To the first, The 1. Argument answered. which pleadeth how little hope there is for us in these times [Page 8]to prevail against the strong holds of Images; we an­swer, First, That not one­ly a hope to prevail, but also an apprehension of duty is a fair (if not the better) motive unto the attempting of businesse: it being no dispensation unto the dog to give o­ver his barking because the theef will not be gone, but rather it lying upon him to double his barking so much the more; and the Lord ap­pointing his Prophets to speak his words unto the people, Ezek. 2.5, 7. whether they wil heare them or not. Se­condly, [Page 9]considering how the light fallings of weak water (Gutta cavat lapi­dem, &c.) do in time make hollow the hardest flint; it is not a thing to be de­spaired of, but that our weak distillations, if we can rightly level them upon the faces of these I­mages, which the over­flowings of others have already so well washed upon, may pit and fret in­to them a greater deface­ment then hitherto hath befallen them; the latter droppings alwayes ma­king the first dint in the flint, though never a whit [Page 10]more piercing then those that fell before. Thirdly, one good effect we are sure shall follow upon our pains, whether it be by writing or speaking (yea, though it be but babbling or scribbling) and that is this; That in the mean time Falshood shall not be able to pre­scribe any peaceable pos­session against the Truth, as long as any amongst us shall though with never so stammering a tongue but babble, or never so ragged a quill but scrib­ble against the same. Yea, the perverse world it self [Page 11]shall reap some benefit by our such babbling and scribbling; there being good hope for them, that the Lord will not come himself in person to vin­dicate the Truth (which when he doeth, fire and brimstone must follow) as long as he shall ob­serve any of the sonnes of men fighting for it, and that we have not utterly forsaken the field. And as for us, the pusillus grex, and sorie company of these babblers and scrib­blers (for so the industri­ous contenders for the Truth use to be termed;) [Page 10] [...] [Page 11] [...] [Page 12]beside the reward which the God of truth hath laid up for those that sell all they have toward the pur­chasing of this pearl, Matth. 13.46. we shall also in this vale of misery reap many a sweet contentment: And while we are muddling in the mines of this hidden Truth, and working for it through the hardest rocks, we shall meet with many a living spring wherewith to refresh our thirstie souls, and many a clear fountain wherein we may bathe and revive our tired spirits: and all the way along as we go [Page 13]by the silver streamings, pleasant passages, delicate windings, turnings and returnings of this crystall and celestiall Truth, we shall every foot be enter­tained with most admira­ble varieties of sparkling and spangling and most unsatiating contemplati­ons.

The second allegation toward the favouring and bearing with Images, The 2. Argument answered. 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 [Page 14]to make any businesse about such poore things. Where­unto we answer: If the Lord our God be a jea­lous God, and withall e­specially jealous against Images; what mortall 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 timo­rous, 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 [Page 15]considerations have of­fered themselves to make it good: and we fear we shall offend the Lord, un­lesse 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 then the Scripture every where supposeth: And the Prophet Esay, when he saith that he putteth on Jealousie like a cloke, Isa. 59.17 gi­veth us fairly to think, not onely that the Lord is a jealous God, but also that he will be known and plainly professe him­self [Page 16]so to be: the cloke of a man being his most out­ward garment, and which doth, livery-wise, best make a man known from other men. Yea, Moses goeth further, and ma­keth it no lesse then one of the names of God, to be a Jealous God: For thus he saith, Exod. 34.14. The Lord whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Whereof also, finally, good reason may be given: For what more fit to make the name of a thing then that which is sufficient to di­stinguish the thing from all other things of the [Page 17]same kind? And doth not the name of The Jealous God, sufficiently distin­guish the true God from all other gods whatsoe­ver? For as for other gods, so farre 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 from [Page 18]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; and (as Joshua at first gave them warn­ing) after he had done thē never so much good, Josh. 24.20. he would do them as much harm. True indeed; strange it may seem, that he in whose eyes all the nations of the earth are as nothing, Isa. 40.17. should once vouchsafe to look upon the sonnes of men; much more, that he should love them, and that with the [Page 19]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, & so he hath determined, even with no lesse love then the love of Jealousie to embrace the sonnes of men.

