Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 3 · Chapter 12
Sander.THE XII. or XI. CHAP.
It is proued out of the worde of God, that the images of honorable things ought to be honoured. Also that M. Iewell vnderstandeth not the places of scripture alledged by the fathers of the 7. general councel. What proportion is betweene a saint & his image. Iacob adoring the top of Iosephes rod, shewed that a creature without sense may be adored for his sake which hath reason and vertue. The signe of the crosse shall appeare at the day of iudgement, to the confusion of those which hauehave nowe throwne it downe.
Pope Adrian writing to the Emperour concerning the second Nicen Councel,Fulk. Con. Nic. 2. Act. 2. alledgeth for the making and honoring of images, that saying of Genesis: God made man according to his owne image and similitude: which he expoundeth to consist in free wil, and in calling all creatures by their proper names. M. Iewel not vnderstanding how these places of scripture cited in that Councel, ought to be applied to making and honouring of images, mocketh at all those Fathers learning &c. And so he might right well, being a companie of vnlearned asses and flattering parasites, who to currie fauour with that idolatrous Empresse Irene, abused the scriptures most shamefully and absurdly, to the maintenance of the making and worshipping of images. But Maister Sander hath chosen a fewe of those places, thinking to wring out some fore matter of them, leauing out the rest (which hee was ashamed to name) for breuities sake. And first he bringeth in the authoritie of Damascene, a worshipfull Doctour, aboue seuen hundreth yeares past, which bringeth many of the same places for the same purpose, making a comparison betweene him and Maister Iewell, and both their books. Well, let the iudgement be among learned men. But Damascene. De Ortho. fid. cap. 17. frameth an argument thus. GOD made man to his owne image. For whose cause therefore doe wee worship one an other, but bicause we are made after the image of GOD? Alledging Basil, which faith, The honour of the image is transferred into the honour of the paterne.
Cyrillus likewise reasoneth in Cat. 12. The woodden image of an earthly King is honoured, howe much more the reasonable image of GOD. But these reasons, that serue for the honouring and reuerencing of man, which is Gods true image, for Gods sake serue nothing in the worlde for honouring of false images artificiall, which containe nothing in them of that which is to be worshipped or honoured in the patterne. And therefore Maister Iewel may well mocke such a bald reason, as hath no good consequence in it. Man being the true image of God, made by God him selfe, and hauing in him a true similitude of those things which are honourable in God, as wisdome, holinesse, righteousnesse, &c. is to be honoured for Gods sake: therefore a stocke which is a false or counterfet image of Christe made by a cursed man, and hath no true resemblance in it of those things that are honourable in Christ, is to be honored for Christes sake. For what wit, sense, or shame hath he, that maketh such an argument? But (saith he) we must marke the proportion betwene the image and the thing whereof it is an image, to see the weight of this reason. But what proportion is there betweene truth and falshood? euen such there is betwene man the image of God, and a blocke the image of man. But it beareth mans shape, & also his name (saith he) but it beareth it falsely say I. For mans shape is not a dead or insensible shape, no more then a dead carcase is a man, and much lesse it deserueth the name of a man. Yet continuing this proportion, hee saith: Among all men, none is so truely honourable, as those who continued to the end of their life according to that image of GOD wherevnto they were first made, such are all the Saintes. Setting the question of images aside, see howe he honoureth the Saintes with the dishonour of the redemption of Christ, which was needlesse to them, if they continued in the image of God, in which they were first made. The Apostle witnesseth, that by Christe we are restored vntounto the image of God, from whom by sinne we are fallen Coll. 3. ver. 10. For to say, that any man hath cō tinued according to the image of God to his liues end, is to say that he neuer sinned.
Furthermore he saith, their images are made in ye faith of Gods church. A wholsome faith, which is cōtrarie to Gods word, yea, he concludeth there is no doubt, but by the force of Gods word we are bound to honour Saints images, bicause thei are made according to the shape of them in that behalfe as they were most like vntounto God. First, where is yt worde of God (M. San) by whose force we are bound? You seeme to be an anthropomorphite, when you say that Saintes images are made according to the shape of them in that behalfe, as they were most like vntounto God. For the images of Saints, when they are best made, are made but according to the shape of their bodies. And were the Saints most like to God in ye shape of their bodies? O brutish heretique! But let vsus see an other conclusion in this Popish proportion. Our Ladies image approcheth neerer to hir in nature, then she doth approch to God, therefore her image must be more honored for her sake, then she her selfe for Gods sake. By ye former proposition we must learne, that ye man which made our Ladies image is able to make a truer image thē God, who made our Ladie to his image. For to compare the substances of the images, is nothing to the purpose, to shew ye excellencie of the images, as you your selfe (M. San.) in your Metaphysicall abstractions hauehave taught vsus. For an image of stone being like to a man, is a better image then one of golde being not like to him. I say a better image, & not a better matter. And will you now compare the matter of our Ladies image (for so you cal her) as liker in nature to her substance, then her substance is to God, to proue her image in it more to be honoured, then the image of God in her? Truly if you be so insensible, that you see not that grosnesse of this falshod, I am ashamed in respect of that Vniuersitie which gaue you the title of a Doctour, not worthie with these arguments to step out of ye schooles of ye sophisters. Last of al you reason thus, the image of God in vsus may be dimned & darkned, insomuch yt men hauehave ben worshipped, as Gods, but our Ladies artificial image being onelyonly knowne or called by the name of her shape and image, can neuer be principally worshipped as our Lady her selfe. You play the sophister too foolishly, for no more can a man so long as hee is knowne and called by the name of the image & similitude of God, b… principally worshipped as God him selfe. But that name forgotten, man hath bene worshipped as God, so hath the image of our Ladie bearing the name of our Ladie, bene worshipped, as her selfe, or rather as GOd him selfe, neither hath the insensiblenesse of images, defended them from daunger of being worshipped as God.
