Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 3 · Chapter 7
Sander.THE VII. CHAP.
What an artificiall Image is. Of the naturall and artificiall Image. And how some honour may be giuen to artificiall Images. Also the obiection answered concerning that the Image of Christ is no liuing Image. Concerning the Image of the blessed Trinitie. The abstracting of the image from the matter, and the ioyning of the same with the trueth. Master Iewell denyeth that the cognisances of the crosse, are images.
This Chapter conteineth a metaphysicall discourse of images, naturall and artificiall.Fulke. The effecte whereof is this, that the nature of a thing cannot be expressed in an artificiall image, but by a naturall image onelyonly, as the soone is the image of his father, expressing his fathers nature. But an artificiall image is the onelyonly image of the person, or rather of the personall shape of him, that it representeth. And this being confessed, he sayeth it is an easie matter to aunswere the argument that is made, to proue the image of Christ to be a liuing image, because his Godhead cannot be represented in an image. For that image representeth such externall shape of Christ, as hee had in deede. But if he hauehave not forgotten him selfe, he sayed before, that an artificiall image is an image onelyonly of the person or rather the personall shape of him whom it representeth. But neither the person, nor yet the personall shape of Christ is represented by such an image, therefore it is a lying image. For the externall shape of Christes bodie is not the personall shape of Christe. For as Christes person differeth from the person of eueryevery other man, so his image must differ from the person of eueryevery other man, or else it is a false image by Master Sanders owne groundes. But Master Sander sayeth, that as by his manhood the faithfull were ledd to his diuine nature when hee liued, so by his image wee are ledd to his humaine shape, from thence to his humanitie, and so vpwarde to his diuine nature. Here is an handsome ladder, but that the steppes stande too farre a sunder for any man to clymbe by it. For I denye that his disciples were ledd by his manhod to vnderstande or beleeue his Godhead, but onelyonly by faith through his holy spirite inwardly, and outwardly by his doctrine and the workes of his Godhead. Yet sayeth he, if wee paint as much as his Apostles sawe, it is no lying sight.
What neede wee paint that which wee may more liuely see in our selues, and in any other liuing man, then in a deade image, namely the outwarde shape of a man?
After this, he gathereth conclusions: firste, that it is neither possible nor lawfull to make an image, which may expresse the nature of God, of Angels, or of any other creature. Secondly it is possible and lawfull to make the image representing the personall propertie of any knowen creature. This is true in the second table of the lawe, but not in the first. Thirdly: The blessed Trinitie and infinite persons of Angels cannot properly▪ be expressed by any artificiall image. If this be true of the image of the Trinitie, why do you Papistes suffer and defende such horrible idols and monsters of a man with three faces, or with three bodies to expresse the blessed Trinitie? If Angels cannot bee represented by image, and if three persons be infinite, how doth your Idolatrous councell of Nice the seconde, not onelyonly determine that their images may bee made, but also that they hauehave bodies, and be circumscriptible? Actione. 5. But you will not long holde this conclusion.
Furthermore, I woulde knowe what diuinitie, yea, or Phylosophie this is, that you saye, the persons of Angels are infinite? I thought there had beene nothing actually infinite, but God onelyonly, and that all creatures are definite, though they be spirituall, inuisible, and incircumscriptible. But to let you goe with that inconsiderate terme, and not to vrge it so farre, as to make you an vpholder of tenne thousands of Gods, your conclusion is, that visions which were of bodily formes may as well be paynted as preached, whether they were of the Trinitie or of Angels, as the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the shape of men. The vision of Daniel 7. of the sonne of man, that came to him was auncient of dayes. The historie of the father speaking to Christe▪ and the holie Ghost appearing in the shape of a Doue. Admit that these visions may be painted▪ for so much as was seene, yet must they be painted as those visions onelyonly, and not otherwise: for if God to shewe the distinction of the persons in Trinitie, hath appeared in the shape of three men, yet is it not lawfull to paint the Trinitie so, and although the father in a vision appeared like an olde man, and the holie Ghoste like a Doue, yet is it not lawfull to paint God the father so alwayes, nor the holie Ghoste, much lesse to make such monsters as neuer appeared in any vision. And therefore God him selfe warned the people to remember that he did not appeare to them in the mounteyne, when he gaue the lawe, in any forme or shape, because they shoulde not bee deceiued to make an image thereafter to represent him withall Deuteronom. 4. vers. 15.
Also Saint Paule preaching to the Athenienses, sayeth, that seeing wee are the generation of God, wee ought not to thinke, that the Godhead is like to golde, siluer, or stone, grauen by arte, and the inuention of man. Act. 17. vers. 29.
