Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues

THE FIRST CHAPTER.

THE defense of idolatry, which he taketh in hand, being so abhominable to be heard among Christians, after he hath first sought to dasell men's eyes with the vain glitering glory of the Romish Church, now he goeth about to tickle their ears, with a plausible tale of some disorderly doings, in breaking of Images in the low countries. As though the inconsiderate zeal of a few image breakers, or perhaps the licentious riot of some pilfering spoilers, being either Papists or of no religion that were mixed with them, were sufficient to excuse such horrible Idolatry, as the Papists daily commit, and M. Sander is not ashamed to defend. He pretendeth as though his purpose were no more, but to answer an objection of I cannot tell what Protestants, nor he him self is able to name any of credit, which affirmed, that the casting down of idolatry in the low countries, and liberty of preaching y ^e gospel procured by a few naked & base men, against an armed Prince, and so many wealthy persons as were enemies to it, must come of the mighty hand of God, and that it was a great miracle. Which thing might well and truly be said, without allowing of anything, that was done beside order.

For there is no doubt, but God directed all things to his glory, although men sought not the same by lawful & ordinary means. It was no miracle saith M. Sander, because they were not resisted in such places where the spoil was made. But so much the greater was the miracle, that in so many places, the hearts of the magistrates with the people were so daunted, that they durst make no resistance.

The story as M. Sander reporteth it, is, that the Lord's of the low countries, dissenting from king Philip about the Spanish inquisition, the king like to be assaulted by the Turks in Naples, and Malta, resort was made to a certain preacher, not called by any authority, in the woods and fields near to Antwerpe. The first quarrel he picketh, is to the preachers calling, which in such times as religion is in a manner overthrown and defaced by Idolatry, as now by the papists, cannot be but extraordinary, and yet lawful, as having authority of God, and approbation of God's Church, moved with chariti • to call men out of the blindness of Idolatry, into the light of the Gospel. This I say, as if he had not been called thither to preach by the Church of God, which was in persecution in those places, which is an ordinary & a most lawful calling. The seconde fault he findeth, is of their preaching in the woods and fields, which hath not been used in a Christian country, but in time of war. As though he hath not read that in Africa, when the Arians which are as good Christians as the papists, persecuted the true Catholics, and drave them out of the cities, they were constrained to meet in such places, as they could, in woods, or fields, or desert corners.

That there were sects among them, it was to be lamented, and yet not to be marveled, for there must be even heresies among you, saith the Apostle, that they which are tried may be made manifest: 1. Corinth. 11. verse 19.

That the feast of the Assumption was chosen, wherein they began the spoil, I hope it was of no hatred to the Virgin Mary, whom they honor with such honor as is due to her, and called her blessed, because God hath chosen her to be a mother of Christ, although they allow not the new cōception of Christ's body under form of bread, by the popish priests, compared in dignity by papists unto the blessed Virgin (as I remember) in five pointes. M. Sander is angry that the new preachers hate that feast of the Assumption of Mary, & yet keep holy the day of the death of S. Paul and S. Thomas. They hate it, because of the popish fable of the Assumption of the body of the virgin living, which yet M. Sander is ashamed of, and calleth it the day of her death. The other feasts which they keep, they keep not in y ^e honor of men, but to the honor of God, they use the days in which y ^e people is accustomed to be assembled, as things indifferent, which except it be in cases of offense giving, may well be used.

The watch word given by a boy, who striking the Image said, Mary thou must come down, is a vain matter, and yet much more probably to be defended, then the prayers of the Idolaters made to that deaf Idole. Blessed Lady help me, &c. Pater noster qui es in coelis, &c. After the watch word followed the spoil of all Idols, and monuments of Idolatry, the magistrates forbidding in vain. I said before the disordered doing of private men cannot be defended, although where M.S. chargeth them with stealinge and caryinge away, I am persuaded he slandereth them, as men of as good credit as he do testify, except some pilfering thieves thrust in amongst them, who as the report goeth, being apprehended, were justly punished.

The manner of their utter defacing of all tables, and all that belonged to them, which Master Sander so much misliked, if it had not wanted lawful authority, had been very commendable, yea even the pissing upon the foul Idol of the altar, might have been defended by the example of Jehu, which turned the temple of Baal, into a lakes, if it had been done by the commandment of a zealous Magistrate. For M.S. most impudently doth bely us, when he saith, that by our doctrine, their Mass cake is a mystical figure of Christ's body, when it is rather a foul stinking and abhominable Idol.

If any Library was destroyed by them, with the bibles, doctors works, & maps of countries, it was very evil & barbarously done of them, & yet I am sure they burned no book of holy scriptures, knowing them to be such, as the papists do, not by tumult of a few ignorant persons, but by consultation & deliberation of the wisest of them, knowing them to be the holy scriptures, & willfully defacing them, not more with flames of fire, then vilainous & despightful words. It is well known y ^t D. Cole the papist, being visitor in Cambridge, when a Bible was brought to him to be defaced, called it bible bable.

They defaced the Friers kitchen stuff, spoiled and carried away their vitailes & stuff, it was more then may be defended, & I think more then was true, and especially that they should bring strumpets into the Abbeys to provoke the young Monks and Friars to lust, which was needless, for their chastity is well enough known.

But lest the fault should be laid upon a disordered multitude without a head, M.S. saith, they had one Hermanus a preacher to their captain, which had been a thief, and had lost one of his ears, if his report be true, he was like to be captain of such a band. As for y ^e prayer of the Nuns y ^t stopped his mouth, y ^t he was able to say no more to them, let them believe it, that think papists cannot lie. There might because why Hermanus would give over his persuasions, when he saw them obstinate, though his mouth were not stopped with their prayer. To conclude, although the defacing and destroying of Idolatry be good, yet may it not be attempted without authority and order, under pretence of zeal, and therefore this fact of the low countrymen is not by any wise man defended, howsoever their zeal may be praised, or y ^e work of god in their inconsiderate doings may be considered.

THE II. CHAP.

In this chapter, he moveth four questions, 1. whether Images may be made, 2. whether any Images may be worshipped, 3. whether it be expedient that any should be worshipped, 4 with what kind of worship Images may be worshipped. To the first he answereth that Images may be made. To the seconde, that these Images only may be worshipped, in respect of Christian religion, which bring us in mind either that there is a God, or that there are three persons of the Trinity, or which represent Christ, or his holy Angels and Saints, by which he alloweth the making and worshiping of the Images of god, or of the trinity, beside y ^e images of Christ, men, and Angels.

To the third, he answereth that it is expedient that Images should be worshipped. To the fourth, he defendeth it for more probable, that the same degree of honor is not due to the Image of Christ, of our Lady, or of other saints, which is due to Christ, our Lady, & other saints themselves, but there is a certain proper honor due to holy Images, which may be called a worship or honor due to a good remembrance or monument. These be his own words, by which he showeth himself contrary to other Papists, that defend that Images are to be worshipped with the same honor that is due to the things whereof they are Images. As that the Image of God is to be worshipped, even with the same honor that is due to God himself.

But going over his questions again, he saith, it is granted for the most part of all men, that Images may be made so they be not abused, which is utterly false, for no Christian man will grant, that it is lawful in any respect to make any Image of God, that is, to transform the glory of the immortal God into the image of a mortal man, or to make that monstrous image of the Trinity, with three faces or three bodies: of an old man, a young man, and a dove. Rom. 1. verse. 23. The seconde and third, he saith are denied by the Caluenistes and Lutherans. In the fourth, there hath been controversy among the Popish Catholics, some thinking the honor dew to the thing it self (by reason that the image is all one with y ^e thing, when it exerciseth the act of an image) might be given to the image thereof. But other be of another mind. Beside this controversy among the Papists themselves confessed about the honor of God, which is one of the chiefest pointes of Christian religiō, note that the former sort make dumb & dead images, to exercise an act, which is a gross & monstrous absurdity. But of all those four questions, M. Sanders promiseth to entreat: first to prove the making of images lawful and commendable: 2. the worshipping of them to be lawful & commendable, as the signs of honorable verities for the verities sake, which is all one, as if you would say, we must worship falsities for love of verities, for between verity & falsity there is no mean, the creature in steed of the creator, Rom. 1. verse. 25. But how absurdly doth he confound images with the signs of all kinds? Or what kind of argument is this? John the Baptist confessed him self unworthy to loose the latchet of Christ's shoe, therefore he would worship his shoe or we must worship his image. Or these, a man embraceth a servant or messenger sent from his friend, kisseth a ring that cometh from him, loveth to hear of his name, esteemeth his picture, therefore we must embrase, kiss, love, & esteem images of God, &c. which he hath not sent unto us, but expressly forbidden us to make or have in any use of religion. But y ^t he should not be mistaken, in saying, images ought to be honored, he doeth not as a learned man should do, make a lawful division or distinction of honor, but like a blind or crafty Sophister, he maketh a confusion and iumbling of diverse names and kinds of honor, to trouble the understanding of a simple reader, as of honor due to God, to Saints, to our prince, to his liuetenant, to our parents, friends, fellows, superiors, and to holy remembrance, and one of these kinds of honor he will prove due to images, and not that which is due to God alone. As though all honor of religion, were not dew only to God, Mat. 4. verse. 10. and honor of charity, were not to be directed by God's law, by which, honor of images is expressly forbidden. But with M. Sander the difference of honor cometh from the mind, and therefore falling down before an image. Kissing, &c. if he think it not to be God, nor any reasonable creature, but an image of Christ. &c. is no idolatry. As if God had not by express words forbidden, the falling down before images, yea, although the mind know they be false idols. For else how are they commended, which have not bowed their knees to Baal, nor kissed him with their mouth, among so many idolaters and dissemblers? But Abraham (saith M. Sander) adored the people of the land, yet was he no idolater. As though he could not put a difference between civil worship & religious: yea, he giveth a rule how to avoid idolatry: Give God thy heart (saith he) and after be secure, that y ^e honor which is given in any respect be for God's sake, & all is well. By this reason, we may worship not only all idols, but we may make idols of all God's creatures, & worship them for God's sake, as the Egyptians did Oxen, crocodiles, cattes, apes & onions, for they be all good monuments & remembrances of God their creator, and better then any forged idol. To avoid which absurdity, it were good not only to look that you worship not anything for God's sake, but to be sure, what God hath commanded you to worship, & that to honor with such honor also as he hath appointed. So shall you worship God aright, & honor his ministers ecclesiastical or civil, his friends, and your brethren, and whatsoever else is worthy of any honor. But Master Sander to avoid the offense that might be taken by the terms of adoration, worshipping, honoring, &c. protesteth that he alloweth only that honoring of images, when the party in the faith of one God, and one mediator Jesus Christ, doth direct his honor by the image to the truth represented, which faith and intention doth deliver him quite from all spice of idolatry. But how false this determination of M. Sanders is, we see evidently by the history of the golden Calf, which Aaron and the people worshipped, even according to his faith and intention, namely, they worshipped the God which brought them forth of the land of Egypt by that image, even Jehovah, that made heaven and earth, Exod. 32. verse. 4. & 5. Again, what manner of faith this is, which is not only not grounded upon the word of God, but also clean contrary to it, children that learn their Catechism can sufficiently understand. In the ende of this Chapter M. Sander practiseth a figure of popish rhetoric, which is, after great brags & promises of proof, to occupy the reader with some by matters, before the performance taken in hand, partly that his understanding should not be so quick, as when his mind is newly kindled w ^t desire of the sight of such things as he promised, & partly y ^t being half wearied with other needless discourses, he should not be so attentive to consider the force of his reasons. Therefore he promiseth first to answer the objections of y ^e adversaries, & yet because that argument is not so fit for his purpose, he turneth it over also, until he have for disputations sake, feigned the honoring of images unlawful, & yet proved y ^t the image breakers in the low countries did not well.

