Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 3 · Chapter 6
Sander.THE VI. OR V. CHAP.
That the word of God only forbiddeth Latria which is Gods own honour, to be giuen to artificiall images, leauing it to the lawe of nature, and to the gouernors of his Church, what other honour may be giuen to holy images. Also the place of Exodus, Thou shalt not adore images, is expounded, and that Christe by his incarnation taketh away all idolatrie that Maister Iewell vainely reproueth. Doctour Harding condemneth his owne conscience, and is proued a wrangler. The difference in honour betweene Latria and Doulia.
As M.S. saith, images are forbidden to be worshipped, as they are forbidden to be made, so say I,Fulk. but with a farre differing vnderstanding. They may not be made to any vse of religion, so they may not be worshipped wt any religious worship, which apperteineth to God. For our religion is a seruice of God onelyonly. And where he saith as Images might be made by the authoritie of Moses, or of the gouernours of Gods people, so they wert not to be taken for Gods: so they may be likewise worshipped by the authoritie of Gods church, this only prouiso being made, that Gods owne honour be not giuen vntounto them. I aunswere that as neither Moses, nor any gouernour, had authoritie to make any images in any vse of religion, other then God commanded, no more hath the Church any authoritie to allowe any worshipping of them whiche she hath none authoritie by God to make, but an expresse commandement forbidding both the making & the worshipping of them, in the first table of the law, which concerneth onelyonly religion. Nowe we hauehave saide both, let vsus consider M. Sanders reasons. First he saith, God forbidding his owne honour to be giuen to images, left it to the lawe of nature, and to the gouernors of his Churche, what honour images should hauehave. Concerning the lawe of nature, he saith, that God perceiued that when images of honourable personages are made, honor was due vntounto them. What lawe of nature is this M. Sander, that is distinct from the law of God? Or what nature is that, whose lawe alloweth the worshipping of images? In deed the corruption of mans nature, is to worship falshode in steed of trueth, but the law of nature hath no such rule, beeing al one with the lawe of God, as nature is nothing else but the ordinaunce of God. And where find you one title in the lawe, that God hath leaft it to the gouernours of his Church to appoint a worship meete for images? Worde you hauehave none, letter you hauehave none, nor pricke of a letter sounding that way. But you hauehave collections.
First of the signification of Latria, as though God had written his Lawe in Greeke, and not in Hebrue: and yet Latria, according to the Graecians, hath no such restraint to signifie the seruice of God only, but euerie seruice of men also, and is all one that Doulia, and so vsed of Greeke writers, excep… we will say that Doulia, which you will hauehave to be giuen to images, is a more slauish & seruile worship, then that whiche you would hauehave vsus to giuegive to God.
But you will helpe your distinction, with the confusion of the commandementes, because God saith in the 1. precept, Thou shalt hauehave none other Gods but me, and then saith immediately, Thou shalt not make nor worworship images, but these cōmandementes are distinct or else you shall neuer make tenne. And whereas you alledge, that he saith immediatly after: I the Lord thy God, am a iealous God, that maketh cleane against you. For by those wordes, the Lorde declareth that he can no more abide the vse of images in his religion, then a iealous man can abide, any tokēs of an adulterer to be about his wife, therefore idolatrie in the scriptures is often called fornication. So the circumstances helpe you nothing, but is altogether against you. But what an horrible monster of idolatrie is this, that after you hauehave once confessed, that Gods incomprehensible nature cannot be represented by any artificiall image, you affirme that Christe by his incarnation hath taken away idolatrie, that we should not lacke some corporall trueth, wherein we might worship the Diuine substance? Whereas Christ himselfe telleth vsus, that nowe the time is come, that God shall not be worshipped as before in bodily seruice at Ierusalem, or in the mountaine, but in spirite and trueth, Ioan. 4. The image of Christe you say is a similitude of an honourable trueth, whereas no idol doth represent a trueth. A worshipfull trueth, I promise you. Christe you say was man, but I say he is both God and man, a person consisting of those two natures. Your image representeth onelyonly a person consisting of one nature, but suche a one is not Christe, therefore your image representeth a falshoode, and is by your owne distinction an Idol.
For the Diuine nature you confesse cannot be represented by an artificiall image. Againe, what an image is it of his humanitie? It can not expresse his soule, but his bodie onelyonly. Last of all, why is it an image rather of Christ, then of an other man: Seeing in lineamentes and proportion of bodie, it hath no more similitude vntounto Christes bodie, then to an other mans? But that it pleased the caruer to say, it is an image of Christ. O honourable blockes and stones.
