Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 3 · Chapter 3
THE III. CHAPTER.
That although the images of Christ and of his saincts had beene falsely worshiped, yet the Churches were vniustly spoyled, and the images vniustly throwen downe, and consequently that the doers of it must needes be the ministers of the diuell. Also he noteth, the reason of breaking the Brasen serpent. The keepers of church goods are Idolaters. The foundation of the newe gospell in the lowe countries is shamefull. The inconstancie of the Protestantes doctrine.Sander.
Fulk.It is confessed, and therefore needeth no proofe, that the act of breaking the popish Idols in the lowe countries, if it wanted the authoritie of the Magistrate, was vnlawful, & yet it followeth not, that the doer… were the ministers of the diuel. For they that offend of inconsiderate zeale, are not by and by the ministers of the diuell. The people that would hauehave made Christ a King, Ioh. 6. attempted a thing vnlawfull for them to doe, yet were they not for that, the ministers of the diuel. The euil was of the diuell, the persons for the moste parte sought to serue God, or else M. Sander how will you defend them that commit idolatrie vppon good intent, in worshipping of an vnconsecrated hoste, or in worshipping the diuell in the likenesse of Angels? But to come to your reasons. The abuses of the images (you say) might hauehave bene taken away, and the images let alone, and that in deede was the iudgement of Gregorie, ad Seren. lib. 7. Ep. 109. but his authoritie against the manifest worde of God, which forbiddeth all images in any vse of religion, is of small weight with vsus: Ex. 20. The example of King Ezechias breaking the brasen serpent is vnfitly alledged, to defende the breaking of images by priuate persons: but the two last reasons that M. Sander alledgeth of the breaking thereof, are to be considered: the one that the brasen serpent was a figure, rather then an image, the other, yt it was worshipped as the trueth it self. That it was both a figure & an image, he might hauehave said truely, but so to make it a figure, yt he denyeth it to be an image, is grosse impudencie: for first it was an image of a serpent, before it was a figure of Christ. And then it followeth hereof, yt if such an image as was lawfully made & was a figure of Christ, by lawfull authoritie was broken, when it was abused: howe much more images that were neuer lawfully made, and also hauehave beene abused to idolatrie, as all the famous images in Poperie hauehave beene, ought by like authoritie to be vtterly defaced & destroyed?
To the seconde reason, that the people did worship the brasen serpēt as God, it is nothing credible, although they gaue vntounto it the honour due vntounto God. For that Ezechias called it Nechushtan, which is a lumpe of brasse, it shewed that God is not to be worshipped in any materiall image, it proueth not what opinion the people had of it. M. San. saith, the Papistes worship not the mettall of their images, but they vse them as occasions to put them in remembrance of them whose images they are. It were an hard point for him to proue, that the Israelits did worship the brasse of the serpent, but rather that image of the serpent, as a holy relique, by which their forefathers had deliuerance from the stinging of fierie serpents. But to the matter, it is needlesse for him to cite out of Augustin, that it is not lawfull to breake Idolls, but for them that hauehave authoritie, and lesse to proue that they which stale siluer crosses and challices &c. if any such were, (as I thinke hee slaundereth them) did euill. But he will proue that keepers of Church goods be Idolaters, bicause they be couetous. He may so proue a greater number of obstinate Papistes Idolaters, who both keepe Church goodes in their houses, and the very Churches or Abbeys, which he maketh all one, for their houses. And yet Augustine whome he citeth, alloweth the conuerting of idolatrous treasures to common vses, as was the giuing of Abbeys by cōmon consent of the realme into the Kings hand, of whome diuers inioy them as bought or giuen. If any man vniustly got into his possessiō any such stuffe of couetousnes, I for my part will not excuse him of idolatrie, nor Sander of treason for cursing ye Prince, which is inriched by Abbey landes lawfully giuen, vnderunder colour of giuing offence. But the foundation of the newe Gospell is shamefull, bicause the Protestants contemne this acte of spoyling, and yet their preachers and Doctours were the captaines of the spoyle. In the first Chapter, where he tolde vsus the storie, he could