THE III. CHAPTER.

It is confessed, and therefore needeth no proof, that the act of breaking the popish Idols in the low countries, if it wanted the authority of the Magistrate, was unlawful, & yet it followeth not, that the doer • were the ministers of the devil. For they that offend of inconsiderate zeal, are not by and by the ministers of the devil. The people that would have made Christ a King, John. 6. attempted a thing unlawful for them to do, yet were they not for that, the ministers of the devil. The evil was of the devil, the persons for the moste parte sought to serve God, or else M. Sander how will you defend them that commit idolatry upon good intent, in worshipping of an vnconsecrated host, or in worshipping the devil in the likeness of Angels? But to come to your reasons. The abuses of the images (you say) might have been taken away, and the images let alone, and that in deed was the judgment of Gregory, ad Seren. lib. 7. Ep. 109. but his authority against the manifest word of God, which forbiddeth all images in any use of religion, is of small weight with us: Ex. 20. The example of King Hezekiah breaking the brazen serpent is unfitly alleged, to defend the breaking of images by private persons: but the two last reasons that M. Sander alledgeth of the breaking thereof, are to be considered: the one that the brazen serpent was a figure, rather then an image, the other, y ^t it was worshipped as the truth itself. That it was both a figure & an image, he might have said truly, but so to make it a figure, y ^t he denieth it to be an image, is gross impudency: for first it was an image of a serpent, before it was a figure of Christ. And then it followeth hereof, y ^t if such an image as was lawfully made & was a figure of Christ, by lawful authority was broken, when it was abused: howe much more images that were never lawfully made, and also have been abused to idolatry, as all the famous images in Popery have been, ought by like authority to be utterly defaced & destroyed?

To the seconde reason, that the people did worship the brazen serpent as God, it is nothing credible, although they gave unto it the honor due unto God. For that Hezekiah called it Nechushtan, which is a lump of brass, it shown that God is not to be worshipped in any material image, it proveth not what opinion the people had of it. M. San. saith, the Papists worship not the metal of their images, but they use them as occasions to put them in remembrance of them whose images they are. It were an hard point for him to prove, that the Israelites did worship the brass of the serpent, but rather that image of the serpent, as a holy relique, by which their forefathers had deliverance from the stinging of fiery serpents. But to the matter, it is needless for him to cite out of Augustine, that it is not lawful to break Idols, but for them that have authority, and less to prove that they which stale silver crosses and challices &c. if any such were, (as I think he slandereth them) did evil. But he will prove that keepers of Church goods be Idolaters, because they be covetous. He may so prove a greater number of obstinate Papists Idolaters, who both keep Church goods in their houses, and the very Churches or Abbeys, which he maketh all one, for their houses. And yet Augustine whom he citeth, alloweth the converting of idolatrous treasures to common uses, as was the giving of Abbeys by common consent of the realm into the Kings hand, of whom diverse enjoy them as bought or given. If any man unjustly got into his possessiō any such stuff of covetousness, I for my part will not excuse him of idolatry, nor Sander of treason for cursing y ^e Prince, which is enriched by Abbey lands lawfully given, under color of giving offense. But the foundation of the new Gospel is shameful, because the Protestants contemn this act of spoiling, and yet their preachers and Doctors were the captains of the spoil. In the first Chapter, where he told us the story, he could name but one preacher, & him an infamous person, and yet perhaps he slandereth him in all y ^t he saith against him. Now he seemeth as though all the preachers & Doctors were captains of this disorder, which is an impudent and shameless lie: as y ^t which followeth is a malicious and foolish slander, y ^t the inconstancy of the protestants is such, as there is no ground or assurance of our faith, because there be diverse opinions in some matters, y ^t are no articles of faith, or because Papists may feign inconstancy in their doctrine, where there is none at all. For albeit that some have thought, y ^t men must not be enforced to profession of religion, and one or two have written against y ^e regiment of women, as a French Papist also hath done in his Emblemes: yet generally we hold, y ^t heretics are to be punished, and all men compelled to serve God truly, and none suffered to commit idolatry: likewise we hold the regiment of women lawful, as well in the highest estate of a Queen, as in inferior degrees of a mother or a mistress. We always teach obedience unto y ^e Prince. And it is the Pope that armeth subjects against their Prince, discharging them of their allegiance, as in the rebellion of the North. The doings of France and Scotland, are by public instruments testified unto y ^e world, by the Princes them selves, that they were good and lawful, and not done against them, but in their service and obedience. For miracles and Doctors, we never taught diversely of them, but always, that they were to be embraced according to the truth, which they are brought to confirm, which truth must be tried only by the authority of scriptures, neither by miracles, nor Doctors. And because he toucheth by name the miracle of Master Lane of Westchester, although we make no great account of it, as a miracle, which might be a natural cure, yet it is more unlike to be a fable, and more like to be a true miracle, then that which Master Bristow alledgeth of Margeret Iesop with the short leg. The decrees of the Pope, though he be Antichrist, are sufficient to beat down the papists, which hold that he cannot err, the like I say of the glosses and late writers of their own, to whom we owe no obedience, as they profess their faith to be governed by them. And seeing of custom some be good & some be bad, why may we not receive the good and refuse the bad without M. San. frumpe, Let old customs prevail quoth M. Jewel. The old Latin translation of the Bible is in many places corrupt, but never to be preferred before the original of the Greek and Hebrew, although it may be cited where it differeth against the Papists, which receive it as only true. Old writers have called the holy table an altar, and the Communion, a sacrifice or Mass, yet followeth it not, that Popish altars & Popish Mass may not be condemned. But what slanders are these, the body of Christ is the sign of his body, and the sign of the cross, is the body it self crucified, whoever heard these monsters proceed out of our mouths? Again, The communion is taught to be but holy bread. Priests and Bishops need have no temporal possessions, except they thenselves be Priests and Bishops. Priests and Bishops are equal by God's law, therefore Popish Priests, which be the devils Priests, must be equal with Christian Bishops, which for government sake are preferred before Christian Ministers.

Finally, if the Papists burn our malicious and false translations of the Bible, they are said to burn the holy Bible of Jesus Christ. If the Protestants burn the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, & Duch text, as they did in y ^e Low countries, they are commended as holy workers in y ^e Lord's vine. No M. Sander, thy malicious ears never heard that, which thy slanderous pen hath set down, that any man was of us commended, for burning any text of the Bible: and if by disorder, and through ignorance, any texts were burned, yet thou feignest too impudently, in saying, they burned the Duch text. And whereas thou wouldest excuse the purposed malicious burning of English Bibles, by the falseness of their translations, beside that thou speakest absurdly in all learned men's ears, who know the truth of them by conference of them with the original tongues, yet this bewrayeth your malice against the word of God, that having so long complained of our false translations, never a papist of you all will take the pains to translate y ^e Bible truly, that y ^e people might be rightly instructed in God's word by your true translation, if you feared their perverting, by our false translation.

CAP. 4. or as the error of his Printer hath made it, CAP. 3. and so continueth in that error to the end, which I note, because there should be no varying in the conference of his book and mine answer.

The petegreu of such as heretofore have destroyed the altars, the temples, the chalices of God, or the images of Christ and of his Saints: with answer to certain objections which might seem to make for image breakers. Also he noteth a notable story of honor done to Church plate in the ancient time.

This blaser of the Popes arms, pretending to draw a petegreu of such as have destroyed altars, temples, &c. rehearseth a beadroll of Infidels and heretics, which have defaced the true religion of God, which pertaineth nothing to them that by lawful authority deface and destroy the monuments of Popish Idolatry, having an express commandment of God so to do. You shall overthrow their altars, & break down their pillars, ye shall cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire, Deu. 7. v. 5. But this (he saith) pertaineth not unto us to execute, except we had conquered an heathen nation, that worshipped Jupiter and Juno: Mars and Minerva &c. By what commandment then did Hezekiah, Josiah, and all the godly Kings destroy and deface the monuments of Idolatry in the land of Judah, which was no heathen nation, but the most peculiar people of God? By what authority did they destroy the hill altars or high places, in which the people did offer sacrifice only to God? 1. Reg. 3. Finally, by what precept did Hezekiah break down the brazen serpent, which was a figure of Christ infinitely more excellent, then all the images of the Papists, because y ^t had a godly beginning, whereas theirs have a wicked beginning & a worse continuance and abuse? This commandment therefore serveth against all Idolatry, whether it be committed of people y ^t are heathenish, or of such as having so • sacraments of God, are degenerated into false religiō & Idolatry. Wherefore the examples y ^t M. S. alledgeth, beside y ^t some of them are very violently drawn to image breakers, do nothing touche them that deface false religion, but such as destroy true religion. The Philistines were punished for looking upon the ark, Uzzah for touching it upon a good intent, Jeroboam for forsaking the temple of Solomon, and setting up two profane Temples with Idols in them (which M. Sander omitteth,) and making priests of the vilest of the people. This last prank saith he, is practiced, in Anwerpe. How so M.S? New temples are erected. Why sir, is it lawful to have but one temple as then at Jerusalem? Newe ministers are made in Schism. I trust they be not so vile rascals, as the multitude of your Popish hedge priests. But where be the idols in the new temples of Anwerpe, that were in Jereboam's Temple?

But let us hear the rest of his examples. The servants of Iessabel destroyed the altars of God in the days of Elias: It is very true: And Elias with the godly people destroyed the altars of Baal, and slew his Priests. Nebuchadnezzar burned the Temple of Solomon: he did wickedly: Balthasar abused the holy vessels, he smarted for it. But Jehu destroyed the religion of Baal, and the ornaments thereof, and he is commended, so be all the godly Kings for destroying of idolatry: 2. Reg. 10.18.23.