An other testimonie of scripture yt Pope Adrian citeth, is Gen. 28. of the stone which Iacob set vp right, for a monument or standing image (saith M. San.) and powred oyle vponupon it, and called the name of the place Bethel, that is, the house of God. Therefore we may set vp images, and honour them: a substantial reason. For make as mysticall interpretations as you can, of the stone to signifie Christe, & the oyle ye spirituall vnction of the holy Ghost: yet was it no image, but a signe or monument erected in remembrance of the vision, by a speciall instinct of Gods spirite, which when the Israelites would drawe into an example of wilworship, erecting a temple there, and setting vp an image thereon, the place was called of the Prophetes Bethauen, that is, the house of vanitie, and not Bethel, the house of God. O see the 4.5. &. 10. Chapter.
And whereas Augustine noteth, that although he called the stone,Quest. in Her. 8. Gods house, yet hee worshipped not the stone, neither sacrificed to the stone, nor called it God: You thinke to escape by aunswering, that no more doe you adore images of stone with godly honour, or with any honour for the stones sake. But Augustine denyeth yt he resorted afterward to it, yt he adored the stone with any honor at al, or in any respect, or that he did any thing like to idolatrie, but you adore the image of Christ & cal it Christe, and goe a pilgrimage to it, therefore Iacobs example can not shrowd you from idolatrie. For although the annoynting of the stone were a consecration of it to be a holy monument by a speciall direction of Gods spirite, yet it followeth not, that it was any adoration of the stone, or that eueryevery man may set vp, and annoynt stones after that manner, which hath no such warrant of Gods worde or his spirite. And that God chose one place aboue another for his honour, it proueth not, that men may choose one stocke aboue another to make an idoll thereof or an image to worship, as you had rather call it.
The thirde text of scripture is, that Iacob adored the toppe of Iosephs rodde, or scepter: Heb. 11. Which Sedulius saith did mystically betoken the kingdome of Christ, to be honoured in the end of the worlde, as he adored the rodde or scepter of his sonne. Yet is there here no image honoured. Nay here is not the toppe of Iosephe… scepter honoured out of the scripture. For the Hebrue text is, He worshipped toward the bedshead. Gene. 47. vers. 31. And the Greeke text. Heb. 11. foreign, and he worshipped toward the end of his staffe, or leaning vppon the end of his staffe, So that neither in the Hebrue, nor Greeke, there is any worshipping of the staffe or scepter of Ioseph.
The 4. text of scripture: God appearing to Moses bad him pull off his shooes, for the place where he stoode was holy ground. The presence of God made the ground-holie. What then? Therefore, an image appointed to bring vsus to the remembraunce of holie thinges may be holy & honoured. I denie the argument, where is the presence of God in the image, to make it holie?
The 5. Dauid honoured the Arke and daunced before it. The Arke was a holie sacrament ordeined by God, therefore hath he nothing to do with images forbidden of God.
The 6. God cōmandeth the brasen serpent to be made Nu. 21. Shewe the like speciall commaundement to dispense with the general lawe. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image, for the making of your Popishe image and the day is yours.
The 7. the tribes of Ruben, and Gad, and ye halfe tribe of Manasses, made an image of an altar. Ios. 22. Nay they made an altar in deed for a memoriall, & yet their facte was not cōmēdable, though it was in some sort excusable.
The 8. God commanded two cherubims to be made ouer the merciemercy seate Exod. 25. those were grauen Angels (saith M. Sander) of the highest degree in heauen saue one. O vaine presumptuous hypocrite, that wil take vponupon him to knowe the degrees of Angels, which the scripture hath neuer reuealed. To this I aunswere as to the brasen serpent, shewe the worde of God dispensing with the generall lawe for any images in religion. The rending of the vaile a sunder, sheweth vsus not the images of Cherubims, as on the Arke he saith, much lesse other newe Images which were neuer there, but the glorie of Christ with vncouered face, while we our selues are transformed into the same image. 2. Cor. 3. ver. 18.
