Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 3 · Chapter 8
Sander.THE VIII. OR VII. CHAP.
What an idoll is, and that our images be neither idolls, nor be vsed like idolls. Also the difference betweene an idoll and an image. Whereof idolatrie tooke his name. Howe the Gentiles did abus… their images. The obiection is aunswered concerning the abuses about the images of Christians.
Fulk.An idoll saith S. Paule, is nothing in the worlde, and I say not that an idoll is any thing. 1. Cor. 8. & 10. by which words he meaneth, that an image made to represent God, although it be in matter wood, stone, golde, siluer, yet in vse and signification it is nothing, but a vaine fantasie of men braines, bicause there is but one God which hath no shape or figure, and there is no profitable vse in images deuised by men vntounto saluation, as S. Augustine saith, Lib. 18. contra Fa…st. Man. So Ambrose saith, in 1. Cor. 10, Simulachrum verò nihil est, quia image videtur re… morta…ae: An idoll or feigned image, is in deede nothing, bicause it seemeth to be an image of a dead thing. These places cited by M. Sander, fauour not his distinction, for both Augustine & Ambrose indifferently call the same an idoll, and an image. But Origen and Theodoret in deede make this difrence; that an idoll is of that thing that is not at all, nor euer was seene in the world, as a picture of a man with a dogges head, an image is of that thing that is or was, as an image of Cicero, of any other man that liueth. But that this distinction is false, it appeareth by the Cherubims, which being heads without bodies, and wings annexed to them, hauehave no resembrance to any thing that euer was seene in the world, yet are they called images euen of the Papists thē selues, & not idols. Now he would proue that the images of the Gentiles were of things that neuer were, and therfore to be idolls, and the Popish images be of Christe, Peter, and Paule, &c. which were, therefore they be similitudes, but no idols. But what helpeth this distinction of the name, although it were receiued, when God by his cōmandement forbad the making and honoring of the one, as much as the other? So yt this difference is as much able to defend Popish images, as when a lawe is made against robbers and theeues, a theefe would labour tooth and nayle, to shewe the difference of robberie and theft, and then hauing proued him self to be no robber, would conclude he were no theefe. Yet seeing M. San. hath taken paines to gather the difference betweene heathenish idols and Popish images in tenne pointes, I will consider them in yt order. Some idols were feigned monsters, all Popish images hauehave that essentiall truth in the world which they represent. This reddition is false, for ye image of the Trinitie, like a man with three faces or thre bodies, hath no essentiall trueth. Likewise the image of a childe entering into the mouth of the Virgine Marie, in the storie of the Annunciation painted in diuers places, and namely in the cloyster or walking place of Alsoule Colledge in Oxenford, where I hauehave seene it, is an heretical falshood. And to omit the images of a thousand feigned miracles, as S. Francis preaching to the Geese, &c. The image of S. Christopher the Giant, of S. George with his monstruous dragon, of S. Sunday, of S. Vncoulber a she Saint with a beard, and such like, proue that al Popish images hauehave not that essentiall trueth which they represent.
2 All their idolls were without trueth concerning to faith and religion, al Popish images containe such a truth as belongeth to Christes faith and religion. Beside the answere before confuteth this excuse the commaundement of God being against all similitudes in religion, proueth it vtterly false and abhominable.
3 Sacrifice was offered to their idolles, whereof it was called idolatrie, and they idolaters, but no sacrifice is offered to Popish idolls, but to God alone, I say, they offered no sacrifice to the stockes, but to the Gods whose images they were. So do your Papistes, offer vp the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing, the only sacrifice of Christians, as Iustinus saith, Decal. cum Tryph. and pay your vowes to your images, & to the Saintes whose images you say they be, therefore by your owne definition you are idolaters.
4 Their idolls belonged oftentimes to very wicked men▪ Popish images always to be blessed Saints. You shal hauehave much to doe to proue Francis, Dominike, Dunstane, Becket, and such like whose images you worshippe, to be blessed Saintes. Where also I note that Francis is painted with the print of Christes fiue woundes, which is an horrible blasphemie.
5 Some of the Gentiles professed them selues to adore ye wood or stone, you neither professe nor teach any such thing, but the contrarie. To admit so many thousands of ignoraunt people, as honoured the very wood and stones of your images, euen you your selues allowe this verse, Lignun que crucis venorabile adorant. They adore the venerable wood of the crosse, and in the next Chapter you alowe the peeces of a brasen image worthie of some honour.
6 Some of the Gentiles thought some priuie godhead or power to be contained in their images, you teach they be only representations. So did they, but what mean some of you, to take so long pilgrimages to Walsingham, Ipswich, Boston, yea to Campostella in Spaine, and to Peter & Paul at Rome, if you thought not some power to be in those images, more then in the images of the same persons at home?
