The 2. Argument answered.

The second allegation toward the favouring and bearing with Images, is this, That every child being able to discern how such kind of things have mouthes and speak not, eyes and see not, &c. it can be but a frivolous piece of work to make any businesse about such poor things. Whereunto we answer: If the Lord our God be a jealous God, and withall especially jealous against Ima­ges; what mortal man shall once dare to term it a frivolous piece of work to be never so cautelous a­gainst Images? For can we be too cau­telous or too timerous, how we pro­voke the jealousie of the most ter­rible God? Now, that the Lord so is, namely, both a jealous God, and also especially jealous against Images; many considerations have offered themselves to make it good: and we fear we shall offend the Lord, un­lesse [Page 9] we admonish the Sonnes of men thereof.

Touching therefore the first of them, namely, That the Lord is a jealous God; it is no more than the Scripture every where supposeth: And the Prophet Esay, when he saith that he putteth on Jealousie like a Cloak, gi­veth us fairly to think, not only that the Lord is a jealous God, but also that he will be known and plainly professe himself to be: the Cloak of a man being his most outward garment, and which doth, livery-wife, best make a man known from other men. Yea, Moses goeth further, and maketh it no lesse than one of the names of God, to be a Jealous God: For thus he saith, The Lord whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Exod. 34 14. Whereof also, finally, good reason may be given: For what more fit to make the name of a thing than that which is sufficient to distinguish the thing from all other things of the same kind? And doth not the Name of The Jeal [...]s [Page 10] God, sufficiently distinguish the true God from all other gods whatsoever? For as for other gods, so far were they alwayes from being jealous gods, as that though their lovers went to ne­ver so many beside themselves, yet to them it was all one; whensoever they returned unto them, and brought their gifts with them, like common Whores they received them without more ado: Whereas the true God was alwayes so far frō admitting any part­ners with him in his love, as that when at any time his people went un­to any other god beside himself, he did most severely punish them; Josh. 24.20. and (as Joshua at first gave them warning) after he had done them never so much good, he would do them as much harm. True indeed, Isaiah 40.17. strange it may seem, that he in whose eyes all the Na­tions of the earth are as no­thing, should once vouch­safe to look upon the sonnes of men; much more, that he should love them, [Page 11] and that with the highest degree of love, the love of Jealousie: notwith­standing, whatsoever the cause be; whether it be because he would a­maze the sonnes of men with the im­mensitie of his love, or whether it be to make them the more watchfull o­ver every thing that offereth to get into their love; whatsoever the cause be, so it is his pleasure, and so he hath determined, even with no lesse love than the love of Jealousie to embrace the sonnes of men.

But now concerning our second sup­pose, namely, That the Lord is so espe­cially jealous against Images: that we grant may well seem somthing strange, especially considering what a world of creatures there are which both have Images as well as these (whatsoever the eye seeth being an Image) and all such kind of Images as may far better ravish the beholders than these counterfeits possibly can. Notwithstanding, first, thus much we are sure of, That none of the Commandments are ground­ed [Page 12] upon his Jealousie but onely that which is against Images; Thou shalt not make any kind of Images, &c.— For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God. Secondly, all the false Gods that ever were, what were they else (ordinarily) but Images? Thirdly, not onely the Images of honourable Creatures (as of Saints, Princes, Pa­rents, &c.) and of profitable Crea­tures (as Kine, Oxen, Sheep, Horses, Fowles, &c.) but also of terrible and hatefull Creatures (as Lions, Dragons, Serpents, &c.) and even of noysome, common, and vile Crea­tures (as Mice, Rats, Cats, Dogges, Worms, &c.) have been made Gods of: Which may the more plainly convince, that not onely the thing signified by the Image, but also the Image it self was the thing so deified and regarded. For though it be never so manifest that such kinde of things have mouths and speak not, eyes and see not, &c. yet such (who knoweth not?) is the perverseness of man, as [Page 13] that if he once setteth on it, he will maintain, that not onely the thing that hath eyes and seeth not, &c. but also the thing which neither seeth, nor hath eyes, nor any similitude of eyes, is notwithstanding a God: witness not only those old Heathens, which made a plain stone their God, Liv. dec. 3. lib. 9. and which also they called Ma­trem Deûm, the Mother-God; but also the Disciples of Trent at this very day, which maintain that to be the very true God, which hath the perfect similitude (at least the simili­tude) of a Cake of Bread. For though all their wits and senses do never so strongly reclaim against such monstrous Positions; yet if they once set on it, they will be so far from relenting thereupon, as that they will rather double their resistance so much the more, and make that a Principal argument that it must be so, because their common sense saith it cannot be so: Even just as they which Austine speaketh of, qui in illo figmento nu­men [Page 14] in esse credebant, August. in Psal 113. quia vitalem in eo motum non vi­debant; which kind of ar­gument none but such as had resol­ved to be wilfully mad would ever make. Fourthly, we find, the Scrip­ture farre more frequent in forbid­ding the making gods of Images and worshipping them, than in making gods of any other kind of things and worshipping them: And yet the making gods of other things is as much forbidden as the making gods of Images; even in the first Com­mandment, Thou shalt have none other gods but me. A fifth reason why the Jealousie of God may so especially set it self against Images, may be this, Be­cause no kind of false gods be so fit for the purposes of false-priesthoods as Image-gods be; namely, because such kind of gods may both be most easily contained in their Temples, under their locks and keye, and shall put them to little or no charge, ei­ther to guard them (for they are not [Page 15] worth the stealing away) or to find them daily meat & drink (for there is no life in them;) they having also many concavities & cells fit for wire-draw­ings, jugglings, and such miraculous feats; and finally, being apt to be con­tinued in their full glitterings and beauties, and to make as fair a shew when they are rotten as when they were first made. Sixthly, there is no kind of false god which doth beget the mind of man with a more grosse opinion of God and Religion than an Image-god: And that may be a special cause why the true God doth take such indignation against Images. For when such kind of things are esteemed for gods as have eyes and see not, mouths & speak not, &c. the beholders are given to think, that either there is not any true God at all; or if there be any, that he is some poor, brute, sense­lesse thing, and such as can do little good or harm: And thus much also a mere natural man, Varro, could ob­serve, when he said, that the first setters [Page 16] forth of Gods by Images, did not onely in­crease errour, but also take away all fear of religion: whereof Austine giveth this fair reason, August. De Civ. Dei 4.31. Quia facilè dii possunt in stoliditate similacro­rum contemni, i.e. Because the stolidity of Images made men think accordingly of their Gods. Moreover, there is no kind of false God so hard to be dispossessed and cast out of the heart of Man as these Image-gods. For whereas all men are at the first in the state of Child­hood and ignorance, and Children and ignorant Persons are most easily taken up with these Image-Gods: it so com­meth to passe, that they take up the first and deepest rooms in the hearts of men; and so must needs be most hard to remove and cast up again. Again, there is no kind of false God that doth more strongly resist the enter­tainment of the true God than these Image-gods: which may well be ano­ther special cause of the true Gods in­dignation against them. For the true [Page 17] God being altogether invisible, and taking up his mansion onely in the heart; and these Image-gods being nothing but visible, and having no a­bidance but in the outward eye; it must needs be, that such as have once been taken up with them, will very hardly be brought to brook and put confidence in the invisible God. And though at length they be brought to acknowledge, that the true God is altogether invisible; yet will it be a hard matter for them to put up a Prayer to that invisible God, but these old wonted Images will obstruct and infect the same: It being a good rea­son which Austine giveth, why the Heathens did rather direct their Prayers unto the Images of the Sunne or Sea, than unto the real Sunne or Sea it self; August. in Psal. 113. because (saith he) they might think it more likely that the things which carry the similitudes of men (as those Images of the Sun and Sea, called Phoe­bus and Neptunus, did) should hear [Page 18] their Prayers, than such kind of things as had no similitude, but either of an Orb, as the Sun hath; or of a wavie and undeterminate nature, as the Sea hath. Finally, when men will not stick to give incredible summes of mony for Images, Plin. hist. Nat 35.10. as some­time twenty talents of gold, sometime thirtie, fortie, fiftie, sixty, eightie, and an hundred for an Image; hath not the Lord great reason to be Jealous of Images? For what more likely to become an Idol, than that which men esteem at an unreasonable rate; and that also notwithstanding the Lord hath pronounced of it, Isa 44 10. that it is profitable for nothing? But to conclude, (for it would be an endlesse piece of work to heap up all the probabilities that offer them­selves for this purpose:) That which one of the Fathers affirmed of his times, Lact. 2.7. when he saith, Tanta homines imaginum cupiditas tenet, ut jam viliora ducantur illa quae [Page 19] vera sunt, i. e. So greatly are men enamoured upon Images, as that now-a-dayes the more true and re­al things are, the more vile and base they are esteemed: what age hath not found it true in their particular times? As if the sonnes of men had a desire to compare with their Maker, and to finde more excellencie in their own works than in his. Surely (may we not say?) the true and real Servants and Saints of God were not more esteemed and respected when they lived, than their Images have been: And no doubt it will easily be granted, that when poor Lazarus himself would not be suffered to peep in at the doors, the picture of Lazarus shall be advanced in the parlour. Last of all, Not only the Heathens in their times, but also the very people of God in their times, have they not continually doted upon, and run a Whoring af­ter Images? Yea, and that also as well in the time of the Gospel as in [Page 20] the time of the Law? For what else meant those tumults, wars, and blood­sheds in the time of the Eastern Em­pire, about the setting up and pul­ling down of Images? Tom. 2. hom. 2. part 2. as our Homily at large declareth. And even in these last times (at least as far as the bounds of Rome extend) hath extremity of zeal been wanting unto the cause of Images? For, We must a­dore, Naclan­tus, in Rom. 1. ci­ted more largely in the Homi­ly, Tom. 2. hom. 2. p. 3. saith one of their Do­ctours, not onely before an I­mage, but also the Image it self. And another of them thus, Constan­tius, in lib. Carol. Magn. The same honour which is due to the Trinity, do I attribute un­to an Image, and who so doth not likewise, him I accurse. And their most Classical Doctour thus, Bellarm. De imag. Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 21. The Images of Christ and the Saints are to be reverenced, not onely as they are Samples, but also per se propriè, pro­perly and by themselves; even so far as that the veneration may [Page 21] settle and determine it self upon the Image, & non solum ut vicem ge­rat exemplaris. And whoever among the Heathen did more thoroughly ri­vet and imp the soul of man into an Image, toward the making it most perfect in Idolatry? But enough no doubt hath been said to make it pro­bable (and more than probable we are loath to make it) that the Jea­lousie of God is more strongly set a­gainst Images than against any invei­glement which the soul of man is apt to be beguiled withall whatsoever. And therefore to judge us frivolous (idle, precise, fantastical, iconoclasti­cal, &c.) for being cautelous against Images, or for our resolving to admit of no reasons in their behalf but such only as shall be substantial and de­monstrative, is a judgement (we are perswaded) that pleaseth not God: And therefore we wi [...] proceed and persist in our intentions, and not give over till we have acquainted the world with our exceptions against [Page 22] the rest of the allegations.