In Malachi God reproveth the Priests for offering the blind and lame, and the polluted bread. Manasseh y ^e priest set up a false Temple in mount Garizim, Antiochus Epaphanes defiled the temple of God, Pompeius entered into the sanctuary. All these did wickedly, but they that with Lawfull authority deface, and destroy idolatry, do that which is right in the sight of the Lord: 2. Reg. 18. & 23.

Christ honored the Temple with his presence, yet he chased out the abusers thereof: Luc. 19. John 2. &c.

The Christians in Tertullian's time, used crossing of their forheades, to show them selves Christians, but no worshipping of any cross, as the Papists do, yet came that estimation of the cross from the Valentinian heretics. Irenaeus, Lib. 1. Ca. 1. An. 150.

The Novatians kept conventicles from the Catholics, such are the assemblies of the Papists, separated from the Church of God, though they be never so many in number, as the Arians in the East and in Africa were.

The Manichees did hate the Image of Christ, whom they denied to be a very man, testified in the 2. Council of Nice, which was almost 800. years after Christ, when Images were made and honored, yet M. Sander noteth it Anno Dom. 280. when in the Church of God were no Images of Christ. But among the heretics Gnostici was there images of Christ, which they honored, An. 129. Ire. Lib. 1. Cap. 24.

Dioclesian and Maximian commanded the Churches of Christians to be destroyed, & the Bibles to be burned, so did the Papists at Orleans, and Anwerpe, to the Churches, & in all places where they come for the Bibles burning. Yet the good man, chargeth the protestants at Anwerpe in S. Frances monastery, for burning the Bible.

When Georgius an Arian Bishop was brought into Alexandria by force, there was great sedition and spoil of Church goods, there hath been as great sedition and spoil in bringing in of Catholic Bishops of Rome & greater also, as many histories do witness, and the Papists will not deny, so many Schisms have ben about election of their Popes.

But nearer to the matter, Julian the Apostate with the paganes pulled down the image of Christ, that was set up in the street of Cesarea Philippi in remembrance of the miracle done upon the woman that was healed of her issue of blood, not in the Church to be worshipped. Well: he shown his malice, but he did no hurt to Christian religion. This example hurteth not them that lawfully pul down, & deface Images in the Church of Christ: for Epiphanius before Julian, did so at Anablatha, Epiph. epi. 34. But Julianus did object unto the Christians, that they did worship the wood of the cross, when they painted Images thereof, on their foreheads, and before their houses. Hereof M. Sander gathereth, that the Christians had a graven image of Christ him self even from his own time, in Paneade, or Cesarea Philippi, as images of the cross before their houses: for the image of Christ, Eusebius testifieth, it was set up by the Heathen men, and not by Christians, Lib. 7. Cap. 18. Although it is not like, that it was set up in Christ's time, when it is manifest by Josephus, that the Jews could not abide so much as the image of the Emperor, or of his standard the Eagle to be set up among them. The images of the crosses set before their doors, declare they had not them, and much less any other of Christ and his saints in Churches, which Julian would not have omitted, to prove them wood worshippers and idolaters. Cyrillus in deed defendeth these signs of crosses as better memorials of Christ, and of his virtues, then y ^e Images of y ^e Gentiles, yet he defendeth not setting up of crosses, or any images in Churches, & creeping to them, which is the filthy idolatry of the Papists.

Julian the uncle of this Apostate, did sit upon the vessels used at the communion, in despite of our religion, and was iustely plagued therefore. Eustachius y ^e heretic kept his conventicles in private places, he would not be ruled by his Bishop. The protestants keep open assemblies, whē they are not hindered by persecution, and are ordered by the Bishops & Elders of their Church, though they will not be obedient to the Heretical Bishops of the Popish Church. The same Eustachius condemned the marriage of Priests, as the Papists do. Ep. Con. Gangr. Vigilantius justly reproved the Christians for superstitious estimatiō of relics, which Hieronyme could not honestly defend for all his quarrelling.

To conclude, Chrysostom complaineth of the injury done to him, his church, and the sacraments, by barbarous soldiers: Optatus of the like by the Donatists, Victor by the Arians, all these and an hundredth more that might be brought of like examples, being acts of Infidels, and Heretics against true religion, do not prove, but the commandment of God must be executed, against false religion, by them who have authority of God so to do.

These be the words of Epiphanius in his Epistle translated by S. Jerome. For answer to this, first he will not affirm whether y ^t Epiphanius y ^e bishop of Cypres wrote this Epistle, or some other of that name, because Damascene that impudent corrupter of antiquity, when he cannot answer the Epistle, he moveth such suspicion in his Apology for the worshipping of Images. But let Jerome himself testify the matter, Contra errores John Hierosol. ad Pampathiam, in the end of the Epistle. Secondly he answereth that notwithstanding the judgment of Epiphanius, it is not against the authority of the scriptures to have Images in the churches, for then should not Theodorus the martyr, have had his martyrdom painted on the walls, as Gregorius Nyssenus witnesseth. In deed Gregorius Nyssenus, which lived somewhat after Epiphanius, speaking of the ornaments of the Church, affirmeth that there was the history of the martyr painted on the wall, but so far from any spice of adoration, that the same was also expressed upon the pavement which men did tread upon. Like as for ornamente, there were graven also in wood the Images of beasts. These were the beginnings and as it were the first budding up of Idolatry in the church, yet gainesaide by godly men, and forbidden in the council of Eliberis.

Another reason he hath, of those simple men's authority, that hang up the Image, and their murmuring, which was not for putting down the Image, but for that he gave them not another veil or curtain first. That it was not his private opinion, it appeareth in this, that he writeth so confidently thereof to the bishop of Jerusalem, in whose dyocesse Anablatha was, and who was present whē the said Image was defaced.

But if he had thought (saith M. Sander) the having of Images to be an heresy, he would have noted it in his book of Fourescore and more heresies, where he noteth no such opinion of having Images in the Church for heretical.

This balde reason he learned out of the council of Nice 2. act. 4. of one Epiphanius which taketh upon him to reject and control the authority of this ancient Epiphanius of Cypres. But howe falsely, they have affirmed this of him, you may see in diverse places of Epiphanius book against heresies. First lib. 1. Tom. 1. he showeth the punishment of God against Tharra an Image maker, which over lived his son Aran, which no man (as he saith) did before him. Secondly, lib. 1. Tom. 2. he showeth that Simon Magus the father of heretics, made Images of him self and his harlot Helena to be worshipped: & that Carpocrats the heretic made the Images of Jesus, and of S. Peter, and did cense them and worship them. Also Her. 27. he saith, Gnostici & Carpocratitae, &c.

And Centra Cullyridianos, her. 79. which worshipped the Images of y ^e blessed virgin

By these places judge howe true it is which Damascene writeth, that his own church was decked with Images. But yet M.S. hath another shift of descāt, y ^t the cause of rēding this veil might be, for avoiding of offense of y ^e weak Jews, & Pagās, lately converted in y ^t place. As though Epiphanius doth not plainly declare y ^e cause to have been, for y ^t it was cōtrari to y ^e scriptures. The like cause he would have to be of the decree of the council of Eliberis in Spain:

But M.S. gathereth that seeing there might be no pictures in churches, ergo they might be in private houses, & if they be lawful to be in private houses, much more they might be permitted in churches. A proper ringworm, a doctor like argument, by which I may conclude as followeth. There may be no shoppes in churches, ergo they may be in private houses, and if they may be permitted • n private houses, much more in churches. But yet he hath another answer. This fact of Epiphanius was a private zeal, which is not to be followed contrary to y ^e decree of y ^e catholic church: but I reply, it was a godly zeal, because it was ruled by y ^e commandment of God & y ^e holy scripture, against which no church hath authority to decree. But the last answer is as good as cake & pudding, which yet he thinketh worthy of a note in the margent. Images could not be brokē before they were set up, therefore the setters up of Images are ancienter & nearer y ^e Apostles time then the pullers down. That is out of questiō Even so heresies could not be confuted before they were invented, therefore the inuenters of heresies, are ancienter & nearer the Apostles times then the confuters. Note ye papists for your learning or else note that this note of Master Sander is not worthy the notinge. But he proceedeth and will prove (as he saith) that as there were some Images in Churches in the time of Epiphanius, so straight after his time, they were common in all churches: but this straightway was almost 200. years after Epiphanius, as he citeth out of Nicephorus, of one Xenias who, he saith, was the first that spake against worshipping of Images, which howe false it is, all men that have read the works of y ^e ancient writers do know sufficiently. The next breaker of Images, he would have to be Serenus bishop of Marsiles, who wa • reproved by Pope Gregory, which wrote unto him, that he should not have broken the Images, but prohibited the people from worshipping of them: Lib. 7. Epist. 169. But M. Sander will avoid that • rohibition, by the distinction of adoratiō, that they should not be worshipped as God: because Gregory saith, lib. 7. epist. 53. Scio quod, &c. I know that you desire not the Image of our Savior, to this purpose, to worship it as God. By which words he meaneth, that all worship is due unto God, and that by worshipping an Image, it is made a false God.

But it followeth in the same Epistle (saith M. Sander) which proveth that Gregory acknowledged some worship due to Images. Nos non, quasi ante Diuinitatem, ante imaginem proster nimur, &c. We fall not down before an Image, as before y ^e godhead, but we worship him whom by the Image we remember to have ben borne, or to have suffered, and also to sit in the throne. But these words import no such matter, but rather the contrary, except M. Sander can prove, that it is all one to fall down before an Image, and to fall down unto an Image. Although he seemeth to say, that they falled not down at all before any Image, but only used them for their remembrance.

M. Sander continuing his petegrue, showeth that Philippicus the Emperor being a monothelite, anno. 710. threw down the Images of the fathers of the six general councils that were set in the Church porche of Sophia: belike he was afraid they would come shortly into the Church. Pope Constantine caused the like pictures to be set up in the Church porche of Saint Peter at Rome. And what of this? Forsooth he was an heretic that threw down images. So was Pope Honorius condemned for a monotholite archeheretike in the seventh general council, that maintained images. After him An. 730. Leo, persuaded by two Jews, saith the late idolatrous writers, threw down the images at Constantinople: and anno 740. Constantine his son, a wicked man, and an heretic followed him. But under Irene & Constantine anno 796. by the seconde council of Nice, images were restored and their worship established. Of these stories of pulling down and setting up of images, M. Sander noteth, that the mainteiners of images passed their adversaries in four things. The first, that they were quietly set up, and broken down with tumult, so were many heresies by the subtle serpent quietly settled, which without great tumult could not be rooted out, as y ^e Arian heresy, for example. But that images were used from the Apostles, and Christ him self, he promiseth to show afterward. The second, whereas they were set up in diverse countries, they were pulled down only in Greece: a wise matter, whereas idols were worshipped in y ^e days of Hezekiah, throughout all the world, they were pulled down only in Jewry. And yet against this idolatrous council of Nice Carolus Magnus Emperor of y ^e West writ a book, which is yet extant. The third prerogative, the idolaters have had two general councils of their side, the idol breakers none: and yet he confesseth they had one at Ephesus, another at Constantinople, but he saith, they had them by stealth, that is marvel, when they were gathered by the Emperors, as all other general councils were. And many of them (saith he) recanted after: so did they of Nice when the Emperors which followed immediately after the Nicene council, threw down the images, as their predecessors had done. Finally, where as he alledgeth the sixte council of Constantinople for images, there is not one word in all that council to defend them, but a counterfect Canon foisted in by the idolatrous council of Nice, which they say was made four or five years after, under Justinian to cloke their forgery.

