Answer to a Popish Pamphlet Called the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel, Part 2 · Subpart 50 – Subpart 52
50. THat no man hath ſeen God in any forme, & therefore that his image and picture cannot bee made.
VVHichWhich is contrarie (ſayeth he) to Gen. 3. 8. Wher God appeared to Adam walking in the garden in a corporall forme, and to Gen. 28. 12. where hee appeared to Iacob ſtanding aboue the ladder which hee ſaw. To which I anſwere, That he ſhameleſlie belieth Scripture: for there is no ſuch thing that Adam ſaw God in any corporall forme, but onlie heard his voyce, as it is ſaid likewiſe, that at the giving of the Law, Deut. 4. 15. 16. The people heard a voice onlie, but ſaw no ſhape leſt they ſhould corrupt themſelves, & make them any graven image. Likewiſe it is ſaid, Gen. 28. 13. That the Lord ſtood aboue the ladder, and that Lacob onlie heard a voice, but not that he ſaw any ſhape. Therefore ſayes the Prophet Iſai. 40. 18. To whom will ye liken God, or what liknes will yee compare to him? whereupon ſaieth Peruſin an auguſtin Frier and profeſſour of divinity, by theſe words is refuted and rejected the raſhnes of men, yea their madnes and ignorance (ſayeth he) who dare be bold to repreſent God by any image, therefore alſo their owne Vaſques lib. 2. de ador. cap. 3. diſp. 4. As alſo Catharinus biſhop of Minori, in his opuſcula de imag▪ declareth that the repreſenting of God by any image is expresſlie againſt the ſecond commandement. As alſo Bellarmin himſelf witneſſeth (lib. 2. de ſanct. cap. 3.) that Abulenſis, Durand. & Pereſius do teach plainlie That the image of God is nowiſe lawfull to be made. And ſpeciallie to repreſent him by a three headed Monſter, as they do the image of the Trinitie▪ as I hauehave to ſhowe in their owne Miſſall.
The third place which he bringes is, Exod. 33. 11. where it is ſaid, That Ged appeared to Moſes face to faee, whereunto their owne biſhop Lipomanus anſwereth out of Auguſtin l. 4. de ſymbolo ad Catechumenos, cap. 3. Moſes did ſee God (ſayeth he) not with his bodilie eyes but with the eyes of his minde, & becauſe that perpetuall light which God is, had in lightned him more than others, therfore it is ſaid that he spake to him face to fate, as if it had beene ſaid, that he manifeſted himſelf more clearly to him nor to all others, for in that it is ſaid, cap. 10. no man can ſee my face and live, is ſhowne, that none can ſee God with his bodilie eies (ſayth he) Therfore alſo ſayth Cajetan, he ſayeth not that God was ſeen face to face, but that hee ſpake to him face to face, for God manifeſteth himſelf onlie by ſpeech, nor is he perceived but by hearing onelie (ſayeth he.)
The fourth and fifth teſtimonies which he bringeth are coincident with Iſai. 6. 1. 5. and 1. King. 22. 19. wherein it is ſaid, That God was ſitting on a Throne, and Dan. 7. 9. whoſe garments were whyte as ſnowe, & the haire of his head like pure wool. Whence hee gathereth, that as hee was ſeene, therefore he may be …o pictured, To which I anſwer, That it followeth not, for before that time he appeared to Moſes in the buſh in the forme of fire, and yet their own Richeom (tract. 3. c. 9.) ſaith To picture him ſo, wer to favour the pagās, who worſhiped the fire, & ſo may we ſay that to picture God as an old man (as the papiſts do) is to favour hereticks called the Anthropomorphits, who made him to hauehave the ſhape and members of a man. Therfore Auguſtin (de fide & ſymbolo cap. 7.) giveth this reaſone why it is not lawful to any Chriſtian to make any ſuch image, Lest we fall into the ſame ſacrile…ge (ſaieth he) whereby the Apoſtle maketh them execrable who turne the glorie of the incorruptible God into the ſimilitude of a corruptible man Rom. 1. 23.