But now concerning our second suppose, [Page 20]namely, That the Lord is so especially jealous a­gainst Images: that we grant may well seem something strange, espe­cially considering what a world of creatures there are which both have I­mages as well as these (whatsoever the eye see­eth being an Image) and also such kind of Images as may farre better ravish the beholders then these counterfeits possibly can: Notwithstanding, first, thus much we are sure of, That none of the Com­mandments are ground­ed upon his Jealousie but [Page 21]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, Fowls, &c.) but also of terrible and hatefull creatures (as Lions, Dragons, Ser­pents, &c.) and even of [Page 22]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 kind of things have mouthes and speak not, eyes and see not, &c. yet such (who knoweth not?) is the perversenesse of man, as that if he once setteth on it, he will maintain, that [Page 23]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: witnesse not onely those old heathen, which made a plain stone their god, and which also they called Matrem Deûm, Liv. dec. 3. lib. 9. 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 [Page 24]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 principall argument that it must be so, because their common sense saith it cannot be so: Even just as they which Austine speaketh of, August. in Psal. 113. qui in illo figmento nu­men inesse credebant, quia vitalem in eo motum non videbant; which kind of argument none but such [Page 25]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 & worshipping them, then 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 that 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, [Page 26]may be this: Because no kind of false god is so fit for the purposes of false-priesthood as an Image-god is; namely, because such a kind of god may both be most easily con­tained in their temples, under their locks and keyes, and shall put them to little or no charge, ei­ther to guard them (for they are not worth the stealing away) or to find them daily meat and drink (for there is no life in them) they having also many concavities and cells fit for wire-draw­ings, jugglings, and such [Page 27]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 then an I­mage-god: And that may be a speciall cause why the true God doth take such indignation against Images. For when such kind of things are esteem­ed for gods as have eyes [Page 28]and see not, mouthes and 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 poore, brute, senselesse thing, and such as can do little good or harm: And thus much also a mere naturall man, Varro, could observe, when he said, that the first setters 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 [Page 29]simulacrorum contemni, i. e. Because the stoliditie 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 cometh to passe, that they take up the first and deep­est rooms in the hearts of men; and so must needs [Page 30]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 then these Image-gods: which may well be ano­ther speciall cause of the true Gods indignation a­gainst them. For the true 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 [Page 31]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 unto 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, then [Page 32]unto the reall 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 Sunne and Sea, called Phoebus and Neptunus, did) should heare their prayers, then such kind of things as had no similitude, but either of an orb, as the Sunne hath; or of a wavie and undeterminate nature, as the Sea hath. Finally, when men will not stick to give incredible summs of money for Images, Plin hist. Nat. 35.10. as sometime twenty talents [Page 33]of gold, sometime thirty, forty, sixty, eighty, 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, then that which men e­steem at an unreasonable rate; and that also not­withstanding the Lord hath pronounced of it, that it is profitable for nothing? Isa. 44.10. 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 [Page 34]Fathers affirmed of his times, Lactant. 2.7. when he saith, Tanta homines imaginum cupiditas tenet, ut jam vi­liora ducantur illa quae ve­ra sunt, i.e. So greatly are men enamoured upon I­mages, as that now-a-dayes the more true and reall 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 find more excellencie in their own works then in his. Surely (may we not say?) [Page 35]the true and reall servants and Saints of God were not more esteemed and respected when they li­ved, then their Images have been: And no doubt it will easily be granted, that when poore Lazarus himself would not be suf­fered to peep in at the doores, the picture of La­zarus shall be advanced in the parlour. Last of all; Not onely the Heathens in their times, but also the very people of God in their times, have they not continually doted up­on and runne a whoring after Images? Yea, and [Page 36]that also as well in the time of the Gospel as in the time of the Law? For what else meant those tumults, wars, and bloud­sheds in the time of the Eastern Empire, about the setting up and pulling down of Images? as our Homily at large decla­reth. Tom. 2. hom. 2. part. 2. And even in these last times (at least as farre as the bounds of Rome extend) hath extremitie of zeal been wanting un­to the cause of Images? Naclan­tus, in Rom. 1. ci­ted more largely in the Homi­ly, Tom. 2. hom. 2. p. 3. For, We must adore, saith one of their Doctours, not onely before an Image, but also the Image it self. [Page 37]And another of them thus; Constanti us, in lib. Carol. Magn. The same honour which is due to the Trinity, do I attribute unto an I­mage; and whoso doth not likewise, him I accurse. And their most classicall 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 & by themselves; even so farre as that the veneration may settle and determine it self upon the Image, & non solùm ut vicem gerat exemplaris. And whoever among the Heathen did more [Page 38]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 then probable we are loth to make it) that the Jealousie of God is more strongly set against Images then against any inveiglement which the soul of man is apt to be beguiled withall whatso­ever. And therefore to judge us frivolous (idle, precise, fantasticall, ico­noclasticall, &c.) for be­ing cautelous against I­mages, [Page 39]or for our resol­ving to admit of no rea­sons in their behalf but such onely as shall be sub­stantiall and demonstra­tive, is a judgement (we are perswaded) that plea­seth not God: And there­fore we will proceed and persist in our intention, and not give over till we have acquainted the world with our excepti­ons against the rest of the allegations.

