A Case for the Spectacles, Chapter 9 · 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 so leaving them to the furie, and scorne of the Gentiles, and it is plaine, that the …ouncell 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 Theodosius 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, to wit, 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 per inutile non vitiatur.
The Hammer.
AS those who beheld the head of Medusa were turned 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 unthe to 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 idolatrie 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 bad 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 anathema maranatha, 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 fit to returne no other answer then the French provetbe, 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 versabatur potissimùm insculptâ imagine vel statua quae soliditate partium, at{que} crassitie magis 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 statuas 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, Thou shalt 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 Vasquez 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 Deut. 4.15.16. & 17. is thus rendered in their owne vulgar Latine,Custodite solicitè animas vestras, ne forte deceptifaciatis vobis sculptam imaginem, vel similitudinem masculi vel foeminae. 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 idol. 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 quibus, 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 himselfe 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 a part of the Ceremoniall law abrogated by Christ, who teacheth us, that it is not that which goeth into a man which defileth him, Matth. 15.17but 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,Clemens Alex. in protrept. Tertul. de Idol. c. 4. Bellar. de imag. l. 2. c. 7. and positive, but morall, 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,Antiquit. l. 18. c. 11. Iudaei supplicant ne se adeam necessitatem cogeret, nevè sacraram urbem pollueret vetitis imaginibus, tum Petronius, pugnabitis igitur cum Caesare, nec illius opes, nec vestram imbecillitatem adhibentes in concilium, non pugnabimus niquiunt, & moriemur 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 apertè legem sanxerit, nullam oportere sculptilem, vel fusilem, vel fictam, vel pictam imaginem simulacrúmve facere, quoniam inquit nihil in rebus genitis potest referre Dei imaginem. Lib. de Spectac. c. 23. jam verò ipsum opus personarum quaero an Deo placeat qui omnem similitudinem vetat fieri, qunatò magis imaginis suae, non amat falsum author veritatis, 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 ipse simulacrum? Lactant. divin. instit. l. 2. c. 8. quare non est dubium quin religio nulla fit ubicun{que} simulacrum est: nam si religio ex divinis rebus est, divinum autem nihil est nisi in coelestibus rebus; carent ergo religione simulacra, quia nihil potest esse creleste in ea re quae fit ex terra. Concil. Elib. can 36. placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur, aut adoraturin parietibus pingatur. Orat. cont. Greg. Sabel. stultorum, & vecordium ista sunt verba, oculis, & loco volentiam comprehendi 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 speaking of the South Church, saith, the Christians make no image of the incorporall 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 habet corpus humanum menti Dei? & quis tam amens erit ut dei formam, & imaginem statuâ viro simili referri p…hibeat?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. in veni ibi velum pendens in foribus ejusdem ecclesiae tinctum at{que} de pictum, & 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 mortuum eo obvolverent, at{que} efferrent. Irome 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 Dei similitudo, 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 up in 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 such things; 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 infoelicem animam, quòd os babent, oculos habent, aures habent, nares habent, manus habent, pedes habent, quam ad corrigendam, 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 fraternitas vestra quosdam imaginum adoratores aspiciens easdem ecclesiae 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 literas nesciunt 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. wherein It 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 idolaters. 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.
Rhem. cont. Hinc. Laud. c. 20.In the eighth age. 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 antiquitùs fieri permissae. Agob. l. de pict. & Imagin. rectè nimirum ad ejusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab orthodoxis fratribus definitum est picturas in ecclesia fieri non debere, ne quod adoratur in parietibus depirgatur. Rhemig. in psal. 96. non 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.
