Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 3 · Chapter 18 – Part
CHAP. XVIII. OR XVII.
Whether the same degree of honour be due to the Images of Christ, or of his Saintes, which is due to Christ and to the Saintes themselues. Three things are to be considered in an artificial image. M. Iewels forging is detected. Doulia onelyonly cōmeth to Christ by his image. M. Iewell alledgeth wordes out of a booke which is forged. The Churche honoureth not the image for his owne sake.Sande…
M.S. confesseth this pointe to be in controuersie betweene the Catholikes themselues.Fulk. But yet he saith it is a question of phylosophie rather then of diuinitie, which ye church hath not determined. As though the churche had any thing to do to determine questions of phylosophie: or as though a question about the true worship of God, were not a question of diuinitie. His sophisticall reasons on both sides are superfluous to repeat, seeinge we take neither of both parts, but denie that any kinde of religious honour is to be giuen to images, yet briefely I will runne ouer the contentes of the chapter. Three things (he saith) are to be considered in an artificial image, the matter, the forme, and the representation. The two former deserue no honour in religion, but the representation onelyonly. The image as a representation, is considered either as a part from the trueth, and then it hath a lesse honour thē the trueth, or els together with the trueth, and then it must hauehave all one honour with the trueth.
And then he maketh the question this, whether as his minde is in one instant mooued and caried by the meane of ye image to the remembrance of the trueth, so the honor of both be all one or no? But if he were in ye schooles at Cambridge, the boyes would tell him, that there can bee no mouinge in one instant, because in euerie moouinge there must bee the marke from whence, and the marke whereunto the moouinge is. Neuerthelesse hee aunswereth this question, with a doughtie distinction, that the honour giuen to the image, and to Christe, is either the same in number, or the same in kinde or degree. And his opinion is, that it is the same in number, but not in degree. And of this aunswere he maketh the seuenth generall councell auctor, Actione, 4. Where Iohannes vicegerent of the East, saith, Non sunt duae adorationes sed vna adoratio imaginis & primi exēplaris cuius est imago. There are not two adorations, but one adoration of the image, and of the first examplar whereof it is an image. And here he raileth against M. Iewel, for falsifying and forging in translating duae adorationes: two sortes of worshipping and exemplifyinge his doctrine by Latria and Doulia whereof Iohannes meant not, but the contrarie is taught before in the same Action. How impudent and shamelesse the cauill of Master Sander is, I hauehave shewed before, when I rehearsed howe Constantius bishoppe of Constantia in Cypres, affirmeth that he woulde giuegive the same honour to images, that he did to the holy trinitie that giueth life, vntounto whome al the rest did assent. So that M. Sanders opinion is contrary to the determination of the councel. For he holdeth that not Latria, but Doulia only commeth to Christ by his images. By which opinion, you see how greatly Christ is promoted, that in steed of Latria, a Diuine honour, which they confesse to be due to him, he must be content with the lower degree of honor by his image, because the image can receiue nor cary no greater. But if the image be neither a receiuer, nor a carier, Christ must lose all his honour, as he doth indeed, which is that way offered. Yet (saith Master Sander) doth not his image any more hinder his honour, then Sainte Paule doth. For when I honour S. Paule for Christs sake, no greater honour then Doulia commeth to Christ Verely Master Sander, how it is when you honour S. Paule, I knowe not, but when I honour him for Christes sake, I honour not him, but Christ with Diuine honour, as the onelyonly author of those giftes of his spirite, by whiche he is preferred before other men. And where you say M. Iewel alledgeth wordes out of a book of Carolus Magnus, written against that Idolatrous synode of Nice, which is forged, you speake not more peremtorily then falsly and perniciously. For what reason hauehave you to prooue that booke to be forged: forsooth, you aske howe could Carolus Magnus write such a book, which built so many churches and monasteries? As though Churches and monasteries could not bee builded but by an idolater. Yea, which so diligently obeyed the B. of Rome which crowned him. As though the bishop of Rome crowned him Emperour, to be his slaue and an Idolater, who left so many reliques at Aquisgraine and a little image of our Ladie with other Iewels: Paraduenture as truely as the image of Diana came to the Ephesians from Iupiter. Who caused the French men to conforme themselues in their Church song to the Romanes. But where finde you that hee caused them to conforme themselues in image worshipping to the Grecians? Finally a booke of such smal credit that neither the librarie whence it was taken, nor towne where it is printed, nor the man who printed it, is named. These be weightie reasons to discredit ye booke, as though it were necessarie that eueryevery booke must come out of a librarie, some hauehave ben preserued in priuate studies, some hauehave beene closed vp in walles. The place and name of the printer is not expressed, for that it is like to hauehave bee printed, where it might not be suffered to be solde. But ye very stile argueth it is not forged in our time and I hauehave before it a testimony of Mattheus West-monasteriensis which was writen about 200. yeares agoe, that such a booke was written against that councell by Albinus or Alcuinus, and presented to the French King Carolus, whose name it beareth, not perhappes written by him, but by his commaundement and authority published.