The next whereof is this; The 3. Argument answered. That now in the time of the Gospel the Church of God is at more liberty for the use of Images then it [Page 40]was in the time of the Law. Whereunto we answer, First, That the time of the Law being the speci­all time for types, sha­dows, 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 then 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 [Page 41]which was under the di­scipline of Moses Law; the Lord did think it good to set forth that state of minority in such kind of attires and habili­ments as might best a­gree and suit with the fansie of minority; which when the time of gravity & maturity should come, should thereupon be put off and laid aside; even no otherwise then 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 [Page 42]that the primitive Church did take any more liberty for the use of Images then it did before; or that Idolatry was esteem­ed a lesse sinne then it was before, but rather a greater; S. John pro­nouncing a more terrible punishment against it (e­ven the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone) then the old Law in so expresse terms ever did; Rev. 21.8. and calling even upon babes to beware of Idoles; 1. Joh. 5.21. & terming it a doctrine of Balaam, Rev. 2.14. to teach liberty of eating meat that was (though but) sacrificed [Page 43]unto Idoles: which also the Apostles charged the Gentiles (for their first lesson) to abstain from. Acts 15.20, 29. Thirdly, for many gene­rations together immedi­ately following the Apo­stles times, 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. Tom. 2. hom. 2. p. 2. Fourthly, the sounder part of the catholick Church have alwayes e­steemed the Decalogue to be of eternall force, and to be rooted in the Law [Page 44]of Creation, before any positive or Mosaicall 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 [Page 45]so do. We will therefore without more ado esteem them at too weak a passe, 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 fourth allegation is this; The 4. Argument answered. That the present people of England are of better strength and judge­ment then to worship Ima­ges, or to take any harm from such kind of things. Whereunto we answer, First, That so also igno­rance and dulnesse of [Page 46]conceit are farre enough off from worshipping I­mages, or taking any harm by them; witnesse the bruit beasts: it requi­ring oftentimes a good degree of understanding, to be so much as capable of some kind of deceit. Yea, profanenesse and ir­religion will also neglect, deride, and spoil Images as much as this strength and judgement; witnesse Dionysius, Rabshakeh, Nero, and those like A­theists. For as when pro­fane persons heare one another swear by the bloud and wounds of [Page 47]God, and are not moved thereat; the cause why they are not moved, is not any strength of reli­gion, but onely their sym­pathizing with one ano­ther in profanenesse and irreligion: So likewise if any proceed not so farre as to do reverence unto such kind of Images as represent the wounds and passions of God, there is no necessity to think thē so specially strong in re­ligion; it being no more then incredulity also and irreligion may withhold them from. Secondly, as ignorance, profanenesse [Page 48]and irreligion, so also car­nall policie and affectati­on will make a shew of this kind of strength: witnesse those Manichees in the time of Augustine, which out of this carnall policie, to winne 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 wel enough endure Images: As also witnesse 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 [Page 49]present at those Idole-fe­stivals. Thirdly, admit it were out of some de­gree of sound strength indeed, that our people at this day are so farre from worshipping Ima­ges; yet must this strength needs be generall? 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 then the wi­sest or strongest in for­mer times? Those anci­ent Chaldeans, Egypti­ans, Persians, Grecians, & Romanes, from whom [Page 50]we have received our principall 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? 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 [Page 51]preached a­mongst us? is every child as ready to heare 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, Col. 3.5. the Scripture (we know) judgeth covetous­nesse to be a worshipping of Images; and the mere coveting of Images is a kind of covetousnesse no doubt: And are there [Page 52]none amongst us which are culpable of that kind of covetousnesse? 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 in his house; and yet the Scripture maketh him an Idolater. Ephes. 5.5. Finally, 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 [Page 53]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 farre from worshipping Ima­ges; [Page 54]so also were it grant­ed, it would not there­upon follow, that there­fore our people are of such speciall strength and judgement: it being no more then ignorance, profanenesse and irreligi­on, carnall policie and af­fectation have brought men unto.

