Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 3 · Chapter 14
THE XIIII. OR XIII. CHAP.
That other holy images both might be adored profitably, and without Iewish bondage by S. Augustines owne doctrine,Sander. and also were adored within the first sixe hundreth yeares after Christe, with a defence of S. Chrisostomes liturgie against M. Iewell. Also that the generall doctrine of S. Augustine concerninge figures is applyed to Images. Images were made without all scruple in the primitiue Church. Bowing to the image of Christ in S. Chrisostoms …ime. His liturgie is defended. Seuerus painted the images of S. Martine and Paulinus in a holy place. S. Gregorie laye prostrate before an holy Image.
Saint Augustine is cited, De doct. Christian. lib. 3. cap. 9. Qui aut operatur aut veneratur, &c. Fulke.He that worketh or reuerenceth (M. Sander translateth worshippeth) a profitable signe, instituted by gods authority, whose strength and signification he vnderstandeth, doeth not reuerence (or worshippe) that which he seeth and passeth away, but rather that thing, whereunto all suche thinges are to be referred. First I note the corruptiō of Master Sanders translation, that turneth Veneratur worshippeth, after the popishe meaninge. For God did neuer institute any signe to be worshipped, in that sense which Master Sander defendeth worshippinge of Images. But all signes instituted of God are to be reuerently esteemed & regarded, as baptisme, which we do reuerently esteeme, & yet we worship not either the water, or the action of baptizing.
Secondly we hauehave to consider, how Master Sander can proue images to be profitable signes instituted by gods authoritie. They be profitable (saith hee) because they bring vsus in remembraunce of good thinges. I denie this argument, because nothing is profitable in religion but that which is instituted by God, for otherwise we might bring the gallowes into the Church, whiche bringeth vsus in remembraunce of Gods Iustice, &c. as I hauehave shewed before. Likewise the Prophet Abacuc vtterly denyeth Images to be profitable: Cap. 2. vers. 18. But let vsus see how he proueth popishe images to be instituted by Gods authoritie which is al in al, for if that be proued we wil not doubt of the profitablenesse of them. First he alledgeth the imitation of nature, and of nations, the institution of some images in the law of Moses, last of all, the tradition left to his Church freely to make images of good things.
The former reasons are answered before in their proper chapters, namely the lawe of nature and nations, cap. 11. the making of some images in Moyses lawe, cap 12. also the example of practise of this supposed tradition out of Eusebius cap. 10. And they are all three wiped away with the expresse commaundement of God in his lawe of religion: Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image, or the likenesse of any thing, &c. Neuerthelesse let vsus see how by tradition left to the Churche, images are prooued to be instituted by God. We reade (saith hee) in S. Augustine as well of the Ethnikes, as of the Christians. There is first one falshood, for Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh onelyonly of Ethnikes. De consen. Euang. lib. 1. cap. 10. which because they had seene Christes image pictured with Peter and Paule, imagined that Christ had written bookes to Peter and Paule. Secondly he citeth the wordes thus. Pluribus locis simul Petrum et Paulum cū Christo pictos viderunt, quiae merita Petri & Pauli etiam propter cundem passionis diem celebrius ac solemniter Roma commendat. They sawe in verie many places Peter & Paule painted together with Christ, because Rome doeth set foorth the merites of Peter and Paule the more famously and solemnly, euen for that they suffered both vppon one day. In this allegation, hee addeth wordes that are not in Augustine. Although not contrary to his meaning, yet shewing thereby that he borrowed this place, as manye of our Englishe papistes doe commonly, of some other mans noting, rather then of his owne reading. But the greatest fault of all is, that he doth deceiptfully suppresse the words following immediatly, which declare howe profitable Sainte Augustine esteemed the doctrine of Images to be. His whole sentence is this: Credo quod pluribus locis simul eos cum illo pictos viderunt, quia merita Petri & Pauli etiam propter cundem passionis diem celebrius & solemniter Roma commendat. Sic omnino errare meruerunt, qui Christum & Apostolos eius, non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt. I beleeue that they hauehave seene them painted with him in manye places, because Rome doeth more notably and solemnely set foorth the worthinesse of Peter and Paule, euen because of the same day of their suffering. So they were altogether worthy to be deceiued, whiche hauehave sought Christ and his Apostles not in the holy bookes, but in painted walles.
Now see with what honestie, Master Sander hath alledged this place of Augustine to prooue that images are of Gods institution. But you will saye perhappes, this place doeth prooue, that Images of Christe and his Apostles were then made by Christians, I graunte, but not in the Churches, for then the Ethnikes coulde not hauehave seene them, because they were neuer suffered to enter into the Churches of the Christians.
But Gregorie Nyssen in his Oration De Theod. martyr. laud. testyfieth, that the paynter had set foorth the whole storie of Theodorus the martyr in his Churche. And yet the Image of the martyr was none otherwise painted, then the fierce and cruell formes of the tyrauntes, neyther otherwise on the walles, then on the pauemente. For he saith, Capillorum item concinnator, historiae par opu… in pauimento quod pedibus calcatur, effecit.
