Idolater) is considered ut petitio, vel ut honor quidam, either as a petition, and so it is not directed but to God, but as prayer is an honor expressed in such words and signs, the image also is thought to be honored by praying to it, as the samplar to wit Christ, is honored; soft words. Answ. 1. If praying and believing do properly respect a reasonable creature, so doth positive honoring which is esteemed, by the law of nature, premium virtutis, a reward of virtue; now virtue moral to be a foundation of honor, is as vainly given to a tree, or a stock, as faith and prayer, but to speak to any in prayer, and make our requests known to them may be thought proper only to a reasonable person, who only can understand our prayer, and in reason answer our necessities, which a stock cannot do: but secondly, I answer a stock is by Analogy, and as it is God representatively, as capable of reason to answer, and help us, and pity us, in respect it can notably well represent the Majesty of God, who can answer, help, and pity, as our Idolaters teach, as it is capable of knee-worship, and that honor which is given to God, though in an higher degree; for the formal reason why Images and elements are capable of knee-glory, due to him who sweareth that all knees shall how to him, is, because they represent God, and not because of themselves they have any divinity or Godhead in them. Now the same formal reason holdeth here, for the cross, stone, tree, or elements that are prayed unto in that religious state, as they are the object of praying, do represent God, therefore they are also capable of faith and prayer, glory, as of knee-worship, or knee-glory. 2. Faith, hope, and charity (as Suarez saith) in so far as they are given to God, for giving of honor to him as to the supreme Lord, they put on the nature of adoration, and in that same place he defineth adoration to be the exhibition of honor due to any in the acknowlegement of excellency and submission and service due to him: Now Suarez reprooveth Durand and Pic. Mirandula, because they denied that the Image was adored, but would only have honor given to God, at the naked presence of the Image, as a memorable sign, but it is certain, as to trust in God, and to pray to him is incommunicable to the creature, so to adore any in acknowledgement of supreme excellency is incommunicable to the creature, therefore either the image is adored with the same knee-worship that is given to God, and that improperly and by a figure, as Durand and Mirandula taught contrary to the mind of Suarez, and idolatrous Jesuits and F • rmalists, or else prayers may be made to wood and stone, as to God, and that properly and without a figure; as knee-worship is tendered to wood and stone by Jesuits doctrine, prope •• y and without a figure. 3. Papists deny that sacrifices may be offered to Images, yet they burn incense to images; but that is not, saith a Fransciscan Antonius Cappel, a sacrifice, for it is tendered to men, to dead carions, and to things that are blessed, and requireth neither Altar, nor Priest: It is true, they say so, but burning incense to the brazen Serpent is condemned as Idolatry, and Altar and Priest is not of the essence of a sacrifice; but however as sacrificing is a recognition that we hold all we have of God, and therefore we sacrifice creatures to him, so any adoring of stocks is an acknowledgement that these stocks or stones are by way of representation, that God of whom we hold all the creatures: and do not Papists for the honor of God, make oblations to Ministers, and burn incense to Saints? and why may not prayers be offered to them also? 4. It is a wild distinction where he faith that prayers as honor may be tendered to Images, but not prayers as petitions, whereas the very act of calling upon God in the day of trouble, Psal. 50. 15. is an honoring and glorifying God, and praying to God is due to God, as he is to be believed in, and to be preached amongst men, Rom. 10. 14. 15. And so is he worthy to be glorified as the subject of preaching; then it is a vain thing to difference betwixt peti • ioning to God, and honoring God, because in that I petition God, in my necessities, I submit to him as to God, who can answer and hear prayers: If therefore the Image and the wood be capable of the honor of praying, it is also capable of the honor of petitioning, so as we may as properly petition and supplicate the stock, as give to it the glory of prayers. 5. If Formalists say in the third person, ( the body Sacramental of the Lord save thee, ) they may upon the same ground say, ( O thou Sacramental body of the Lord save me ) for this is a prayer to God, (O that God would save his people,) no less then this, (O God save thy people,) the variation of persons in the Grammar, maketh not the one to be a prayer, and not the other. Vasquez saith, There is not alike reason, why praises, prayers, and Sacrifices should be tendered to Idols, & knee-worship & Adoration, because from the affection of Adoring the samplar, there is derived an external note of submission to the image, which by a common name is called the honor, Worship and Adoration tendered to the image in a bodily manner, and being done before the image, tendeth to the honoring of the samplar; but the outward action of Praising, Praying, Sacrificing, is commonly called Praising, Praying, Sacrificing, in relation to the Samplar, to wit, God, and no way in relation to the image, or to things without life; neither are they by accident referred to the images, only they be tendered to God before images, Coram illis. But I Answer, This is but to beg the Question, for we deny, that from Adoring the image, there resulteth any Adoring of God, but a great dishonoring of his Name. 2. Durand, Mirandula, Hulcot, deny that Adoring of God, Coram imaginibus tanquam signis memorativis, before the images as memorials of God, should be an Adoring of the images: And Suarez saith, If images be only remembrances and memorials in the act of Adoration, this taketh much honor from the images, and is, saith he, An Adoring of the Samplar, but not an Adoring of the image: Though Vasquez; expounding Gregory's mind, (which superstitious man calleth them, good books ) contradict Suarez in this, yea, and himself also; for he saith, The enemies of images (he meaneth the Reformed Churches) who use them only for memorials and books, (it is a lie that we use them as books,) will not bow their knee to them, for then (saith he) they should Adore them; and therefore (saith Vasquez,) if Christ be not in very deed, in his presence in the Sacrament present, the knee-worship is tendered to bread and wine, which is (saith he) Idolatry; therefore either our Formalists are Transubstantiators, or Idolaters, or both; by this learned Jesuits judgment, and why by this same reason may we not say against Vasquez, that the bodily offerings of prayers, praises, and sacrifices to God, before the Image as the Image, is an honoring of the Image by prayer, they say to the tree of the Cross.