name but one preacher, & him an infamous person, and yet perhaps he slandereth him in all yt he saith against him. Now he seemeth as though al the preachers & Doctours were captaines of this disorder, which is an impudent and shamelesse lye: as yt which followeth is a malicious and foolish slander, yt the inconstancie of the protestants is such, as there is no ground or assurance of our faith, bicause there be diuers opinions in some matters, yt are no articles of faith, or bicause Papistes may feigne inconstancie in their doctrine, where there is none at al. For albeit that some hauehave thought, yt men must not be enforced to profession of religion, and one or two hauehave written against ye regimēt of women, as a French Papist also hath done in his Emblemes: yet generally we hold, yt heretikes are to be punished, and all men compelled to serue God truly, and none suffred to commit idolatrie: likewise we hold the regiment of women lawful, as well in the highest estate of a Queene, as in inferiour degrees of a mother or a mistresse. We always teach obedience vntounto ye Prince. And it is the Pope that armeth subiectes against their Prince, discharging them of their allegeance, as in the rebellion of the North. The doings of Fraunce and Scotland, are by publique instruments testified vntounto ye world, by the Princes them selues, that they were good and lawfull, and not done against them, but in their seruice and obedience. For miracles and Doctours, we neuer taught diuersly of them, but alwayes, that they were to be embraced according to the trueth, which they are brought to confirme, which trueth must be tryed onelyonly by the authoritie of scriptures, neither by miracles, nor Doctours. And bicause he toucheth by name the miracle of Maister Lane of Westchester, although we make no great account of it, as a miracle, which might be a natural cure, yet it is more vnlike to be a fable, and more like to be a true miracle, then that which Maister Bristowe alledgeth of Margeret Iesop with the short leg. The decrees of the Pope, though hee bee Antichrist, are sufficient to beate downe the papistes, which holde that he can not erre, the like I say of the gloses and late writers of their owne, to whome we owe no obedience, as they professe their faith to be gouerned by them. And seeing of custome some be good & some be bad, why may we not receiue the good and refuse the bad without M. San. frumpe, Let olde customes preuaile quoth M. Iewell. The old Latin translation of the Bible is in many places corrupt, but neuer to be preferred before the originall of the Greeke and Hebrue, although it may be cited where it differeth against the Papistes, which receiue it as only true. Old writers hauehave called the holy table an altar, and the Communion, a sacrifice or Masse, yet followeth it not, that Popish altars & Popish Masse may not be condemned. But what slaunders are these, the body of Christe is the signe of his body, and the signe of the crosse, is the body it selfe crucified, who euer heard these monsters proceed out of our mouthes? Againe, The communion is taught to be but holy bread. Priestes and Bishops need hauehave no temporal possessions, except they thē selues be Priestes and Bishops. Priestes and Bishops are equal by Gods law, therefore Popish Priestes, which be the diuels Priestes, must be equall with Christian Bishops, which for gouernment sake are preferred before Christian Ministers.
Finally, if the Papistes burne oure malicious and false translations of the Bible, they are saide to burne the holy Bible of Iesus Christe. If the Protestants burne the Hebrue, Greeke, Latine, & Duch text, as they did in ye Low countries, they are cōmended as holy workers in ye Lords vine. No M. Sander, thy malicious eares neuer heard that, which thy slanderous pen hath set downe, that any man was of vsus commended, for burning any text of the Bible: and if by disorder, and through ignorance, any texts were burned, yet thou feignest too impudently, in saying, they burned the Duch text. And whereas thou wouldest excuse the purposed malicious burning of English Bibles, by the falsenesse of their translations, beside that thou speakest absurdly in all learned mens eares, who knowe the trueth of them by conference of them with the originall toungs, yet this bewrayeth your malice against the word of God, that hauing so long complained of our false translations, neuer a papist of you all will take the paines to translate ye Bible truly, that ye people might be rightly instructed in Gods word by your true translation, if you feared their peruerting, by our false translation.