Also the pauier hath made the lyke woorke of historie vppon the pauemente, whiche is trodden vnderunder feete.
These deuises of painters and pauiers Master Sander is faine to take holde of, in steede of the holy scriptures and aunciente writers. But if hee saye that Gregorius doeth also allowe these, I answere as ornamentes of the Churche, not as matter of Gods religion and worshippe, whiche yet he shoulde rather hauehave defaced with Epiphanius, then suffred or allowed for inconuenienc… that folowed.
This report of Gregorie sheweth the errour of that time, rather then prooueth images to be instituted by God. That Paulinus caused images to bee painted on the Church walles, as it is confessed to be done, so it is denied to be well done. The like I say of the images painted in Saint Martins Church in Towers in Fraunce, witnessed by Gregorius Turonensis, although it was long after the time of Paulinus, in which Satan beganne to lay the platforme for his Idolatrie, whiche afterwarde he brought into the worlde. And these be all the arguments, that he hath to prooue that images are profitable signes instituted by Gods authoritie. Except he meane the text of Paul to the Galat. 5. to be an argument, whiche he citeth to prooue that we are made free in Christ, both to knowe our signes and images to be images and signes, and also to knowe whereof they are signes, which the Iewes (saith he) did not. So that the libertie of Christ is by M. Sanders doctrine, not from a yoke of bondage and seruitude vntounto ceremonies, but from ignorance and want of knowledge of the vse of them. And whereas by the lawe we are vtterly discharged of Images, this mans freedome is to binde vsus to the seruice of Images. O blasphemous & absurde doctrine! Againe, howe falsely doeth he affirme yt the godly Iewes knewe not whereunto their signes were referred, as though Messias was not preached to them by those signes. Likewise as vntruely he saith, that the signes of the Gentiles ended in the onelyonly honour of the creature, and not of God, when they did neuer honour any creature, but their finall ende was thereby to honour God, and not a creature.
Againe, what beastly doctrine is this, that he affirmeth yt ye signes of ye Iewes are not vtterly abolished, but changed into ye sacraments directly instituted by Christ, but also into signes made with faithfull mens handes, as Altars, vestments, Chalices, lightes and images, whereby he maketh Christian liberty but a chaunge from one bondage into an other, and yet worse then that of the Iewes, because they were subiect to the yoke of God, wee must be vnderunder the yoke of mens institutions and traditions.
But hee procedeth and will proue that images may be profitably and freely worshipped, and that in practise it was so done within the first sixe hundreth yeares, by the testimony of Chrisostome, Paulinus, and Gregorie.
Chrisostome is alledged in his Liturgie, where it is said that the priest turning to the image of Christ, betweene the two doores, bowing his heade, saith a prayer.
But because this liturgie is proued to be false, & counterfet by maister Iewell, for that therein is conteined a prayer for Pope Nicholas which lyued not 500. yeares after Chrisostome, and for the Emperour Alexius which liued neere 700. yeares after Chrisostome, maister Sander taketh vppon him the defense of it to bee written by Chrisostome, which was written seuen hundreth yeares after his death. His first reason is, that it beareth his name, which is a good reason to proue all forgeries to bee true writings. Secondly other Grecians which hauehave written since that time, do make mention of it, as Proclus, Cabaselas Methenencis, and M. Ephesius. But of these, some onelyonly make mention that Chrisostome did write a liturgie, they doe not iustifie that this which is nowe seene is that, the other being of late dayes, are not to bee credited. Thirdly he saith yt Greeke church doth allow it for Chrisostomes, as yt latine doth those Psalmes Quicun que vult to be written by Athanasius, and Te deum by Ambrose and Augustine. And yet the best learned in these dayes, cannot be perswaded of those authors although the Psalmes be good and Godly. Fourthly hee woulde faine disproue M. Iewells reason, touching those prayers for Pope Nicolas and the Emperour Alexius, saying that in all publike seruice & formes of prayers there are certeine cōmon places, which must be left voide for names according to the times and persons.