The next allegation is this; The 5. Argument answered. That admit sometime some of our people do let fall some glance of honour unto an Image; yet if it be but a Civil kind of honour and not the Divine (dulia and not latria) no just ex­ception can be taken there­at. [Page 55]Against which positi­on we thus demonstrate;

That which is proper­ly due to the Creatour may not be given to any kind of creature (much lesse unto the Image of any creature) but onely by vertue of the Crea­tours expresse appoint­ment;

But all kind of honour, glory and praise, of what degree or kind soever, is due onely to the Crea­tour;

Therefore no kind of honour, glory or praise, of what degree or kind soever, may be given un­to [Page 56]to any kind of creature (much lesse unto the I­mage of any kind of crea­ture) but onely by vertue of the Creatours expresse appointment:

But never did the Cre­atour appoint 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 de­mōstration, namely, That the Lords proper due must not be disposed of [Page 57]but by vertue of his own expresse 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 stablishing of this ground, which the free­hold of the whole world is grounded upon.

Likewise also our se­cond ground, namely, That all honour, glory and praise is due onely [Page 58]unto the Lord; is as clear a principle, and needeth no more words to esta­blish it: the Scripture e­very-where ringing it in our eares, that unto him all honour, glory and praise is onely due; and the condition of his ho­nour of necessitie infor­cing as much: For the honour of God cannot be infinite (as of necessitie it must be) if any jote or scrat or scruple of any kind of honour could be found not to belong unto him. Notwithstanding, because we find in the Scripture how the Lord [Page 59]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 kinds 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 kinds of honour as themselves think good, and so (finally) to their [Page 60]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 unto men, is of force to dispossesse himself thereof; nor again, that the littlenesse or smal­nesse 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 [Page 61]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 wisdome, 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 wisdome, strēgth, riches, &c. so also the gifts and portions of ho­nour [Page 62]which God bestow­eth upon men, both may be and also must be im­proved unto the Lords finall honour and advan­tage: That being (no 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 & furnished with such portions of honour, authority, &c. they shall not be able to bring up whole kingdomes, cities, towns, and families unto the Lords finall honour, as their office is to do. [Page 63]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 onely un­to the Lord: for else the sonnes of men might hap in their mutuall honour­ing one of another, to go beyond their bounds, and make bold with the Lords peculiar honour: But as we no-where find [Page 64]any such specification or partition; so also we may every-where find, how those kinds of honour which are most likely to be proper unto God, as might, majesty and domini­on, fear and trembling, sin­glenesse 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 [Page 65]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.) [Page 66]must not be of force to make us think that those kinds of honour do there­upon cease to belong un­to the Lord.

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 the 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 [Page 67]unto the Sacra­ment; we having Gods ordinance so to do: so likewise our honouring God with those kinds 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 w^ch [Page 68]we perform unto Gods assignees (as Parents, Princes, Masters, &c. are) both may be 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 then the commonnesse) of any kind of honour may be of force to dis­misse it from presenting it self unto the Lord, it is as easie (and no lesse materiall) to declare. For, first, if the littlenesse of a­ny kind of honour might be of force to put it by [Page 69]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, lesse then 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 [Page 70]kind of creatures that are (even lice) to own their production from a­ny finger but his own. Exod. 8.17, 18, 19. Thirdly, the least de­gree of humane honour (whereof onely our que­stion is) doth it not of ne­cessitie 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, [Page 71]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 poore­nesse of it) the Lord him­self hath said it and sworn it, Isa. 45.23. that unto him every knee should bowe: Which [Page 72]also the 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 then the nature of angels, and more understanding then the nature of worms and creeping things have. Yea, Matth. 10.30. the very hairs of your head are all numbred, saith [Page 73]our Saviour: And there­fore if the Lord keepeth a reckoning of our hairs, shall we think he will ne­glect the excellencies and honours of our substanti­all 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 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 [Page 74]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 summe of money intend to defeat their creditours of the main. For else, as the peny 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 then the pound: So the Tongue, [Page 75]and the Lips, and never so outward abilities, be­ing the workmanship of God no lesse then 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 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 [Page 76]greater; as the least di­git is of force to give an augmentatiō 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, [Page 77]namely, That all kind of honour, glory and praise, of what degree or kind soever, is wholly and perpetually due one­ly 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) but onely by vertue of the Lords expresse and speciall appointment; e­ven no more then 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 beleeve it, untill we find his expresse word under his own hand-writing for it. And lest any should busie themselves unpro­fitably, and misspend 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 [Page 79]they bring for the ho­nouring of Images, be farre more plain, perem­ptory, and abundant then 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 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 bloud, that [Page 80]some degrees & kinds of honour should be done to them: and therefore a few words from the mouth of God, or under his hand­writing, might be suffici­ent for such a purpose: But now for Images, w^ch are most palpably void of all understanding, and utterly unable to im­prove the honour that is done unto them unto the Lords finall 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 [Page 81]them: And therefore, un­lesse we have most per­emptory charge from God so to do, and that farre more abundantly then ever we had for the honouring of men, it must not be done. But so farre is the Scripture from such superabundance of charge for the honouring of I­mages, as that whereas it every-where (and most expressely in the Com­mandments) teacheth the honouring of men (as Pa­rents, Masters, Kings, &c.) it scarce once af­fordeth any shadow of appointment for the ho­nouring [Page 82]of Images: And therefore we may secure­ly conclude, That the Lord did never appoint any jote or scrat or scru­ple of honour to be done unto them. And so our Demonstration against the doing of Civil ho­nour unto Images, is a­bundant and complete: The force whereof by the strings of art may thus be contrived;

