The law unsealed

And if it •e said, m•ns soul cannot be painted, but his▪ body may, and yet that picture representeth a man: I answer, it doth so, because he has but one Nature, and what representeth that, representeth the person; but it is not so with Christ, ⟨p. 36⟩his Godhead is not a distinct part of the humane Nature, as the soul of man is (which […] necessarily supposed in every living man) but a distinct nature, only united with the manhood in that one person Christ, who has no fellow; therefore what representeth him, must not represent a man only, but must represent Christ, Immanuel, God man▪ otherwise it is not his Image; beside, there is no warrant for representing him in hi• Manhood, nor any colourable possibility of it, but as men fancy; and shall that be called Christs portraiture? would that be called any other mans portraiture? which were drawn at mens pleasure, without regard to the pattern; again, there is no use o• it, for either that Image behoved to have but common estimation with other Images▪ and that would wrong Christ, or a peculiar respect and reverence, and so it sinneth against this Commandment that forbiddeth all religious reverence to Images, but he being God, and so the object of Worship, we must either divide his Natures, or say, that Image or picture representeth not Christ.

And if it •e said, m•ns soul cannot be painted, but his▪ body may, and yet that picture representeth a man: I answer, it doth so, because he has but one Nature, and what representeth that, representeth the person; but it is not so with Christ, ⟨p. 36⟩his Godhead is not a distinct part of the humane Nature, as the soul of man is (which 〈…〉 necessarily supposed in every living man) but a distinct nature, only united with the manhood in that one person Christ, who has no fellow; therefore what representet him, must not represent a man only, but must represent Christ, Immanuel, God man otherwise it is not his Image; beside, there is no warrant for representing him in hi Manhood, nor any colourable possibility of it, but as men fancy; and shall that be called Christs portraiture? would that be called any other mans portraiture? whic were drawn at mens pleasure, without regard to the paern; again, there is no use o it, for either that Image behoved to have but common estimation with other Images and that would wrong Christ, or a peculiar respect and reverence, and so it sinneth against this Commandment that forbiddeth all religious reverence to Images, but he being God, and so the object of Worship, we must either divide his Natures, or say, that Image or picture representeth not Christ.