The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Section 7
Concerning worſhiping of Images. Spectacles, Sect. 7. a pag. 283. uſ que ad 319.
THe text of Scripture which the Knight quoteth, maketh not any mention of Image-worſhip, but Idoll-worſhip, which hee could not but know to bee a different thing having beene ſo often told it.
It followeth not the Iewes might not adore Images; Ergo, wee may not: for the Iewes might not eate bloud nor ſwines fleſh, nor many other things which wee may.
If the ſecond Commandement were morall, and now in force, the Knight could not have his wives picture, nor ſhee his, without breach of that Commandement: therefore in that ſence hee cannot urge it more againſt our pictures, then wee againſt his.
Cornelius Agrippa was a Magician, and therefore no heed to be given to what he teſtifieth againſt the Roman Church.
Philo Iudaeus ſaith nothing, but that the Iewes admitted no image into the Temple, which is true; for God cannot bee painted, neither could they have the Image of any Saint: for there was none as yet which might have that honour, to have their images or pictures in the Temple, themſelves being not yet admitted into the heavenly Temple of God.
It is no marvaile that the Iewes hate crucifixes, ſith they could not indure Chriſt himſelfe.
Notwithſtanding the prohibition in the ſecond Commandement, were it Morall or Ceremoniall, men did adore the Cherubins in the Temple, and the Arke and the Temple it ſelfe.
There may in the New Teſtament bee ſome precept, or example both of our Saviour and his Apopoſtles for the adoration of images, though not written in Scripture, becauſe as S. Iohn ſaith that all is not written, or rather a very ſmall part is written as his words import.
Wee have the example of our Saviour and his Apoſtles teſtified by good authenticall hiſtories, many great and grave Authours make mention of two ſeverall images made miraculouſly by our bleſſed Saviour himſelfe, one was that which hee ſent to Abgarus King of Edeſſa, who had a deſire to ſee him: the other was that of Veronica, which hee made with wiping his face, as hee was carrying his Croſſe: a third was one which Nicodemus gave to Gamaliel, all which are teſtified, not only by grave and learned Authours, but by God himſelfe, though not in Scripture, yet by great and wonderfull miracles.
S. Auſtine taketh not Simulachrum for an image, as the Knight falſly tranſlateth him, but for an idoll, and ſo commendeth Varro for comming neerer to the knowledge of the true God, and going further from idolatrie then other Gentiles.
Euſebius ſaith not, that images ſprang from an heatheniſh cuſtome, but hee meaneth by mos gentilis, the faſhion of their owne people, and kindred, who were wont to honour ſuch that had done them any benefit, or helpe by erecting ſtatues in memorie of them. Moreover, Euſebius relateth this ſtorie of the womans ſtatua with approbation; upon the baſis or foot thereof, there grew a certaine ſtrange and unuſuall kind of herbe, which as ſoone as it grew up ſo high as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment, it had vertue to cure diſeaſes of every kind.
The Councell of Elliberis, was an obſcure provinciall Synod of 19. Biſhops onelyonly, without any certaintie of the time when it was held, to which we oppoſe one of Conſtantinople, another at Rome, under Gregorie the third, and a third at Nice, of 350. Biſhops. Moreover, this Councell forbiddeth not pictures abſolutely, but painting on walls, and ſoleaving them to the furie, and ſcorne of the Gentiles, and it is plaine, that the Councell made the Decree out of honour to images, becauſe they thought not the walls a place convenient, becauſe the plaſter breaking off in ſome places, they might become deformed, and ſo contemptible.
Valens and Theodoſius whom the Knight joyneth in making a law againſt images, were not alive together: Valens being killed 23. yeares before Theodofius was borne; beſides Valens was a wicked Arrian heretique, upon whom God did ſhew his judgement by a diſaſterous end, and the law made by him cited by the Knight is fowly corrupted, and the meaning wholly perverted, for the law was made in honour of the Croſſe, towit, thus wee command that it ſhall not bee lawfull for any to carve or paint the ſigne of our Saviour Chriſt, either on the ground, or in any ſtone or marble lying on it.
Nicolaus Clemanges was himſelfe a Wiclefian heretique.
Caſſander, Eraſmus, and Wicelius, are of no account in the Roman Church.
The Councell of Nice, held under Conſtantine and Irene, was not condemned at Frankford; Nay, in that very Councell an Anathema is ſaid to all ſuch as deface Images.
Polidore Virgill, in ſaying the ancient Fathers condemned the worſhip of images, for feare of Idolatrie, ſpeaketh not of the Fathers of the New Teſtament, but thoſe of the Old; particularly naming Moſes and Hezekias: nay farther, Polydore accounteth him a diſſolute and audacious man, who judgeth otherwiſe of the worſhip of Images, then hath beene approved by the Decree of two or three Councels which he there alledgeth.
Pereſius denieth not the worſhip of Images, but that the picture is to bee adored with the ſame worſhip, as the prototype, or thing repreſented by it, which maketh nothing againſt the doctrine of the Catholique Church touching the worſhip of Images.
Agobardus his drift in his booke De picturis & imaginibus, is onelyonly against the idolatricall uſe or abuſe rather of images againſt which hee ſpeaketh very much, by occaſion of ſome abuſes in his time.
Although it were true that ſome ſilly women, or ignorant ruſticks ſhould bee ſo blockiſh, as to conceive ſome Divinitie in pictures, and accordingly adore them: yet the uſe of pictures muſt not bee taken away for the abuſe, for the axiome of the law is, utile perinutile non vitiatur.
The Hammer.
AS thoſe who beheld the head of Meduſa wereturned into ſtocks and ſtones, and preſently deprived of all life and ſenſe: ſo thoſe who gaze upon with admiration, this head of the Romiſh doctrine concerning Image-worſhip, become ſo ſtupid and ſenſleſſe, as if they were turned into thoſe ſtocks and ſtones, to which they give religious veneration. A notable experiment hereof we have in a conference in France, in which a Sorbon Doctour preſent, hearing how abſurdly the Patrones of Images maintained the worſhip of them ſaid, of a truth I find the words of Pſalmiſt verified, thoſe that make them are like unto them, and ſo are all they that put their truſt in them. But wee need not goe ſo farre for an inſtance; the Ieſuit in this Section maketh good that obſervation, ſhewing us a forehead of the ſame metall the images are made for which hee pleadeth. For he loadeth the Knight with ſhameleſſe calumnies, and moſt impudently defendeth ſuch groſſe idolattie as the wiſer of the heathen were aſhamed of: hee whetteth his poyſonous tooth, and like a mad dogge ſnaps at all hee meeteth with, and farre out-raileth Rabſekah himſelfe, as the Reader cannot but judge if hee peruſe but a few paſſages enſuing, namely firſt, page 298. This is your diſcourſe Sir Humphrey, wherein you have given ſo ſufficient teſtimonie of notorious had dealing, eſpecially in the two places of Euſebius, and of the civill law: that if there were nothing elſe falſified or corrupted in your whole booke, this were enough utterly to deface all memorie of you, from among honeſt men. And page 301. What ſay you to all this Sir Humphrey? looke now into your owne conſcience, and ſee whether it can flatter you ſo much, as to ſay you are an honeſt man. And page 205. May not you then beare away the bell from all lying, and corrupting fellowes that have ever gone before you? Hee that ſeeth ſuch foule ſtuffe come out of the Ieſuits mouth, would hee not thinke that he were ſicke of the diſeaſe called miſerere? but I leave his Grobian language, and come to conſider firſt what hee laieth to the Knights charge, and after, how hee diſchargeth himſelfe of the idolatrie and ſuperſtition, wherewith the Knight in this chapter burdeneth the Roman Church. Firſt, he chargeth the Knight with falſe tranſlation, of the Councell of Trent. Wee teach that the image of Chriſt, the Virgin Mother of God, and other Saints are chiefly in Churches to be had, and reteined, which Decree he might have tranſlated a little better, and more clearely by ſaying, that thoſe images are to bee had, and reteined eſpecially in Churches, the Latine word being praeſertim, and his tranſlating it chiefly, and placing it ſo odly, gives cauſe to thinke he had an evill meaning therein, as if hee would have his reader thinke that the Councell taught that thoſe images were the chiefe things to be had in Churches, &c. It is a ſigne of a light head to ſtumble at a ſtraw: yet here lyeth not ſo much as a ſtraw in the Ieſuits way: only he wanted a feſtrawe to point to the accent, which is ſet upon Churches not upon had, the meaning of the Councell and the Knights is all one, to wit, that images by that Decree were to bee had, and reteined chiefly or eſpecially in Churches, not to bee had or held to bee the chiefe thing in Churches. For no man would imagine that the Councell could bee ſo abſurd and impious, as to preferre images before the ſacred Scriptures, the Font and Chalice, the Altar or communion Table: much leſſe the ſacred Symbols of Chriſts body and bloud. Secondly, he chargeth the Knight with groſſe ignorance, in Chronologie, But I may aske you, ſaith hee, how come you to ſay the Iewes never allowed adoration of Images for foure thouſand yeares, when as the people of the Iewes were not ſuch a people above two thouſand yeares; nay Moyſes lived not paſt 1500. yeares before our Saviour, ſo that of your owne liberalitie and skill in Chronologie you have added 2000. yeares to make your doctrine ſeeme ancient. There is a groſſe miſtake I confeſſe, but in the Ieſuit, not in the Knight: who ſaith not 4000. yeares, but for almoſt 4000. yeares in the firſt edition, and in the later editions this ſcape of the preſſe is mended, and the figure altered. For the matter it ſelfe, the Knight might truly have ſaid, that the people of God, who lived partly under the law of nature, partly under the law of Moyſes, never allowed adoration of Images for 4000. yeares: ſo ancient is the doctrine of the reformed Churches in this point. Thirdly, he chargeth the Knight with Simbolizing with Iewes in the hatred of Chriſt, You ſaith hee, in alledging the Iewes hate of the croſſe, as an argument why you ſhould alſo hate the ſame, tacitly confeſſe that you love Chriſt ſo well as they: 1 Cor. 16.22.A fearefull charge: for whoſoever loveth not the Lord Ieſus, let him bee anathemamaranatha, but a ridiculous proofe; for a man may hate an idolized crucifix, out of love of Chriſt, becauſe hee cannot endure Chriſt his honour to bee given to graven images. Heate of zeale againſt idolatrie, doth no way argue coldneſſe of affection to the true religion;2. King. 15.4. Witneſſe King Hezekiah the non pareil of a religious Prince, who demoliſhed the brazen Serpent, and ſtamped it to powder, calling it nehuſtan, though it were an image and type of Chriſt crucified, as Chriſt himſelfe teacheth us.Io. 3.14. As Moſes lifted up the Serpent in the wilderneſſe, So muſt the Son of man be lifted up; Witneſſe Saint Peter, who loved Chriſt more then the reſt of the Diſciples,1 Pet. 4.3. Diligis me plùs quàm hi? and yet hee brandeth all Image worſhip by the title of abominable