That kind 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.

But because every ca­pacitie is not apt to be fastned upon by Demon­strations, nor readie e­nough to gather nega­tives from the want of affirmatives (though in all kind of grants and con­veyances betwixt man and man, the want of an affirmative is negative sufficient) it hath there­fore [Page 84]seemed good unto the indulgence of God, to declare his mind in this point to be expressely negative: & that not one­ly in general, when he for­biddeth the worshipping of any thing which he hath not commanded; Deut. 17.3 and else­where where he saith, My glory will I not give to another, Isa. 42.8. 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 actu­all [Page 85]or intentionall, reall or personall, corporall or spirituall, naturall or mo­rall, domestick or civil, divine or humane, but may easily be found most palpably forbidden in that short clause. Yea, what kind of honour can be imagined but may be found denied 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 excellencie to the person unto whom it is given; it must needs be, that who­soever [Page 86]giveth honour, doth withall perform some degree of bowing down: the attributing of excellencie of necessitie implying some bending, stouping, and submission, of the mind at least. For though some degrees of bowing down do not pro­ceed so farre as to be vi­sible and outward, yet may they be true and re­all bowings down never­thelesse: 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 [Page 87]true and reall knees even by the judgement of the Scripture. Secondly, ad­mit there were some kinds of honour which did not imply a bowing down (at least in the judg­ment of such weak ones as know no 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 [Page 88]then 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 reall ho­nour, but also that it be an outward and visible honour; for else it can­not serve to distinguish one person from another, [Page 89]as the intent of Civil ho­nour is to do. Fifthly, if by Civil honour we mean those kinds of honour which passe betwixt man and man; so we shall both bowe down to Images and worship them also, if we give them Civil ho­nour in that sense: For unto men we usually bowe down, and term them Worshipfull, Honou­rable, Excellent, Majesti­call, &c. Yea, Andrews, Resp. ad Bellarm. Apol. 8. Prostration and Adoration (Nam ci­vilis est adoratio, quis ne­scit?) have been esteem­ed allowable unto men. Sixthly, if by Civil ho­nour [Page 90]we mean those kinds of honour which are due to the Civil body and the heads thereof; so the Ci­vil honour shall contain a principall kind of ho­nour. For if Parents and Masters, which are but members of the Civil bodie, 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 onely such forms of ho­nour as by locall and ci­vil constitutions do passe [Page 91]for acknowledgements of honour; such as perad­venture the uncovering of the head may be e­steemed: (for the unco­vering of the head is not in all nations, and from the women-kind in no nation, esteemed as a do­ing of honour) yet we must know, that when once any ceremonie 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 [Page 92]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 for­rein terms for familiar and modern; that so the truth being obscured and puddled by the means, their Idoles may the bet­ter give us the slip. For the word dulia signifying service, & all service im­plying a bowing down; it is plain, that the giving so much unto Images, [Page 93]is a palpable bowing down unto them. Se­condly, the word latria signifying onely such a kind of service as con­sisteth in famulation and attendance, which is the most easie and liberall 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 [Page 94]words of one and the same signification; and that latria is usually given unto men, and dulia as u­sually unto God. So as well might B. Repl. art. 14. Jewel com­pare this distinction to that of the Physicians wife: Who when (belike) she had mainteined 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 with her learn­ed [Page 95]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-wor­shipping (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 head-strong to mend their errour, and partly not being impu­dent enough to deny the Commandment, and partly (finally) not being [Page 96]allowed to work other­wise then by argument, at length drew forth these distinctions, That it was but a Civil honour and not the Divine, onely dulia & 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 stam; especially such as more loved the peace of the world then the peace of conscience, or thought it an imputation to their learning, not to under­stand Greek & far-fetcht distinctions, though ne­ver [Page 97]so senselesse and im­pertinent. But when at length it grew most ma­nifest, that through the gap of these distinctions the Commandment of God was not onely no­toriously incroched 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 in­crochers to the face. And for this cause, we for our part have taken the more pains about the stubbing up these distinctions; w^ch hitherto have been the speciall Ivy-tods where [Page 98]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 stark­naked stocks and blocks, and not onely unworthy of any honour, but al­so most worthy to be thrown into the fire.