The 3. Argument answered.

The next whereof is this; That now in the time of the Gospel the Church of God is at more liberty for the use of Ima­ges than it was in the time of the Law. Whereunto we answer, First, That the time of the Law being the speci­al time for types, shadowes, figures, and similitudes, which all were a kind of Images; the argument should rather follow on the contrary, and conclude, That Images do rather lose than gain any liberty by vertue of that Laws exspiration. For it be­ing the determination of God to di­vide his Church into a state of mino­rity, and a state of maturity, and the state of minority being that which was under the discipline of Moses Law; the Lord di [...] think it good to set forth that state of minority in such kind of attires and liabiliments as might best agree and suit with the [Page 23] fansie of minority; which when the time of gravity and maturity should come, should thereupon be put off and laid aside; even no otherwise than as the blooms of our trees fall away upon the putting forth of the fruit. Secondly, when the time of the old Law began first to exspire, we do not find that the primitive Church did take any more liberty for the use of Images than it did before; or that I­dolatry was esteemed a lesse sin than it was before, but rather a greater; Rev. 21.8. S. John pronouncing a more terrible pu­nishment against it (even the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone) than the old Law in so expresse terms ever did; and cal­ling even upon Babes to beware of Idols; and terming it a do­ctrine of Balaam, 1 Joh. 5.21. Rev. 2.14. to teach liberty of eating meat that was (though but) sacrificed unto Idols: Acts 15.20, 29. which also the Apostle charged the Gentiles (for their first Lesson) to ab­stain [Page 24] from. Thirdly for many gene­rations together immediately fol­lowing the Apostles times, Tom. 2. hom 2. p. 2. the Church of God (as our Homilie at large declareth) would not endure so much as the sight of Images in places where Gods name used to be called upon. Fourthly, the founder part of the Ca­tholick Church have alwayes esteem­ed the Decalogue to be of eternal force, and to be rooted in the Law of Creation, before any positive or Mo­saical legislation was: as also Gods punishing Idolatry in the old Cana­anites which lived before the time of Moses Law, and his promise to a thou­sand generations (the tenth part of which time the Law of Moses was not in force) may import. Finally, the Church of England at this day con­tinually publisheth a Law against the worshipping of Images; and in her Commination pronounceth the first and last curse against them that so do. We will therefore without more [Page 25] ado esteem them at too weak a pass, and not worthy any further to be con­tested against, which for the succour­ing of Images find themselves driven to plead the abrogation of Moses Law.

The 4. Argument answered.