Increase righteousness in us, and give remission of sins, O tree cross to guilty sinners. Names at Rome go as men will, but the honor it self is put upon the dumb wood, which is due to Christ. O it is but a figure (say they) yea but (say we) prayers and praises in a bodily manner, and vocally are tendered to the wood, yet if the wife commit adultery with her husbands brother, because he representeth her husband, I think the matter should be washen with Inke, and badly excused to say, O the loving wife for strong love to her husband committeth figurative adultery, and that bodily harlotry is referred to the brother of her husband by accident, and to her husband kindly, and per se, for himself. The same way, if Formalists bow their knee to bread, that such a holy mystery be not profaned. We know they cannot understand civil or country non-profanation, that they intend; for kneeling and evil manners at the Lord's table do well consist together. Now religious nonprophanation by knee-worship, is adoring of these mysterious elements. Ergo they make prayers and sing praises, and offer sacrifices to the bread, Let them see to this and answer to it if they can. The sixth evasion of wit, I find in Johannes de Lugo, who saith, 1. That the image and samplar making one and the same object, by aggregation, the inward affection besides external knee-worship is given to both, but to the Image relatively, and for God or the samplar, and not for proper divine excellency in it, and therefore the Councils (saith he) call it not adoration in spiritu, but it is tendered to God absolutely. 2. We give adoration of internal submission to God, or the samplar as the debt of potestative justice, but we do not so worship the Image, we have no civil or politick communication with the Image, because it is not a reasonable creature, and therefore the worship of the Image is as it were a material and lifeless action; when we uncover our head to the Image, by that action we would say or signify nothing to the Image, but to the samplar, or to God only. 3. The inward submission that we tender to the Image, is not that we submit to it, as to a thing more excellent then we, for that were a foolish lie; yet (saith he) (that the man might fulfill the cup of the iniquity of his Fathers) we kiss not the Image in recto directly tendering honor to it, but to God and the samplar before it. 1. Because then I should adore my own breast when I knock upon it adoring the Eucharist. 2. Because so I bow to the wall before me. 3. If I have no honorable opinion of the Image, I do not adore it at all. 4. By kneeling to the Image, I have a will of submitting externally my affection to the Image, I yield to it▪ as a thing above me, giving to it the higher place 4. The act of adoration is simply terminated upon the Image, as a thing contra distinguished from the samplar, though it be adored with the same action with which the samplar is adored. Thus the • e • uite.