The fourth, y ^t notwithstanding so many Emperors resisting, yet images at length prevailed among y ^e Greeks, which have them at this day painted, & as he saith, do reverence them, but he saith falsely, if he mean they worship them, as the Papists do theirs: and they are only painted on walls or tables, not carved or graven, lest they should be worshipped. They continue still also enemies to the Church of Rome, if continuance be any matter to justify their doings. But now he concludeth howe vain a thing it is to oppose Epiphanius which was but one man, and a few heretical Emperors against all the rest of the fathers, and the general councils. As though because he hath cited only Epiphanius, there were none of the fathers against images but he, beside that he skippeth over the Eliberin council cited by him self. But what fathers and councils have been against images, I shall have better occasion to show hereafter. Now he proceedeth in his peuish pelf: there were heretics called Bogomili anno 1180. which condemned the worshipping of images. All is not good that heretics condemn: the Arians condemned the Manichees: the Pellagians condemned the Arians. There was never any heresy but allowed some good things▪ and condemned some evil things. Next he adjoineth Anno Do. 1160. the Waldensies, whom he calleth beggars of Lions, yet Pauperes signifieth not beggars, but poor men, which were true Christians, and condemned not only idolatry, but also all Papistry. The Sarazens also justly condemn the Papists for Idolaters, whose idols being so contrary to the manifest commandment of God, were a great occasion to make so many nations to forsake Christianity, and for the Mahometists to continue in their wicked and false religion. Last of all he cometh to Wickelefe, Hus. Luther, &c. and them of the low countries, whom especially he chargeth with sacrilege. But to omit their fact which I have often shown cannot be defended if it wanted lawful authority, all the stories that he bringeth, or can bring of godly princes, and other persons erecting altars, churches, colleges, &c. and furnishing true religion with all ornaments meet for the same, are nothing to the purpose to defend the temples of idols, with their idols and altars, and other their trumpery from destruction by godly and lawful authority. At length he alledgeth the decrees of Arcadius, Honorius, Theodosius, and Valentinianus, which alloweth the erecting of their own images, and of all notable men, as Judges, Magistrates, &c. which when it was a civil honor used among the Romans, and nothing at all touched religion, I marvel with what face he can allege it, for setting up of images in churches to be worshipped, and yet that honoring of the Emperors images is condemned by Saint Jerome in Daniel, lib. 1. Cap. 3. Likewise, that they decreede, that such as fledd to the Emperors image, should be safe from violence, which was only a civil policy, to bring the majesty of the Emperor in estimatiō with the common people, & therefore it followeth not y ^t much less they would have commanded the image of Christ to have been pulled down, which could not be set up, but to the dishonor of Christ, because he hath forbidden it: And therefore they made a decree, that wheresoever it was set up, it should be taken down. M. Sander saith, that M. Jewel alleging this edict, doth translate tolli to be taken down, which signifieth to be taken up, as though the decree had been of crosses on the ground to be taken up lest they should be trodden upon, but when M. Sander hath said his pleasure, tolli signifieth to be taken clean away. And although in Justinian Ti. 11. lib. 1. the sign of our savior Christ is forbidden to be graven or painted on the ground in flint or marble: yet it followeth not, but the edict cited by the bishop of Sarum, may be understood of taking away all images, wheresoever they were.

The conclusion of the Chapter is, that he findeth nothing on Master Jewels side, but Infidels, Jews, heretics, Idolaters, or else he maketh many lies vpō Christian Princes, as though the law of God were nothing, but Paganism, Epiphanius were an heretic, the fathers of the council of Eliberis were rennagates or Jews, the edictes of the Christian Emperors, were restrained by Master Sanders gloss, because an image was made by the woman that was healed (saith he) but Eusebius saith by the Gentiles, lib. 7. Cap. 16. and the Gospel reporteth that she had consumed all her goods upon Physicians, and therefore was not able to set up such a pillar and two such images of brass, one of Christ, the other of her self, as those were reported to be. From which day forward (saith he) all Catholic fathers and Councils, and Christians, made and reverenced holy images as it shall appear afterward. Of all the loud lies that ever I heard, this may go for the whetstone. What shall appear afterward, we shall consider afterward. But in the mean time, remember his lie sufficiently confuted, even by such testimonies as he himself hath alleged, by way of objection the Epistle of Epiphanius, and the council of Eliberis.

THE V. OR IIII. CHAP.

That the word of God forbiddeth not the making of all images generally, it is a matter out of controversy with us, although the Jews and Mahometistes think the contrary. But seeing making of images is by the seconde commandment expressly forbidden, we may clearly perceive, what images are forbidden to be made, if we consider that this is a precept of the first table, which concerneth religion.

Therefore, by it were are forbidden to make to our selves any manner of images for any use of religion. M. Sander saith: that Jews were only forbidden to make them as strange God's, for when the Lord had said, Thou shalt have no strange God's: immediately showing what are strange God's, he saith, thou shalt make no graven images. Beside that, this interpretation is a confusion of two commandments in one, the former showing the matter or substance of God's honor, the other the essential form thereof to be spiritual, it is proved false by these reasons: diverse nations worshipped living creatures which were no images, as Cattes, Oxen, Crocodiles, Serpents, Apes, as God's, therefore the interpretation of strange God's cannot be images. The Israelites worshipped the true God Jehovah, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, in the image of a Calf, Exo. 3 • . So did the Israelites under Jeroboam: and even those Gentiles that did worship images with godly honor, they did worship thē but as images of the God's them selves, whom they confessed to dwell in heaven, earth, the sea, or hell, except some ignorant persons among them, even as among the Papists the like have been, that did think the very Idols to be Saints, and were moved thereto, by the falsehood of the Popish Priests, which would make their eyes to gogle & water, their lips to stir, their noses to bleed; their faces to sweat, even as by pricking their finger they made their Mass cakes to bleed. The Gentiles also, though they worshipped many God's, yet they honored one Jupiter above all the rest of the inferior God's, whom they worshipped but even as the Papists worship the Saints. And to that one God they did attribute as great praise, as the Papists do to the highest God. The Poet Horace saith, Choir • hominum ac Deorum, Qui mare & terras variis{que} mundum, Temperat horis: Vnde nil maius generatur ipso, Nec viget quicquam simile aut secundum: Proximos illi tamen occupanit Pallas honores. It is he which governeth the affairs of men and God's, which ruleth the Sea and the land, and the whole world with diverse seasons. So that nothing is brought forth greater then he, neither is there any thing like him or second unto him. Yet Pallas receiveth the next honor unto him. Compare this confession of the Heathen Poet, with that the Papists teach of the worship of GOD and our Lady, and see howe like they be.

But to return to Master Sanders interpretations, he maketh a second restraint, upon these words, Thou shalt not make to thyself, that is, by thine own private judgment, but such images as I shall appoint to be made, thou mayest have. This restraint is right, and according to the meaning of the word of GOD. For by this are excepted the brazen serpent, the Cherubims, and what so ever beside GOD commanded to be made, and had in any use of religion. As for the images of the Lions about Solomon's throne, the Oxen that bare up the see of brass, the Pomgranets, Date trees, and other flowers made for the ornament of the temple, were in no use of religion, and without all danger of worshipping, therefore not prohibited by this commandment, no more then the images of beasts, fishes, birds, trees, in books of Philosophy, or the painting of stories in clothes or galleries, &c.

But whereas Master Sander in this restriction, enlargeth the commandment of God to be understood, not only that which is delivered by the special and certain messengers of God, Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles, but also addeth their successors, of whose calling we have no warrant of GOD, I may not therein agree with him. For he quoteth for successors of the Apostles, Paulinus, Gregory, and the second Council of Nice, yea, Eusebius, Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, which all erred from the Apostolic doctrine in some pointes, although none of the five last named, allowed the having of images in Churches. Eusebius Li. 7. cap. 18. speaketh of an image in the streat, made by the Gentiles. Basil, Hom. in 40. Martyrs : of images of men of war painted for imitation, but not in the Church. Chrysostom's Liturgy was written in the days of the Emperor Alexius, six or seven hundredth years after Chrysostom's death.

But M. Sanders proceedeth to defend the makers of images, whom the scripture accurseth, saying, that it meaneth either makers of idols, or else makers of wanton images, or at least, such as make them for an evil end and purpose. Concerning the first, he findeth fault with the English translation, which everywhere almost, turneth idols into images. As though the Hebrew words, which the English translation expresseth, had that ridiculous distinction of idols and images, yea, as though the very vulgar Latin translation Psalm 113. which he quoteth, calleth them not Simulachra images, the makers whereof, are accursed. Concerning the second, it is plain the Psalmist speaketh not of wanton images, but of such as were worshipped of the Heathen. And to the third, I grant it meaneth them that make them to an evil end and purpose, as all Popish image makers do, which make them to the end they might be set up in Churches, to be worshipped, contrary to God's commandment.

But the last reason for the defense of image making, would serve to perce a marble stone, with the subtlety thereof, and yet when all is done, hath as much reason in it, as the blocks which it defendeth. Mans natural understanding is, by conceiving images, made and brought unto it by the external and inward senses, therefore it is lawful to make carved images. We may conceive in our mind an image of Christ nailed on the cross, therefore we may make it of wood or stone, and worship it.

O subtle argument. But syr, you grant the making of Idols to be forbidden, but those conceived images of the mind are called Idols by them, that teach you that they be such conceptions of things: therefore this argument a paribus, will serve you to defend Idols as well as images. Yet one question or two about this diffuse argument I would demand. Doeth God forbid by the second commandment natural, or artificial images? If artificial, then they have no comparison with natural images.

Again syr, are our seeing and hearing from whom these images you speak of first do come, by your Philosophy actions or passions? If they be passions, howe are they compared with making of graven images, which are actions? Finally, where he saith, this prohibition was not immutable, but temporal to that people, he passeth all bounds of reason and common understanding, as by the judgment of God is become like unto those Idols whom he defendeth. For having granted before that Idolatry was forbidden by this precept, now he restraineth the forbidding of idolatry, only to the Jews of that time, as though it were lawful for Christians, who more straitly then the Jews, must worship God in spirit and truth John. 4. and are commanded to keep them selves pure from Idols. 1. John 5.