The 9. the temple was an image of Christes body, therefore the Iewes had an image of Christ openly set vp before their eyes. The temple was a figure of Christes bodie, so was euerie sacrifice that was offered, but no image.
The 10. the Temple was honoured by the Iewes, yea, & Daniel prayed toward Ierusalem when the Temple was destroied, you might as wel say, they honored Ierusalem. No doubt but the temple was reuerently esteemed of the godly, as a place erected by Gods commandement, which seeing images doe lacke, there passeth no consequence from the honouring of the Temple, to the honouring of images.
The 11. ye law had a shadow of good things to come, & not the self image of things He. 10. therfore if the dumb shadowes of the lawe were to be worshipped, much more the expressed image of his bodie, of those who will perfourme that in the new Testament, which was prefigured in the lawe? Who can beare these blasphemies? Did the shadowes of the lawe prefigure the worshipping of images, or our redemption by Christe? Are your dombe stockes and stones that selfe image or patterne of those shadowes which the Apostle speaketh of, or was Christe himselfe? O brasen forehead and blasphemous mouth!
The 12. Gods honour is giuen to the fleshe of Christ in respect of the vnitie in person with the Godhead, therefore the image may be honoured in an other respect. But euerie respect (thou blundering idolater) cannot make a cause of honour, but onelyonly the vnitie in person, which seeing it is not in thy blockes with the paterne, thine argument proueth nothing.
The 13. the image of Caesar in his coyne, proueth, that it may be giuen to Cęsar, so doth euerie image leade vsus to that truth whereof it is an image. No Maister Sander, the image of Caesar on his coyne proueth that the Iewes were subiect to Caesar, and therefore tribute was due vntounto him. So your argument hath no deduction from Caesars image.
The 14. the signe of the crosse is to be worshipped, for Amelech was ouerthrowen by that signe, which Moses made when he prayed with his handes lifted vp and spred abroade. Exod. 17. Therefore we may and must honour the signe of the crosse, in what matter or stuffe so euer it be made. Vanitie of vanities, and nothing but vanitie, where is there any one title in that Chapter, of the signe of a crosse, yea or of the spreading of his handes abroade whiche shoulde make a crosse, with his lifting vppe?
The 15. the signe of Thau, that is to say of the crosse, was marked in the forehead of suche as hated idolatrie. Ezech. 9. and they were not slaine corporally, no more shall they be slaine euerlastingly which now imbrace it. An easie way to escape euerlasting death. But where finde you that the signe of Thau was the signe of the crosse? Or that the print of the letter Thau was set on their forheades? For this worde Thau is as much to say, as a marke or signe, and not a speciall figure or marke, although the vulgar translation doeth not translate it, but setteth it in the Hebrue worde as he found it.
The 16. the signe of the sonne of man shall appeare at the day of iudgement Mat. 24. which is the signe of the crosse. Howe proue you that Maister Sander? Or if you could proue it, what is that to worshipping of images▪ You say it shalbe to the confusion of them which hauehave throwen downe that signe, but you onelyonly say it, and then we force not. Yea say you, a thousand times, what say I, a thousand? Euerlastingly accursed is he that hateth or destroyeth any one iote belonging to Christ, be it neuer so farre distant from his holy flesh and person. Then how many times accursed are they, that hauehave destroyed so many bibles, in which was not ten thousand iots belonging to Christ, but his whole doctrine perfectly conteined?
The 17. the people Act. 5. coueted to lie onelyonly within the compasse of S. Peters shadowe, the woman desired to touche but the hemme of Christes garment. Why, because any thing of his is worthie of estimation? Verily the image of Christ is somewhat of his, or else it were not his image. No verily M. San. the image of Christ is nothing of his truly, but falsely, nothing to his honour, but to his dishonor. The enimies of Christ are none of his, & yet we say these be his enimies. But you say: if a man had that faith, as to beleeue, that if he might touche, or onelyonly see his image, he should be safe, I see no reason why that faith may not make him safe. O blinde beast, or rather blocke that seest no reason, why that faith which was neuer heard out of Gods worde, should not saue a man. But the heretikes you say tye all thinges to his person, and nothing to his other instrumentes. The word of God teacheth vsus to tie al things to Christ, and to acknowledge none other instrumentes, then he hath prouided and appointed for vsus. For images be the instruments of the Diuel, and not of Christe to worke by.
The last. All that euer Isai Cap. 2. Ieremie, Cap. 50. Ezechiel Cap. 30. Micheas, Cap. 1. Sophonias, Cap. 2. Zacharie, Cap. 13. or King Dauid In Psal. 9. say of the destruction of Idols in ye time of grace, is vterly void & of none effect, if it be not lawful to worship, or adore images. Do you not maruel what is ye reason of this monstrous assertion? Verily euen as monstrous a lie, yt the whole Church of Christ in all Temples, & Chappels, always & especially since the time of Constantine the great, hath set vp and vsed reuerently the Images of Christ and of his Saints. What answere shall I make to this? Let him hauehave the whetstone as big as a mountaine.