Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 50 – Doctrine 51
L. That no man hath ſeen God in any form; and that therefore his Picture, or Image cannot be made.
Anſwer.
IN the Firſt Edition of this Book, they condemned us for ſaying, No man hath ſeen God at any time (ſo well are they skilled in Scripture, where we find thoſe very words, I. John 18.) but having been ſoundly laſh'd for this foul Ignorance, by Biſhop Mountague, now they have altered the words, they think, more wiſely; tho ſtill with a contradiction to St. Paul, who ſaith of God, that no man hath ſeen him, nor can ſee him: Which is as much, we think, as if he had ſaid, no man hath ſeen him in any form, becauſe his words import, that it is impoſſible one ſhould ſee him at all.
From whence it is a plain conſequence, that his Picture, or Image, cannot be made. And nothing but ſtupid ſuperſtition, that horrid blindneſs where with thoſe are ſtruck, who fall into Idolatry, could make any man affirm the contrary. Their Ancient Schoolmen, it is well known, abſolutely condemn the making any Picture of God; but only, as in Chriſt he took upon him our Nature. Nay, the Second Council of Nice (as blockiſh as they were) had ſo much ſenſe remaining, as to condemn the making of an Image of God, when they eſtabliſhed the Worſhip of Images. And John Damaſcen himſelf ſaith, it is the higheſt madneſs and impiety, to make any Figure of the Deity. But time hath wrought mens minds into this Madneſs: and one would think a real frenzy poſſeſs'd this man, when he thought of the III.III. Gen. 8. Gen. 8. (which only ſaith, They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden) to prove God hath been ſeen in a Corporal form: As if hearing were ſeeing; or one could paint the form of a ſound, or of motion. To what Impiety may not ſuch men arrive, who can ſatisfy themſelves with ſuch Arguments?
XXVIII. Gen. 12.Nor is there the leaſt mention of anyform, wherein the Lord appeared to Jacob, XXVIII. Gen. 12. But if there had, it would be the higheſt impiety to call that the picture of God, who hath no form, no ſhape, no figure, or lineaments; and therefore cannot be Painted.
God ſpeaking to Moſes face to face XXXII. Exod. 11.XXXII. Exod. 11. doth not imply God to have a face; but only that he ſpake moſt familiarly to him, as one Friend ſpeaketh to another. His own Menochius goes farther; for his Interpretation is, By an Angel appearing in corporeal and humane ſhape, God ſpake moſt familiarly to him. And indeed it is the opinion of his Order (the Jeſuits) and of all later Divines in the Roman Church, very few excepted, that God never appeared, but by the Miniſtry of Angels.
Which anſwers what he alledgeth out of VII.VII. Dan. 9. Dan. 9 To which Menochius alſo gives this farther ſatisfaction, That every thing which is here attributed unto God, ſignifies only the ſplendor of the Divine Majeſty; which, in one word, may be called Glory. This is the only thing that can be repreſented; which it is impoſſible for any one to deſcribe.
As for VI. Iſa. 1, 5. 1 Kings XXII. 19. There is not the leaſt ſignification of any form wherein the Divine Majeſty appeared. His reaſonings upon theſe Texts are ſo weak, that they are not worthy any ones notice: But leſt he ſhould be wiſe in his own conceit, let him take this rational account from Abulenſis, an Author of his own Church, why no Image of the Trinity ſhould be made. Firſt, For fear of Idolatry, leſt the Image it ſelf ſhould be worſhipped. 2dly. For fear of Error and Hereſy; in attributing to God corporiety and eſſential differences, ſuch as we ſee thoſe Three Figures repreſent. This is ſufficient to convince any man, who is not drunk with the cup of fornication, mentioned by St. John in the Revelation.
We hear not a word of Fathers to countenance this Doctrine, which is a ſhrow'd ſign it is ſo far from being Ancient, that they ſpeak directly againſt it. And it is obſervable, that they bring in the Gentiles excuſing their making Images of their Gods, juſt as the Papiſts now excuſe themſelves, and as this man argues: That Images were unto men, inſtead of writings (or Scriptures) upon which fixing their ſight, they might have ſome Conceptions of God. They are the words of Athanaſius in his Oration againſt the Gentiles. And ſo Euſebius tells us, Porphyry ſaid, That men by Statues, as by Book…, have learnt to know the Doctrine of the Gods. Behold the Fathers whom they follow. Thus the Sworn Enemies of Jeſus Chriſt were wont to diſcourſe.
LI. That Bleſſing, or Signing with the ſign of the Croſs, is not founded in Holy Scripture.
Anſwer.
IT is uncertain, what he means by this propoſition; whether he make Bleſſing, and Signing with the ſign of the Croſs, Two ſeveral things, or the ſame. If he mean that we ſay, Bleſſing things or Perſons is not founded in Scripture, he is a notorious Calumniator; for we Bleſs our Children and our Meat. But if he mean, That Bleſſing by Signing with the ſign of the Croſs is not founded there, he ſaith true; for we find no Precept or Example for ſuch a way of Bleſſing. Anciently indeed, when the Croſs of Chriſt was counted fooliſhneſs, Chriſtians uſed to ſign themſelves in the Forehead with this ſign, in token that they gloried in the Death of Chriſt; which was nothing elſe, but to make a confeſſion of their Faith, and to teſtify in what eſteem they had Chriſt Crucified. The uſe of the ſign upon ſuch an occaſion is not to be condemned, nor the uſe of it in their Benedictions: Whereby they declared their Belief, that they and all they had was Bleſſed by Chriſt, who was made a curſe for us; and that through his Death and Paſſion (of which the Croſs was a Memorial) they expected all manner of Bleſſings from God. But all this was of Humane Inſtitution; for which we find no directions in Scripture.
None of the places he alledgeth, ſay a ſyllable of it; much leſs expreſly mention this ſign; Let the Reader look as long as he pleaſeth into VII.VII. Rev. 3. Rev. 3. he will find no more, but that the Angel was commanded to Seal the ſervants of God in their Foreheads; With what mark we are not told.
In the X. Mark 16. and XXIV. Luke 50. we read of Chriſt's bleſſing the Children that were brought to him, and of bleſſing his Diſciples; but nothing of ſigning either with the Croſs, or any thing elſe; which therefore is not founded in theſe, or indeed in any other Scriptures.
The Fathers, we know, ſpeak of the uſe of the Sign of the Croſs upon ſeveral occaſions; but do they ſay it was founded in Scripture? Not a word of that, which is the only point. And ſigning with the Croſs may be laid aſide now, as many other Rites have been; which were no leſs in uſe in Ancient times, than that was; particularly, the Cuſtom of Praying Standing, not Kneeling on the Lords-day and every day between Eaſter and Whitſuntide. Which was decreed in the famous Council of Nice; and as it had been in uſe before, and not then introduced, but only confirmed, ſo continued in the Church for 800 years; and yet is now quite diſuſed. I ſay nothing of the Spiritual Virtue, as well as Bodily Protection, which they in the Roman Church, now expect from the Sign of the Croſs; for which there is not either Scripture, or other Ancient Authority.