The sixth allegation is this; The 6. Argument answered. That Images are pro­fitable [Page 99]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. Matth. 23.15. As also they that compassed sea and land to make a proselyte, no doubt were commenda­ble for industry and ma­ny good parts: and yet their disciples were farre the worse for them. Luke 16. And the false Steward which was thrust out of his Lords house for doing [Page 100]unjustly, was notwith­standing acknowledged able to do wittily and wisely. Yea, mere natu­rall men have been wiser then to be taken with this kind of argument: wit­nesse those Lacedemoni­ans, which would not suffer the Poet Archilo­chus to be read in their schools (though they ac­knowledged him to ex­cell for wit and poetrie) nè plus moribus noceret quàm ingeniis prodesset. Valer. Max. lib. 6. cap. 3. Yea, the principall ad­vancers of Images (the Church of Rome) will not admit of this kind of [Page 101]argument in their behalf: For though they ac­knowledge the Scriptures to be both profitable and divine, yet will they not suffer thereupon that the Scriptures should be pub­lished: And yet the pro­fitablenesse of the Scri­pture is incomparably more (were it not impie­ty to make such compa­risons) then the profita­blenesse of Images: and the danger incomparably lesse; every child and innocent being in danger to take harm by Images, whereas none but the perversely minded are in [Page 102]danger to take harm by the sincere, milken, di­vine, and grace-mini­string Scriptures. Se­condly, there being such a pronenesse in the heart of man to sinne 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 then 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 [Page 103]profitable course to fish with a golden hook? the losse of one golden hook being more then an hun­dred catchings will coun­tervail. Yea, better it were, saith our Homilie, Tom. 2. hom. 2. p. 3. that the arts of painting, plai­stering, carving, graving, and founding had never been found nor used, then 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 [Page 104]our God be a Jealous God, and so professeth himself to be; it con­cerneth us first to be well assured whether the Jea­lousie of God be not like­ly to be offended with our conversing with such kind of things. For the jealous husband is not content with this, That his wife is a profitable wife, and a thriftie wife, and a chast wife, unlesse she also refraineth the company of the man which her husband hath professed his jealousie a­gainst: for the husband that is not jealous, will [Page 105]expect so much at his wives hand, that she be both profitable and chast also: And therefore the jealous husband (and consequently the Jealous God) must be further gratified then so. Fourth­ly, if it be found that the Lord is not onely 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. [Page 106]For as a subject whose Prince holdeth him in jealousie concerning his Crown, the more good parts he hath, and the more popular he is, the more hastie ought the true subjects be to sup­presse him or abase him, rather then to make any special reckoning of him: So also these Images, if 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 speedie ought [Page 107]the servants of God be to deface them, rather then for their supposed usefulnesse to regard or indure them.

