The second tome of homilies of such matters as were promised, and entitled in…The second tome of homilees of such matters as were promised, and intituled in…

Well, then we be come to their second allegation, which in part we would not stick to grant them. For we are not so superstitious or scrupulous, that we do abhor either flowers wrought in Carpets, hangings, and other arras, either the Images of Princes printed or stamped in their Coins, which when Christ did see in a Roman Coin, we read not that he reprehended it, neither do we condemn the arts of painting and image making, as wicked of them selves. But we would admit and grant them, that images used for no religion, or superstition rather, we mean images of none worshipped, nor in danger to be worshipped of any, may be suffered. But images placed publicly in Temples, can not possibly be without danger of worshipping and idolatry, wherefore they are not publicly to be had or suffered in Temples and Churches. The Jews, to whom this law was first given (and yet being a moral commandment, and not ceremonial, as all Doctors interpret it, bindeth us aswell as them) the Jews I say, who should have the true sense and meaning of Gods law so peculiarly given ⟨p. 95⟩unto them, neither had in the beginning any images publicly in their Temple (as Origins ¹and Josephus at large declareth) neither after the restitution of the Temple, would by any means consent to Herod, Pilate, or Petronius, that images should be placed only in the Temple at Jerusalem, although no worshipping of images was required at their hands: but rather offered them selves to the death, then to assent that images should once be placed in the Temple of God, neither would they suffer any image maker among them. And Origene addeth this cause, least their minds should be plucked from God, to the contemplation of earthly things. And they are much commended for this earnest zeal, in maintaining of Gods honour and true religion. And trueth it is, that the Jews and Turks, who abhor images & idols as directly forbidden by Gods word, will never come to the trueth of our religion, whiles these stumbling blocks of images remain amongest us, and lye in their way. If they object yet the brazen serpent which Moses did set up, or the images of the Cherubims, or any other Images which the Jews had in their Temple, the answer is easy.

Well, then we be come to their seconde allegation, whiche in parte we woulde not sticke to graunte them. For we are not so superstitious or scrupulous, that we do abhorre eyther flowres wrought in Carpettes, hangynges, and other arrasse, eyther the Images of Princes prynted or stamped in their Coynes, whiche when Christe did see in a Romane Coyne, we reade not that he reprehended it, neyther do we condemne the artes of payntyng and image making, as wicked of them selues. But we would admit and graunt them, that images vsed for no religion, or superstition rather, we meane images of none worshipped, nor in daunger to be worshypped of any, may be suffred. But images placed publiquely in Temples, can not possiblye be without daunger of worshyppyng and idolatrie, wherfore they are not publiquely to be had or suffered in Temples and Churches. The Jewes, to whom this lawe was firste geuen (and yet beyng a morall commaundement, and not ceremoniall, as all Doctours interpret it, byndeth vs aswel as them) the Jewes I saye, who shoulde haue the true sense and meanyng of Gods lawe so peculierly geuen