The fourth allegation is this, That the present people of England are of better strength and judgement than to worship Images, or to take any harm from such kind of things. Whereunto we answer, First, That so also ignorance and dul­ness of conceit are far enough off from worshipping Images, or taking any harm by them; witnesse the brute Beasts: it requiring oftentimes a good degree of understanding, to be so much as capable of some kind of de­ceit. Yea, profaneness and irreligion will also neglect, deride, and spoyle Images as much as this strength and judgement; witness Dionysius, Rab­shakeh, Nero, and those like Atheists. [Page 26] For as when profane persons hear one another swear by the blood and wounds of God, and are not mo­ved thereat; the cause why they are not moved, is not any strength of re­ligion, but only their sympathizing with one another in profanenesse and irreligion. So likewise if any proceed not so far as to do reverence unto such kind of Images as represent the wounds and passions of God, there is no necessity to think them so specially strong in religion; it being no more than incredulity also and irreligion may withhold them from. Second­ly, as ignorance, profanenesse and ir­religion, so also carnal policy and af­fectation will make a shew of this kind of strength; witnesse those Manichees in the time of Augustine, which out of this carnal policy, to win the Pagans unto their side against the sound Christians, Contra Adi­mant. cap. 13. simulabant se fa­vere simulacris, and made a shew as if they could well enough endure Images. As [Page 27] also witness those Corinthians in the time of Paul, 1 Cor. 8. which out of an affectation to be thought strong men, would needs make no­thing of it to be present at those Idol-festivals. Thirdly, admit it were out of some degree of sound strength in­deed, that our people at this day are so far from worshipping Images; yet must this strength needs be general? Shall we suppose that there are not any weak ones or little ones a­mongst us? Or shall the weakest of our times be supposed wiser and stronger than the wisest or strongest in former times? Those antient Chaldeans, Egyptians, Persians, Grecians, and Ro­mans, from whom we have received our principal arts and sciences; yea, the very people of God, unto their wisest Solomon; yea, at this present day, the Papists (whose abilities in all kind of faculties, arts and sciences, languages, antiquities, subtilties and policies, who doth not acknowledge?) have not all these fallen by Images? [Page 28] And must all these, for strength of brain and ripenesse of judgement, needs come short of our little ones and very vulgar? For what though the truth be never so abundantly preached amongst us? is every child as ready to hear a preacher as to gape and gaze at a picture? Admit also that preachers should at all times so abound, and withall find so little to do, as to never leave calling upon men to beware of those blocks which they wittingly cast in their own way. Fourthly the Scripture (we know) judgeth covetous­nesse to be a worshipping of Images; Col. 3.5. and the mere coveting of Images is a kind of covetousnesse no doubt: And are there none amongst us which are culpable of that kind of covetousness? Fifthly, admit that none of our people be observed to do any perceivable worship unto Images; no more doth the covetous man do any perceivable worship unto his money, but useth it as familiarly as any thing [Page 29] in his House; And yet the Scripture maketh him an Idolater. Finally, Ephes. 5.5. if none of our people may be supposed to be so foolish or so weak as to worship I­mages, why do our Laws so peremp­torily and continually forbid them so to do? Thou shalt not bowe down to them, nor worship them, saith our Law; and, Lord, incline our hearts to keep this Law, answereth the people; and yet none of our people must be supposed so foolish as to break such a Law! Surely, superfluous must the Law needs be, and most frivolous the Suf­frage of the people; or most presump­tuous the Suppose. We conclude therefore, that as the Suppose is not easie to be granted, That our people are so far from worshipping Images; so also were it granted, it would not thereupon follow, that therefore our people are of such special strength and judgement; it being no more than ig­norance, profanenesse and irreligion, carnal policy and affectation have brought men unto.

The 5. Argument answered.

The next allegation is this; That admit sometime some of our people do let fall some glance of honour unto an Image; yet if it be but a Civil kinde of honour and not the Divine (dulia and not la­tria) no just exception can be taken thereat. Against which position we thus demonstrate;

That which is properly due to the Creatour may not be given to any kinde of creature (much less unto the Image of any creature) but only by vertue of the Creatours express ap­pointment;

But all kinde of honour, glory and praise, of what degree or kinde so­ever, is due only to the Creatour.

Therefore no kind of honour, glo­ry or praise, of what degree or kind soever, may be given unto any kind of creature (much less unto the Image of any kinde of Creature) but only by vertue of the Creatours express appointment:

But never did the Creatour ap­point [Page 31] any jote, or scrat, or scruple of honour to be done unto Images;

Therefore must not any the least jote, or scrat, or scruple of honour be done unto them.

Touching the first ground of this our demonstration, namely, That the Lords proper due must not be dis­posed of but by vertue of his own ex­press appointment: It is no more then the Law of the whole world doth acknowledge; no man upon earth esteeming himself an owner of that which any besides himself hath power to dispose of: And therefore we shall not need to make any more words toward the establishing of this ground, which the free-hold of the whole world is grounded upon.

Likewise also our second ground, namely, That all honour, glory and praise is due only unto the Lord; is as clear a principal, and needeth no more words to establish it: the Scri­pture every where ringing it in our ears, that unto him all honour, glory and praise is only due; and the con­dition [Page 32] of his honour of necessity in­forcing as much: For the honour of God cannot be infinite (as of neces­sity it must be) if any jote or scrat or scruple of any kinde of honour could be found not to belong unto him. Notwithstanding, because we finde in the Scripture how the Lord appoint­eth us to give honour unto men; as namely, unto Parents, Masters, Kings, Governours, &c. whereby it may be imagined, that perhaps the Lord hath dispossessed himself of some kinds and portions of honour: as al­so, for that it may be thought that some kindes of honour are too little, or common, or base to be presented unto the Lord; and that therefore the sonnes of men are at liberty to dispose of those kindes of honour as themselves think good, and so (final­ly) to their Images as they list: we therefore purpose to stay a little lon­ger upon this point; namely, untill we have declared, That neither Gods appointing us to give any kinds of ho­nour [Page 33] unto men, is of force to dispos­sesse himself thereof; nor again, that the littlenesse or smallnesse or com­monnesse of any kind of honour may be of force to exempt the same from belonging unto the Lord.

Touching then the first of these, namely, That the Lords appointing us to do any kinds of honour unto men, is not of force to dispossesse him­self thereof, we prove; Because the rest of his gifts which he daily giveth unto men, as wisdom, riches, power, authority, &c. do not thereupon cease to belong unto the Lord, but do still remain in his dominion and property neverthelesse; even as the seed which the Husbandman sprink­leth in his field, doth neverthelesse belong unto the Husbandman. For as those gifts of wisdom, strength, riches, &c. so also the gifts and portions of honour which God bestoweth upon men, both may be, and also must be improved unto the Lords final ho­nour and advantage: That being (no [Page 34] doubt) the reason why our Saviour appointeth us to give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars; Because un­lesse our Cesars and Governours be stocked and furnished with such por­tions of honour, authority, &c. they shall not be able to bring up whole Kingdoms, Cities, Towns, and Fami­lies unto the Lords final honour, as their office is to do. Secondly, if it had been the intent of the lord, to part finally with those kinds of ho­nour which he appointeth us to give unto men; it had been necessary that those kinds of honour should have been specified and laid out and seve­red from those kinds which were to be reserved only unto the Lord: for else the sonnes of men might hap in their mutual honouring one of ano­ther, to go beyond their bounds, and make bold with the Lords peculiar honour: But as we no-where find any such specification or partition; so also we may every-where find, how those kinds of honour which are most [Page 35] likely to be proper unto God, as might, majesty and dominion, fear and trembling, singleness of heart, &c. are notwithstanding allowed to be given unto men: As on the other side, those kinds of honour which may be thought of a more common and infe­riour nature, as obedience, love, subjec­tion, thankfulnesse, &c. are notwith­standing usually called for to be per­formed unto God. Thirdly, if those kinds of honour which God alloweth us to perform unto men should there­upon cease to belong unto the Lord, by that means neither the honour of the eye, the tongue, the knee, yea nor of the heart, nor of the singlenesse of the heart should belong unto the Lord; because with all these we ho­nour men. We conclude therefore, That the Lords appointing us to give any kinds or portions of honour unto men (whether Kings, Parents, Masters, &c.) must not be of force to make us think that those kinds of honour do thereupon cease to belong unto the Lord.