Answ. But here all men may see many contradictions, and that he casteth down all that formerly he hath said, •• . Images even as they represent God are dead things, and less then a redeemed Saint, Ergo, I can give them no submission of external honor. 2. I signify and say nothing of honor to the Image, even as it respecteth God, and representeth him, because the dignity of representing God doth not elevate it to be a reasonable creature, therefore I cannot honor it, and it were a foolish lie to say that the Image as representing God, were a reasonable creature. 3. As it representeth God, it cannot hear payers, nor deliver in trouble, as the Holy One of Israel can do; Ergo by the Holy Ghosts argument, I cannot bow to a lie, Esa. 44. 17. and 46. 9. Hab. 2. 19. 20. it made not the heaven and the earth, but by a figure, because it representeth the maker of heaven and earth, wherefore it should have but figurative honor at the best, and that is no real honor, Jer. 10. 8, 11, 12, 4. There is no debt of justice due to the dumb wood, or element, honor of external submission is a debt of potestative justice due to a superior, the Images and Elements are not my superior. 1. They be means, I the end. 2. They be void of life and reason which I have. 3. They are not redeemed, sanctified, and to be glorified as I am. John. de Lugo answereth, As I may love Peter for the goodness that is not in Peter but in another, as I may love and desire good to Peter, for the goodness that is in his father, and not in himself, and so pay the debt of affection to him for another, so I may honor an Image for the debt of honor that I owe to the samplar represented by the Image, therefore it is not required to the essence of adoration, that we acknowledge debt due to everything adored for another; it is sufficient a debt be acknowledged, either to the Image, or the samplar. Answ. The debt of love and the debt of honor are not alike. I owe honor to superiors only as superiors, I owe love to superiors, equals, inferiors. If I truly adore an Image, I truly acknowledge excellency in the Image, I truly yield to it, a worthier place then I deserve to have myself, (saith de Lugo) Ergo, by the fifth Commandment according to the debt of justice, I owe fear, honor, and reverence to it, else I adore it by a figure, which the Jesuit doth deny.

I am not afraid that they say, Damascene, a superstitious Monk alloweth Images to be adored. So doeth that pretended seventh Synod, or ( u ) the second Nicene Synod, and Stephanus and Adrianus, as we may read in Juo. Nicephorus speaketh many fables for Images, he showeth us that Luke the Evangelist should have painted the Images of Christ and the Virgin Mary. And that holy Silvester had the Images of Peter and Paul, and shown them to the Emperor Constantine, and Canisius a fabulous man saith, there appeared to Silvester at the dedication feast of Saint Salvators church the picture of Christ in the Wall, but the original of Images seemeth to be the vanity of man, saith the Wiseman. 2. The keeping of the dead in memory, saith Cyprian, ad defunctorum vultus per imaginem detinendos expressa sunt simulachra, inde posteris facta sunt sacra quae primitus assumpta fuerunt solatia, in aliis codicibus ad solatia. 3. The blind heathen wanting the light of Scripture, began to worship Images. Eusebius saith it began first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from the Heathenish custom it came that Peter and Paul's Images were first made. Men did it saith Augustine, ut Paganorum concilient benevolentiam, to conciliate the favor of Pagans, it may be seen out of Gregorius

Magnus, saith Voetius, that the worshiping of Images crept in but the sixth age. In the first three hundred years, Images were not admitted (saith our Country-man Patrick Simpson) into the place of worship, in the fourth, fifth and sixth Century, they were admitted into temples, but for the most part without opinion of adoration. In the second Nicene Council, an obscure age, (saith Petrus Molinaeus ) when the scriptures were taken away, it is ordained that Images should be adored, but not the Images of the Father. Quoniamquis sit non novimus, dei{que} natura spectanda proponi non potest ac pingi. But only the Image of the Son. This Council was Anno 787. as saith Bellarmine. But this wicked Fathers argument proves also that the Image of God the Father may be painted, while they prove worshipping of Images, because the Psalmist saith, The Lord arose as a mighty man after Wine. But Genebrard saith this Council of Nice, was controlled by a Council in the West. Barronius mentioneth two Epistles written by Gregorious 2. a defender of Images, wherein he saith, the Son may be painted, not the Father. This Council was approved by Constantine, Irenaeus, and a Greek copy of the Synod sent to Adrian the Pope. But 1. this wicked Synod did not maintain adoration of Images, such as Suarez, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Peri • rius, &c. now hold, but only veneration. 2. Images were placed in the Churches, saith Paul. Diaconus, multis contra dicentibus, many speaking against i • . And Bergomens. saith, the Emperor Constantine himself not long after did abrogate the Acts of this Synod, and the Synod of Franckford condemned this Synod. See Aventinus; Hincmarus saith it is true they of Franckford allowed Images to be in Churches, but not to be adored. Vrspergensis saith that this synod did write a book against the second Council of Nice, called otherwise the seventh general Council. A book came out▪ in France, and after in Germany under the name of Charles the Great, condemning by strong reasons the adoration of Images, and answereth all the arguments of the Nicene Fathers on the contrary, Tannerus the Jesuit saith this was a forged Book. But against famous and learned Authors saying the contrary, and so Hincmarius and Ectius make mention of this book, and Pope Adrianus (as Hospinianus doth well observe) doth approve of this Synod of Frankford by his Letters written to the Emperor of Constantinople, and the Patriarch Tharasius.

