A Defense of the Catholic Faith, Book 2 · Article 19
ARTICLE XIX. Of the Image of God.
The KINGS Confeſſion.YEa, the Image of God himſelfe is not only expreſly forbidden to bee worſhipped, but euen to bee made. The reaſon is giuen, that no eye euer ſaw God; and how can we paint his face, when Moſes (the man that euer was moſt familiar which God) neuer ſaw but his backe parts? Surely, ſince he cannot be drawne to the viue, it is a thankeleſſe labour to marre it with a falſe repreſentation, which no Prince, nor ſcarce any other man will be contented with in their owne pictures. Let them therefore that maintaine this doctrine, anſwere it to Chriſt at the latter day, when he ſhall accuſe them of Idolatrie; And then I doubt if he will be payed with ſuch nice ſophiſticall Diſtinctions.
For anſwere whereunto Coeffeteau ſaith, that the Images of God are not made to repreſent his eſſence, but onlie to expreſſe the formes wherein he hath appeared. That none is ſo brutiſh to beleeue that any can paint an eſſence immortall, infinite, &c.
I expected that M. Coeffeteau would hauehave produced ſome commandement of God; for his ground of the Images of God; or ſome place to ſhew that God was pleaſed, to hauehave his Images made, ſeing they are not made to repreſent his eſſence: at leaſt ſome auncient example either true, or falſe, after his old manner. But here is none of theſe, he only ſaith that Images doe not expreſſe his being. I anſwere that this may bee ſaid aſwell of the Images of men, yea of beaſtes: for their pictures doe not repreſent their eſſence, and neuer was any man ſo vnreaſonable as to thinke that the eſſence of anie thing could be expreſſed in a picture. Then in like manner doe I ſay, that if theſe Images be not the Images of God, becauſe they repreſent not his eſſence, then the Images of Saints are not their Images, becauſe they repreſent not their eſſence. And indeed not the vulgar people only, but the Doctors alſo doe call ſuch pictures the Image of God, and the Trinitie, The title of the eight chapter of Bellarmines booke of Images, is this, That the Images of God are not forbidden. Now there is no picture, which hath not ſome reſemblance with the patterne, and eueryevery Image is a likeneſſe. Therefore, our aduerſaries muſt hold that there is ſome aſsimilation, and reſemblance betweene God, and his Images, for if there be none, they are not the Images of God.
Now theſe Statues and pictures are to be ſeene in all their Churches, and in the beginning of the Bibles printed at Rome by the authority of Sixtus Quintus and Clement 8. yea, they ſerue for ſignes at Tauerne dores, they vſe to ſay Maſter N. lodgeth at the Trinity: and his horſes are ſet at Gods-head, a matter ridiculouſly prophane, and reproachfull to Chriſtian Religion.
It appeareth alſo that theſe Images of God, are not made to repreſent the formes wherein God hath appeared, for they commonly picture God in a pontificall Throne, in the habite of a Pope with a triple Crowne, and a Papall robe; as if you ſhould ſay, behold Pope Iulius granting pardons. There wants nothing but a fanne of a Peacockes taile on either ſide, ſurely God neuer appeared in this habite, it makes me wonder whence it comes; that the Images of the Trinity are commonly duſty, and Spiders playing about them, but the Images of our Lady, and of the Saints, are diapred, and trimply appaireled: me thinkes in regard of the Papall habit, at leaſt they ſhould be neatly kept.
It is true that God appeared vntounto Daniel in the ſhape of an old man, for he knew well that Daniel would not Idolatrouſly abuſe the viſion, but when he ſpeakes to the children of Iſrael, hee ſuffered them not to ſee him in any likeneſſe, for feare (ſaith he) leaſt ye corrupt your ſelues in making a repreſentation of any figure, of Male, or Female Deut. 4.16. And me thinkes when they obiect this apparition in the figure of an old man, they knock themſelues on the fingers. For did the Church then vponupon this occaſion repreſent God in that figure? can it be found that after that time the Image of God was painted in the Temple, or in the Synagogue? And if the faithfull in thoſe daies did it not for what reaſon ſhall we hauehave licenſe to doe that which they thought vnlawfull. God doth that which ſeemeth good to his wiſedome, but to vsus it belongeth to doe what he commaundeth, for his commandemen…, and not his actions muſt bee the rule of our Religion. If he commaund the Iſraelites to ſpoyle the Egyptians, or Abraham to ſacrifice his Sonne, doth it follow that we muſt therfore breake his law, by the imitation of theſe examples? if a woodden old man that people call God the Father, muſt be worſhipped, becauſe it reſembles the old man that appeared vntounto Daniel, why ſhould we not much rather worſhip old men aliue, which doe much more reſemble him?
This is the reaſon why ſome Doctors of the Church of Rome, as Abulenſis, Durand, and Pereſius doe condemne theſe Images: Yea, the ſecond Nicence Councell how corrupt ſoeuer, yet condemneth them in the ſixth and ſeuenth Acts. Nicephorus a later and ſuperſtitious Author, lib. 18. cap 53. ſaith,aImagines patris & Spiritus S. effigiant quod perquam abſurdum eſt. The Armenian Heretickes doe paint the Image of God the Father, and the Holy Ghoſt, which is moſt abſurd. bNec id ipſum quod ſed…re pater dicitur, flexis poplitibus fieri putandum eſt. Ne in illud meidamus ſacrilegium, quo execratur Apoſtolus eos, qui commutauerunt gloriam in corruptibilis Dei in ſimilitudinem corruptibilis hominis. Tale en m ſimulacrum Deo nefas eſt Chriſtiano in templo collocare, multo magis in corde.Saint Auſten in the ſeuenth Chapter of his Booke of Faith, and of the Creede, ſaith thus, When it is ſaid that the Father ſitteth, we muſt not thinke that he hath Legs to bow, for feare wee fall into that ſacriledge, for which the Apoſtle deteſteth thoſe that turned the glorie of the incorruptible God, into the ſimilitude of a corruptible man, for to erect any ſuch Image vntounto God in the Church, is a thing vnlawfull for a Chriſtian, and much more in his heart, &c. He doeth not onelyonly ſay that it is vnlawfull to deſire to repreſent his eſſence, but to make an Images of God ſitting, his hammes bowed in the ſimilitude of a man: which is the faſhion of the Images of God which are made in theſe dayes. Now, no man that hath any drop of free iudgement can make himſelfe beleeue, that any Chriſtian euer thought to repreſent the eſſence of God by ſuch Pictures, ſeeing they cannot expreſſe the eſſence of man.
In briefe, by this abuſe doth God ſhew vntounto vsus, into what headlong courſes man runneth when hee forſakes his holy word, and that after the ſhipwrack of piety, he loſeth euen his very reaſon, for the Lord hauing created man in the Image of God, Loe heere are men that make God in the Image of man: as if they would exchange good turnes with him. And indeed his Maieſty of England ſaith true, that the meaneſt man would not be ſo reſembled, for what man would be repreſented in the ſhape of a Piſmiere, or of a Frog: and yet betweene an Ant and the greateſt Monarch, there is ſome proportion, and between things finite, the diſtance cannot be infinite; but betweene the ſhape of a man that is finite, and the Maieſty of God which is infinite, there can be no proportion. beſides, the diſtinctions and excuſes which they bring forth, are ſchoole diſtinctions, not vnderſtood by the common people, whoſe minds are fixed on that which they ſee, and ſeeing eueryevery day in their Pariſh Church a God of ſtone, clothed like a Pope, muſt needes imagine very groſſe things, and ſuch as are very iniurious to the eternal Deitie.