[Page 36]And that the commonnesse of any kind of honour is not of force to a­base it, or dismisse it from being pre­sentable unto the Lord, even no more then the commonnesse of coin doth make the coin lesse presentable unto the King, it will easily be granted. For as our receiving the Sacrament with that mouth wherewith we receive common meat, is no dishonour unto the Sacrament; we having Gods Ordinance so to do: so likewise our honouring God with those kindes of honour wherewith we ho­nour men, needeth not to be feared as any dishonour unto God; we ha­ving the Ordinance of God to war­rant us so to do. But rather, as the money which we pay unto our Cre­ditours assignees both may be and al­so must be as good money (for the quantity of it) as that which we pay unto the Creditour himself. So like­wise the honour which we perform unto Gods assignees (as Parents, Prin­ces, Masters, &c. are) both may be [Page 37] and also must be (for the quantity of it) as good and sound as that which we perform unto God him­self.

Finally, that neither the littlenesse (no more than the commonnesse) of any kind of honour may be of force to dismiss it from presenting it self un­to the Lord, it is as easie (and no less material) to declare. For, first, if the littlenesse of any kind of honour might be of force to put it by from being presented unto the Lord; it would thereupon follow, that no ho­nour at all should be presented unto the Lord from the sonnes of men. For all the Nations of men (the Scripture saith) are not onely mean and little, Isa. 40.17. but also as no­thing, yea, less than nothing in his eyes. Secondly, the Lord eve­ry-where professeth himself the Ma­ker and Creatour of all things; and so strictly standeth upon his preroga­tive therein, as that (when time was) he would not suffer the poorest kinde [Page 38] of creatures that are (even lice) to own their produc­tion from any singer but his own. Exod. 8.17, 18, 19. Thirdly, the least degree of humane honour (whereof only our question is) doth it not of necessity contein the honour of the heart? it being scarce worthy the name of an honest action, much lesse of an ho­nourable action, which proceedeth not from the motion of the heart. But the heart we know, though it goeth alone, and is not accompanied with either knee, or tongue, or eye, or any bodily parts (for these are of­tentimes fast bound by sicknesse, im­prisonments, or necessary callings) yet is it allowed to have accesse unto the Lord, and to present him with such sighs, and grones, and ejaculations, and thanks, as it thinketh good. Fourthly, (that no sacrilegious dis­position may take up this trick of rob­bing the Lord, by excusing the neglect of it, by the littlenesse or poornesse of it) the Lord himself hath said it and [Page 39] sworn it, that unto him every knee should bow: Isa. 45 23. Which also he Apostle extending to the knees of things in Heaven, Phil. 2.10. and things on Earth, and things creeping under the Earth; he giveth us fairly and plainly to know, that the least a­bility in the nature of man, not onely may, but also must find a knee to bend unto him; our least muscles and knuckles, inclinations and dispositi­ons, having more composition than the nature of Angels, and more un­derstanding than the nature of Worms and creeping things have. Yea the very hairs of your head are numbred, saith our Saviour: Mat. 10.30. And therefore if the Lord keepeth a reckoning of our hairs, shall we think he will neglect the excellencies and honours of our substantial abilities? the least lifting up of the eye, or the least motion of the lip, being able to do God more honour then multi­tudes of our hairs, who knoweth not? It is true indeed, the Lord [Page 40] sometime rejecteth some kinds of ho­nour, as the honour of the lips, the tongue, the eyes, &c. but it is not be­cause they be small and little, but be­cause they that offer them are false and double, and think with their lip-labour to be quit of the Lord, and so to keep their hearts and substantial parts to themselves: Even like unto deceitfull debtours, which with the tendring a small sum of money, intend to defeat their creditours of the main. For else, as the penny being as good silver as the pound, and having the Kings stamp as well as the pound, may not be rejected from bearing a part in the Kings tribute no more than the pound: So the tongue and the lips, and never so outward abilities, being the Workmanship of God, no lesse than the parts most inward and su­preme, may not be debarred from tendering their offices and services unto the Lord, no more then the parts never so able and supreme: the withholding the least of them being of [Page 41] force to make our greatest honours imperfect (as the want of a farthing may hinder the clearing of the debt;) and their accesse being of force to make the greatest honours the greate; as the least digit is of force to give an augmentation to the greatest number. We conclude therefore, That as the Lords appointing us to perform di­vers kinds of honour unto sundry sorts of men, is not of force to dispos­sesse himself of those honours; so al­so, neither is the commonnesse or lit­tlenesse of any kind of honour, of any force to exempt or dismisse the same from belonging unto the Lord And so the first ground of our Demonstra­tion is most certain and manifest, namely, That all kind of honour, glory and praise, of what degree or kind soever, is wholly and perpetual­ly due only unto the Lord; and con­sequently, That no degree or kind of honour whatsoever, may be given to any kind of creature (much lesse to the Image of any kind of creature) [Page 42] but only by vertue of the Lords ex­presse and special appointment; even no more than a creditours money may be payed unto any but such as the creditour hath assigned to receive it.

Now, that the Lord never assigned nor appointed any kind of honour to be done unto Images, we must take it for granted, and assuredly believe it, until we find his expresse word un­der his own hand-writing for it. And lest any should busie themselves un­profitably, and mispend precious time about seeking for some Texts and parcels of Scripture to prove such a matter, we shall give them a sufficient Item to save them that la­bour, and that is this: That unlesse the Scriptures which they bring for the honouring of Images, be far more plain, peremptory, and abundant than any that can be brought for the ho­nouring of men (as Parents, Princes, Masters, &c.) they must not be ad­mitted. And the reason of this our Item and Caveat is this; Because men [Page 43] being reasonable and understanding Creatures, and such as are able to improve the honours that are done unto them, unto the honour and glo­ry of the Lord; it is a thing not in­credible unto flesh and blood, that some degrees and kindes of honour should be done to them: and there­fore a few words from the mouth of God, or under his hand-writing, might be sufficient for such a purpose. But now for Images, which are most palpably void of all understanding, and utterly unable to improve the honour that is done unto them unto the Lords final advantage; it must needs be a thing most incredible unto flesh and bloud, and contrary to all the rules of reason, that any honour should be done unto them; And there­fore, unless we have most peremptory charge from God so to do, and that far more abundantly than ever we had for the honouring of men, it must not be done. But so far is the Scripture from such super-abundance of charge [Page 44] for the honouring of Images, as that whereas it every-where (and most ex­presly in the Commandments) teach­eth the honouring of men (as Pa­rents, Masters, Kings, &c.) it scarce once affordeth any shadow of appoint­ment for the honouring of Images: And therefore we may securely con­clude, That the Lord did never ap­point any jote or scrat of scruple of honour to be done unto them. And so our Demonstration against the do­ing of civil honour unto Images, is a­bundant and compleat; The force whereof by the strings of art may thus be contrived;

That kinde of honour which the Owner of all honour did never ap­point us to give unto Images, must not be given unto Images.