The first five hundred years (saith Calvin ) images were not worshipped. Caj • s Caligula a proud Tyrant, commanded the Jews to set up his image in the Temple: the Jews answered they should rather die then pollute the Temple of God with images, as • aith Josephus and Eusebius, and this fell out while the Apostles lived.

Ann. 108. Plunius 2. writeth to Trajanus under the third Persecution, That Christians were men of good conversation, and detested vices, worshipped Christ, and would not worship Images , as that Letter beareth: and Eusebius, reporteth Adrian had a purpose, (as saith Bucol. ) to build a Church for the honor of Christ void of Images. See Symson that ancient Writer: Justine Martyr in this Age; Omnes imagines ad cultum proposit as simpliciter damnant Christiani. Tertullian, a most ancient writer, who lived under Severus in time of the fifth Persecution, as the Magdeburgenses testify; saith, Nos adoramus oculis ad caelum sublatis, non adimagines seu picturas, and, indignum ut imago Dei vivi imagini idoli, & mortu: fiat similis, (saith he also) and not only thinketh it unlawful to represent God by an Image, but also saith, that Craftsmen, who profess themselves Christians, ought no • to make Images of God. An ancient Writer Clemens Alexandrinus, Non est nobis imago sensibilis de materiâ sensibili, nisi quae precipitur intelligentiâ. Deus enim qui solus est vere Deas, intelligentiâ precipitur, non sensu: We have no sensible Image of sensible matter, because God is taken up by the understanding, not by the sense: and Nihil in rebus genitis potest refer Dei imaginem. This ancient Writer flourished, saith Catolog. Testium veritat. Anno 150. or as Hospinian saith Ann, 200. and Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarpus, an hearer of John the Apostle maketh it the Heresy of the Gnostics, that they held that Pilate made the Image of Jesus: Et quod imagines baberent Christi, Apostolorum atque Philosophorum▪ easque coronarent, ac colendas propo • erent. Cyprian saith, Idols, or Images, be not only against the Law of God, but against the nature of man; Origen said, The Images of Christians are Christians indeed, with God's Image: and, Nos veno ideo non honor amus simulachrá, quia quantū possumus, cavemnus, ne in • idamus in eam crudelitatem, ut et iis tribuamus divinitatis aliquid. Grave Athanasius saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The invention of Images is from an evil fountain, and not from good, and whatsoever hath a bad beginning, cannot be deemed in anything good, being altogether bad: The Papist Harding bringeth in a counterfeit Dialogue of Athanasius, betwixt Christ and his Church; and Christ comforting his Church, because she was persecuted for worshipping Christ's Image; but when and where this persecution was, none knoweth, for many times hath the Church been persecured for not worshipping Images; but see the answer of the learned Jewell thereunto; Epiphanius, who lived, Anno 370. proveth against the Collyridiams, That Mary nor no creature should be adored. Unde est simulachrificum hoc studium et diabolious conantus? praetext • enim justitiae sempersubiens hominum, mentem drabolus, mortalem naturam in hominum oculis deificans, Statuas humanas, imagines pre se ferentes per artum, veritatem expressit, et mortui quidem sunt qui adorantur: Item, Revera sanctum erat corpus Mariae, non tamen Deus, honorata, non in adorationem data. Mary was not God, and therefore is not to be adored: He professeth that he did rive a veil, that had painted in it the Image of Christ, or of some man▪ Cum ego videssem in Ecclesia Christi▪ contra authoritatem scripturarum, hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud, &c.

Lactantius Formianus, Images are to represent these who are absent. God is everywhere present, it is vanity therefore to form an image of God. Also There is no Religion, where there is an image: Also your gods be either in Heaven, or not; if they be not in Heaven, why do ye worship them? If they be in Heaven, why do ye not lift your eyes to Heaven while you adore them? Why do you convert your eyes toward walls, stocks and stones, rather then toward that place where you imagine your gods to be?