THE VI. OR V. CHAP.

As M.S. saith, images are forbidden to be worshipped, as they are forbidden to be made, so say I, but with a far differing understanding. They may not be made to any use of religion, so they may not be worshipped w ^t any religious worship, which appertaineth to God. For our religion is a service of God only. And where he saith as Images might be made by the authority of Moses, or of the governors of God's people, so they wert not to be taken for God's: so they may be likewise worshipped by the authority of God's church, this only proviso being made, that God's own honor be not given unto them. I answer that as neither Moses, nor any governor, had authority to make any images in any use of religion, other then God commanded, no more hath the Church any authority to allow any worshipping of them which she hath none authority by God to make, but an express commandment forbidding both the making & the worshipping of them, in the first table of the law, which concerneth only religion. Now we have said both, let us consider M. Sanders reasons. First he saith, God forbidding his own honor to be given to images, left it to the law of nature, and to the governors of his Church, what honor images should have. Concerning the law of nature, he saith, that God perceived that when images of honorable personages are made, honor was due unto them. What law of nature is this M. Sander, that is distinct from the law of God? Or what nature is that, whose law alloweth the worshipping of images? In deed the corruption of man's nature, is to worship falsehood in steed of truth, but the law of nature hath no such rule, being all one with the law of God, as nature is nothing else but the ordinance of God. And where find you one title in the law, that God hath left it to the governors of his Church to appoint a worship meet for images? Word you have none, letter you have none, nor prick of a letter sounding that way. But you have collections.

First of the signification of Latria, as though God had written his Law in Greek, and not in Hebrew: and yet Latria, according to the Grecians, hath no such restraint to signify the service of God only, but every service of men also, and is all one that Doulia, and so used of Greek writers, excep • we will say that Doulia, which you will have to be given to images, is a more slavish & servile worship, then that which you would have us to give to God.

But you will help your distinction, with the confusion of the commandments, because God saith in the 1. precept, Thou shalt have none other God's but me, and then saith immediately, Thou shalt not make nor worworship images, but these cōmandementes are distinct or else you shall never make ten. And whereas you allege, that he saith immediately after: I the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, that maketh clean against you. For by those words, the Lord declareth that he can no more abide the use of images in his religion, then a jealous man can abide, any tokens of an adulterer to be about his wife, therefore idolatry in the scriptures is often called fornication. So the circumstances help you nothing, but is altogether against you. But what an horrible monster of idolatry is this, that after you have once confessed, that God's incomprehensible nature cannot be represented by any artificial image, you affirm that Christ by his incarnation hath taken away idolatry, that we should not lack some corporal truth, wherein we might worship the Divine substance? Whereas Christ himself telleth us, that now the time is come, that God shall not be worshipped as before in bodily service at Jerusalem, or in the mountain, but in spirit and truth, John. 4. The image of Christ you say is a similitude of an honorable truth, whereas no idol doth represent a truth. A worshipful truth, I promise you. Christ you say was man, but I say he is both God and man, a person consisting of those two natures. Your image representeth only a person consisting of one nature, but such a one is not Christ, therefore your image representeth a falsehood, and is by your own distinction an Idol.

For the Divine nature you confess cannot be represented by an artificial image. Again, what an image is it of his humanity? It cannot express his soul, but his body only. Last of all, why is it an image rather of Christ, then of another man: Seeing in lineamentes and proportion of body, it hath no more similitude unto Christ's body, then to another man's? But that it pleased the caruer to say, it is an image of Christ. O honorable blocks and stones.

But Philo the Jew was cited for a favorer of this interpretation, that images are none otherwise forbidden to be made or worshipped, then to be made or worshipped as GOD'S. Howe vain the authority of a Jew is for a Christian man to lean unto, I shall not need to say, especially when it is well known, that the Jews also not considering in whether table this commandment is placed, understand by it, that all images generally are forbidden. And Philo saith nothing to help him. For first in Decal. he saith: when God had spoken of his own substance and honor, order would that he should tell how his holy name was to be worshipped.

What can be reasonably gathered of these words but that all honor is due to God, and therefore none to idols, which are forbidden to be made.

If Philo a Jew, will not serve, Augustine a Christian is alleged who Super Exod. 9.71. allowing that division of the ten commandments, by which three only are said to appertain to God, saith: Et reuera, &c. And truly that which is said. Thou shalt have none other God's but me, is more perfectly expounded, when forged things are forbidden to be worshipped. First for the division of the commandments, Aug. is not constant with him self. For In Quaesti. Nou. & Vet. Test. Quest. 7. he writeth thus. Non sint tibi Dij alij praeter me: primum verbum hoc est: Es subiecit secundum: Non facies tibi vllam similitudineu • ▪ Thou shalt have none other God's but me: this is the first word or commandment: and he addeth the second: Thou shalt not make to thyself any similitude. By which it is manifest y ^t to worship images, is not all one with having other God's. But M. Sander will answer our objection, that God forbiddeth all honor of images, thou shalt not fall down to them nor worship them. Adoration saith he is a doubtful word. For Abraham adored the people of the lande Gen. 23. Very true, but with a civil worship, whereof we speak not now. He made obeysans to them, or as we say, he made courtesy to them. And the Angel refused to be adored, saying adore God. Therefore there is an adoration proper to God, for Angels sometime have been adored. Nay M. Sander, therefore all religious worship pertaineth to God. For S. John was not so mad to worship the Angel as God, but as the messenger of God, with a religious, and not a civil worship. And when you say Angels have been adored, as Gen. 18. and Iudicum 13. I answer in both places, they were adored with civil worship supposed by Abraham, and Manohah to be honorable men, and not to be Angels. But when you cite Augustine to fortify your distinction of Latria, and Doulia, you hurt your cause by his judgment, more then you further it by his authority. For whereas he in Exod. 94. saith that Latria is due to God as he is God, Doulia is due to God, as he is our Lord, it followeth, y ^t that worship, which is called Doulia, as well as that which is called Latria, is due only to God, who is our only Lord, and will not give his glory to graven Images: Es. 42.8. 1. Cor. 8.6.

Theodoret saying: that God calleth his people from the worshipping of devils, even as Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 10. showeth that worshipping of images is the worshipping of devils. And whereas Master Sander saith, it cannot possibly be said, that Christ's images is dedicated to the devil, I say plainly with Theodoret and Paul, it is dedicated to the devil, when it is worshipped.

For the Images of the Gentiles were not by the intent of the makers and worshippers dedicated to devils, but to God and godly men and women: but when they were honored with religious honor, which appertaineth only to God, the spirit of God saith, they were dedicated to devils. And even the same reason is of the Image of christ, of the Trinity, of Peter, or any other, honored with religious worship. Thus Augustine and Theodoret cited by him, are both against him. Well, yet he will disprove the comparison that M. Jewel maketh between God's words, and M. Hardings.

Jewel. God saith, thou shalt make to thyself no graven Images. M. Hardinge saith, thou shalt make to thyself graven Images. But M. Sander saith, neither God nor M. Harding say so, that is, they do not mean so: for God expounding his meaning, added, thou shalt not adore them, nor give them the honor due to God above: therefore M. Jewel did evil to devide God's saying, and by that division, he is sure that he hath condemned his own conscience. So that by M. Sanders interpretation to make Images, and to adore them, is all one. But M. Jewel, seeing them to be distinct matters, to make and to worship, without condemning his conscience, did speak first of making, and then of worshiping of Images. And although M. Sander, be either so blind, or so willful, that he cannot see, or will not acknowledge, the distinction of the two tables of the Law, the matter of one being religion, the other charity, yet M. Jewel did well enough consider, that the Queens Majesty's Image graven in her coin, and such like pictures, as nothing at all concerned religion, nor nothing at all forbidden, were made by a commandment of the first table.

Now followeth another comparison. Jewel. God saith, thou shalt not fall down to them, nor worship them. M. Harding saith, thou shalt fall down to them, and worship them. But M. Sander answereth, that M. Harding defendeth, that another degree of honor incomparably inferior to that which is due to God, may be givē to images, & not that which is due to God. Well, then is M. Hard. & Sander to, contrary to other papists as great doctors as they. But yet M. Jewels comparison doth stand. For God forbiddeth all worship of Images, Master Hard. alloweth some worship of Images. Again, how will you distinguish the falling down to God, from falling down to Images. And therefore M. Jewel is no wrangler: for mean Harding what he can mean, his saying and meaning is contradiction, to the saying and meaning of God. But you will aff • rme (saith M. Sander) that all manner of honor is forbid̄ to be given to any kind of Image. You have against you y ^e opinion of the law of nature, the word of God, the judgment of the ancient fathers, y ^e decrees of general councils, the practice of y ^e whole church, as hereafter shall be declared. Verily M. Sander if you can bring all these authorities to uphold the worshipping of Images, you shall do more then any man was ever able to do before you, but hitherto you have brought nothing worth the hearing. But in the mean time, you will prove that there are two kinds of honor, the one due to God alone, the other to his creatures & so to Images. But you must prove, y ^t there be two kinds of religious honor, or else you prove nothing for your purpose. For civil honor will not help you one jot for worshipping of Images, except you be of that mind as Boniface a gentleman about Stamford was, that would salute y ^e sacrament of the altar with courtesy & these words. God give you good morrow good Lord. And what have you to prove this your distinction? Nothing in the world, but a saying of Augustine, lib. 10. cap. 1. De ciuit. Dei. that Latria by a certain consent of ecclesiastical writers, hath been taken for that service which is due to God: & that there is another service due to men, according to which the Apostle commandeth servants to be subject to their masters, which hath another name in Greek. This other name is Doulia whereof S. Paul saith in another place. Serue ye one another, by charity. I pray you M. Sander, if you be not turned into such an Image, (whole worship you defend) tell me simply whether y ^e difference of these honors be not as great as the distinction of the two tables, religion and charity? but how prove you that Doulia which is here taken for a civil worship, may be applied to Images, whom you honor with a religious worship? Yes mary, say you, by this it is proved, that we may serve Sainte Paul, In deed if you had lived when Sainte Paul lived, it had been your duty to have honored him with civil honor, or service of love, but now he is dead, I say plainly, you ought not to serve him, nor worship him, with any religious honor. So saith Augustine, De vera religione cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum.

The foundation of your argument being thus overthrown, we will suppose it doth stand, that Saint Paul is still to be served, how prove you that we must worship his Image? Forsothe we must think any thing that is his, to be above us, at lease in signification, for S. Paul's own excessive honor. In deed Master Sander you do well to call it an excessive honor. But by this reason, I must much more worship all God's creatures.