But the Civil honour is such a kind of honour, as the Owner of all ho­nour did never appoint us to give un­to Images;

Therefore the Civil honour must not be given unto Images.

[Page 45]But because every capacity is not apt to be fastned upon by Demonstra­tions, nor ready enough to gather negatives from the the want of affir­matives (though in all kinde of grants and conveyances betwixt man and man, the want of an affirmative is ne­gative sufficient) it hath therefore seemed good unto the indulgence of God, to declare his mind in this point to be expresly negative: and that not only in general, when he for­biddeth the worshipping of any thing which he hath not commanded; Deut 1 [...].3. and else­where he saith, Isa. 42.8. My glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven Images; but also most especially, and with his own mouth from Heaven, when he saith, Thou shalt not bowe down to them nor worship them; there being no kind of honour, whether actual or inten­tional, real or personal, corporal or spiritual, natural or moral, domestick or civil, divine or humane, but may [Page 46] easily be found most palpably forbid­den in that short clause. Yea, what kind of honour can be imagined but may be found denyed unto Images in the first half of that clause, Thou shalt not bowe down unto them? For all ho­nour being testimonium excellentiae, and attributing some degree of excellen­cy to the person unto whom it is gi­ven; it must needs be, that whosoe­ver giveth honour, doth with all per­form some degree of bowing down: the attributing of excellency of necessity implying some bending, stouping and submission of the mind at least. For though some degrees of bowing down do not proceed so far as to be visible and outward, yet may they be true and real bowings down nevertheless: Even as well as there be many kinds of knees which are not bodily and visible (as the knees of Spirits, Hearts, and An­gels) and yet are true and real knees even by the judgement of the Scrip­ture. Secondly, admit there were some kindes of honour which did not [Page 47] imply a bowing down (at least in the judgement of such weak ones as know not bowing down, but that which is outward and visible) yet when the Commandment addeth further, Nei­ther shalt thou worship them, what could be said more toward the barring them all possible honour whatsoever? Thirdly, in our English style, the title Worshipfull is more common than the title Honourable, and inferiour there­unto: And therefore the things which must not be worshipped, much lesse may be honoured. Fourthly, if all honour include either a bowing down, or a doing worship, then much more must the Civil honour be found so to do: it being a necessary condition in the Civil honour, That it be not onely a true and real honour, but al­so that it be an outward and visible honour; for else it cannot serve to distinguish one person from another, as the intent of Civil honour is to do. Fifthly, if by Civil honour we mean those kinds of honour which passe be­twixt [Page 48] man and man; so we shall both bow down to Images and worship them also, if we give them Civil ho­nour in that sense: For unto men we usually bow down, and term them Worshipfull, Honourable, Excel­lent, Majestical, &c. Yea, Prostration and Adoration ( Nam civilis est adoratio, Andrews, Resp ad Ballarm. Apol. 8. quis nescit?) have been esteemed allowable un­to men. Sixthly, if by Civil honour we mean those kinds of honour which are due to the Civil body, and the heads thereof; so the Civil honour shall contain a principal kind of honour. For if Parents and Masters, which are but members of the Civil body, must be honoured with fear and trembling, and single­nesse of heart; then much more must the Civil body it self, or such as re­present the same, be so honoured. Again, if by Civil honour we mean only such forms of honour as by local and civil Constitutions do passe for ac­knowledgements of honour; such as [Page 49] peradventure the uncovering of the head may be esteemed: (for the un­covering of the head is not in all Na­tions, and from the Woman-kind in no Nation, esteemed as a doing of ho­nour) yet we must know, that when once any ceremony is admitted for a form of honour, and is habituated thereunto, it must be esteemed as a Civil knee; and the doing so much unto an Image, must be judged a bow­ing down thereunto, and that of the no­bler kind of knee. Finally, they that set forth the Civil honour by the term of dulia, with telling us that it is no Idolatry, unlesse latria be given unto Images; they do but give us ex­change of words, Greek and forein terms, for familiar and modern; tha [...] so the truth being obscured and pud­dled by the means, their Idols may the better give us the slip. For the word dulia signifying service, and all service implying a bowing down; it is plain, that the giving so much unto Images, is a palpable bowing down [Page 50] unto them. Secondly, the word latria signifying only such a kind of service as consisteth in famulation and atten­dance, which is the most easie and li­beral kind of service; it is plain, that if the giving so much unto Images be granted to be against the Command­ment, then the giving so much as du­lia is apt to signifie, is much more a­gainst the Commandment. Thirdly, it is manifest in the Greek text, that dulia and latria are ordinarily used as words of one and the same significati­on; and that latria as usually given unto men, and dulia as usually unto God. Repl. art. 14. So as well might B. Jewel compare this distinction to that of the Physicians Wife, who when (be­like) she had maintained that Pepper. was cold, and thereupon was opposed by some of the Wives, that it was hot enough in the mouth: she salved the matter with this distinction, That though it was hot in working, yet it might be cold in operation; and so [Page 51] with her learned distinction put all the women to a stamme, and with a strong hand carried the cause: And so we may well think, that when this Image-worshiping (or Image-honour­ing) was first commended unto the world, and withall was opposed by those that were faithfull unto the Commandment; the maintainers of it, partly being too great and too head­strong to mend their errour, and part­ly not being impudent enough to de­ny the Commandment, and partly (finally) not being allowed to work otherwise than by Argument, at length drew forth these distinctions, That it was but a Civil honour, and not the Divine, only dulia and not la­tria, which they allowed unto Images: And so by the means of such new and strange terms, they put many of their opposers to a stamme; especially such as more loved the peace of the World than the peace of Conscience, or thought it an imputation to their learning, not to understand Greek, [Page 52] and far-fetcht distinctions, though ne­ver so senseless and impertinent. But when at length it grew most manifest, that through the gap of these distincti­ons the Commandment of God was not only notoriously incroached upon, but also in a manner trodden under foot; it was time for the servants of God to stand in the gap, and to resist such incroachers to the face. And for this cause, we for our part have taken the more pains about the stub­bing up these distinctions; which hi­therto have been the special Ivy-tods where these Images have a long time harboured themselves and bred their paddocks in; and whereunto, when at any time they have been closely pur­sued, they have used to betake them­selves, as their onely sanctuary and re­fuge: which after they shall be once finally put by, they shall be plainly discovered to be stark-naked stocks and blocks, and not onely unworthy of any honour, but also most worthy to be thrown into the fire.

The 6. Argument answered.