7 The wisest of the Gentiles (say you) adored by their images, insensible creatures, and by them false Gods: you adore by your images no vnreasonable creature, but only blessed soules, and one God. First I say, you misreport the wisest of ye Gentiles, for they defended their idolatrie, by saying they worshipped in those images diuer… Gods, not meaning yt they were so, but yt they worshipped diuers vertues of one God, as in Minerua the wisdome of God, in Mars the strength of God, in Ceres the liberalitie of God, &c. Augu. In Psal. 96. Sed existit nescio quis disputator, &c. But there is a certeine disputer I wot not who, which thought himselfe to be learned and saith: I doe not worship that stone, nor that image, which is without sense: for your prophet could not know that they hauehave eyes and see not, and to be ignorant that that image hath no life, yt yet neither seeth with eyes, nor heareth with eares. Therefore I doe not worship that, but I adore that which I see, and serue him whom I see not. Who is he? The God whiche being inuisible is president of that image. By this means yeelding a reason of their images, they seeme to themselues to be eloquent, because they worship not idols, and worship diuels. They answere, we worship not euill spirites, but euen the Angels whome you so call do we worship, the vertues of the great God, and the ministers of the great God. I would you would worship them, you should easily learne, of them not to worship them. Thus Augustine, in whiche saying, beside that he sheweth what defence the Heathen had for their idolatrie, he sheweth that the true worship of Angels is not to worship them by images or otherwise, but onelyonly to learne of them not to worship them, but God alone. But howe can M. Sander say they adore no vnreasonable creature by their images, when they adore the image of the crosse, which was both an vnreasonable an insensible creature? And how doth he worship one God more then this Heathen man, whose feigned excuse S. Augustine reporteth?
8 The diuels ruled the images of the Gentiles, giuing oracles out of them, &c. but the faith of Papistes whiche endeuouring to keepe Gods commandementes, do set vp images to a good end, so beautifieth their work and worship, that it is not possible for the diuel to abuse them. If we beleeue that the diuel gaue oracle out of the Heathnish idols, and not rather that they were feigned by the subtiltie of men: we may likewise thinke, that the diuell gaue answers out of Popish images, which are likewise saide to hauehave spoken, as that Roode in Dunstones time to decide the controuersie for marriage of Priestes, & many other feigned in the Bookes of Popish miracles. Secondly, where heard the Papistes out of Gods wordes, this faith of setting vp Images? Thirdly how doe they indeuour to keepe Gods commaundement in setting vp of idols, when they breake a manifest commaundement of God, which forbiddeth images to be worshipped?
9 The diuels coueted to mainteine their idols. The same couet to ouerthrowe Popish images. No verily, they louelove Popish images, by which God is dishonoured, as wel as they did louelove Heathenish images. As for ye tale of the diuels persuading Iulian the Apostata to breake ye image of Christ at Paneade, which is not like to hauehave continued vntounto his dayes, if we receiue it, which was written by no writer of his time, nor an hundreth yeares after, it proueth no hatred that ye diuel had of images, but of Christ, & might be a subtile practise of his to bring the Christians with fonde emulation to esteeme such a thing more then it was worthie because their enemie hath defaced it.
10 Their idols were dedicated to an Heathenish purpose, Popish images to a vertuous intent. But how can that be a vertuous intent, which is contrarie to Gods cōmandemēt?
Last of all he will aunswere our obiection, that Popish images hauehave been abused in making their eyes to moue, and their lippes to wagge, &c. First he saith, these were but abuses of particular men, where ye Bishop was a sleep, but not allowed in the Church, yea, the Gospel hath been abused. Gods curse light of that comparison, which matcheth images with the Gospell. But were al Bishops high and low in your Church so sound a sleepe, that not one could see these horrible abuses to punish them? For what one exāple can be brought, of any one among so many, that hath beene punished by the Papists, for such detestable abuse? Secondly he answereth, these abuses are committed by men not yet euerlastingly condemned, & not by diuels, which hauehave their torments increased, when they aproch to such holy things as they hauehave no power of. As though wicked men could worke such things, but by the diuels procurement, who wil no more be afraide to abuse an image, then to persuade a man to abuse it, which deserueth both one punishment. Thirdly if suche practisers of abuse liued in Luthers time, they commonly became runnagates, with the first, if any such hauehave repented and confesseth their wicked facts, it is to your shame, M. Sa. & not to ours, for they were yours, when they did suche things. To conclude, I wish the Reader to consider, howe vaine and foolish the whole scope of this Chapter of M. Sanders booke is, to shewe the difference of idols & images in the second commandement, when God wrote not the same in Greeke, out of which tong this supposed difference is deriued, but in Hebrue: & euen the common Latine translation, which the Papistes doe followe, calleth that which the Greekes terme foreign an idoll, by ye name of Sculptile a grauen image: and when he hath made his difference as farre a sunder as he can, all images are as well forbidden in that commaundement, as idols in any seruice of God or vse of religion.