The seventh allegation is this; The 7. Argument answered. That Images are speciall good to give in­struction. Whereunto we answer, That there is no­thing in all the world so filly 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, and lo, nettles had covered the face there­of, &c. — I looked upon it, and received instruction. [Page 108]So that a very nettle­bush may prove a book of instruction to them that can turn such kind of books: the wit of man being as apt to suck intel­lectuals out of every thing it lighteth upon, as the bee is able to con­trive hony 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 [Page 109]of sinne or Satan may incline us unto devotion and thanksgiving: But that Images are speciall good to give instruction, (which is the question) that we deny. For first, all the instruction which they afford is onely 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 creature, &c. was good or bad, whether to be imitated or avoided; and what were the causes, ends, [Page 110]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 onely concern­ing matters of fact; so also do they not declare so much with any cer­taintie, but rather they make things more uncer­tain then they were: things coming within the compasse of fables and fictions after once the painters & carvers (which think they may lie by authority) have had a [Page 111]hand in them. Thirdly, the instruction which they afford is onely such as the outward eye is ca­pable of: For neither the eare (which is the prin­cipall doore 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, what kind of countenance Pe­ter, or Paul, or the dead had; or persons farre re­mote have: But yet, as such kind of knowledge [Page 112]can have no certaintie in it (and what goodnesse in knowledge without cer­taintie?) 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 pesant, a Prince; and yet remain wicked, base, and foolish never­thelesse. Fourthly, as the instruction which Images afford, is common, un­certain, [Page 113]and such as the outward eye onely 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 dumbe, 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: so these Images, if they meet with one that lo­veth to stand riddling and spelling something out of a wall or a gay, like enough they may [Page 114]seem to say something; but else (as our Homilie noteth out of Hierome) they do but amaze and dull the understanding of the unlearned with their golden sentences and elo­quence, Tom. 2. hom. 2. p. 3. & so leave them. Fifthly, these Images do take up a great deal more roomth & breadth in the fansie and outward sen­ses then needeth: For such, we know, is the a­gilitie of humane capa­citie, as that it can upon the least fight of ordinary things (though it be but a rush about the finger, or the least scrole of let­ters [Page 115]upon a paper) be put in mind of things never so distant and important: so farre 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 senses more deeply and indelibly then other courses and means of instruction use to do. For as our table-books, the more deeply & hard­ly they be written upon, the sooner they are attri­ted and worn away: so our fansie and outward [Page 116]senses, the more deeply that notions be imprinted in them, the sooner will their abrasitie, voydable­nesse, and receptivitie (which are the peculiar conditions of those out­ward senses) be distem­pered and confounded. Now, whereas voices, and letters, and other means of instruction (w^ch 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: [Page 117]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 table­books into paper-books, and make (in a manner) their final repose in those faculties which are in­tended onely for passage and conveyance. More­over, by reason of this over-deep inhesion of these Images in the fansie and outward senses, not [Page 118]onely 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: [Page 119]It being a good reason which Seneca giveth, why he would have us well to digest our read­ings, Because, saith he, alioquin in memoriam i­bunt, non in ingenium. i.e. Epist. 84. otherwise they will stuff 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 onely be delayed and defrauded, but also vitia­ted and infected. For the inward senses having no­thing [Page 120]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, grosse, impure, fan­tasticall, and in the end I­dololatricall notions? So as this supposed most ex­cellent [Page 121]property of Ima­ges, namely, for that they can so deeply imprint their notions in the me­morie and outward sen­ses, may rather be esteem­ed as a principall excep­tion against them, and e­nough to make all those that desire to be divinely (or but intellectually) minded, to abandon them.