For if I must think anything of Sainte Paul's to be above me, and to worship it, then much more must I think any thing of God's to be above me, and consequently I must worship it. Now the vilest creature in the world, yea, the devil himself is more properly a thing of God's, then an Image is a thing of Sainte Paul's, therefore I must think everyone of God's creatures to be above me, and worship it for his sake. O blockishe blindness of Idolatrous papists.

But it vexeth you that Master Jewel calleth your worshiping of Images Idolodoulia, because you will not have it Idololatria, for the Images of Christ and S. Paul you say be no Idols, because Idols are instruments to serve and honor the devil withal. Verily such be your Images of Christ and Saint Paul, though not by your intention, yet by the holy ghostes determination.

Last of all, M. Jewel himself is proved to be a seruer of Images, if not with Latria, yet with Doulia Papae. A strange matter: but howe is it proved so to be? Mary sir, he confesseth himself to honor the sacrament of Christ's Supper, which he teacheth to be an Image of Christ's body and blood, but he will not give God's own honor to bread and wine, therefore it followeth invincibly, that M. Jewel serveth, that is to say, he honoreth some Image. Ha ha he, M. Sander hath a pleasant wit, if he be in jest: but if he in earnest, as I am afraid he is, I will say no more but that he is a wrangler. If M. Jewel say the sacrament is an Image, doth he speak properly or figuratively? If figuratively, then the honoring of that which is not an Image properly, proveth not, that he honoreth that which is an Image properly. Again, when he speaketh of honoring doth he mean adoratiō, worshipping, kneeling to the sacrament, which he condemneth: or else reverent esteeming of the mysteries of Christ? what hath this to do with falling down to stocks and stones? Finally do we serve all things that we honor (for M Sander maketh them all one) if we do, then men must serve their wives whom they must honor, and men serve the weak partes of their body, which they honor most. These be the invincible arguments for defense of Idolatry.

THE VII. CHAP.

This Chapter containeth a metaphysical discourse of images, natural and artificial. The effect whereof is this, that the nature of a thing cannot be expressed in an artificial image, but by a natural image only, as the soon is the image of his father, expressing his fathers nature. But an artificial image is the only image of the person, or rather of the personal shape of him, that it representeth. And this being confessed, he saith it is an easy matter to answer the argument that is made, to prove the image of Christ to be a living image, because his Godhead cannot be represented in an image. For that image representeth such external shape of Christ, as he had in deed. But if he have not forgotten him self, he said before, that an artificial image is an image only of the person or rather the personal shape of him whom it representeth. But neither the person, nor yet the personal shape of Christ is represented by such an image, therefore it is a lying image. For the external shape of Christ's body is not the personal shape of Christ. For as Christ's person differeth from the person of every other man, so his image must differ from the person of every other man, or else it is a false image by Master Sanders own grounds. But Master Sander saith, that as by his manhood the faithful were led to his divine nature when he lived, so by his image we are led to his human shape, from thence to his humanity, and so upward to his divine nature. Here is an handsome ladder, but that the steppes stand too far a sunder for any man to clymbe by it. For I deny that his disciples were led by his manhod to understand or believe his Godhead, but only by faith through his holy spirit inwardly, and outwardly by his doctrine and the works of his Godhead. Yet saith he, if we paint as much as his Apostles saw, it is no lying sight.

What need we paint that which we may more lively see in our selves, and in any other living man, then in a dead image, namely the outward shape of a man?

After this, he gathereth conclusions: first, that it is neither possible nor lawful to make an image, which may express the nature of God, of Angels, or of any other creature. Secondly it is possible and lawful to make the image representing the personal property of any known creature. This is true in the second table of the law, but not in the first. Thirdly: The blessed Trinity and infinite persons of Angels cannot properly▪ be expressed by any artificial image. If this be true of the image of the Trinity, why do you Papists suffer and defend such horrible idols and monsters of a man with three faces, or with three bodies to express the blessed Trinity? If Angels cannot be represented by image, and if three persons be infinite, how doth your Idolatrous council of Nice the seconde, not only determine that their images may be made, but also that they have bodies, and be circumscriptable? Actione. 5. But you will not long hold this conclusion.

Furthermore, I would know what divinity, yea, or Philosophy this is, that you say, the persons of Angels are infinite? I thought there had been nothing actually infinite, but God only, and that all creatures are definite, though they be spiritual, invisible, and incircumscriptible. But to let you go with that inconsiderate term, and not to urge it so far, as to make you an upholder of ten thousands of God's, your conclusion is, that visions which were of bodily forms may as well be painted as preached, whether they were of the Trinity or of Angels, as the three Angels that appeared to Abraham in the shape of men. The vision of Daniel 7. of the son of man, that came to him was ancient of days. The history of the father speaking to Christ▪ and the holy Ghost appearing in the shape of a Dove. Admit that these visions may be painted▪ for so much as was seen, yet must they be painted as those visions only, and not otherwise: for if God to show the distinction of the persons in Trinity, hath appeared in the shape of three men, yet is it not lawful to paint the Trinity so, and although the father in a vision appeared like an old man, and the holy Ghoste like a Dove, yet is it not lawful to paint God the father so always, nor the holy Ghoste, much less to make such monsters as never appeared in any vision. And therefore God him self warned the people to remember that he did not appear to them in the mounteyne, when he gave the law, in any form or shape, because they should not be deceived to make an image thereafter to represent him withal Deuteronom. 4. verse. 15.

Also Saint Paul preaching to the Athenienses, saith, that seeing we are the generation of God, we ought not to think, that the Godhead is like to gold, silver, or stone, graven by art, and the invention of man. Act. 17. verse. 29.

And if you should paint the story of the baptism of Christ, howe would you paint the person of the father, which appeared not in any shape, but only a voice from him was heard? But knowing y ^t you have to do with wranglers, you say you would have no image of y ^e Trinity, but only to show that there be three several persons in one godhead, & this you think S. Augustine de fide & symbolo would bear. Ca. 7. but you shall hear his words.

This saying of Augustine would suffice any sober man to see, what is his judgment, for such images of God, or the Trinity, which yet Master Sander, though not simply, yet in some respect will defend. And the Angels (he saith) may be painted or graven with wings, as they were made in the tabernacle, or as they appeared to the Prophets and the Apostles. And so you may paint the devils in such shape as they have appeared to men, but what is this to make images of them for any use of religion, which God hath forbidden?

But now followeth another metaphysical abstraction of the image which is an accident, from the matter or substance thereof, being stone, wodde, &c. which is a hard lesson for the common people to learn, and when it is learned, it is not worth a straw, for any help of religion. The gross image of stone being made thus a subtle & fantastical image by abstraction, is joined with the truth, when the fantasie considereth whose image it is, and then it is not possible, but that it must partake some parte of the honor of that whereof it is a sign, being an honorable thing. To pass over this fond abstracting and joining, which is a toy to mock with an ape, I will come to the conclusion of honor dew to the sign. I pray you Master Sander, what impossibility is this, that you talk of us? Must every sign of an honorable thing needs partake some of the honor dew to the thing? The print of a man's foot in the snow, is the sign of a man that hath trod there, which is an honorable thing, and perhaps was a King, is this sign worthy of any honor due to a King? Yea, the Kings picture is on his coin or else where to be seen, is that picture worthy of any parte of the Kings honor? You said before, you would not have any parte of God's honor given to his image, and howe agreeth that saying with this your principle, it is not possible, but every sign of an honorable thing, must partake some of the honor which is in it?

But you will show us the order, howe the image cometh to be partaker of honor, but it were more necessary, you should show us the reason why it should have honor, then the order howe it cometh. But let us see the order. The painting of Christ's death moveth the eye, the eye advertiseth our common-sense, our common sense informeth our fantasie, reason draweth out of fantasie this deep consideration y ^t this image is true, and profitable to salvation, and worthy of all honor. This may well be an idolaters reason, but surely a Christian man faith is instructed by hearing, and not by seeing, blessed are they (saith Christ) which have believed and not seen. John. 20 A Christian man learneth of the Lord by his Prophet Abacuc, Cap. 2. verse. 18. & 19. that a graven image is profitable for nothing, that it is a teacher of lies, and curseth him that saith, an image shall teach him: and much more him that shall say, it is worthy of all honor. By which saying you may see the impudency of idolaters, which though at the first they seem modest in giving but another kind of honor to images, and not that which is given to God, afterward they come to give images some of that honor which is due to God, and last of all without all shame, to pronounce that an image of Christ's death is worthy of all honor. And this must needs be (saith he) except Master Jewel will say this image is not good, yea, no doubt but he would say, such an image as Master Sander counteth worthy of all honor, is abhominable.

M. Sander would have ended this Chapter with this wholesome doctrine, but that M. Jewel after long disputation, concludeth that the cognisaunces of the cross, are bars laid a cross, and no images, which seemeth strange to him, because he took an image to be the resemblance of anything quick or dead. I had thought such a metaphysical disputer of images, would have added the intention of the image maker, to express such a thing necessary to make it an image of that thing, for else as the tale goeth, he may have a great number of crosses on a thread bare coat of some man, that hath never a cross in his purse. But if by the intent of y ^e makers, such crosses in flagges, banners, targets, and coins, were made to the resemblance of Christ's cross, yet are they no images forbidden, because they be not in any use of religion, and therefore this is a foolish quarrel, not worth ten staws laid a cross.

THE VIII. OR VII. CHAP.

An idol saith S. Paul, is nothing in the world, and I say not that an idol is anything. 1. Cor. 8. & 10. by which words he meaneth, that an image made to represent God, although it be in matter wood, stone, gold, silver, yet in use and signification it is nothing, but a vain fantasie of men brains, because there is but one God which hath no shape or figure, and there is no profitable use in images devised by men unto salvation, as S. Augustine saith, Lib. 18. contra Fa • st. Man. So Ambrose saith, in 1. Cor. 10, Simulachrum vero nihil est, quia image videtur re • morta • ae: An idol or feigned image, is in deed nothing, because it seemeth to be an image of a dead thing. These places cited by M. Sander, favor not his distinction, for both Augustine & Ambrose indifferently call the same an idol, and an image. But Origen and Theodoret in deed make this difrence; that an idol is of that thing that is not at all, nor ever was seen in the world, as a picture of a man with a dogs head, an image is of that thing that is or was, as an image of Cicero, of any other man that liveth. But that this distinction is false, it appeareth by the Cherubims, which being heads without bodies, and wings annexed to them, have no resembrance to anything that ever was seen in the world, yet are they called images even of the Papists thē selves, & not idols. Now he would prove that the images of the Gentiles were of things that never were, and therefore to be idols, and the Popish images be of Christ, Peter, and Paul, &c. which were, therefore they be similitudes, but no idols. But what helpeth this distinction of the name, although it were received, when God by his commandment forbad the making and honoring of the one, as much as the other? So y ^t this difference is as much able to defend Popish images, as when a law is made against robbers and thieves, a thief would labor tooth and nail, to show the difference of robbery and theft, and then having proved himself to be no robber, would conclude he were no thief. Yet seeing M. San. hath taken pains to gather the difference between heathenish idols and Popish images in ten pointes, I will consider them in y ^t order. Some idols were feigned monsters, all Popish images have that essential truth in the world which they represent. This reddition is false, for y ^e image of the Trinity, like a man with three faces or three bodies, hath no essential truth. Likewise the image of a child entering into the mouth of the Virgin Marie, in the story of the Annunciation painted in diverse places, and namely in the cloister or walking place of Alsoule College in Oxenford, where I have seen it, is an heretical falsehood. And to omit the images of a thousand feigned miracles, as S. Francis preaching to the Geese, &c. The image of S. Christopher the Giant, of S. George with his monstrous dragon, of S. Sunday, of S. Vncoulber a she Saint with a beard, and such like, prove that all Popish images have not that essential truth which they represent.