idolatrie. Nay, witneſſe S. Iohn the beloved Diſciple, who went behind none in zeale againſt idolatrie,1 Io. 5.21. ſaying, babes keepe your ſelves from idols. It is one thing to diſlike crucifixes in Churches out of hatred of Chriſt, as Iewes, Turkes, and Infidels may doe: and another thing to diſallow them out of hatred of idolatrie and ſuperſtition. To ſtab the Kings picture, or any way deface it out of hatred, or contempt of his perſon is diſloyaltie: yet to take a piece of counterfeit coyne prohibited by law, though bearing the Kings image, and pricke it full of holes, or naile it to a poſt, is no argument of diſloyaltie, but contrarie, an act of Loyaltie, and obedience alſo to the Kings lawes. Laſtly, hee chargeth the Knight with Sacriledge and prophanation of holy things, ſaying, You, and ſuch as you, have had your ſhares in pulling downe of images, and ſilver ſhrines, this laſt hundred yeares, are more like to be drawne with the love of gaine, to the pulling downe of Images, then wee that loſe all for maintaining and ſetting them up: for what wee and our Anceſtors have parted with from our ſelves, and out of our owne purſes for the honour of God and his Saints; you or men of your religion, pull back from God and his Saints, to beſtow upon your backs and bellies, and upon your Miniſters, their wives and brattes. I would caſt this dunge backe againe on your Nunnes bellies, and Popes face, and tell you of the brats of the one buried in the earth, and drowned in moates, to cover the ſhame of the parents, and give you a bill of the expence of the other upon their miſtreſſes, farre ſurmounting the charge of all the Miniſters wives in England; but I chooſe rather to purge the Knight from all foule aſperſion herein, who is ſo farre from having any hand in pulling downe your ſilver ſhrines, and images, and making ſale of them, that he was not then borne, when by command of King Edward the ſixt thoſe Monuments of idolatrie were knocked downe and defaced, which yet was accounted a worke ſo acceptable to God,Vit. Ed. 6. by Sir Iohn H. that the ſelfe ſame day that the images were broken downe in London, God gave us a notable victorie in Scotland; but the truth is, the Knight chargeth the Ieſuit home with the example of Demetrius and his followers maintaining images, becauſe they were maintained by them. For who ſeeth not in all popiſh countries, how when all other Artificers ſhut up their ſhoppes, to wit, on Sundayes and holy dayes the Prieſts open theirs, ſetting out as it were their golden puppets on the ſtalls, whereof they make no ſmall advantage? and therefore to all his railing rhetorick with which he concludes this ſection, I hold ſit to returne no other anſwer then the French provethe, The Aſſe brayeth never ſo hideouſly, as when hee is over-hard girt. Thus having held up my buckler for the Knight, and warded off the Ieſuits blowes: now I fall on whetting and ſharpening the Knights ſword, wherewith he woundeth the Idolatrous ſuperſtition of the Roman Church, the edge whereof the Ieſuit endevoureth to dull by the twentie exceptions above mentioned, which now I will ſcan in order.
To the firſt. It is true that wee have beene oft told by Papiſts, that we ought to make a difference betweene Image-worſhip, and Idoll-worſhip: but it is as true that this is a diſtinction without difference, which hath beene a hundred times refuted by all thoſe who have entred into liſts with Papiſts about the queſtion in hand, and did not the Ieſuit arme his forehead with the metall of his images, he would bluſh to ſay that the texts alledged by the Knight make againſt idols,Vulg. lat. ex edit R. Stephani, non facietis vobis idolum, & ſculptile nec titulos erigetis, nec inſignem lapidem ponetis in terrâ veſtrâ ut adoretis eum. Lorinus in Act. 7. v. 29. ſculptilis imago diſtinctiùs ac enixiùs prohibita eſt, quoniam cultus idolorum verſa batur potiſſimùm inſoulptâ imagine vel ſtatua quae ſoliditate partium, at que craſſitie mag is exhibet perſonam, quae adoranda proponitur, quàm ſi haec in ſuperficie duntaxat coloribus exprimatur. Tertul. cont. Marcio. l. 4. c. 22. nec enim imagines eorum, nec ſtaiuas populus habuiſſet lege prohibente. Vaſquez. diſp. 5. in 3. p. Thō & diſp. 94. c. 2. ſubſtantia praecepti fuit, uſum quemlibet imaginum auferre. and not at all againſt images; for the firſt text, Levit. 26.1. word for word according to the originall, and agreeably to the vulgar Latine is thus to bee rendred, Yee ſhall make you no idols nor graven images, neither reare you up a ſtanding image, neither ſhall you ſet up any image of ſtone in your land to bow downe to it. The ſecond text Exod. 20.4. is thus to be tranſlated, Thouſhalt not make thy ſelfe any thing carved or graven, in Hebrew Peſel derived from paſal, ſignifying to carve or engrave, in Greeke foreign, in the vulgar Latine unto which all Papiſts are ſworne ſculptile. To which Commandement Tertullian alluding ſaith, Peter knew Moſes and Elias by the ſpirit, when they appeared with Chriſt in the Mount, not by any picture or image which hee had ſeene of them, for the people of the Iewes had no ſuch, the law prohibiting it. And Vaſqnez the Ieſuit convinced by the evidence of the text confeſſeth, that God in the ſecond Commandement forbiddeth not only to worſhip an image for God, but alſo to worſhip God in any ſimilitude, and conſequently hee thereby taketh away all uſe of any image of God. Yet were there any miſt in the word peſel, the words following clearely diſpell it; nor the likeneſſe of any thing, that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth, thou ſhalt not bow downe to them, viz. with thy body, nor worſhip them in thy ſoule: Papiſts doe both, and therefore though they could eſcape the net laid for them in the firſt words (non facies tibi ſculptile) yet they are caught and ſtrangled in the next. For albeit they could prove that their images are no idols prohibited in the word peſel, yet certainly they are the ſimilitudes of ſomething that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. The third text alledged by the Knight out of Dent. Cuſtodite ſolicitè animas veſtras, ne forte deceptifaciatis vobis ſculptam imaginem, vel ſimilitudinem maſculi vel foeminae.4.15.16. & 17. is thus rendered in their owne vulgar Latine, keepe carefully your ſoules, you ſaw no ſimilitude in the day in which the Lord ſpake to you in Horeb out of the midſt of the fire; take heed leſt peradventure being deceived, you make to your ſelves any graven image, or the likeneſſe of male or female. Neither is the laſt allegation out of Eſay the fortieth, leſſe prevalent then the former, to batter downe all popiſh images,v. 18. to whom will you liken God? or what likeneſſe will you compare unto him? in the vulgar Latine, quam imaginem ponetis ei; and verſe the 20. the worke-man melted a graven image, and the Goldſmith ſpreadeth it over with gold, and caſteth ſilver chaines, hee that is ſo impoveriſhed, that hee hath no oblation, chooſeth a tree that will not rot, hee ſeeketh unto him a cunning work-man to prepare a graven image that ſhall not bee moved, &c. And this may ſerve to illuſtrate the texts alledged by the Knight. Now for the words imago & idolum, upon which the Ieſuit foundeth his diſtinction of image-worſhip, and idol-worſhip, if wee reſpect the originall, and ancient uſe of them, they are all one for foreign is derived from foreign, ſignifying the ſhape, or forme of any thing;L. de ſenſu & ſenſibili. and Ariſtotle calleth the ſpecies of ſuch things as we apprehend by ſence idola; and Tullie interpreteth the word imagines by idola: Cic. de fin. imagines quae idola nominantur.and the ſecond Councell of Nice, action the ſixt, tearmeth the images then uſed in the Churches idols, ſaying, theſe idols may bee converted to other uſes. And laſtly, Cardinall Cajetan in his Comment upon the 20. of Exodus ſpeaking of the images of the Angels in the Arke tearmeth them idola Cherubinorum, word for word, the idols of the Cherubins. But if wee have regard to the more common uſe; the words imago & idolum, differ as much as mulier & ſcortum, a woman and a ſtrumpet. For as ſuch women only as are abuſed, and defiled by corporall fornication are tearmed ſtrumpets: ſo now for the moſt part, thoſe images only which are abuſed to ſpirituall fornication are called idols. Thus Tertullian defineth idolatrie to be the conſecration of images, De idel c. 4. imaginum conſecratio eſt idololatria. Iſid. l. 8. Orig… c. 11. idolum eſt ſimulacrum quod humana effigie eſt conſecratum.or devoting of them to a religious uſe, or ſetting them up to be worſhipped; and agreeably hereunto S. Iſidore defineth an idoll to be an image, conſecrated in a humane ſhape, and ſuch were all idols at the firſt, but in proceſſe of time as men in a quagmire ſinke ſtill deeper, and more foule themſelves: ſo the Pagans fell by degrees into groſſer idolatrie, and turned the glorie of God, not only into the ſimilitude of a corruptible man, but alſo of beaſts and fowles, and creeping things, Rom. 1.23, 24. The difference which Cardinall Bellarmine maketh betweene an image and an idoll, viz. that an idoll is the repreſentation of that which hath no exiſtence in nature, De tradit. p. 3. multa idola erant in qui…us, nec daemon aliquid reſpondebat, ſed tantùm benefactorum Deum repreſentârunt.but an image the likeneſſe of ſomething exiſtent, is very falſe and abſurd. For as Martinus Pareſius confeſſeth, there were many idols of the Gentiles, in which they repreſented God as a benefactour. The mother of Mica dedicated the hundred ſhekels of ſilver unto the Lord, to make a graven and a molten image,L. 2. de imag. c. 24. idololatria non ſolùm fit cum adorantur idola relicto Deo, ſed etiam adoratur idolum cum Deo, quod ſi latria quae exhibetur imagini propter aliud eſt idem cultus cum eo qui exhibetur Deo, aequè colitur creatura at que ipſe Deus, quae certè idololatria eſt. Lor. Comment in Act. c. 17. ſi verum eſt Cherubin ore, manibus, cruribus, erectione corporis humanam, jubis à pectore, & cervice pendentibus leoninam, alis Aquilinam, ungulis pedum vitulinam figuram retuliſſe and perſwaded her ſelfe that God would bleſſe her for it: yet no man doubteth but that was an idoll, and ſhee an idolatreſſe, Iud. 17.4. Nay, the Cardinall him ſelfe ingenuouſly acknowledgeth, that to exhibit divine worſhip, even to the image of God is idolatrie; which, ſaith he, is committed not only when an idoll is worſhipped in ſtead of God, but alſo when an idoll is worſhipped together with God. By his owne confeſſion then, an image made to repreſent the true God, may bee an idol, by attributing to it latria, or the worſhip proper to God. Moreover, the Cherubins hee will have to bee as they were indeed images, and not idols in his ſence: yet never was there any thing in nature exiſtent in that forme, as they were expreſſed, namely, as the Rabbins teach, and the popiſh Painters draw them at this day, in the ſhape of a child with wings; or as Lorinus hath it, with the face, hands, thighes, and body of men, but with the mane of Lyons, wings of Eagles, and parted feet of Calves. And no man doubteth but that the image which Aaron made, and which Ezekiah brake downe, and which the Philiſtines conſecrated, and the Baalites worſhipped were idolls: yet were they repreſentations of things exiſtent in nature, the firſt of a calfe, the ſecond of a Serpent, the third of a fiſh, the fourth of the Sunne.