But these places are not left voide, but filled with the names of the princes and prelats of that time, in which it was first written, as the publike seruice in king Henries dayes, in king Edwardes time, yea prayers made in Queene Maries time, and in Queene Elizabeths time, do proue and shewe in what time they were first made. But in some copyes (saith he) the places are left voide. Hee must proue those copies to be auncienter then the time of Alexius, or else they helpe not his cause. But seeing there is no copie that hath any other names but these, it is manifest that this liturgie was first composed in the dayes of the Emperour Alexius, and Pope Nicholas. And where as maister Sander vseth many wordes and reasons to proue, that this Pope Nicholas was not Bishoppe of Rome, as maister Iewell saith, but Patriarch of Constantinople in the reigne of Alexius, I yeelde vntounto him: for thereby it is more certeine yt this liturgie was made in ye time of Alexius, then if it had beene Nicholas of Rome, which was neere 200. yeares before Alexius. Last of all where as Claudius de Sanctis that brauling Sorbonist, woulde proue by conferring it with diuerse places taken out of Chrisostomes owne works, the saide liturgie to be his, hee hath laboured in vaine. For as it may be graunted, that diuerse things in this liturgie are taken out of that, which perhaps Chrisostome did write, yet it followeth not that the whole forme thereof is his, but that the same was corrupted and altered, with additions and detractions in the dayes of Alexius, and especially in this matter of the images, which I proue by two reasons. First among so many counterfet and falsified authorities as were alledged out of old writers in the idolatours counsell of Nice the second for the vse and worship of images, this liturgie was neuer alledged, though other testimony of Chrisostome was cited which could not hauehave beene omitted seeing nothing is so notorius as the publike seruice of the Church. Whereby it is manifest that the liturgie which went vnderunder the name of Chrisostome in that time, had in it no mention of images or the worshipping of them.
My seconde reason is, that Chrisostome himselfe in his owne vndoubted writings, coumpteth the art of painting to be altogether superfluous, and such as might well be spared out of the worlde, which he would not hauehave done, if he had appointed in the publike seruice of the Church, the vse of an image as necessarie or profitable. For thus he writeth in Math Hom. 50. Ne que pingendi ariem aut nunimulariam, artes ego nominarim, quippe cum nihil conserant necessariarum rerum, quibus vita nostra continetur. Neither would I call the art of painting or of exchaunging monyes by the name of artes, seeing that they yeelde nothing off those necessarye thinges, in whiche our life is conteyned.
Nowe as concerning the image of S. Martine painted in the Baptistery by Seuerus, and allowed by Paulinus bishop of Nola, I hauehave aunswered before, that his errour proueth not Gods institution. But whereas he citeth his verse to proue the worshipping of images, he doth him wronge. Martinum veneranda viri testatur imago. The reuerende image of the man doth shew forth Martin: for pocres hauehave euer had licence of all figures in their verses, wherefore he doth none otherwise call the image reuerende, or to be reuerenced, then Virgill calleth the image of his father Anchises troubled: Admonet in somnis & turbida terret imago: Meaning not that the image, but that Anchises was troubled, so doth Paulinus meane that S. Martine, and not his image was to be reuerenced.
Finally where as maister Iewell saith that Gregorie speaketh not one worde of the adoration of images, maister Sander obiecteth this saying lib. 7. Ep. 53. Non quasi ante diuinitatem, ante illam imaginem prosternimur: whiche he englisheth thus, we ly prostrate before ye image, not as before god. And then he triumpheth like a crow in a gutter, saying, is not lying flat downe before an image, one word spoken of adoration of images? yea, it is cleere yt it was the vse in Saint Gregories time, to lye prostrate or to fall downe before holy images. What say you maister Sander will you abide by it? HaueHave you either forgotten the grammer you taught vsus before of ioyning the aduerbe with the verbe, or thinke you that we hauehave learned so little either grammer or logike, that wee cannot see a difference betweene a proposition affirmatiue and negatiue? If a boy should construe Gregories latine as you hauehave englished it, hee were worthie of a dosen strips, though he had gon to grāmer schoole but two or three yeres. Non quasi ante diuinitatē, ante illam imaginē prosternimur. We fall not downe before that image as before ye diuinitie: thus would I english it & conster it if it were for my life. And that which you make affirmatiue, I must make negatiue, for I hauehave learned fiue or sixe & twentie yeare agoe, that it is a negatiue proposition, when the principall Verbe is denyed. But perhaps you will gather that though he fell not downe before an image, as before God, yet he fell downe before it, as before an image.
Howe certeine this collection is, you may see by an hundreth examples if you list to consider them. If I saye, Non quasi ante diuinitatem, ante diabolum prosternimur: woulde you translate it we fall downe before the deuill, but not as before God, or rather thus, we fal not down before the diuell as we do before God.
Non quasi panem, lapides commedimus, would you turne it thus? we eate stones, but not as bread: or rather we eate not stones as we eate breade.
Non quasi ante regem, ante mendicum prosternimur, woulde you translate it thus? we fall downe before a begger but not as before a king, or else wee fall not downe before a begger as before a King. Such examples might bee multiplied infinitely, by which you may see, what pith there is in maister Sanders argument, to proue that Saint Gregory lay prostrate before an image, where as contrariwise he denyeth it, and maketh such prostration and falling downe with affection of religion to be dewe onelyonly to GOD, euen as the Angell infinitly more excellent then all the images that euer were made, refusing that honour offered to him by Saint Iohn, willed him to giuegive it to God. foreign, fall downe to God. Apoc. 22.9.