2 All their idols were without truth concerning to faith and religion, all Popish images contain such a truth as belongeth to Christ's faith and religion. Beside the answer before confuteth this excuse the commandment of God being against all similitudes in religion, proveth it utterly false and abhominable.

3 Sacrifice was offered to their idols, whereof it was called idolatry, and they idolaters, but no sacrifice is offered to Popish idols, but to God alone, I say, they offered no sacrifice to the stocks, but to the God's whose images they were. So do your Papists, offer up the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving, the only sacrifice of Christians, as Justinus saith, Decal. cum Tryph. and pay your vows to your images, & to the Saints whose images you say they be, therefore by your own definition you are idolaters.

4 Their idols belonged oftentimes to very wicked men▪ Popish images always to be blessed Saints. You shall have much to do to prove Francis, Dominike, Dunstane, Becket, and such like whose images you worship, to be blessed Saints. Where also I note that Francis is painted with the print of Christ's five wounds, which is an horrible blasphemy.

5 Some of the Gentiles professed them selves to adore y ^e wood or stone, you neither profess nor teach any such thing, but the contrary. To admit so many thousands of ignorant people, as honored the very wood and stones of your images, even you yourselves allow this verse, Lignun{que} crucis venorabile adorant. They adore the venerable wood of the cross, and in the next Chapter you alowe the pieces of a brazen image worthy of some honor.

6 Some of the Gentiles thought some privy godhead or power to be contained in their images, you teach they be only representations. So did they, but what mean some of you, to take so long pilgrimages to Walsingham, Ipswich, Boston, yea to Campostella in Spain, and to Peter & Paul at Rome, if you thought not some power to be in those images, more then in the images of the same persons at home?

7 The wisest of the Gentiles (say you) adored by their images, insensible creatures, and by them false God's: you adore by your images no unreasonable creature, but only blessed souls, and one God. First I say, you misreport the wisest of y ^e Gentiles, for they defended their idolatry, by saying they worshipped in those images diuer • God's, not meaning y ^t they were so, but y ^t they worshipped diverse virtues of one God, as in Minerva the wisdom of God, in Mars the strength of God, in Ceres the liberality of God, &c. Augu. In Psal. 96.

But howe can M. Sander say they adore no unreasonable creature by their images, when they adore the image of the cross, which was both an unreasonable an insensible creature? And how doth he worship one God more then this Heathen man, whose feigned excuse S. Augustine reporteth?

8 The devils ruled the images of the Gentiles, giving oracles out of them, &c. but the faith of Papists which endeavoring to keep God's commandments, do set up images to a good end, so beautifieth their work and worship, that it is not possible for the devil to abuse them. If we believe that the devil gave oracle out of the Heathnish idols, and not rather that they were feigned by the subtlety of men: we may likewise think, that the devil gave answers out of Popish images, which are likewise said to have spoken, as that Rood in Dunstones time to decide the controversy for marriage of Priests, & many other feigned in the Books of Popish miracles. Secondly, where heard the Papists out of God's words, this faith of setting up Images? Thirdly how do they endeavor to keep God's commandment in setting up of idols, when they break a manifest commandment of God, which forbiddeth images to be worshipped?

9 The devils coveted to maintain their idols. The same covet to overthrow Popish images. No verily, they love Popish images, by which God is dishonored, as well as they did love Heathenish images. As for y ^e tale of the devils persuading Julian the Apostate to break y ^e image of Christ at Paneade, which is not like to have continued unto his days, if we receive it, which was written by no writer of his time, nor an hundredth years after, it proveth no hatred that y ^e devil had of images, but of Christ, & might be a subtle practice of his to bring the Christians with fond emulation to esteem such a thing more then it was worthy because their enemy hath defaced it.

10 Their idols were dedicated to an Heathenish purpose, Popish images to a virtuous intent. But how can that be a virtuous intent, which is contrary to God's commandment?

Last of all he will answer our objection, that Popish images have been abused in making their eyes to move, and their lips to wag, &c. First he saith, these were but abuses of particular men, where y ^e Bishop was a sleep, but not allowed in the Church, yea, the Gospel hath been abused. God's curse light of that comparison, which matcheth images with the Gospel. But were all Bishops high and low in your Church so sound a sleep, that not one could see these horrible abuses to punish them? For what one example can be brought, of any one among so many, that hath been punished by the Papists, for such detestable abuse? Secondly he answereth, these abuses are committed by men not yet everlastingly condemned, & not by devils, which have their torments increased, when they aproch to such holy things as they have no power of. As though wicked men could work such things, but by the devils procurement, who will no more be afraid to abuse an image, then to persuade a man to abuse it, which deserveth both one punishment. Thirdly if such practicers of abuse lived in Luther's time, they commonly became runnagates, with the first, if any such have repented and confesseth their wicked facts, it is to your shame, M. Sa. & not to ours, for they were yours, when they did such things. To conclude, I wish the Reader to consider, howe vain and foolish the whole scope of this Chapter of M. Sanders book is, to show the difference of idols & images in the second commandment, when God wrote not the same in Greek, out of which tongue this supposed difference is derived, but in Hebrew: & even the common Latin translation, which the Papists do follow, calleth that which the Greeks term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an idol, by y ^e name of Sculptile a graven image: and when he hath made his difference as far a sunder as he can, all images are as well forbidden in that commandment, as idols in any service of God or use of religion.

THE IX. OR VIII. CHAP.

M. Harding had confessed, that images by a consequent might be worshipped, The Bish. of Sarum said, An image is a creature and no God. And to honor a creature in that sort (as it is set up to the end to be worshipped although not specially to that end) is idolatry, therefore by Master Hardings own confession, images are set up to be used to idolatry. This is the argument, that hath four as great faults in it, as there be knots in a rush. The first fault is, that he putteth Idolum in steed of Imago. The second that he putteth Doulia in steed of L • triae. The third fault is, that he presupposeth, that we may set up no creature to the intent that it may be any ways honored. The last fault, that he affirmeth an image to be a creature. The first and seconde faults are falsely found, for he nameth neither Idolu • , nor Latria, but this compound word idolatry, and maketh this proposition. To honor a creature in that forte, &c. is idolatry. Meaning whether the creature be an image, or no image, As to worship the Sun, or y ^e Moon is idolatry which be creatures, and so termed by all learned men, and even by the Papists themselves, which call the worshipping of an vnconsecrated host, idolatry. The third fault is also a forged quarrel, for he doeth not presuppose, that we may set up no creature to be worshipped, but he saith, to honor a creature in that sort, that is, with religious worship as it is set up to be worshipped is idolatry. And therefore M. Sanders imagination of a king set up in his throne, to be honored, of certain men that had rebelled against him, is foolish and ridiculous. For the Bishop in his proposition, speaketh of religious worship which is proper only to God, and not of civil honor. The fourth fault also, is a fond quarrelling, or rather an ungodly denying of an image to be a creature. For by this means, he maketh a third thing existent in y ^e world. that is neither God the creator, nor a creature, but he saith it is a manufacture, and not a creature, like as he said before, that their worshipping of Images is not idolatry but image douly, that is serving of images, which is all one as if a man would say, a horse is a beast, therefore it is not a substance. So he may deny a man to be a creature because he is a geniture, that is a thing begotten. But perhaps he will allow all things made of God or nature to be creatures, but nothing made of man, so y ^t a table, or chair, a sword, &c. are no creatures, because they are made with men's hands. What then will he cal a tree, that is graffed with men's hands, and groweth by nature also? Those he high pointes of Divinity I promise you.

But to y ^e purpose, there is neither substance nor form of anything in the world but it is a creature, therefore both in respect of the matter and fashion, an Image is a creature, except you will say with the Master of the sentences. Lib. 3. dist. 37. that the form of an Image in that it is set up to be worshipped, is no creature, but a perversion of a creature, as all sin is. And least you should take exceptions to my trāslating of Idolum for an Image, he speaketh of the form of a man in Idolo, which is no feigned thing, but a thing of truth.

But to cut of all this vain babbling, that an Image is no creature, the Apostle S. Paul speaking of the Images of the Gentiles, by which they turned the glory of God into the similitude of y ^e Image of a mortal man &c. calleth Images creatures, And they served the creature more then the Creator, which is to be blessed forever. Rom. 1. verse. 23. & 25.

But he feigneth an objection of M. Iewelles, that an Image is less then a creature, and therefore it deserveth less honor then a creature: Whereas M. Jewel said, an Image is a creature. But he answereth his own objection, that because an Image is able to stir us up to a virtuous and good remembrance, and to provoke us to virtue, it is worthy of greater honor then a creature. As though we ought not by any immediate creature of god, to be stirred up to good remembraunces, and provoked to virtue, rather then by an unprofitable, dead, and dumb Image. And who will grant him, that an Image is able to stir us up to goodness, or to provoke us to virtue, whē an Image, (as the scripture saith) is good for nothing. Abacuc. 2. But admit that men by the sight of an Image, take occasion of good remembrance, the Image in this case is no agent, and therefore worthy of no honor. A man seeing the gallows, which is a sign of execution of Justice, is moved to remember Justice, which is a good remembrance, and is thereby provoked to abstain from vice and to live virtuously, is the gallows therefore worthy of honor? I think not, because the gallows is no agent or doer in those good things, but only the mind of man that taketh occasion of that he seeth. No more doeth an image, and therefore no more worthy of honor. But Augustine saith, De verb. Dom. Ser. 58 Si quis nostrum, &c. If any of us should find the kings purple or crown lying a side, would he go about to worship them? But when the king hath them on him, he runneth in danger of death, if any man contemn to worship them together with the king. So saith M.S. the Image is to be honored in respect of the truth, whose similitude it beareth. A wise similitude. First he compareth civil worship with religious worship, as he doeth everywhere. Secondly that which is reverenced necessarily, because it is annexed with an honorable thing, with y ^t which is not annexed, for God may be worshipped without images, the king cannot be worshipped without his robes reserving human & natural honestye. Thirdly, that which is accidentally worshipped, as the kings crown, his purple, &c. Because the king wearinge them is worshipped, is alleged to prove that a proper worship is due to images, distinct from the worship due to the pattern or sampler.