To the ſecond. The Ieſuit maketh a brutiſh replie unworthy a Chriſtian, much leſſe a Divine. For who knoweth not, that delectus ciborum, the difference of meates was apart of the Ceremoniall law abrogated by Chriſt, who teacheth us, that it is not that which goeth into a man which deſileth him,Matth. 15.17 but that which commeth out of him; Who ſent Peter to Cornelius, Acts 10. and by a miraculous viſion revealed unto him, ver. 14.15. that he might not account any meate common or uncleane, what God hath cleanſed, ſaith he, that call not thou common. Let the Ieſuit ſhew us a like abrogation of the law concerning making and worſhipping of images, and then wee will free his Church from idolatrie in this point. But on the contrarie, it is ſo evident, that the ſecond commandement in the Decalogue is not ceremoniall, and poſitive, but morall,Clemens Alex. in protrept. Tertul. de Idol. c. 4. Bellar. de imag. l. 2. c. 7. that not only the ancicient Fathers; but their great Cardinall is forced to confeſſe as much; nay, he is ſo zealous in the point that he taketh Pereſius, Catharinus, and all ſuch Romaniſts to taske, as affirme the ſecond Commandement to bee juris poſitivi, and ſolidly proveth out of Irenaeus, Cyprian, and S. Auſtine, that it is a morall, and conſequently bindeth us as ſtrict as the Iewes.
To the third. The Ieſuits argument is a non ſequitur, for God by Moſes forbiddeth not ſimply to make any image, but to make any image to our ſelves, thou ſhalt not make thy ſelfe any graven image, to wit, to bow downe to it, or to worſhip it, as the words following declare, thou ſhalt not bow downe to them, nor worſhip them. Now what a looſe kind of arguing is this of the Ieſuit, the law forbiddeth us to make any image of God thereby to worſhip him: therefore it forbiddeth us to make any image of man or woman to remember them: the law forbiddeth all ſuperſtitious uſe of images, therefore it forbids all civill uſe of them ſcilicet?
To the fourth. Although Cornelius Agrippa wrote bookes De occultâ philoſophiâ, wherein he ſeemeth to hold too neere correſpondencie with Magicians, and Conjurers, yet this doth not altogether diſable his teſtimony. For Euſebius and Conſtantine the great made good uſe, not only of the prophecies of the Sybbillaes, who for ought appeares were heatheniſh women: but alſo of the Oracles of Apollo, dictated by the divell himſelfe. Seneca would have taught the Ieſuit a better leſſon by precept, non quis dicat, ſed quid dicat; we are not to conſider ſo much who it is that ſpeaketh, as what it is that is ſpoken: and Virgil by his practiſe, who often read the Poemes of Ennius, whoſe skill was little in poetrie, & language obſolete, and being queſtioned for it, anſwered aurum è ſtercore, I gather gold out of muck. By the Ieſuits rule no Phyſician or Apothecarie ſhould make uſe of a pretious ſtone called Bufonites, becauſe it is found in the head of a Toad, or of a Turkes; or Lyncurie, becauſe it iſſueth out of the body of a ſpotted beaſt, called Lynx. Let Cornelius Agrippa be in his eyes as ugly as the Lynx or Toad, yet the ſentence or teſtimonie rather which the Knight taketh from him like the Lyncurie or toadſtone, it is of price and of good uſe, to wit, that the Iewes were ſo farre from making any thing that they worſhipped, or worſhipping any thing that they made, that they abhorred nothing more then images.
To the fift. Philo Iudaeus in this point is Philo-Chriſtianus a friend to our orthodox Chriſtian doctrine, concerning the unlawfulneſſe of making any image of God,Antiguit. l. 18 c. 11. Iudaei ſupplicant ne ſe a deam neceſſitatem cogeret, nevè ſacratam urbem pollueret vetitis imaginibus, tum Petronius, pugnabitis igitur cum Caeſare, nec illius opes, nec veſtram imbecillitatem adbibentes in concilium, non pugnabimus niquiunt, & …oriemur citiùs quam diſcedamus à legibus ſimul que procumbentes, nudantes jugulos, paratos ſe aiebant ad excipiendos gladios. Aelius Lamp. in Alex. Strom l. 5. & 6. Moſes multis ante ſeculis aperte legem ſanxerit, nullam op…rtere ſculptilem, vel fuſilem, velfictam, vel pict am imaginem ſimulacr umve facere, quoniam inquit nihil in robus genit is poteſt referre Dei imaginem. Lib. de Spectac. c. 23 jam ver ò ipſum opus perſonarum quaero an Deo placeat qui omnem ſimilitudinem vetat fieri, quantò magis imaginis ſuae, non amat falſum outhor veritis at is, adulterum eſt apud illum omne, quod fingitur. Orig. l. 4. cont. Celſum; Dei in corporei, & inviſibilis nullam effigiem faciunt foreign. Minut. Fel. in Octav. quod enim ſimulacrum Deo fingam cum ſi rectè aeſtimas ſit Dei homo ipſeſimulacrum? Lactant. divin. inſtit. l. 2 c. 8. quare non eſt dubium quin religio nulla ſit ubicun que ſimulacrum eſt: nam ſi religio ex divinis rebus eſt, divinum autem nibil eſt niſi in caeleſtibus rebus; carent ergo religione ſimulacra, juia nihil poteſteſſe c…eleſte in eare quae fit ex terra. Concil. Elib. can 36. placuit pictur as in cccleſia eſſe non debere ne quod colitur, aut adoraturin parietibus pingatur. Orat. cont. Greg. Sabel. ſtultorum, & vecordium ista ſunt verba, oculis, & loco volentium compeehendi id quod incorporale est. or ſetting it up in the Church or Temple. For in his booke wherein he treateth of his Embaſſie to Cajus hee writeth, that the Temple from the firſt beginning to his time never admitted any image, being the houſe of God: for the worke, ſaith hee, of painters and carvers, are the images of materiall gods, but to paint the inviſible God, or to faine any repreſentation of him, our Anceſtours held a wickedneſſe. Philo is ſeconded by Ioſephus, When the Emperour Caligula was deſirous to have his owne image ſet up in the Church of Ieruſalem, the Iewes, ſaith Ioſephus, firſt intreated him, that hee would not defile the holy Citie with images forbidden by the law, and for their owne particular, they reſolved rather to die, then ſuffer the law which forbad the ſetting up of images in Churches to bee abrogated. Neither was this the common opinion only of thoſe learned Iewes, that none could, or ought, expreſſe the majeſtie of God by pictures: but of the Chriſtian Doctors in all ſucceeding ages, for
In the ſecond age Adrian the Emperour commanded, that Temples ſhould be made in all Cities without images, and thereupon it was preſently conceived, that he intended thoſe Temples for Chriſtians. Clemens Alexandrinus teacheth, that Moſes made a law whereby hee plainly and expreſly forbad any image molten, carved, or painted, to be made of God, becauſe, ſaith hee, there is nothing in the creature that reſembleth the image of God. Tertullian living much about the ſame time, in his booke De ſpectaculis affirmeth, that God hath forbidden the likeneſſe of any thing to be made, much more the likeneſſe of his owne image: the authour of truth doth not love any thing that is falſe or counterfeit, and all that is feigned or formed by art of him, is nothing but counterfeit. Origen ſpea king of the South Church, ſaith, the Chriſtians make no image of the incorpor all and inviſible God.
In the third age Minutius Felix, when the Gentiles demanded of the ancient Chriſtians, why they had no Images returned this anſwer, What image ſhall I make to God, when man himſelfe, if we rightly judge, is Gods image? Lactantius concludeth peremptorily, there is no doubt that there is no religion, wherſoever there is an image, for ſeeing religion conſiſteth of Divine things, and nothing divine is to be found, but in heavenly things; images therefore are voyd of religion, becauſe nothing that is heavenly can bee in that thing which is made of earth.