The eighth allegation is this; The 8. Argument ansvvered. That they are spe­ciall quickners of devotion. Whereunto we answer; If the instruction which they afford, be so grosse, common, uncertain, im­pure, [Page 122]and dangerous as we have declared; how can the devotion be any better w^ch 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 onely, 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 [Page 123]of God in their hymnes and songs 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 speciall quickners of de­votion, how could they have been left out in those generall 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 [Page 124]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 then 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 [Page 125]Lord calleth to the cen­tre, they call to the cir­cumference: while the Lord standeth knocking at the doore of the heart, they stand rapping at the doore 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 farre from entring at that kind of doore, 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 [Page 126]perpetuall memento was given to the contrarie, that then they saw no simi­litude, Deut. 4.12 but onely heard a voice. The Lord also u­sually maketh darknesse his secret place, Psal. 18.11. his pavilion round about him; whereas these Images hate all darknesse no lesse then the gates of death. Yea, finally, not onely in their conditions, operations, and habitations, but also in their very natures what more contrary then God and Images? For where­as the Lord is altogether invisible; these Images are nothing else but visi­ble: [Page 127]Whereas the Lord is, incomprehensible; these Images every childes eye can comprehend: As also, whereas the Lord is almighty; these Images are the most mightlesse things that are: The Lord again is all Spirit and life; but Ima­ges are worse then 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 cometh to [Page 128]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 congruitie 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 every living man upon earth doth incom­parably more lively re­present the humane na­ture [Page 129]of God then any I­mage possibly can, then how can any Image be so speciall good for such a purpose? Secondly, ad­mit some picture could set forth the naturall countenance of our Sa­viour more peculiarly then the countenance of any living man ever did (though who can be cer­tain of any such matter?) yet, we know, the vertue and efficacie of our Savi­ours incarnation did not consist in this, that he was a man of such or such a countenance; but onely in this, that he took mans [Page 130]nature upon him. Third­ly, the Scribes and Pha­risees did well know his naturall countenance in­deed; as also they that crucified him: and yet had they no more devo­tion toward him then they that most mortally hated him. Fourthly, S. Paul telling us, 2. Cor. 5.16. 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 be­side this grosse conceit, That the picture of our Saviours naturall counte­nance is so specially ope­rative [Page 131]unto devotion. But (once more) very like it will be alledged, that the efficacie 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 naturall 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. [Page 132]Concerning which kind of Image, we desire to be endured a while, until we make somewhat a large answer. First there­fore we demand who they are that such kind of Images do so work upon; are they beleevers, or are they unbeleevers? As for the unbeleevers, it is most like that they will rather despise him that so suffered, then be moved to regard him (much lesse to put confidence in him) thereupon: It being most likely in the eyes of flesh and bloud, that the per­son which so suffered [Page 133]was not so much as an innocent person: or if so; yet that he was ra­ther some poore 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 unbeleeving beholder be a malicious Infidel, the picture may move him to insult over the God that so suffered, and to carry such Images about [Page 134]in his processions and tri­umphs, the better to please and magnifie his own false gods. But if they must be onely be­leevers 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: which is the question. For that short Article of our Creed, He was crucified, dead, and buried, descend­ed into hell, doth it not [Page 135]farre more readily, plain­ly, certainly, abundantly, securely, & 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 [Page 136]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 it doth: in that it informeth us that he was both crucified, dead and buried, and with­all descended into hell; whereas the Image doth onely declare his crucify­ing, [Page 137]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 fansie 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 [Page 134] [...] [Page 135] [...] [Page 136] [...] [Page 137] [...] [Page 138]it, and, Pygmalion­wise, to wish it alive, and in the end to bowe down unto it and worship it, and make a perfect Idole of it: For what more apt to become an Idole 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! Moreover, as these kind of Images can adde nothing to the knowledge of the weakest beleevers concerning the sufferings of our Saviour; so do [Page 139]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, [Page 140]the more dismall and wofull the outward appearance of his pains being likely 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 majesty and person is plainly belied and blas­phemed by the means: 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 [Page 141]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 [Page 142]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 senselesse lies: can we make question, but that hypocrites also in the Church of God will be as active to cast them­selves into the like fits & 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 originall [Page 143]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, Luke 23.28. when he bade them not weep for him but weep for them­selves; 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 possi­bilitie of suffering) thou bemonest him withall, and that at the motion of an Image? But if thou hast a desire, O man, to present thy God with a [Page 144]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 sinne; for thy sinne is the onely foun­tain-head of acceptable tears. And within thee thou mayest most lively behold thy sinne flourish­ing in all the quarters and regiments of thy whole man: yea, if thou dost but descend into the cellars of thine own hard [Page 145]heart, thou mayest see how from under the flint­stone thereof thy sinne bubbleth up, and someth out, and playeth forth, and streameth along con­tinually: So as, if thou hast a desire to weep ri­vers of tears for sinne, there thou shalt find con­tinuall materialls for the purpose. And in com­parison of this course, thy going to thine Image to help thee to weep for thy sinne, is a plain going a­bout the bush, and all one as if thou shouldest go to thy Physicians picture to move thee to lament [Page 146]thy surfeting and drun­kennesse, when-as thou hast a burning ague gnaw­ing upon thee, which is the naturall daughter, scourge and monitour of that thy surfeting and drunkennesse. We con­clude therefore, That as no kind of Images are specially good (if any way good) for instruction and devotion; so those kind of Images which in­tend to make expressions of God, our Saviour, &c. (which kind of Images our Homilie judgeth to be most dangerous) are more like to bring us into Tom. 2. h. 2. p. 3. [Page 147]the pits of perdition then unto the springs of devo­tion; and to plunge us in the lakes of Idoles, then to further us unto the fru­ition of the invisible God: Luke 17.20, 21. Whose coming, we know, is not with observation, 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 withall, must be kindled within thee: [Page 148]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, untill the breath of his 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, preferre before all the flashes and [Page 149]wild-fire-works of mor­tall mans devising 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 [Page 150]our doore open for such additions. These Answers which we have premised, we take to be both sound & safe, and a­greeable with the Church of England; as also we are perswaded that the al­mighty God will be plea­sed with the publication thereof: And therefore we commend the perusal of them unto such as have authority in that kind of businesse. And so we fi­nally commend them, & our selves, and every in­different Reader unto the grace of God.