51 THat bleſsing or ſigning with the ſigne of the Croſſe is not founded on holie ſcripture.
VVHichWhich he ſaieth is contrarie to Revel. 7. 3. Where it is ſaid, Hurt not the earth nor the ſea, nor the trees, till I hauehave ſealed the ſervants of GOD in the foreheads To which I anſwere, 1. That there is no word heere of ſigning, & farre leſſe with the ſigne of the Croſſe, but (as the originall hath) of ſealing, and what this ſealing is, is expreſt 2. Tim. 2. 19. The foundation of the Lord ſtandeth ſure, having this ſeale, the Lord knoweth them that are his, & let every one that nameth the Name of Chriſt depart from iniquitie. So that it is ſanctification & departing from iniquititie, which manifeſteth their election, & that ſuch ar the Lords. 2. If this were the ſigning with the ſigne of the Croſſe, then none that did ſigne themſelves ſo, would periſh, for none of theſe that were ſealed heere did periſh.
The other two places Mark 10. 16. Luke 24. 50. which ſpeaketh onlie of Chriſt and his diſciples their bleſsing of Children, maketh no mention of any ſigning them with the ſigne of the Croſſe, but onlie of bleſſing them. And ſo are alleadged unto no purpoſe.
As for Fathers, he ſetteth downe none of their words, Therfore wee paſſe by thē, yet with this anſwer, that none of them proves his point.
52 THat the publick ſervice of the Church ought to be ſaid a language that al the people may unſtand.
VVHichWhich he ſayeth is contrarie to Luke 1. 8. where it is ſaid, That Zacharte was burning incenſe in the temple, & the whole people were praying without where (ſayeth he) hee being within and the people without, then how did they underſtand him? To which I anſwer 1. There is no word of his ſpeaking words, to be underſtood, but of burning incenſe (for he was ſtrickē dumb.) 2. He being within, and the people without, it was not marvell that they did not underſtand, in what language he had ſpokē. wheras the queſtion is. Whither that divine ſervice which is performed in the ſight & audience of the people, & which ſhould be to edification (according to 1. Cor. 14.) ſhould be in a language unknown to the people, which is againſt the Apoſtles directiō, for ſaith Cajetā on that place, out of this doctrine of Paul it is gathered [ſayeth he) That it is better for edifying of the Church, that publick prayers which are ſaid in the peoples hearing, be ſaid in the vulgar tongue known to the people & Clergie, nor in latine, or an unknowē language. And that this was the practiſe of the primtive Church. Aquinas on 1. cor. 14. granteth, as alſo ſaith their own Lyra. In the primitive church thanksgivings, and all other common ſervice was performed (ſayth he) in the vulgar tongue.
The ſecond place is Levit. 16. 17. wher it is ſaid, That there ſhall be no man in the tabernicle of the Congregation, when he goeth in to make an attoniment in the holie place, till he (to wit the High-prieſt) come out again. Which maketh no more to prove that publick divine ſervice before the people ſhould be done in an unknowne tongue to them, then it proveth Rome to be in Ʋtopia. For 1. This place ſpeaketh onlie of the High-prieſts entrie into the moſt holie place with blood to make attoniment, once onlie a yeare, which was an action betweene God and him, and no mention of ſpeech in whatſoever language. 2. Which was to be performed in that place, when ther ſhould be no man in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and therefore private, without any aſſiſtance, or preſence of any who might either heare or ſee him. 3. This was a jewiſh and typicall ſervice abrogat, frō whence to draw this conſequence. Ergo the publick ſervice of the Church under the goſpell ought to be ſaid now in a language that people underſtands not, is as coherent as fire and y…e, or followeth aſwell in Logick, as to ſay, that the Authour of this Touch-ſtone is an Animal. Ergo, Bos cornutus.
You may ſee likewiſe how impudent and ignorant this man is, to alleadge (as he doth in his preface, and whole Tenour of this Touch-ſtone) To convince us, that our doctrine is againſt the expreſſe words of our own Bible, whereas let any indifferent man judge (beſide a number of the like impertinencies) if theſe two alleadged places of Luke 1. 8. and Levit. 16. 17. be contradicted any wiſe by this our aſſertion. That the publick ſervice of the Church ought to be ſaid in a language which all the people may underſtand.
FINIS.