In the fourth age, the Councell of Eliberis decreed, that no pictures ſhould bee in Churches, leſt that which is worſhipped and adored, ſhould be painted on walls. Athanaſius condemneth them for fooles and ſenſeleſſe, who liken God to corporall things: Euſeb. evan. praef. l. 3. quid ſimile baber corpus humanum menti Dei? & quis tam amens erit ut dei formam, & imaginem ſtatuâ viro ſimili referri perhibeat?Euſebius is as hot in the point as Athanaſius, what ſimilitude hath the body of man with the mind of God, who would bee ſo mad as to imagine the forme and image of God to be reſembled by an image and ſtatue like unto man; and in his Epiſtle to Conſtantia the Empreſſe, who ſent to him for an Image of Chriſt, he thus debateth the matter, What image doe you require of Chriſt, ſuch an one as may expreſſe the characters of his divine nature? but I thinke you are ſufficiently inſtructed of this, that no man hath thus ſeene the Sonne, but the Father. Doe you require the image of the forme of a ſervant which he tooke?Epiph. ep. ad Iohan. Ieruſ. ep. 60. inveni ibi velum pondens in foribus ejuſdem eccleſiae tinctum at que depictum, & habens imaginem quaſi Chriſti vel. ſancti alicujus non enim ſatis memini cujus imago fuerit: cum ergo hoc vidiſſem in eccleſiâ Chriſti contra authoritatem ſcripturarū, hominis pendere imaginem ſcidi illud. & magis dedi conſilium cuſtodibus ejuſdem loci ut pauperem mortunm eo obvolverent, at que efferrent. Ierome in Ezek. l. 4. c. 16. nos unam habemus vivam, & unam veneramur imaginem quae eſt imago inviſibilis, & omnipotentis Dei. Amphiloc. citat. à pat. concil. Conſtantinop. An. 754 foreign. Aug. de mor. Eccl. c. 34 novi multos eſſe ſepulchrorū & picturarum adoratores, &c. Ep. 109. ad Ian. in primo praecepto prohibetur coli aliqua in figmentis hominum Deiſimilitudo, non quia, non habet imaginem Deus, ſed quia nulla imago ejus coli debet, niſi illa quae hoc eſt quod ipſe. L. de fid. & ſymb. tale ſimulacrum Deo nefas eſt Chriſtiano in templo collocare. but you muſt underſtand that that was joyned to the glory of his God-head, in ſo much, that his Apoſtles could not behold the glory of his fleſh in the mount; much more glorious is it now having put off mortalitie, who is therefore able with dead and liveleſſe colours, and a ſhadowed picture to expreſſe thoſe bright and ſhining beames of ſo great glorie. Epiphanius as zealous as either for entring into a Church at Anablathra, and finding there a vaile hanging at the doore died, and painted, and having the image as it were of Chriſt, or ſome Saint, ſeeing this, that contrary to the authoritie of Scriptures the image of a man was hung upin the Church of Chriſt, he cut it, and the vaile and gave counſell to the Keepers of the place, to wrap and burie ſome poore dead man in it, and he intreated the Biſhop of Ieruſalem to give charge hereafter, that ſuch vailes as that was, being repugnant to Chriſtian religion ſhould not bee hanged up in the Church of Chriſt. S. Ierome in his Comment upon the ſixteenth of Ezekiel teacheth, that Chriſtians never acknowledge, nor worſhip any image of the inviſible and omnipotent God ſave one, to wit, his Sonne.
In the fift age Amphilochius Biſhop of Iconium inſtructeth us what account the Church made of images in theſe words, Wee have no care to figure by colours the bodily viſages of Saints in tables, becauſe wee have no need of ſuchthings; But by vertue to imitate their converſation; and S. Auſtine treating of the catholique Church profeſſeth that hee knew many worſhippers of graves and pictures, and withall addeth the Church cenſure of them, but the Church, ſaith hee, condemneth them, and ſeeketh every way to correct them as ungracious children: and in his 109. Epiſtle to Ianuarius, C. 11. hee writeth that in the firſt Commandement, any ſimilitude of God deviſed by man, is forbidden to bee worſhipped, not becauſe God hath not an image, but becauſe no image of him ought to bee worſhipped, but that which is the ſame thing that hee is; as for drawing him after the ſimilitude of a man hee utterly diſliketh it, ſaying, it is unlawfull for a Chriſtian to erect any ſuch image, and place it in the Church; for as elſe-where hee argueth, images prevaile more to bow downe the unhappy ſoule, in that they have a mouth, eyes eares, Pſal. 113. Conc. 2. plus enim valent ſimulacra ad curvandam infaelicem animam, quòd os babent, oculos habent, aures habent, nares habent, manus habent, pedes habent, quam ad corrigen…am quòd non loquantur non videant, &c. God. li. 8. tit. 12. prohibemus baſilicam alicujus imagine obſcurari. Greg. Regis l. 7 ep. 109. ad Seren praetereà judico dudum ad nos perveniſſe, quòd fraternit as veſtra quoſdam imaginum adoratores aſpiciens eaſdem ecclefiae imagines confregit at que projecit, & quidem zelum vos ne quid manufactum adorari poſſit, habuiſſe laudavimus, ſed frangere eaſdem imagines non debuiſſe judicamus, idcirco enim pictura in eccleſia adhibetur, ut 'hi qui liter as neſ…iunt ſaltem in parietibus videndo legant, quae legere in codicibus non valent. Vid. Concil. Nic. 2. Act. 6. Zonoras hiſt. Tom. 3. foreign.noſtrills, hands and feet, then to correct it, in that they neither heare, nor ſee, nor ſmell, nor handle, nor walke.
In the ſixt age. The Emperour Iuſtinian ſetteth downe a law made by Theodoſius and Valentinian, which forbiddeth Churches to bee obſcured with any images or painted tables.
In the ſeventh age. When Images began to be ſet up in the Churches, Serenus Biſhop of Marſilis brake them downe, which fact of his, though Gregorie diſliked, becauſe he thought that images might profitably be retained as lay-mens books: yet in this hee commended his zeale, that hee would by no meanes ſuffer them to bee worſhipped.
In the ſeventh age. There was a Councell held at Conſtantinople, Anno 754. whereinlt was decreed by 338. Biſhops in this manner, Wee doe declare that all images of what nature ſoever, made by the wicked art of the Painter be caſt out of Chriſtian Churches, whoſoever from this day forward ſhall dare to ſet up any images of God either in the Church, or in a private houſe; if hee be a Biſhop let him bee depoſed, if he be a lay-man let him bee accurſed. Zonoras ſaith, that in the hearing of all the people they openly forbad the worſhipping of Images, H. de orthodox fid. l. 4. c. 17. & orat, de imag.calling ſuch as adored them idolater. And in the yeare 794. Charles the great called a Councell of 300. Biſhops of France, Italie, and Germany, in which the ſecond Synod of Nice, which decreed the erecting and worſhipping of images is refuted and condemned; yea, and ſome of the patrones of images, as namely Durand, and Gregorie the ſecond profeſſedly inveigh againſt all Images and Pictures, made to repreſent the Deity or Trinitie, it is unpoſsible, ſaith Damaſcene, that God who can neither bee ſeene by man, nor circumſcribed, ſhould be expreſſed in any ſhape or figure; nay, ſaith hee, it is extreame madneſſe and impietie to make a repreſentation of the Godhead: Ep. Greg. ad Leo. Imper. de imag. in.and Gregorie the ſecond giveth this reaſon to Leo the Emperour why they painted not God the Father, Quoniam quis ſit non novimus, becauſe wee know not who hee is, and the nature of God cannot be painted, and ſet forth to mans ſight.
In the eighth age.Rhem. cont. Hinc. Laud. c. 20. Hincmarus Archbiſhop of Rhemes tells us, that not long before his time a generall Synod was called in Germanie by Charles the great, and therein by the rule of Scriptures and Fathers, the Councell of Nice indeed ſaith he, a wicked Councell touching images, which ſome would have to bee broken in pieces, and ſome to bee worſhipped was utterly rejected. In this age in the yeare 824. a Synod was held at Paris under Ludovicus Pius, where the foreſaid Councell of Nice was likewiſe condemned.
In the ninth age.Ionas Aurelian. de cultu imag. l. 1. quae picturae non ad adorandum, ſed ſolummodò teſte beato Gregorio, ad inſtruendas neſcientium mentes in eccleſijs ſunt antiquit us fieri permiſſae. Agob. l. de …ict. & Imagin. rectè nimirum ad ejuſmodievacuandam ſuperſtitionem ab orthodoxis fratribus definitum eſt picturas in eccleſia fieri non debere, ne quod adoratur in parietibus depirgatur. Rhemig. in pſal. 96. non ſun ſunt adoranda ſimulacra, nec enim Angelus adorandus eſt. Anſel. gloſſ. interlin. in Deut. c. 4. formam non vidiſtis ne ſcilicet volens imitari ſculpendo faceres idolum tibi. Ʋid. Symph. Cathol. p. 822. Ann. lal 2. foreign. Ionas Biſhop of Orleans wrote againſt Claudius Biſhop of Turin concerning images, wherein he holdeth, that the images of Saints are not to bee worſhipped, though they may be ſet up in Churches for ornament, and to bring into the mind of ſimple people the ſtorie of the Bible. And Agobardus Biſhop of Lions telleth us, that the orthodox Fathers for the avoiding of ſuperſtition, did carefully provide that no pictures ſhould bee ſet up in Churches. Rhemigius boldly profeſſeth, that neither images nor Angels are to bee worſhipped.
In the tenth age. Anſelmus Laudunenſis the authour of the interlineare gloſſe upon the Bible, compoſed of the Fathers writings, expoundeth that text of Deuteronomie, Yee ſaw no manner of ſimilitude in this ſort, leſt that willing to reſemble that ſimilitude by engraving, thou ſhouldſt ſet up an idoll to thy ſelfe.
In the eleventh age. Nicetas Croniates a Greeke hiſtorian reporteth in the life and reigne of Iſaac Angelus, one of the Eaſterne Emperours, that when Frederick Emperour of the Weſt made an expedition into Paleſtine, the Armenians did gladly receive the Almaines, becauſe among the Almaines and Armenians the worſhipping of images was forbidden alike.