Annal. p. 1. Hist. eccl. l. 18. c. 53. imagines patris, & spiritus sancti effigiant quod est pe rabsurdum. Durand. in 3. sentent. dist. 9. q. 2. facere imagines ad repraesentandum deū patrem, et spiritū sanctū, aut venerari ejus 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 scilicet trinitatem duo inconvenientia sequi possunt primū idololatria ne etiam imago colatur, secundum error, & haeresis scilicet attribuere Deo illam corpore itatem, & essentialem differentiam▪ qualē tres illas figuras figurare cōspicimus. Gerson compend. theolog. de pri. praecep. ad adorandum, & colendum prohibentur imagines fieri.In the twelfth age. 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, 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.De idol c. 5: Apostolus affirmat omnia tunc figuratè populo accidisse, & addit benè quòd idem Deus qui lege vetuit similitudinem fieri, extraordinario praecepto serpentis similitudinem fieri mandavit, si eundem Deum observas, habes legem ejus ne feceris similitudinem, si & praeceptum factae posteà similitudinis respicis, & tu imitare Mosen ne facias adversus legem simulacrum aliquod, nisi & tibi Deus jusserit. The argument drawne from the Cherubins, is refelled professedly by Tertullian, 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 Taberna …l… vel Templi, & ad majestate… Dei plenius ostendendam. Lorin. in Act Apost c. 17. de Cherubinis jussi… Dei fac…is, & de alijs imaginibus a Solomone dice…dum, fu…sse duntaxat ut appendices, & additamenta ornatus alterius rei non vero per se propositas modo accommodato ad adorationem quam constat 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 humanam, jubis à pectore, & cervice pendentibus Leoninam, alis aquilinam ungulis pedum vitulinam figuram retulisse. Vasq l de ador it. 2. disp. 4. c. 6. nunquam cherubinis honor, aut adoratio adhibita fuit, aut …sculo, aut genuflexione, aut oblatione thuris, 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 habeant, ne{que} sint ex authoritate, & quia variè sint dictae, & quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas, ab his qui nesciunt traditionem, non enim perliteras traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem. Aug. in Io. tract. 49. Sanctus Evangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum & dixisse, & fecisse quae scripta non sunt: electa sunt autem, quae scriberentur, quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur. Cyr. in Io. 12. c. 68. non omnia quae Dominus fecit conscripta sunt, sed quae scribentes sufficere putârunt tam ad mores quàm ad dogmata, ut rectâ fide, & operibus, & virtute rutilantes, ad regnum coelorum 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, Io. 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 …hus 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 the right 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 Espencaus 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 utebantur. 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 up in tables the diseases cured by Aesculapius in Epidaurus, 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 an image, 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 fieri putandum est, tale simulacrum Deo nefas est Christiano in Templo co 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 thinke, saith he, that God the Father who is said to fit, 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; and a little after he saith,Hujus sententiae suae testem ad hibet gentem Iudaeam. Vnum Deum, à quo mundum crederet gubernari, sine simulacro colendum censuit. 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 harsh in a Christian eare: yet S. Austine alloweth of Varro his assertion or opinion, as comming neerer to the truth, then other of the heathen Philosophers, 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 thereof 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; whatsoever 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 fin…ny 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 occureth, 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, or how can he translate it in pure and proper English,Orat. de obit. Theodos. regem adoravit, non lignum uti{que} quia hic gentilis error est, & vanitas impiorum. 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 consuetudinis 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 otherwayes 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 …ur ancestours herein followed the custome of the heathen; who honoured all such with Statutes 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 fingers. 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 image-worship, 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 picturas 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 credere fas 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. Whereunto 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 pointed 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, pra amore excluserunt foras, no doubt out of love they shut them out of doores. Fourthly, this reason taken from plaister breaking 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 a Copartner with him of 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 imperio 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, aut 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 laudarì 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. And such as are the first fruits,Bellar. de Concil. c. 7. Concilium Constantiense quantum ad primas Sessiones ubi definit concilium esse supra Papam reprobatum est, in concilio Florentino, & Laterananensi ultimo. 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 primemen, wheras otherwayes 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 loth 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 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 Image-worship was established, was condemned in the Councell of Frankford held in the yeare of our Lord 794. The Magdeburgians, saith hee,P. 308. 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 ex errore 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 Polydore Virgill are these,De invent. l. 6 c. 13. de simulacrorum cultu jam agamus quem non modò nostrae rellgionis expertes, sed teste Hieronymo omnes ferè veteres sancti patres damnabant ob 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 reprehendit 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 Chrtst, L. de tradit. nullum quod ego viderim, afferunt validum fundamentum, neque scripturas, ne{que} traditionem 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 repraesentantur. 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, whieh 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, that hee speaketh against Idoll-worship, Hic author cautè legendus est, quoniam laborat eodem errore quo Agobardus, & reliqui ejus aetatis Galli, qui negabant sacris imaginibus ullum deberi cultum religiosum.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?