But Philo the Iewe was cited for a fauourer of this interpretation, that images are none otherwise forbidden to be made or worshipped, then to be made or worshipped as GODS. Howe vaine the authoritie of a Iewe is for a Christian man to leane vntounto, I shall not neede to say, especially when it is well knowen, that the Iewes also not considering in whether table this commandement is placed, vnderstand by it, that all images generally are forbidden. And Philo saith nothing to helpe him. For first in Decal. he saith: when God had spoken of his owne substance and honour, order would that he should tell how his holy name was to be worshipped. And againe De eo quis haer. rer. Diuin. Vt solus Deus, &c. That God onelyonly might be truely worshipped. What can be reasonably gathered of these wordes but that al honour is due to God, and therfore none to idols, which are forbidden to be made.
If Philo a Iewe, will not serue, Augustine a Christian is alledged who Super Exod. 9.71. allowing that diuision of the tenne commandementes, by which three onelyonly are saide to apperteine to God, saith: Et reuera, &c. And truely that which is saide. Thou shalt hauehave none other Gods but me, is more perfectly expounded, when forged things are forbidden to be worshipped. First for the diuision of the cōmandements, Aug. is not constant with him selfe. For In Quaesti. Nou. & Vet. Test. Quest. 7. he writeth thus. Non sint tibi Dij alij praeter me: primum verbum hoc est: Es subiecit secundum: Non facies tibi vllam similitudineu… ▪ Thou shalt hauehave none other Gods but me: this is the first worde or commandement: and he addeth the second: Thou shalt not make to thy self any similitude. By which it is manifest yt to worship images, is not all one with hauing other Gods. But M. Sander will answer our obiection, that God forbiddeth all honour of images, thou shalt not fall downe to them nor worship them. Adoration saith he is a doubtfull worde. For Abraham adored the people of the lande Gen. 23. Very true, but with a ciuill worship, whereof we speake not nowe. He made obeysans to them, or as we say, he made courtesie to them. And the Angel refused to be adored, saying adore God. Therefore there is an adoration proper to God, for Angels sometime hauehave beene adored. Nay M. Sander, therefore all religious worshippe perteineth to God. For S. Iohn was not so madde to worship the Angel as God, but as the messenger of God, with a religious, and not a ciuill worshippe. And when you say Angels hauehave beene adored, as Gen. 18. and Iudicum 13. I answere in both places, they were adored with ciuill worship supposed by Abraham, and Manohah to be honourable men, and not to be Angels. But when you cite Augustine to fortifie your distinction of Latria, and Doulia, you hurt your cause by his iudgement, more then you further it by his authoritie. For whereas he in Exod. 94. saith that Latria is due to God as he is God, Doulia is due to God, as he is our Lorde, it followeth, yt that worship, which is called Doulia, as well as that which is called Latria, is due onelyonly to God, who is our onelyonly Lord, and wil not giuegive his glorie to grauen Images: Es. 42.8. 1. Cor. 8.6.
Theodoret saying: that God calleth his people from the worshipping of diuels, euen as Saint Paule, 1. Cor. 10. sheweth that worshipping of images is the worshipping of diuels. And whereas Maister Sander saith, it can not possibly be saide, that Christes images is dedicated to the diuell, I say plainely with Theodoret and Paule, it is dedicated to the diuell, when it is worshipped.
For the Images of the Gentiles were not by the intente of the makers and worshippers dedicated to deuils, but to God and godly men and women: but when they were honored with religious honour, which appertaineth onelyonly to God, the spirit of God saith, they were dedicated to deuils. And euen the same reason is of the Image of christ, of the Trinitie, of Peter, or any other, honoured with religious worshippe. Thus Augustine and Theodoret cited by him, are both against him. Well, yet he will disproue the comparison that M. Iewell maketh betweene Gods wordes, and M. Hardings.
Iewell. God saith, thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen Images. M. Hardinge saieth, thou shalt make to thy selfe grauen Images. But M. Sander saieth, neither God nor M. Harding say so, that is, they do not meane so: for God expounding his meaning, added, thou shalt not adore them, nor giuegive them the honor due to God aboue: therefore M. Iewell did euill to deuide Gods saying, and by that diuision, hee is sure that hee hath condemned his owne conscience. So that by M. Sanders interpretation to make Images, and to adore them, is all one. But M. Iewell, seeinge them to be distincte matters, to make and to worshippe, without condemning his conscience, did speak first of making, and then of worshippinge of Images. And although M. Sander, be either so blind, or so wilful, that he cannot see, or will not acknowledge, the distinction of the two tables of the Lawe, the matter of one being religion, the other charitie, yet M. Iewell did well inough consider, that the Queenes Maiesties Image grauen in her coyne, and such like pictures, as nothing at all concerned religion, nor nothinge at all forbidden, were made by a commandement of the first table.