In the twelfth age.Annal. p. 1. Hiſt.eccl. l. 18. c. 53. imagines patris, & ſpiritus ſancti effigiant quod eſt pe rabſur dum. Durand. in 3. ſentent.dist. 9. q. 2. facere imagines ad repraeſentandum deū patrem, et ſpiritū ſpiritū ſanctū, aut venerari ej us imagines fatuū eſt; unde Damaſcenus dicit quod inſipientiae ſummae, & impietatis eſt, figurare quod eſt divinū. Avēt. hiſt. Bavar. l. 7. In Deut. 4. in imaginibus ſignantibus Deum unde ſcilicot trinitatem duo inconvenientia ſequi poſſunt primū idololatriane etiam imago colatur, ſecundum error, & haereſis ſcilicet attribuere Deo illam corporeitatem, & eſſenti…lem differentiam gualē tres illas figuras figurare cōſpicimus. Roger Hoveden an Engliſh Hiſtorian condemneth the worſhip of images: for ſpeaking of the Synodall Epiſtle written by the Fathers of the ſecond Nicene Councell, wherein Image worſhip was eſtabliſhed, hee addeth, quod omninò eccleſia Dei execratur, which the Church of God altogether abhorreth.
In the thirteenth age. Nicephorus writing of the Iacobites ſaith, that they made images of the Father, and the holy Spirit, which, ſaith he, is moſt abſurd. Durand ſtoutly maintaineth, that it is utterly unlawfull to picture, or repreſent the Trinitie, or God, otherwiſe then as in Chriſt hee tooke our fleſh: and Pope Iohn the 22. calleth certaine men that dwelt in Bohemia and Auſtria, Anthropomorphitas (that is, heretiques aſcribing an humane ſhape to God) becauſe they painted the Trinitie in forme of an old man, with a young man and a Dove.
In the fourteenth age. Abulenſis is utterly againſt all painting of the Trinitie, becauſe from thence two inconveniences may follow; firſt the perill of idolatrie, in caſe the image it ſelfe ſhould come to bee worſhipped: ſecondly, errour and hereſie by aſcribing to God ſuch bodily ſhapes and formes, as the Trinitie is uſually pictured withall. And Gerſon commenting upon the firſt Commandement ſpeaketh fully in the Proteſtant language, all images are forbid to bee made to adore or worſhip them: thou ſhalt not adore nor worſhip them; that is, thou ſhalt not adore them with any bodily reverence, as bowing or kneeling to them, Gerſon compend. theolog. de pri. praecep. ad adorandum, & colendum prohibentur imagines fieri.thou ſhalt not worſhip them with any devotion of mind.
But to returne back to Philo, whoſe teſtimonie the Ieſuit would faine put off by a double anſwer, firſt, that the Iewes had not in their Temple any picture of God, becauſe hee cannot be painted: next that they had no picture of Saints, becauſe there was none as yet might have the honour to have their pictures in the Temple, being not yet admitted themſelves into the Temple of God. The firſt of theſe anſwers, the better it is, the worſe it is for himſelfe; the ſtronger it is, the more it maketh againſt the practiſe of his owne Church: in which wee ſee the Trinitie familiarly painted. In his ſecond anſwer hee palliateth idolatrie by impietie, and that hee may have ſome colour to ſet up images of new Saints in Churches upon earth, hee excludeth all the old Saints before Chriſt, out of the heavenly temple of God. Not to digreſſe here to a diſpute about their imaginary Limbus, I would faine know of the Ieſuit, where did Enoch walke with God after hee was tranſlated, that hee ſhould not ſee death? to what place was Elias carried in a fierie chariot, not into heaven? When Dives ſoule was dragd by Divels into hell, was not Lazarus ſoule carried by Angels into heaven? the text ſaith,Luk. 16.22. hee was carried into Abrahams boſome; and where is that S. Auſtine will informe you, even where the ſoule of his friend ſaint Nebridius, and other bleſſed Doctours and confeſſours now live: whatſoever place, ſaith hee, is meant by the boſome of Abraham, ibi vivit Nebridius meus quis enim alius locus tam piae animae? Auguſt. Confeſſ. l. 9. c. 3.there my Nebridius liveth, for what other place were meete for ſo godly a ſoule?
To the ſixt. There is nothing ſo eaſie as for a man with Antipho to purſue his owne fancie, or ſhadow, to ſet up a man of ſtraw, and puſh him downe with a feſtraw: the Knight doth not thus argue, the Iewes hate the Image, and croſſe of Chriſt, therefore Chriſtians ought ſo to doe: for by the like reaſon it will follow that wee ſhould condemne the very Goſpell, yea and hate Chriſt himſelfe, becauſe the Iewes doe ſo; that is not his argument, but the Ieſuits phantaſme. The Knights argument ſtandeth thus if of his enthymem we make a Syllogiſme;
None may or ought to give a ſcandall to Iew or Gentile.
But by ſetting up images or crucifixes in Temples, the Iewes are ſo ſcandalized, that even thoſe among them, who other wayes might be enclined to embrace the Chriſtian faith are made utterly averſe from it: becauſe they cannot perſwade themſelves that it can bee the true religion which maintaineth image-worſhip, which is ſo directly and expreſly forbidden by God in the law.
That the Iewes are thus ſcandalized at the idolatrous practice of the Roman Church, the Knight proveth by an eye-witneſſe Sir Edwine Sands, who in his deſcription of the religion in the Weſt parts obſerveth, that the worſhip of images as it is at this day practiſed by the Roman Church, is ſuch a ſtumbling block to the Iewes, and hinderance to their converſion, that when they come to Chriſtian Sermons, as in Rome they are enjoyned at least once a yeare, ſo long as they ſee the Preacher direct his ſpeech to a little woodden crucifix that ſtandeth on the Pulpit by him, to call it his Lord and Saviour, kneele to it, embrace it and kiſſe it, to weepe upon it, as it is their faſhion in Italie, it is preaching ſufficient for them, and perſwadeth them more with the very ſight of it to hate Chriſtian religion, then any reaſon the world can alledge to love it.
To the ſeventh. The argument drawne from the Cherubins, is refelled profeſſedly by Tertullian, De idol. c. 5. Apoſtolus affirmat omnia tunc figuratè populo accidiſſe, & addit benè quòd idem Deus quilege vetuit ſimilitudinem fimilitudinem fieri, extraordinario praecepto ſerpent is ſimilitudinem fieri mandavit, ſi eundem Deum obſervas, habes logem ejus nefeceris ſimilitudinem, ſi & praeceptum factae poſteà ſimilitudinis reſpicis, & tu imit are Moſen ne facias adverſus legem ſimulacrum aliquod, niſi & tibi Deus juſſerit.the Apoſtle, ſaith he affirmeth, that all things happened to the Iewes in figures, and hee addeth well, the ſame God, who in his generall law forbad any ſimilitude to be made, by an extraordinary precept commanded ſome ſimilitude to bee made, if thou doſt ſerve the ſame God, thou haſt his law; Make to thy ſelfe no graven image, or ſimilitude, if thou regardeſt the Precept of making a ſimilitude (as of the Cherubins, or brazen ſerpent, &e.) imitate thou Moſes, make thou no image againſt the law, unleſſe God command thee by a Precept. Whereunto wee may farther adde, that the Cherubins were not made publikely to bee ſeene and gazed upon by the people: but were kept in the holy place whither the Prieſts only reſorted; neither were they worſhipped by the Prieſts, as Lyra (cited by the Ieſuit) who was himſelfe a Iew at the firſt, and well knew their practice, profeſſeth, the Iewes, ſaith he, worſhipped not the Arke nor the Cherubins, nor the mercy ſeate, but the true God which promiſed to helpe them, neither were they ſet up in the Temple for adoration, but for ornament, L. 9. c. 6. q. 7. non ut adorarentur ſed ob ornatum, & pulchritudinem Tabernaculi vel Templi, & ad majeſtatem Dei plenius oſtendendam. Lorin. in Act Apoſt c. 17. de Cherubinis juſſu Dei factis, & de alijs imaginibus … Solomone dicendum, fuiſſe duntaxat ut appendices, & additamenta ornatus alterius rei non verò per ſe propoſitas modo accommodato ad adorationem quam conſlat quo que ab Haebreis ipſis, non fuiſſe exhibitam, quod utrum que docet Tertullianus erit que id magis verum, ſi verum…eſt Cherubin ore, manibus, cruribus, erectione corporis bumanam, jubis à pectore, & cervice pendentibus Leoninam, alis aquilinam ungulis pedum vitulinam figuram retuliſſe. Vaſq. I de adorat. 2. diſp. 4. c. 6. nunquam cherubinis honor, aut adoratio adhibita fuit, aut oſculo, aut genuflexione, aut oblatione …huris, aut alio ſigno peculiari ad ipſos directo, nec quiſquam niſi ex ſuo cerebro, & abſ que ullo fundamento contrarium poterit affirmare.as Azorius convinced by evidence of truth acknowledgeth, ſaying, the Cherubins were not painted or engraven on the Arke, to the end they might bee adored, but only to adorne and beautifie the Tabernacle, and more fully to expreſſe the majeſtie of God, with whom Lorinus and Vaſquez accord, concerning the Cherubins made by the command of God; and other images in Solomons Temple, wee muſt ſay that they were there as appendices and additions for the adorning of ſomething elſe, not ſet forth by themſelves in a manner fit for adoration; which it is manifeſt that the Iewes never exhibited to them, both which Tertullian teacheth. Vaſquez commeth not behind Lorinus, teaching a contrarie leſſon to Flood here, his words are, That the Cherubins were never adored nor worſhipped, neither by kiſsing them, nor with bowing of the knee, or by offering Frankinſence, or by any other meanes, neither can any man affirm the contrarie, except it be out of his owne braine without any foundation or ground at all.