His Arguments against Images be these: 1. They forget reason, when they fear the work of their own hands: 2. God is not absent, but present everywhere: 3. The image is a dead thing void of sense, God is the eternal and everliving God: 4. Nothing mortal should be worshipped. 5. What vanity to hope for protection from these things, which cannot defend themselves • 6. The image is less and viler then the worshipper: 7. Man according to God's image, is the image of God. 8. (s) God needeth nothing, neither torches because he made the light, nor images. This man lived, Anno 300. Before which time the Church of Christ being persecuted, they had no Churches, nor Images to be ornaments in their Churches, as saith ( t) Ambrosius, and also Chrysostom, who was displeased with the fooleries in Temples in his time, and saith, They were not like the Templ • s of the Apostolic Churches: and Tertullian, and Eusebius saith, They had then, Simplices domos, Simple houses, void of paintries and pictures: And the want of Temples was objected against Christian Religion, as Origen cleareth in the time of Constantine, the son of Chlorus, as saith, Sozomen, and Eusebius, Temples were built, but as Joan. Quintinus expoundeth Tertullian, without the ornaments of images, and Tertullian himself maketh building of Altars, and portracts, Idol • tricos cultus, Idolatrous worship. In the forty years space, betwixt the reign of Valerian, and the 19. year of Dicclesian, there were Oratories and Temples built, but neither painted Pictures, nor Images in them, as saith [ e] Eusebius: Yea, of thirty Bishops of Rome, even from Peter and Paul to Sylvester, and Constantine the Emperor; to wit, three hundred years, there were none, who were not persecuted to blood, or to death, or some other way. It is a vain thing to say, they had breathing time to build Temples, and erect Altars, and golden Images of Christ, and the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. It is true, in the two hundredth year after Christ, under Alexander Severus, Gordianus, Philippus, Gallienus; Churches were built, as Nicephorus saith, but again under Dioclesian they were demolished to the ground, but observe well there were no Images of Christ broken, which that Tyrant in despite of Christ, would not have omitted; see Eusebius, they were built again under great Constantine, so Sozomen, Otho Phrisingensis and Nicephorus. The dream of Platina, for the building of a Church, by the donation of Constantine, with twelve portions of earth, equal to the number of the twelve Apostles, and of another Church, with the title of the holy Cross at Jerusalem, which Helena found in that place, and Constantine placed in this Church at Rome, is refuted by Hospinian: yet is there no word of any Images in these Churches.

Arnobius An. 330. maintaineth against the heathen, that the Christians ought to have no Images: 1. Because the device of images is a novelty, and was not before two thousand years, but God and Religion are no new things. 2. Because either the God's dwelleth in their images, against their will, or of their own accord; if the former be said, they are compelled, which is absurd. If the latter, then they do either bide always in their images, and so are miserable, or they go out of the images when they please, and then the images are empty things.

Eusebius Caesariensis who lived, An. 300. when Constantia Augusta wrote to him for the Image of Christ, answered.

That could not be: 1. Because his manhood was joined with his Godhead, and could not be separated therefrom. 2. Because his Godhead cannot be represented, Mortuis, & inanimatis coloribus, with dead and lifeless colors. Hieronimus, who lived, An. 331. under Constantine, denieth that any Creature, Angel, or Virgin Mary should be worshipped. Ruffinus faith, Helena the mother of Constantine adored crucified Christ, but antiquity saith not, that she adored the nails that fixed him to the Cross, because they were but creatures.

Ambrosius, who lived, Anno 370. condemneth Images. 1. Because they change the images of the dead, in the glory of God, who worshippeth images: 2. The living serve the dead. 3. They take from stocks and stones what they are, and give to them, what they are not. 4. Idols are unclean. 5. It is undecent , to worship what men maketh with their hands. 6. Because images are but shadows.

Augustine condemneth Images. 1. Because they infect the weak minds of rude people, to worship them. 2. They have eyes and see not. 3. The creatures are images of God, not stocks. 4. Idols are husks and empty. 5. These who brought in Images, took away the fear of God, and increased error. 6. Martyrs are not gods. 7. Confounded be they who worship stones, our living stone Christ is in heaven.

8. Though worshippers of Images say, they worship God in Images, yet they worship devils; for good men, as Paul and Barnabas, Angels, and Cornelius forbade men to worship them. 9. It is a shame to adore a beast endowed with sense and life, far more to adore a dumb and lifeless creature, August, ps. 113. Chrysostom is against Images. 1. Because the Law of God forbiddeth them. 2. God must be honored, as he willeth himself. 3. It is a depressing of souls to worship Images. It cometh from Satan to take God's glory from him, it is mockery that man should be the creator of God, the Creator of all things.

Cyrillus Alexandrin. who lived An. 415. saith, We neither believe the martyrs to be gods, nor do we adore them.