Now followeth another comparison. Iewell. God saith, thou shalt not fall downe to them, nor worshippe them. M. Harding saith, thou shalt fall downe to them, and worshippe them. But M. Sander answereth, that M. Harding defendeth, that another degree of honour incomparably inferiour to that which is due to God, may be giuē to images, & not that which is due to God. Wel, then is M. Hard. & Sander to, contrary to other papists as great doctors as they. But yet M. Iewels comparison doth stand. For God forbiddeth al worship of Images, Master Hard. aloweth some worship of Images. Again, how wil you distinguish the falling downe to God, from falling downe to Images. And therfore M. Iewel is no wrangler: for meane Harding what he can meane, his saying and meaning is contradiction, to the saying and meaning of God. But you wil aff…rme (saith M. Sander) that al maner of honour is forbiddē to be giuen to any kind of Image. You hauehave against you ye opinion of the law of nature, the word of God, the iudgement of the ancient fathers, ye decrees of general councels, the practise of ye whole church, as hereafter shalbe declared. Verily M. Sander if you can bring al these authorities to vphold the worshipping of Images, you shal do more then any man was euer able to do before you, but hitherto you hauehave brought nothing worth the hearing. But in the meane time, you wil proue that there are two kindes of honour, the one due to God alone, the other to his creatures & so to Images. But you must proue, yt there be two kindes of religious honor, or els you proue nothing for your purpose. For ciuil honor wil not helpe you one iote for worshipping of Images, except you be of that minde as Boniface a gentleman about Stamford was, that would salute ye sacrament of the altar with curtesie & these words. God giuegive you good morrow good Lord. And what hauehave you to proue this your distinction? Nothing in the world, but a saying of Augustine, lib. 10. cap. 1. De ciuit. Dei. that Latria by a certaine consent of ecclesiasticall writers, hath bene taken for that seruice which is due to God: & that there is another seruice due to men, according to which the Apostle cōmandeth seruants to be subiect to their masters, which hath another name in Greek. This other name is Doulia whereof S. Paule saith in another place. Serue ye one another, by charity. I pray you M. Sander, if you be not turned into such an Image, (whole worship you defend) tell me simply whether ye difference of these honors be not as great as the distinction of the two tables, religion and charitie? but how prooue you that Doulia which is here taken for a ciuil worshippe, may be applyed to Images, whom you honour with a religious worshippe? Yes mary, saye you, by this it is prooued, that we may serue Sainte Paule, In deede if you had liued when Sainte Paule liued, it had bene your dutie to hauehave honoured him with ciuill honor, or seruice of louelove, but nowe he is dead, I say plainly, you ought not to serue him, nor worship him, with any religious honor. So saith Augustine, De vera religione cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum. Let it not be our religion, the worshipping of deade men: and againe, Honoramus eos charitate non seruitute. We honour them with louelove, not with seruice. Loe Master Sander, here is your Doulia or seruitus, denyed to Saintes that are dead.
The foundation of your argument being thus ouerthrowen, we will suppose it doth stande, that Saint Paule is still to be serued, how prooue you that we must worshippe his Image? Forsothe we must thinke anye thinge that is his, to be aboue vsus, at leaste in signification, for S. Paules owne excessiue honour. In deede Master Sander you doe well to call it an excessiue honour. But by this reason, I muste muche more worshippe all Gods creatures.
For if I must thinke any thing of Sainte Paules to be aboue mee, and to worshippe it, then much more must I thinke any thinge of Gods to be aboue mee, and consequently I must worshippe it. Now the vilest creature in the worlde, yea, the deuill himselfe is more properly a thinge of Gods, then an Image is a thinge of Sainte Paules, therefore I muste thinke euerye one of Gods creatures to bee aboue mee, and worshippe it for his sake. O blockishe blindenesse of Idolatrous papists.
But it vexeth you that Maister Iewell calleth your worshippinge of Images Idolodoulia, because you will not hauehave it Idololatria, for the Images of Christ and S. Paule you saye be no Idoles, because Idoles are instrumentes to serue and honour the deuill withall. Verily such be your Images of Christ and Saint Paule, though not by your intention, yet by the holy ghostes determination.
Last of al, M. Iewell himself is proued to be a seruer of Images, if not with Latria, yet with Doulia Papae. A strange matter: but howe is it prooued so to be? Marye sir, hee confesseth himselfe to honour the sacrament of Christes Supper, which he teacheth to be an Image of Christes bodye and blood, but he will not giuegive Gods owne honour to bread and wine, therefore it followeth inuincibly, that M. Iewell serueth, that is to say, he honoureth some Image. Ha ha he, M. Sander hath a pleasaunt witte, if he be in iest: but if he in earnest, as I am afraide he is, I will saye no more but that hee is a wrangler. If M. Iewel say the sacrament is an Image, doth he speake properly or figuratiuely? If figuratiuely, then the honouring of that which is not an Image properly, prooueth not, that he honoureth that which is an Image properly. Againe, when he speaketh of honouring doth he meane adoratiō, worshipping, kneeling to the sacrament, which he condemneth: or els reuerent esteeming of the mysteries of Christ? what hath this to doe with falling downe to stockes and stones? Finally doe we serue all thinges that wee honour (for M Sander maketh them all one) if wee doe, then men must serue their wiues whom they must honour, and men serue the weake partes of their body, which they honour most. These be the inuincible arguments for defence of Idolatrie.