To the eighth. In this allegation the Ieſuit ſheweth from whence he and his fellowes are deſcended,L. 3. cont. haereſ c. 2. cum ex ſcripturis arguuntur in accuſationem convertuntur ipſarum ſcripturarum, quaſi non rectè haheant, ne que ſint ex auiboritate, & quia variè ſint dictae, & juia non poſſit ex his inveniri veritas, ab his qui neſciunt traditionem, non enim perliter as traditam illam, ſed pervivam vocem. Aug. in 10. tract. 49. Sanctus Evangelifia teſtatur multa Dominum Chriſtum & dixiſſe, & feciſſe quae ſcripta non ſunt: electa ſunt autem, quae ſcriberentur, quae ſaluti credentium ſufficere videbantur. Cyr. in 10.12. c. 68. non omnia quae Dominus fecit conſcripta ſunt, ſed quae ſcribentes ſufficere put ârunt tam admores quàm ad dogmata, ut rect â fide, & operibus, & virtute rutilantes, ad regnum caelorum perveniamus. viz. from the ancient Gnoſticks and Valentinians, who as Irenaeus teſtifieth againſt them, When they are convinced of their hereſies out of Scripture, they fall on accuſing the Scriptures themſelves, impeaching their authoritie, and charging them with ambiguity, and ſaying that the truth cannot be found out of them by thoſe who know not tradition, for that it was not delivered by letters, but by word of mouth. But becauſe I have beate the Ieſuit heretofore out of this dodge, and have proved abundantly the ſufficiencie and perfection of Scriptures, I will ſpare farther labour herein, and only ſhew how ſhamefully he depraveth one text to the derogation of the whole Scripture, S. Iohn in the place alledged by him ſpeaketh not of points of faith or manners, precepts, or examples for our imitation, but of miracles, 10.20. 30. Many things truly did Ieſus in the preſence of his Diſciples, which are not written in this booke; Upon which words S. Auſtine and S. Cyrill thus gloſſe full in the Proteſtant language, the holy Evangeliſt teſtifieth that Chriſt did, and ſaid many things that are not written, but thoſe things were choſen to bee written, which ſeemed ſufficient for the ſalvation of them that beleeve; and S. Cyrill, all things which Chriſt did are not written, but what the writers thought to bee ſufficient as well for our converſation as doctrine, that ſhining with theright faith and vertuous workes, we may attaine to the kingdome of heaven.
To the ninth. Were the grave authours, the Ieſuit ſpeaketh of authenticall, and theſe ſtories goſpell: yet the Adverſarie would gaine nothing thereby, nor we loſe; For we are none of the Iconomachi that bid battell to Images, and knock them downe whereſoever they find them with battle-axes. Forbeare the repreſentation of the inviſible Deity, and bleſſed Trinitie, and remove all ſcandall from the people, and perill of idolatrie, and let the images and pictures of Chriſt and his Saints ſtand where they doe for memorie, hiſtorie, and beautifying and adorning the walls and windowes. Wee diſlike it not as the Ieſuit may reade in our bookes, and ſee in our Churches, and houſes. But the truth is, neither are the ſtories of credit, nor the authours of them of that account as the Ieſuit would have them.Comment. in 2 Timoth. Of ſome of them wee may truly ſay, as Eſpencaeus doth of Nicephorus, that they are in theſe relations, ſi non mendaces, ſaltem audaces, if not altogether fabulous, yet very audacious; for the image ſent to King Abgarus, it is of no more credit then the letter ſent with it, which the Romiſh Church, as all other Chriſtians, hold to bee Apochrypha were it Canonicall it ſhould make a part of the New Teſtament. And for the ſecond we cannot but wipe our eyes in bewayling their folly, who beleeve that Chriſt by wiping his face, as hee was carrying his Croſſe, ſhould imprint his image in his handkerchiefe. Yea but theſe images are confirmed by wonderfull miracles wrought by them. I anſwer firſt out of Biel upon the canon of the Maſſe,Diſt. in prophano cultu Diabolus plurimùm delectatur, & quantum valet cooperatur ac aſſiſtit apparentibus miraculis. Cic. in Ver. act. 6. multa prodigia vim ejus numen que declarant. Strab. l. 8. Geograph. Eſpenc. loc. ſup. cit. daemonum ſpectris & mulierum ſomnijs parum verecundè utchantur. Edwin Sands diſcourſe of his Travels, & Apolog Herodoti per R. Stev. that the Divell is much delighted in prophane worſhip (ſuch is your worſhip of images) and helpeth it forward as much as hee can by ſeeming miracles; next, that this was the heathens plea for their worſhipping of images; for Tully ſpeaking of the image of Ceres in Sicily, ſaith, many wonders doe ſhew the divine vertue thereof; and the Graecians as Strabo writeth, uſed to ſet upin tables the diſeaſes cured by Aeſculapius in Epidaurius, as the Papiſts at this day doe, the diſeaſes cured by the image of the bleſſed Virgin in Lauretto. Thirdly, that learned Papiſts finde much fault with the ſeventh generall Councell for founding the worſhipping of images upon the deluſion of Divels, and old wives tales, and dreames. Laſtly, moſt of the Popiſh legendary ſtories in this kind, may eaſily be proved to bee no miracles of God, nor wrought by ſorcerie or enchantment through the power of Satan, but to be meere impoſtures wrought by their Prieſts, who are the greateſt juglers in the world in this kind.
To the tenth. S. Auſtine maketh great account of this ſpeech of Varro, for hee twice maketh mention of it in this fourth booke. Firſt chapter the ninth,L. 4. De civit. Dei, c. 9. Varroni ſimulacra ita diſplicuerunt, ut cum tantae civitatis perverſâ conſuetudine premeretur, nequaquam tamen dicere & ſcribere dubitaret, quòd hi qui populis inſtituerunt ſimulacra, & metum dempſerunt, & errorem addiderunt; Varro was ſo farre out of love with images, that though hee were preſſed with the perverſe cuſtome of ſo great a City as Rome was, yet hee made no bones, both to ſay and write that they, who firſt brought in Images, both tooke away religious feare of God, and added errour to boote: and in his thirtie one chapter he hath this memorable obſervation, the Romans worſhipped their gods more then a 170. yeares without images, and if they had done ſo ſtill, ſaith hee, the gods had beene more chaſtly or purely worſhipped by them. Yea, but the Ieſuit with a wet finger turneth over theſe paſſages, as if nothing were ſaid by S. Auſtine or Varro to the prejudice of their images ſhrines, or Altars: for S. Auſtine by Simulacrum meaneth not animage, but an Idoll, not the repreſentation of the true, but a reſemblance of falſe and feigned deities. The diſtinction of image and idoll, I have before refelled: nothing remaines for the refutation of this anſwer of the Ieſuit, but that I ſhew out of S. Auſtine, De fide, & Symb. c. 7. nec id ipſum quod ſedêre pater dicitur flexis po litibus fiert purandumest, tale ſimulacrum Deo nefas eſt Chriſtianoin Templo … locare.that by Simulacrum hee meaneth any image, even of the true God. And not to trouble the reader with many inſtances thoſe words of his in his Treatiſe of faith, and the Creed, clearely convince the Ieſuit, Wee muſt not think, ſaith he, that God the Father who is ſaid to ſit, ſitteth in heaven-with bowed knees, as a man ſitteth in a chaire, ſuch a ſimulacrum or image, it is not lawfull to ſet up in the Temple of Chriſtians, had the Ieſuit but peruſed the chapter pointed to by the Knight, to which he profeſſeth to give a direct anſwer, hee would have given himſelfe the lye, and checked his former interpretation of S. Auſtines words; for immediatly after the former period, the Father addeth, that Varro in proofe of his aſſertion alledgeth the cuſtome of the Iewiſh nation; Hujus ſententiae ſuae teſtem adhibet gentem Iudaeam. Vnum Deum, à quo mundum crederet gubernari, ſine ſimulacre colendum cenſuit.and a little after he ſaith, that Varro thought that God by whom hee beleeved the world was governed, ought to be worſhipped without an image: by which words it is evident, that by ſimulacra hee meant, not only the images of falſe gods, which alone the Ieſuit calls Idolls, but alſo of the true God; For the Iewes whoſe cuſtome hee bringeth in for himſelfe, abhorred all Images or Pictures even of the true God: and Varro himſelfe by that Governour of the world whom hee would have to bee worſhipped, without an image, meant the true God, as S. Auſtine himſelfe teſtifieth of him. Howſoever the title which hee there giveth him of anima mundi, or ſoule of the world, ſoundeth harſhin a Chriſtian eare: yet S. Auſtine alloweth of Varro his aſſertion or opinion, as comming neerer to the truth, then other of the heathen Phioſophers, in that hee taught but one God, and him to bee not materiall or corporeall, but of a ſpirituall and inviſible ſubſtance, and therefore not to bee drawne with penſill, or counterfeited with colours, without errour or impietie.