The sixth allegation is this; That Images are profitable for many good and holy uses. Whereunto we answer, That Satan also may be found profi­table for many good uses; 2. Cor. 11.14. for he is able to change him­self into an angel of light: and yet the children of God must have nothing to do with him. As also they that compassed sea and land to make a Prose­lyte, Matth. 23.15. no doubt were com­mendable for industry and many good parts: and yet their Di­sciples were far the worse for them. Luke 16. And the false Steward which was thrust out of his Lords house for doing unjustly, was notwithstanding acknow­ledged able to do wittily and wisely. Yea, mere natural men have been wi­ser than to be taken with this kind of argument: witnesse those Lacedemoni­ans, [Page 54] which would not suffer the Poet Archilochus to be read in their schools (though they acknowledged him to excell for wit and Poetry) nè plus moribus noceret quàm ingeniis prodesset. Valer Max. lib. 6. cap. 3. Yea, the principal advancers of I­mages (the Church of Rome) will not admit of this kind of argument in their behalf; For though they ac­knowledge the Scripture to be both profitable and divine, yet will they not suffer thereupon that the Scrip­tures should be published. And yet the profitableness of the Scripture is incomparably more (were it not im­piety to make such comparisons) than the profitableness of Images; and the danger incomparably lesse; every Childe and Innocent being in danger to take harm by Images, whereas none but the perversely minded are in danger to take harm by the sincere, milken, divine, and grace-ministring Scriptures. Secondly, there being such a profanesse in the heart of [Page 55] man to sin by Images, even to the making gods of them, or the wor­shipping them; it had need be some great weight of profit (no lesse perad­venture than the weight of necessity) that may make the use of them be e­steemed so much as profitable. For though a man may catch fish with a golden hook, yet who will judge it a profitable course to fish with a golden hook? the losse of one golden hook being more than an hundred catchings will countervail. Yea, bet­ter it were, saith our Homi­ly, that the arts of painting, Tom. 2. hom 2. p. 3. plaistering, carving, gra­ving, and founding had ne­ver been found nor used, than one of them whose souls in the sight of God are so pre­cious, should by occasion of Image or Pic­ture perish and be lost. Thirdly, admit we could never so securely and with­out danger make profitable uses of Images: Yet if the Lord our God be a Jealous God, and so professeth him­self to be, it concerneth us first to be [Page 56] well assured whether the Jealousie of God be not likely to be offended with our conversing with such kinde of things. For the jealous Husband is not content with this, That his wife is a profitable wife, and a thrifty wife, and a chaste wife, unlesse she also re­fraineth the companie of the man which her Husband hath professed his jealousie against; for the Husband that is not jealous, will expect so much at his wives hand, that she be both profitable and chaste also; And therefore the jealous Husband (and consequently the Jealous God) must be further gratified than so. Fourth­ly, if it be found that the Lord is not only a Jealous God, but also especi­ally Jealous against Images; then the profit which may (though lawfully) be made of Images, not onely should be of no force with us to admit of them, but should rather be of force with us to abandon them. For as a Subject whose Prince holdeth him in jealousie concerning his Crown, the [Page 57] more good parts he hath, and the more popular he is, the more hasty ought the true subjects be to suppress him or abase him, rather than to make any special reckoning of him: So also these Images, it once it be found by them that the Lord standeth in Jealousie of them concerning his Honour and Throne, the more profi­table and plausible things they are supposed to be, the more speedy ought the servants of God be to de­face them, rather than for their sup­posed usefullnesse to regard or in­dure them.

The 7. Argument answered.

The seventh allegation is this; That Images are special good to give instruction. Whereunto we answer, That there is nothing in all the world so silly or so barren, but that some kernels of in­struction may be picked therefrom: Prov. 24.30, 31, 32. I went by the field of the slothfull, saith Solo­mon, [Page 58] and lo, nettles had covered the face thereof, &c.— I looked upon it, and received instruction. So that a very net­tle-bush may prove a book of instruc­tion to them that can turn such kind of books: the wit of man being as apt to sack intellectuals out of every thing it lighteth upon, as the Bee is able to contrive honey out of the ve­ry weeds. And so, no doubt, these Images may occasion good meditati­ons, and serve to put us in mind of things most excellent and divine; even as the sight of a Stable or a Manger may move us to think upon our Savi­our, and the consideration of Sin or Satan may incline us unto devotion and thanksgiving: But that Images are special good to give instruction, (which is the question) that we deny. For first, all the instruction which they afford is only concerning matters of fact; namely, that such a thing was done (or supposed to be done) or that such a person or creature there was: but whether the fact, person, or [Page 59] creature, &c. was good or bad, whe­ther to be imitated or avoided; and what were the causes, ends, effects, and consequents of such things (with­out which kind of knowledge there can be no edifying instruction) they cannot say. Secondly, as the instructi­on which Images afford, is only con­cerning matters of fact; so also do they not declare so much with any certainty, but rather they make things more uncertain than they were: things comming within the compasse of fables and fictions after once the Painters and Carvers (which think they may lye by authority) have had a hand in them. Thirdly, the instruction which they afford is only such as the outward eye is capa­ble of: For neither the ear (which is the principal door of instruction) nor any of the other senses, are so much as capable of Image-instruction. In­deed there is some kind of knowledge (we may grant) which cannot so readily be had as by Images: as name­ly, [Page 60] what kind of countenance Peter, or Paul, or the dead had; or persons far remote have: But yet, as such kind of knowledge can have no certainty in it (and what goodnesse in knowledge without certainty?) so also were it never so certain, what is the beholder the better for it? For is he able to make his countenance according? Or if he could, what should he be the better? For a fool may resemble a wise man in the outward counte­nance; a wicked man, a Saint; a Pea­sant, a Prince; and yet remain wick­ed, base, and foolish neverthelesse. Fourthly, as the instruction which Images afford, is common, uncertain, and such as the outward eye only is sensible of; so also for the most part it is such as none can make any thing of, but such as knew the matter be­fore. For as one that is dumb, may perhaps with his becknings and nod­dings and putting out his finger, do some common intelligence to such as have wit enough to understand him: [Page 61] so these Images, if they meet with one that loveth to stand ridling and spel­ling something out of a wall or a gay, like enough they may seem to say something; Tom. 2. hom. 2. p. 3. but else (as our Homily noteth out of Hierom) they do but a­maze and dull the understanding of the unlearned, with their golden sentences and eloquences, and so leave them. Fifthly, these Images do take up a great deal more roomth and breadth in the fansie and outward sences than needeth: For such, we know, is the agility of humane capacity, as that it can upon the least sight of ordinary things (though it be but a rush about the finger, or the least serole of letters upon a paper) be put in mind of things never so distant and impor­tant: so far is it from needing clusters of Images, or whole pourtraitures, to be put in mind of common things. Sixthly, these Images do fret and eat into the fansie and outward sences more deeply and indelibly than other [Page 62] courses and means of instruction use to do. For as our table-books, the more deeply and hardly they be writ­ten upon, the sooner they are attri­ted and worn away: so our fansie and outward senses, the more deeply that notions be imprinted in them, the sooner will their abrasity, voydable­nesse, and receptivity (which are the peculiar conditions of those outward senses) be distempered and confound­ed. Now, whereas voyces, and let­ters, and other means of instruction (which do not wrap up their notions in Images) do readily passe through these common senses; and having presented their matter to the inward senses, presently vanish away; these Images do not so: but being such kind of things as the fansie and out­ward senses are apt to be tickled and pleased withall, they dally and play with them, and soke into them. And as idle Travellers turn their Innes into dwelling-houses; so do these turn our table-books into paper-books, [Page 63] and make (in a manner) their final re­pose in those faculties which are in­tended only for passage and convey­ance. Moreover, by reason of this over-deep inhesion of these Images in the fansie and outward senses, not on­ly those outward senses are attrited, distempered and perverted by the means, but also the inward senses are wronged and defrauded. For as our bodily meat, if it stick over toughly in the stomach, our inward veins and appetites must remain so much the longer empty and unserved; so like­wise the nutriment of the mind (which is nothing but notions) the longer it is reteined in the outward senses, the longer must our inward senses remain jejune and without their sustenance: It being a good reason which Seneca giveth, why he would have us well to digest our reading, Because, saith he, Epist. 84. alioquin in memori­am ibunt, non in inge­nium. i. e. otherwise they will stuff [Page 64] the memory, but the wit and judge­ment they will augment little or no­thing at all. Yea, finally, by such tough cleaving of the notions unto the fansie and outward senses, the in­ward senses shall not only be delayed and defrauded, but also vitiated and infected. For the inward senses ha­ving nothing to sustein them but that which is conveyed unto them through the passages and conduits of the out­ward senses, if those outward senses be so ingrained and dyed (or rather daubed over) with those glaring and infective notions, how shall it be a­voided, but that all the notions which passe through them will also tast of the cask, and so feed the in­ward senses with the like kind of gla­ring, gross, impure, fantastical, and in the end Idololatrical notions? So as this supposed most excellent property of Images, namely, for that they can so deeply imprint their notions in the memory and outward senses, may ra­ther be esteemed as a principal ex­ception [Page 65] against them, and enough to make all those that desire to be di­vinely (or but intellectually) mind­ed, to abandon them.