And if you should paint the storie of the baptisme of Christe, howe woulde you paint the person of the father, which appeared not in any shape, but onelyonly a voice from him was hearde? But knowing yt you hauehave to doe with wranglers, you say you would hauehave no image of ye Trinitie, but only to shewe that there bee three seuerall persons in one godhead, & this you thinke S. Augustine de fide & symbolo would beare. Ca. 7. but you shal heare his words. Non ideo tamen quasi humana forma circumscriptū &c. Yet must we not therefore thinke, that God yt father is circumscribed as it were with an humane shape, yt when we think of him, a right side or a left side shoulde come into our mind, or euen yt which is sayde, that the father doth sit, we must not thinke to be done with bowing of his legges, yt we fall not into that sacrilege wherewith the Apostle curseth them that hauehave changed the glorie of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of a corrupble man. For it is extreme wickednes, yt a Christian man shoulde place such an image for God in ye temple, much more is it wicked in his heart where ye temple of God is in deede, if it be clensed from earthly desire and errour.
This saying of Augustine woulde suffice any sober man to see, what is his iudgement, for such images of God, or the Trinitie, which yet Maister Sander, though not simply, yet in some respect wil defende. And the Angels (he sayeth) may be painted or grauen with wings, as they were made in the tabernacle, or as they appeared to the Prophets and the Apostles. And so you may paint the diuels in such shape as they hauehave appeared to men, but what is this to make images of them for any vse of religion, which God hath forbidden?
But now followeth another metaphysicall abstraction of the image which is an accident, from the matter or substance thereof, being stone, wodde, &c. which is a hard lesson for the common people to learne, and when it is learned, it is not worth a strawe, for any helpe of religion. The grosse image of stone being made thus a subtile & fantasticall image by abstraction, is ioyned with the trueth, when the fantasie considereth whose image it is, and then it is not possible, but that it must partake some parte of the honour of that whereof it is a signe, being an honourable thing. To passe ouer this fond abstracting and ioyning, which is a toy to mocke with an ape, I will come to the conclusion of honour dewe to the signe. I pray you Maister Sander, what impossibilitie is this, that you talke of vsus? Must eueryevery signe of an honourable thing needes partake some of the honour dewe to the thing? The print of a mans foote in the snowe, is the signe of a man that hath trod there, which is an honourable thing, and perhaps was a King, is this signe worthie of any honour due to a King? Yea, the Kinges picture is on his coyne or else where to be seen, is that picture worthie of any parte of the Kings honour? You sayed before, you woulde not hauehave any parte of Gods honour giuen to his image, and howe agreeth that saying with this your principle, it is not possible, but euerie signe of an honorable thing, must partake some of the honour which is in it?
But you will shewe vsus the order, howe the image commeth to be partaker of honour, but it were more necessarie, you should shew vsus the reason why it should hauehave honour, then the order howe it commeth. But let vsus see the order. The painting of Christes death moueth the eye, the eye aduertiseth our common-sense, our common sense informeth our fantasie, reason draweth out of fantasie this deepe consideration yt this image is true, and profitable to saluation, and worthie of all honour. This may well be an idolaters reason, but surely a Christian man faith is instructed by hearing, and not by seeing, blessed are they (saith Christ) which hauehave beleeued and not seene. Ioan. 20 A Christian man learneth of the Lord by his Prophet Abacuc, Cap. 2. vers. 18. & 19. that a grauen image is profitable for nothing, that it is a teacher of lyes, and curseth him that saith, an image shall teach him: and much more him that shall say, it is worthie of all honour. By which saying you may see the impudencie of idolaters, which though at the first they seeme modest in giuing but an other kinde of honour to images, and not that which is giuen to God, afterward they come to giuegive images some of that honour which is due to God, and last of all without all shame, to pronounce that an image of Christes death is worthie of all honour. And this must needes be (saith he) except Maister Iewell will say this image is not good, yea, no doubt but he would say, such an image as Maister Sander counteth worthie of all honour, is abhominable.
M. Sander would hauehave ended this Chapter with this wholesome doctrine, but that M. Iewell after long disputation, concludeth that the cognisaunces of the crosse, are barres laid a crosse, and no images, which seemeth strange to him, bicause he tooke an image to be the resemblance of any thing quicke or dead. I had thought such a metaphysicall disputer of images, would hauehave added the intention of the image maker, to expresse such a thing necessarie to make it an image of that thing, for else as the tale goeth, he may hauehave a great number of crosses on a threed bare coate of some man, that hath neuer a crosse in his purse. But if by the intent of ye makers, such crosses in flagges, banners, targets, and coynes, were made to the resemblance of Christes crosse, yet are they no images forbidden, bicause they be not in any vse of religion, and therefore this is a foolish quarell, not worth ten strawes laide a crosse.