To the eleventh. Euſebius relateth the ſtorie of Veronica her ſtatue dedicated to the memorie of Chriſts miraculous cure wrought upon her, with approbation there of as being a laſting monument, and ſtanding teſtimonie of her gratitude to our Saviour, and much tending both to the confirmation of the Goſpell in generall, and that particular miracle of Chriſt, for who would not beleeve that the woman was cured of her bloudy iſſue by touching the hemme of Chriſts garment, when hee ſaw an unuſuall kind of herbe growing at the foot of that Statua, which as ſoone as it grew up ſo high, as to touch the hemme of the brazen garment, received a miraculous vertue from it to cure diſeaſes of every kind; notwithſtanding all this faire weather Euſebius falleth fowle upon the Originall of this erecting ſtatuaes to the memorie of the dead, attributing it to a heatheniſh rite or cuſtome. Neither doth the Knight any way wrong Euſebius in the relation, or tranſlation of this paſſage. For certaine it is, that the people of God began not firſt to ſet up images, or erect ſtatuaes. The firſt which wee ever read of, was conſecrated to Belus, the ſucceſſour of Ninus by the Aſſyrians who were Paynims, and the word foreign ethnicus or gentilis, ſignifieth Gentile or Heathen; whatſoevr the Ieſuit alledgeth out of Thomaſius Dictionarie to the contrarie, ſaying, Looke in your Dictionarie of Thomas Thomaſius, whether amongſt all the Engliſhes of Gentilis which are there ſet downe, P. 300.you can find heatheniſh, which I dare ſay you cannot. The Greeke word in Euſebius text is foreign, and the Latine gentilis ſignifieth the ſame thing, to wit, belonging to a countrey, people, ſtocke, or family, had the Ieſuits, and Seminarie Prieſts at Doway and Rhemes, better ſtudied Thomas Thomaſius Dictionarie, they would not have fraught their Engliſh tranſlation of the Bible, with ſo many affected harſh-ſounding, and uncoth words to Engliſh eares, as announce archiſynagogue, azymes, commeſſations, depoſitum, didrachme, euroclydon, exinanited, holocauſt, hoſts, victimes, paraclete paſche, reſuſcitate, neophyte, ſuperedified, and the like. Againe, though Thomaſius render not the word Heatheniſh, yet he rendereth it gentile, which is all one; and let the Ieſuit turne over all his Thomaſius, and Eliots, and Riders, and Coopers, and Calepines, and ſee whether hee can find any other proper Latine word anſwering to the Engliſh Heathen, or heatheniſh, then gentilis or ethnicus, a word derived of the Greeke foreign or foreign, the very word uſed by Euſebius in this place. When ſo often in the holy Scriptures of the old Teſtament the word gentes occurreth, as in the 2 Pſal. v. 1. the 9. v. 5. and the 10. v. 16. and the 44. v. 2. and the 98. v. 1. and the 135. v. 15. and elſe-where, what can the Ieſuit meane by it but Gentile, Orat. de obit. Theodoſ. regem adoravit, non lignum uti que quia bic gentilis error eſt, & vanit as impiorum.or how can he tranſlate it in pure and proper Engliſh, but heathen or heatheniſh nations: according to the meaning of the holy Ghoſt in thoſe texts? What will hee ſay to the words of S. Ambroſe, When Helena read the title upon the Croſſe then newly found, ſhee fell downe and worſhipped what or whom? The King (ſaith that Father) to wit, Chriſt there entitled the King of the Iewes; not verily the wood, for that is a heatheniſh errour, and a vanity of ungodly men. Doth not gentilis here ſignifie prophane, Pagan and heatheniſh, therefore the Knights credit is ſalved in that his tranſlation of Euſebius, and the Ieſuits credit and cauſe alſo lyeth a bleeding. For though the word foreign in Greeke, and gentilis in Latine; ſometimes in good authours ſignifieth no more then belonging to a countrie or nation,Veriſimile eſt quod majores noſtri ad gentilis conſuetudins ſimilitudinem, quàmprimùm accedentes, eos qui tanquam ſervatores illis fuiſſent, apud ſe honore ad hunc modum afficere conſueverunt. be it Chriſtian or heatheniſh: yet in this place of Euſebius it cannot be other wayes taken then for heathen, for Euſebius a little before ſaith, it is not to be wondered that thoſe who are ſprung of the Gentiles, or came of heatheniſh parents, and received benefits of our Saviour where he lived, did thus unto him, adding it is very likely, that our anceſtours herein followed the cuſtome of the heathen; who honoured all ſuch with Statuaes who had been as ſaviours unto them preſerving their lives.
To the twelfth. The Councell of Eliberis is as a thorne in the Ieſuits eyes, and therefore he hath many plucks at it: yet he plucks it not out, but pricketh his owne fingerse. Firſt, he ſaith it was an obſcure Councell, Vid ſuprà verba Agobardi.without any certainty of the time when it was held. As obſcure as he maketh it, it is a Councell of reverend antiquity cited by S. Agobardus, and approved by him, and honourably mentioned by all Writers, who impugne idolatrous innovations, & corruptions in the Church. As for the time Baronius and the beſt Chronologers affirme, that it was held in the yeare of our Lord 305. in the time of Marcellus the firſt, and was conſequently more ancient then the firſt moſt famous Councell at Nice; if to this Councell the Ieſuit oppoſe one of Conſtantinople, the other at Rome under Gregory the third, and the third at Nice in favour of images: we in like manner oppoſe to thoſe idolatrous and hereticall, many Councels of better note, condemning imageworſhip, as namely the Councell of Constantinople, held in the yeare 754. and another celebrated there in the yeare 814. and a third at Frankford in the yeare 794. and a fourth at Paris under Ludovicus, in the yeare 824. together with the book of Charles the great, and the Epiſtle of the Engliſh Biſhops penned by Alcuinus, and mentioned by Houeden in his ſtorie of England, and many other tractates of famous writers of England & France, who profeſſedly impugned and refuted the Decrees of the ſecond Councel at Nice, eſtabliſhing image-worſhip. Yea, but ſaith the Ieſuit, the Canon of Eliberis ſhooteth not home to the point in queſtion, for it forbiddeth not pictures abſolutely in Churches, but only painting them on the walls. I reply firſt, that the Councell forbiddeth pictures in Churches abſolutely, the expreſſe words of the Canon are, placuit in eccleſiâ pictur as eſſe non debere, it ſeemed good to the Councell, that pictures ſhould not be in Churches; Whereof the 19. Fathers preſent at that Synod render this reaſon, ne quod collitur in parietibus depingatur, leſt that which is worſhipped ſhould be painted on the walls. Secondly, I reply if the Councell of Elliberis, as the Ieſuit granteth, forbiddeth any image to be painted on the Church-walls, why doe Papiſts every where in their Churches at this day paint images on the walls? Yea but the Ieſuit addeth, who is beſt at a dead lift, that we are beſides the matter, in producing the Canon of this Councell againſt images, which was made in honour of them, ſi crederefas eſt. For the Councell, ſaith the Ieſuit, forbad painting images on the walls of the Church, becauſe they thought not the walls a place convenient, leſt the plaiſter breaking off in ſome places, they might become deformed, and ſo contemptible. Where unto I rejoyne, firſt, that if the Councell did this out of honour to images,Canus loc. theol. non modò imprudenter, ſed & impiè decretum. why doth their learned Biſhop Canus ſo ſeverely tax this Decree, tearming it not only a fooliſh, but an impious Canon? Secondly, if the Councell made this Deeree out of honour to images; Why doe not all Papiſts, who ſtand ſo much for the honour and worſhip of images, obey this Decree, and deface all images that are painted on Church-walls? Thirdly, if it bee an honour to images to be removed out of all Churches according to the purport of this Decree in the Ieſuits underſtanding, then the reformed Churches may juſtly be thought to have ſhewed the moſt reſpect, and done the greateſt honour to images of all other, by caſheering them out of their Churches, prae amore excluſerunt foras; no doubt out of love they ſhut them out of doores. Fourthly, this reaſon taken from plaiſter breaking needeth a plaiſter to make it whole, for if for this reaſon images may not bee painted on walls, for feare of being defaced by weather or the plaiſter breaking: by the like reaſon they ſhould not bee painted in cloth, or upon board, becauſe they are in like manner ſubject there to be ſoyled, razed, ſtolne away, or many other wayes to be injured.
To the thirteenth. The Ieſuit ſueth a Duplex querela againſt the Knight concerning Valence the Emperour; firſt, becauſe hee ſtileth him a good Emperour; next, becauſe hee ranketh him with Theodoſius as Copartner with him in the Empire, whereas Valence was killed twentie three yeares before Theodoſius was borne. Againſt his firſt quarrell I need plead nothing, becauſe Valence is not ſo ſtyled by the Knight in the laſt corrected edition of Via tuta. If the Knight had ſo ſtyled him in any former edition,Bapt. in Chrō. he might have vouched a good authour for it, namely Baptiſta Egnatius who ſpeaking of Valence, and his brother Valentinian ſaith, Digni imperia fratres, & inter bonos referendi, they were worthy the Empire, and to bee ranked among good Princes, ſaving that Valence was ſomewhat blemiſhed by being ſeduced in judgement by the Arrians; Invect. in Iulian.as alſo was Conſtantius the Emperour; and yet Gregorie Nazianzen commendeth him for a religious Prince, that much promoted the affaires of the Chriſtians againſt the heathen. and for the blotte of errour in his judgement hee layes the blame of it upon the ſubtile wits of the Arrian heretiques, who put tricks upon that other-wayes good Emperour. For the ſecond quarrell hee pickes, it is not worth a ſtraw. For though Valence and Theodoſius lived not together, yet they might both enact the ſame law. Valence might firſt make it, and after Theodoſius confirme and revive it, as King Iames hath revived many lawes made by Queene Elizabeth, and other her predeceſſours, though they never reigned together in this Kingdome; howſoever if there were any error in relating this law out of the Coad as the Ieſuit pretendeth,Zanch in praec. 2. Sed Petrus Crinitus ſcribit apertè ſe vidiſſe legem ipſam in antiquiſſimis codicib. qaae ſimpliciter habebat. ne pingeretur nulla mentione ſoli, out marmorum humi poſitorum facta. foreign. he ought to plucke Petrus Crinitus by the beard for it; for the Knight quoteth not the Coad or Digeſts for this law, but Petrus Crinitus, De honeſtâ diſciplinâ, l. 9. c. 9. where hee may find the preciſe words alledged by the Knight, unleſſe peradventure his Petrus Crinitus hath felt the razor of the Popiſh Inquiſition, and if ſo, let him looke to more ancient editions of Crinitus, quoted by the Authour of the Engliſh Homilies, and Zanchius in his Comment upon the ſecond Commandement, where this golden locke of Petrus Crinitus is not cut off. For what Timon ſpake concerning the Editions of Homer, may bee ſaid of Crinitus and other Romiſh Authours, the moſt correct copyes are thoſe that were never corrected.