After this he discourseth vponupon Thomas of Aquines opinion, which holdeth that diuine honour which they cal datria, is due to the image of Christ, which if it be an errour, (saith maister Sander;) it is an errour in Phisophie, which to affirme is a most shamelesse absurditie. Last of all he concludeth against S. Thomas that a lesse degree of honour is dewe to images, then to ye paterne: affirming that ye church honoreth not ye image for his own sake, for no man is taught to beleeue in images, or to cal them his gods, or to do sacrifice to them. What say you M. Sander, who teacheth pilgrimage to images, doth not your churche? And how can they pray to thē, if they do not beleeue in them? Who teacheth them to cal an image Christ, that is their lord and God, but euen you which defend images to be honoured by the names that they hauehave of ye things whereof they be images. Therefore when you call an ymage Christ, you call it God, and Lord, sauiour, and redeemer. The image of the Trinitie, what call you it but the trinitie? Fie vppon this horrible idolatrie which is defended with such a sleueles excuse, that you honour not the image for his owne sake, no more did the Gentiles their images. Chrisostom in Homi. 18. in Ep. ad Eph. writeth thus of them, Cum illi dicimus quòd simulachrū adoret, non inquit simulacrum, sed Venerem sed Martem. Et cum rogamui quae est ista Venus? Qui grauiores inter eos sunt, respondent, voluptas. & quis est Mars? Animus masculus & vehemens. When we say vntounto him that he worshippeth an image. No saith he, not the image but Venus or Mars. And when we aske, what is this Venus? the grauer sort among them aunswere, pleasure. And who is Mars? A manlike and valiant corage. Augustine in Psal. 96. which place I hauehave cited before sheweth that the Gentiles affirmed, yt they worshipped not the images for their owne sake, but for ye diuine powers which they did represent, euen the same which the Christians called Angels. So yt the Papists are all one with ye Gentiles in their excuse, as they agree with them in Idolatrie, & worshipping of images.
FINIS. God be praysed.
A REFVTATION OF MAITER IOHN RASTELS CONFVTATION AS HE CALLETH IT OF maister Iewels sermon. by W. Fulk.
To the Preface.
TO giuegive the Reader a tast of such sinceritie,Fulk. as he must looke for in all M. Rastels booke of confutation, hee sheweth in his preface, where speaking of three maners of aunswering, he declareth ye same by an example taken out of the bishops sermon: that sole receiuing is not to be suffered among Christians, where as the bishoppe hath no such position in all his sermon, but that priuate masse was not vsed for the space of sixe hundreth yeares after Christ. Thus admonishing the Reader that maister Rastell as his grand capteine M. doctour Harding, not able to finde any thing either in scripture, or antiquitie, for the maintenance of their ordinary priuate Masse, doth flie to extraordinarie vses and vnlawfull vsages of sole receiuing, being all such, as either some necessity might seeme to excuse, or as all the Papists themselues do confesse to hauehave beene abuses, I leaue his leude preface, & hasten to the book it self.