The 8. Argument answered.

The eighth allegation is this; That they are special quickners of devotion. Whereunto we answer; If the instruc­tion which they afford, be so grosse, common, uncertain, impure, and dan­gerous as we have declared; how can the devotion be any better which a­riseth therefrom? For if we should suppose that without the means of foregoing instruction they are able to beget us with devotion, such a Sup­pose were a right-down making gods of them; it being the property of God only, illabi menti, to touch im­mediately upon the soul without the means of some foregoing instruction preparing thereunto. Secondly, when at any time the Saints and Servants of God in their hymnes and songs [Page 66] did cite all the works of God to blesse and praise the Lord, yet never did they say, O ye Images, blesse ye the Lord: though Images, being apt to make as fair a shew as the best, if they had been thought such special quickners of de­votion, how could they have been left out in those general musters, where not so much as Nights, and Darknesse, and Worms are allowed to be ab­sent? Thirdly, the life and apple of true devotion consisting in nothing so much as in the immediate fruition of God; it must needs be, that the things which are most apt to further our devotion unto God, should have most congruity with the nature and properties of God: But so have not Images; but are rather more dis­crepant from the nature and proper­ties of God than any other kinds of things whatsoever. For while the Lord calleth one way, what do they but call another way? while the Lord calleth inwardly, they call outward­ly: while the Lord calleth to the cen­tre, [Page 67] they call to the circumference: while the Lord standeth knocking at the door of the heart, they stand rap­ping at the door of the outward eye, and playing upon the ball thereof; whereat unlesse they enter, their very life and being is at an end: Whereas the Lord, on the contrary, is so far from entring at that kind of door, as that when once he spake to his people face to face, the outward eye was not vouchsafed the least glimpse of his countenance, but a perpetual memento was given to the contrary, Deut. 4.12. that then they saw no simi­litude, but only heard a voice. Psa. 18.11. The Lord also usually ma­keth darknesse his secret place, his pavilion round about him; whereas these Images hate all darknesse no less than the gates of death. Yea, finally, not only in their conditions, operati­ons, and habitations, but also in their very natures, what more contrary than God and Images? For where­as the Lord is altogether invisible; [Page 68] these Images are nothing else but visi­ble: Whereas the Lord is incompre­hensible; these Images every childes eye can comprehend: As also, where­as the Lord is Almighty; these Ima­ges are the most mightless things that are: The Lord again is all Spirit and Life; but Images are worse than dead; for the dead were once alive: Final­ly, the Lord is all truth, but Images are all false and counterfeit: those be­ing counted the most excellent Ima­ges which come nearest unto the Life; and the nearer a thing commeth to the Life when it is most void of Life ( mendacium quò verisimilius eò nequius) being so much the worse. But very like it will be answered against all that we have hitherto said, That though Images have no congruity with the divine nature of God, yet well may they resemble his humane nature, and so in that respect become so especially operative unto devotion. Whereunto we answer; That if very living man upon earth doth incom­parably [Page 69] more lively represent the hu­mane nature of God than any Image possibly can, then how can any Image be so special good for such a pur­pose? Secondly, admit some picture could set forth the natural counte­nance of our Saviour more peculiarly than the countenance of any living man ever did (though who can be certain of any such matter?) yet, we know, the vertue and efficacy of our Saviours incarnation did not consist in this, that he was a man of such or such a countenance; but only in this, that he took mans nature upon him. Thirdly, the Scribes and Pharisees did well know his natural counte­nance indeed; as also they that cru­cified him: and yet they had no more devotion toward him than they that most mortally hated him. Fourthly, 2 Cor. 5.16. St. Paul telling us, that if we had known Christ after the flesh, yet now must we know him so no more; even so much might be of sufficient force to put us [Page 70] beside this grosse conceit, That the picture of our Saviours natural coun­tenance is so specially operative unto devotion. But (once more) very like it will be alledged, that the efficacy of such a picture doth not consist so much either in that it so representeth his humane nature, or in that it so lively expresseth his natural counte­nance, as in this, that it setteth forth his death and sufferings: And such a kind of Image (called the Crucifix) hath been found by experience to be so powerfull unto devotion, as that many beholders have not been able to withhold from tears at the sight thereof. Concerning which kind of Image, we desire to be endured a while, until we make some what a large answer. First therfore we demand who they are that such kind of Images do so work upon, are they believers, or are they unbelievers? As for the unbe­lievers, it is most like that they will ra­ther despise him that so suffered, than be moved to regard him (much lesse [Page 71] to put confidence in him) thereupon: It being most likely in the eyes of flesh and blood, that the person which so suffered was not so much as an in­nocent person: or if so; yet that he was rather some poor wretch that was not able to save himself from the fury of his enemies, then such an one as could with the least breath of his mouth have destroyed all his enemies; there being nothing in the picture to lead him unto any better constructi­ons. Yea, if the unbelieving beholder be a malicious Infidel, the picture may move him to insult over the God that so suffered, and to carry such I­mages about in his processions and triumphs, the better to please and magnifie his own false gods. But if they must be onely believers which shall be so edified by those kind of I­mages; yet if there be other courses▪ nearer hand, which may more readi­ly and abundantly put us in mind of those sufferings, then is not thy Cru­cifix so speciall good for such a pur­pose: [Page 72] which is the question. For that short Article of our Creed, He was crucified, dead, and buried, descended in­to Hell, doth it not far more readily, plainly, certainly, abundantly, se­curely, and wholesomely set forth the sufferings of our Saviour, then the I­mage possibly can? First, more readi­ly it doth: in that every child can have the Article ready at his fingers end; whereas the Image, were it ne­ver so portable, cannot alwayes be at hand. Secondly, more plainly it doth: in that it expressely telleth us who it was that so suffered; whereas the Image doth onely present unto us a man fast nailed to a crosse, but who the man was, or whether he was so much as an innocent or a malefactour, it is not able to say. Thirdly, more certainly it doth: in that