To the foureteenth. The Ieſuit ſhould have ſaid a Paulian heretique, for Clemanges and Wickliffe profeſſe with Paul, Acts 24.14. That after the way which they (the Papiſts) call hereſie, they ſo worſhip the God of their fathers in ſpirit and truth, that they beleeve all things written in the Law and the Prophets; and nothing as neceſſarie to ſalvation, which is not written in them. It is true, Wickliffe was condemned for an heretique: but it was many yeares after his death, when hee could not plead for himſelfe: and the Councell which condemned him was a perjured and a condemned Councell, not only in the judgements of Proteſtants, but alſo ingenuous Papiſts; for in that Councell three Popes were depoſed, and a fourth choſen, Martin the fift Huz and Ierome of Prage, contrary to the ſafe conduct, ſent them under the Seale of the Emperour Sigiſmund, were burnt to death, and their aſhes throwne in the River. Now as it is an honour laudari à laudato, to bee commended by men that themſelves deſerve commendation: ſo it is no diſgrace or diſparagement at all damnari à damnato, to bee condemned by a Councell which is condemned, and reproved it ſelfe even by the Roman Church at leaſt in the firſt Seſſions of it.Bellar. de Concil. c. 7. Concilium Conſtantienſe quantum ad primas Seſſiones ubi definit concilium eſſe ſupra Papam reprobatum eſt, in concilio Florentino, & Laterananenſi ultimo. And ſuch as are the firſt fruits, ſuch is the whole lumpe.
To the fifteenth. All the Ieſuits Geeſe are Swannes, Multa Dircoeum levat aura Cygnum, &c.but our Dircaean Swannes with him are no better then geeſe, antiquum obtinet; this was juſt the faſhion of the ancient hereretiques, the Gnoſticks, and the Donatiſts, if any came over to their ſide, hee was preſently cryed up for a man of ſingular parts and vertues, but if hee returned to the boſome of the Church, hee was cryed downe for a Weather-cocke, or a treſsis agaſo. It was well ſaith Saint Auſtine, for Maximianus and Primianus, that they fell to the Donatiſts ſect, whereby preſently they gained the reputation of great Clarkes and prime men, wher as other wayes if they had kept their old ſtation, Maximianus would have beene held Minimianus, and Primianus Poſtremianus: but let me tell the Ieſuit that how much ſoever he ſleighteth Caſſander, Eraſmus, and Wicelius: that the worſt of them in the time when he lived, was of better account then I. R. or Leomelius, or Daniel a Ieſu. As for gravitie and wiſedome, hee commeth farre ſhort of Caſſander, for zeale and integritie, of Wicelius: ſo if wee ſpeake of all kind of learning, hee is not worthy to carry Eraſmus bookes after him; Diſpeream, ſi tu matulam praebere Mamurrae dignus es.
But I ſpare him in this kind, becauſe for his impudencie and ignorance: two Sorbon Doctours, Aurelius and Lallier, have diſciplined him to the purpoſe, and I will bee 10th ſaevire in plagas & vulnera. Yea but ſome of theſe mens Workes are marked in the Roman Index, ſaith the Ieſuit, they are ſo indeed to the eternall prayſe of their ingenuity: and to the everlaſting infamie of the Romiſh Inquiſitors crueltie, who ſo deale with the witneſſes of truth, as Pope Sergius did with Formoſus his predeceſſor after his death; they mangle and deface them, cutting off their thumbes and fingers wherewith they teſtified and ſigned the truth in their writings.
To the ſixteenth. In this Paragraph the Ieſuit is totus in fermento: it wonderfully tranſporteth him, and putteth him in a cold ſweat, that the Knight ſhould ſay out of Chemnitius, that the ſecond Synod of Nice, in which Imageworſhip was eſtabliſhed, was condemned in the Councell of Frankford held in the yeare of our Lord 794.P. 308. The Magdeburgians, ſaith hee, and other your owne Authours affirme, that that very Councell of Frankford did ſay an Anathema to all ſuch as deface images; is not this then abominable falſhood in your friend Chemnitius to cite, nay forge it againſt images, and in you to follow him in it? ne Saevi magne Sacerdos: let not the Ieſuit lay about him ſo furiouſly, leſt peradventure hee lend a blow to his beſt friends, for beſides other Hiſtorians of good note, Hincmarus Archbiſhop of Rhemes, P. 306. Hincma. Rhem. adverſ. Hincma. Laudunenſ. c. 20. Graecorum pſeudo-Synodus deſtructa est, & penitùs abdicata. Ado. Vien. in cron. aetat. 6. pſeudo-ſynodus quam ſeptimam Graeci appellant pro imaginibus adorandis abdicata penitùs. Idem habet Regino ad. ann. 794. Bellarmine, lib. de Concil. c. 7. Concilium Francofordienſe reprobatur, quantum ad alteram partem in qua exerrore damnatur ſeptima Synodus.whom himſelfe calleth a Catholique indeed; nay, and Cardinall Bellarmine himſelfe alſo foreign ſaith as much as Chemnitius or the Knight, to wit, that the Councell of Nice was condemned in the Councell of Frankford; neither doth the Anathema pronounced in that councell againſt ſuch as deface images, fall upon us who fight not againſt images, as the Iconomachi did, but againſt image-worſhip, as that Councell of Frankford doth.
To the ſeventeenth. The words of Poly dore Virgill are theſe,Deinvent. l. 6 c. 13. de ſimulacrorum cultu jam agamus quem non modò noſtrae rellgionis expertes, ſed teſte Hieronymo omnes ferèveteres ſancti patres damnabant oh metum idololatriae. Let us now ſpeake of the Worſhip of images, which not only thoſe which were ignorant of our religion, but as Saint Ierome teſtifieth, almoſt all the ancient holy Fathers condemned for feare of idolatrie. To this allegation the Ieſuit ſaith, that Polydore is to be underſtood of the Fathers of the Old Teſtament only. Although Polydore hath not the word Old Teſtament, but ancient Fathers and Saints, which ſtyle the Church of Rome never attributed to any before Chriſt. But bee it ſo, let us take what hee granteth, wee have then the teſtimonie of the true Church before Chriſts Incarnation againſt image-worſhip: and this is advantage enough, unleſſe the Ieſuit could confront their judgement by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, or ſome of the Fathers of the New Teſtament. Yet what if Polydore Virgill in that place nameth ſome of the Fathers in the New Teſtament?Divus quo que Gregorius Serenum epiſcopum Marſilienſem reprehendu quòd imagines fregiſſet, & laudat quòd coli inhibuiſſet. will not that ſtoppe the Ieſuits mouth? reade then a little further in Polydore in the ſame chapter courteous Reader, and thou ſhalt meete with theſe words. Saint Gregorie alſo reproveth Serenus the Biſhop of Marſellis for breaking downe images, and yet commendeth him in that hee forbad the worſhip of them.
To the eighteenth. Pereſius ſaith, that there can bee no ſound proofe brought either out of Scripture, or tradition of the Church, or common conſent of Fathers, or determination of a generall Councell, or any other effectuall reaſon to perſwade a man, that the image of Chriſt, L. de tradit. nullum quod ego viderim, afferunt validum fundamentum, neque ſcripturas, ne que traditionent eccleſiae, ne que communem conſenſum ſanctorum, ne que concilij generalis determinationem aliquam, nec etiam rationem quâ hoc efficaciter ſuaderi poſſet, ſcilicet imagines Chriſti, & ſanctorum adorari debere, eadem adoratione quâ & res quae repraeſent antur. P. 242.and the Saints are to bee worſhipped with the ſame adoration that the ſamplers are. Is this nothing againſt you? then Aquinas, and in a manner all the Schoole-men, Ludovicus Paramo, Bernardus, Pind, Franciſcus Petigianis, Petrus de Cabrera, Azotius, Lamas, Rubio, Buſtus, quoted by the Biſhop of Ely, in his reply to Fiſher, with divers others reckoned up by Bellarmine, l. 2. de imag. c. 20. were no Papiſts. For all the above-mentioned, hold that opinion for Catholique, which Pereſius condemneth.
To the Nineteenth. The more wee looke into Agobardus the greater reaſon wee have to make account of him: for the firſt hee alledgeth the Councell of Eliberis againſt ſetting up of images in Churches: next hee affirmeth that the ancients had pictures of Saints painted or carved, ad recordandum non ad colendum, to remember the Saints by them, not to worſhip them. Laſtly, hee averreth that there is no example in all the Scriptures, or Fathers for adoration of images: and what doth or can any Proteſtant ſay more againſt the doctrine of the Roman Church in this point, then this Agobardus doth, whom this Ieſuit canonizeth for a ſaint? neither can he put him off by ſaying,Hic author cautè legendus eſt, quoniam laborat eodem errore quo Agobardus, & reliqui ejus aetatis Galli, qui negabant ſacris imaginibus ullum deberi cultum religioſum. that hee ſpeaketh againſt Idoll-worſhip, or ſome abuſe of Images which crept in in his time; for Bellarmine who better ſtudied Agobardus, then this Ieſuit, in his booke of Eccleſiaſticall Writers, ad annum 820. in his cenſure of Ionas Biſhop of Orleans ſaith, this Authour is to bee read with caution, becauſe hee was infected with the ſame opinion that Agobardus, and other French Biſhops of that age were, who denie any religious worſhip to bee due to images.
To the twentieth. Sententias loquitur Carnifex; this is the firſt eſſay wee heard from this Ieſuit, but nothing to the purpoſe, for wee grant that things that are good in themſelves, and of a neceſſarie and profitable uſe, are not to bee taken away for the abuſe: but wee denie that Images in Churches are of that nature; neither is his law-Axiome univerſally true, Vtile per inutile non vitiatur, that which is profitable, is not corrupted or made bad by that which is unprofitable. For the brazen Serpent in the Wilderneſſe was for a time utilis, profitable, curing them that had beene ſtung by the fiery Serpent: yet perinutile vitiabatur, it was corrupted and made ſcandalous and unprofitable by the peoples abuſing it to idolatrie: and if that Image being a type of Chriſt, and ſet up by Gods ſpeciall command, was yet broken in pieces by good King Ezekiah, after the people began to worſhip it: how much more ought thoſe images to bee knocked downe, and ſtamped to powder, which are ſet up in popiſh Churches againſt GODS commandement, and have beene abuſed to idolatrie above eight hundred yeares in ſuch a groſſe manner, eſpecially by the vulgar, that as Polydore Virgill ingenuouſly confeſſeth, many of the ruder ſort of them, magis ijs fidunt quàm Chriſto, put more confidence in the image then Chriſt himſelfe?