the Article is the voice of God and of the whole Church of God; whereas the Image is but the device of men, and of such kind of men as challenge a liberty to deceive. Fourthly, more abundantly [Page 73] it doth: in that it informeth us that he was both crucified, dead and buried, and withal descended into Hell; where­as the Image doth onely declare his crucifying, and no more. Finally, more securely and without indanger­ing the beholder it doth: namely, for that it presenteth all these sufferings and undergoings onely to the eare; whereas the Image presenting them to the outward eye, and withall still remaining constantly in sight without vanishing away, is apt to detein the fancie of the beholder, and allure him to dwell upon it, and to imbrace, and perhaps to bemone it, and bedabble it with carnall tears, and to speak unto it, and call upon it, and, Pigmalion-wise, to wish it alive, and in the end to bow down unto it, and worship it, and make a perfect Idol of it: For what more apt to become an Idol then such an Image as is supposed to be a speciall Image of our God, and from whence (as it were from a pap) men are appointed and wonted to suck their daily devotions! [Page 74] Moreover, as these kind of Images can adde nothing to the knowledge of the weakest believers concerning the suf­ferings of our Saviour; so do they also greatly dishonour, profane and vilifie those infinite and unexpressable sufferings of our Saviour: namely in this; in that they make no more of them then may be made of the suffer­ings of mortall men. For all they that at any time suffered the like death of the crosse, if they had been pictured as they hung in their ago­nies and torments, would they not have been more dolefull spectacles then any Crucifix did ever represent! The more wicked also the person is that so suffereth, the more dismall and wofull the outward appearance of his pains being likelie to be. Yea, not onely the most precious sufferings of our Saviour are profaned, and infi­nitely vilified by such kind of vulgar and common expressions, but also his Majestie and Person is plainly belyed and blasphemed by the means: [Page 75] namely in this; that his person is ex­posed to the view of the world, as hanging actually dead upon a crosse, and double gibbet, whereas he now actually is, and for ever shall be sitting at the right hand of God in the state of eternall glory. And shall then such kind of Images not onely be made of him, but also be commended unto his servants as the speciall motives unto devotion? Or shall the tears which (belike) do flow from the be­holders of such Images, be esteemed such undoubted arguments of such devotions? As if there were not false tears, as well as true tears; blind and superstitious devotion, as well as that which is sound and good! For if the Heathen, when they were at their superstitions, could mutuum stu­porem alere, stupifie and amaze one a­nother to see linteatum senem mediâ lucernam die praeferentem; Seneca, De vi­ta beata, 27. and such like authorized and senseless lies▪ can we make question, but that hypo­crites [Page 76] also in the Church of God will be as active to cast themselves into the like sits and pangs of Devotion, and that even to the expression of tears! Or, at the best, is it not very like that such kind of tears have no better Original then the tears of those women had which so lamented when they saw our Saviour go to his Suffering? which, if our Saviour so rejected, when be bade them not weep for him, but weep for themselves; Luke 23.28. is it likely that he will be any better pleased with thy like kind of tears which now also most unseasonably (he being now past all possibility of suf­fering) thou bemonest him withal, and that at the motion of an Image? But if thou hast a desire, O man, to pre­sent thy God with a drink-offering of acceptable tears indeed; follow that counsel which he gave those women, and weep not for him, but weep for thy self. And if thou hast a desire to weep for thy self, enter into thy self, and behold thy sin; for thy sin is the onely Foun­tain-head [Page 77] of acceptable tears. And within thee thou maiest most lively be­hold thy sin flourishing in all the quarters and regiments of thy whole man: yea, if thou dost but descend into the cellars of thine own hard heart, thou mayest see how from un­der the flintstone thereof thy sin bub­bleth up, and fometh out, and playeth forth, and streameth along continual­ly: So as, if thou hast a desire to weep rivers of tears for sin, there thou shalt find continual materialls for the pur­pose. And in comparison of this course, thy going to thine Image to help thee to weep for thy sin, is a plain going about the bush, and all one as if thou shouldest go to thy Physicians picture to move thee to lament thy surfeting and drunkenness, when as thou hast a burning ague gnawing upon thee, which is the natural daughter, scourge and monitour of that thy surfeting and drunkenness. We conclude therefore, That as no kind of Images are speci­ally good (if any way good) for in­struction [Page 78] and devotion; so those kind of Images which intend to make ex­pressions of God, Tom. 2. h. 2. p. 3. our Saviour, &c. (which kind of Images our Homilie judgeth to be most dangerous) are more like to bring us into the pits of perdition, then unto the springs of de­votion; and to plunge us in the lakes of Idolls, then to further us un­to the fruition of the invisible God: Whose coming, we know, is not with observation, Luk. 17.20, 21. or with a Lo here, and, Lo there; Look this way, and Look that way; Look upon this Image, or look up­on that: For behold, O man, thy God is within thee, and within thee he must be found: as also the devotions which he meaneth to be enterteined withal, must be kindled within thee: For within thee there is a flint-stone, even thy heart, Which being often attrited upon with the Steel of Gods Word, the Tinder of Christ crucified will foster the spark­lings thereof, until the breath of his [Page 79] Spirit shall have lighted thee a candle therewith; and then thou shalt soon be able to kindle such a fire in thy in­ner man, as the Almighty God (whom the Heavens cannot contein) will con­descend unto, sit with thee at, and sup with thee by; and finally, prefer before all the flashes and wild-fire-works of mortal mans divising whatsoever.

And now, Christian Reader, you have as much as we promised in the beginning; namely, our Answers un­to those Allegations in the behalf of Images which we then specified. There be other arguments also which use to be made in their behalf, which deserve to be no lesse excepted against, and which we hope our selves to find a time to do; our Title, Toward the vindica­tion of the Second Commandment, keep­ing alwayes our door open for such ad­ditions. These answers which we have premised, we take to be both sound and safe, and agreeable with the Church of England; as also we are perswaded that the Almighty God [Page 80] will be pleased with the publication thereof: And therefore we commend the perusal of them unto such as have authority in that kind of business. And so we finally commend them, and our selves, and every indifferent Reader unto the Grace of God.