But he might conclude, the base • Images are, the more horrible sin is the worshiping of them. For the baseness of men hath not kept them from being worshipped with religious honor, neither hath the vileness of Images defended them from being honored with God's honor. For the corruption and inclination of man's nature unto Idolatry is so great, that nothing is so vile or ridiculous, but it hath been honored as God. But Augustine proceedeth, aunsweringe the objection, that they are turned to be dead stocks, without sense. Go your ways now M. Sander, and say that there is no danger, lest Images should be abused to rob God of his honor, because of the baseness of their form which is less then a creature, and they be as it pleaseth you to call them manufactures.

THE X. OR IX. CHAP.

Although God commanded the two Cherubes to be made and let in the Tabernacle, yet the invention of Images is not to be ascribed to God, for as Epiphanius testifieth, There the father of Abraham being a worshipper of false gods, was a maker of Images long before. And because you trifle M. Sander, with your distinction of Idols and Images, telling M. Jewel they are Idol •• or wanton pictures, and not the Images of holy men, whereof the book of Wisdom, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, Lactantius, and S. Athanatius do speak, when they say the invention of Idols or Images came of the devil: may it please your learned wisdom to understand, that Epiphanius speaking of the Images of the blessed "virgin Mary, whom you cal your Lady saith: Vnde non est simulachrisicum hoc studium & diabolicus conatus ?

But where as you cavil that every image is not an idol, because the son of God is the image of God, whom we would not call an Idol, you show your frowardness rather, then defend your distinction. For although in the nature of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there be no such difference but it may be called truly an image, yet the horrible abuse of images to the dishonor of God, hath caused, that of Godly writers it is taken in the evil parte, whereas the word is indifferent. Even as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being y ^e same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is a King, which through cruelty of Kings, came to be an odious name of a tyrant. So the names of Papa which sometime signified a bishop, and Missa the communion, for the wickedness of the Pope of Rome, and of the Popish Mass, are now abhorred of all true Christians. As for the images which Christ sent to Augarus or Algarus, and the Veronica of Rome, with the images made by Nicodemus, S. Luke, and shown by Sylvester to Constantine, testified by Damascene, the counterfeit Athanatius, Theodorus, the seconde Council of Nice, Nicephorus and Metaphrastes, they are good stuff for Legenda aurea, and as M. Sanders will not stay in them, because he knoweth in his conscience they be forged fables, so I will let them pass also, and stand upon the credit of their authors.

But now we come to y ^e famous image of the woman which had the bloody issue, and of Christ set up on high before her door, on a pillar, with an herb that grew under it, which when it touched the hem of the garment of the image of Christ, it healed all diseases.

This M. Jewel will not call a fable (saith he) but he himself addeth fables to that which is written of Eusebius, as first, that it was set up by the woman, which is unlike, that a poor womā which (as the Gospel teacheth) had wasted all her goods upon physicians Mark. 5. could be able to set up such a costly image of Brasse upon a pillar. Secondly, it is not like, she would have set up her own image. Thirdly Eusebius saith it was set up by other men. And therefore the report of Theophylact which lived a thousand years after, is of small credit. Secondly he saith that Eusebius saw this image, which is not to be proved by any word he speaketh, although he saith that he had seen other images of Christ, of Peter & of Paul. But now to examine these falsifications pretended. First he chargeth the bishop with false Latining and worse Englishing of this Greek following, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The bishops latin is:

Here saith he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Olim, in times past, is left out in the latin, which is false, for it is included in the word veteres. In deed in the english by the printers fault it is omitted. M. Sander would justify the bold and false translation of Ruffinus, which turneth these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , qui ex Gentilibus crediderant : Such of the Gentiles as had believed. Where he manifestly addeth the word crediderant which is not in Eusebius.

Wherein you may see the equity of Master Sanders, which findeth fault with Master Jewel for leaving out that which he doth not omit, and justifieth Ruffinus which doth openly add to the text. But for all his trifling about words, he showeth him self ignorant of the phrase: for when he hath wrangled as much as he can, the Latin of the Greek, word for word is this:

Now Master Sander like a falsifier, rendeth these words asunder, and will have all that matter to stand in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which he saith must needs signify those which in times past had been Gentiles, but after had believed, which words if he wring until the blood come forth, yet can he not make such a signification of them. For if Eusebius had meant so, he would have added 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or some words of like effect. Secondly, he would rather have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , those that sometime were Gentiles, then those that of old time were Gentiles, but that in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of old time, he had relation unto the time of Christ. Thirdly as master Sander himself afterward striving for the Adverb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , vnchaungeablye, to be joined with the Participle showeth himself a good Grammarian: So here dividing the Adverb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from the Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and joining it with nothing, showeth himself to be a malicious wrangler, and a shameless falsifier.

Now where he saith, it is not like to be true, that Christ bestowed any great cure upon those, who should have tarried still Heathens, because he more willingly cured the soul then the body: I answer, the chief ende of his cures, was not for the private benefit of them that were cured, but to show himself to all men, to be the son of God, the true physician of body and soul. But M. Sander replieth, though some were unkind, as the 9. Lepers Luke. 17. yea, some were careless of him, as the man that had lain 38. years in the porche, and the blind man, until he instucted them by his word, John. 5. & 9. yet those which did set up images in his honor, were not unkind. I answer, they thought to satisfy them selves with a vain, superstitious, and heathenishe kind of remuneration.

Thirdly he saith, with Theophylact a late writer, that this woman which was faithful did set up this image, but that I have proved before to be neither true, nor like to be true.

Here first beside the lack of eius, his, which he confesseth to be of no importance, he misseth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 et, which he will needs have to signify also. What quarrelling merchant is this? here is et thrice, yet none of them will serve his turn, because the first is not translated, also, that it might be thought that Eusebius had seen the former image of brass. But seeing et is twice put, once before Apostolorum, and then before ipsius Christi, by judgment of all English Grammarians it may truly be translated thus: For we have seen the images drawn in colors and preserved, both of his Apostles Paul and Peter, and also of Christ him self. Again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be translated even of his Apostles Paul and Peter.

What Empire hath Master Sander in Grammar, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may signify nothing but also: when it hath three significations beside, and, both, even. But it pleaseth Master Sander, that Eusebius which lived about three hundredth years after Christ, saw painted images of Christ himself & of his Apostles, yea, but in the hands of Heathen men, or men of Heathenish superstition, or else perhaps among the Gnostikes & Carpocratites heretics. For what one word of commendation doth he bestow upon them? He saw them in deed, but if they had been profitable for Christianity, why did he not make the like, or cause them to be made in his church of Cesarea? What cause have you hitherto (M. Sander) to cry out, O the deceit of M. Jewel? seeing for anything you have shown, it is true which he saith: The Phaeniciens being Heathens, made these images in the honor of Christ, and of his Apostles, only of their heathenish and vain superstition. But you will show a further falsehood in M. Jewel, and that still in one story, for he proceedeth:

But Ruffinus also translateth it, ex gentili consuetudine indifferenter, of an heathenish custom indifferently, and M. San. himself afterward confesseth, that it is an heathenish custom to honor men with setting up their images. And if it was superstitious in the heathen, therefore it was superstitious in these Christians which followed the heathenish custom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without any change. Secondly he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is spitefully Englished, their saviors. And why so, I pray you▪ What other thing doth the word signify, but a Savior of whole or part, of body or soul. Except you will say, that among the Heathen, Castor & Pollux were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the plural number, but it was for that they were supposed to be saviors or preseruers of Mariners, which declareth in what sense Eusebius saith, these men worshipped them without change, by an heathenish custom 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even as they worship saviors for example, such and so as they called Castor and Pollux. I will not therefore stick with you, but that those men of whom Eusebius speaketh in this last sentence, were such as professed some l • ue of Christ and Christianity, but yet after an heathenish manner. Alexander the Emperor worshipped the image of Christ in his Chapel among his other idols. Carpocrates the heretic made the images of Jesus and Paul, Homer and Pythagoras, & did cense them with incense, and worship them. Epiph. lib. 1. Tom. 2. in prefat. The Gnostike heretics had even such images of Christ painted in colors as Eusebius speaketh of, even as they had the images of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle. Epher. 27. which heretics answer directly to the words of Eusebius, that they made and worshipped the images of Christ and his Apostles, without change, even as they made the images of Heathen men, whom they had in estimation. Again, S. August. Such Christians they might be, of whom Eusebius speaketh. But M. San. confessing this manner of honoring by images, to be an heathenish custom, doth also affirm, that it was a laudable custom, saying, that it was but pusillanimitie, & scrupulousity in the Jews, that they durst make no images. So that to obey the commandment of God, is counted of him for a vice, and it is a great virtue of magnanimity, to be bold to do that which God hath forbidden. But what reason hath he? Forsooth, all things that the heathens used, were not evil. Sacrifice was not evil, though the heathen did offer sacrifice to devils. Virginitie of Nuns, for so it pleaseth him to translate Sanctiomonialium in Augustine, although there were no Popish names in his time, is not evil, because the heathen had their vestall Virgines. So that by his Logike, there is one reason of things good and lawful, if they be well used, as sacrifice and virginity, and things simply forbidden, as making and worshipping of images in religion.

But now we are come to S. James Chapter, which not heathen men, but the brethren at Jerusalem, and as Ruffinus translateth it, the Bishops in succession did preserve and had in estimation, his words following immediately after the sentence last entreated of, are these. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Here M. Sander scoffeth, rayleth, braggeth, and all about the Moon shine in the water. Knowe you not Master Jewel (saith he) that this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , For, giveth a reason of that which went before? What was that? That old men tarrying in superstition, did set up images, whereof the reason followeth, because the brethren at Jerusalem do honor the chair of S. James. Then he crieth out, O cursed lying spirit, &c. At length he concludeth, that it is manifest, that Eusebius alloweth and stoutly defendeth the honor that is given to Saints by their images and relics. See what a stout champion Master Sander will make Eusebius to be for images and relics. But to return to your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for, Master Sander, is there no remendie but either images must be allowed, or this connection be foolish? May 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for, give a reason of nothing but as you will have it? Why may it not rather give a reason? why he counteth that an heathenish custom of honoring Christ & his Apostles by making their images, because the faithful brethren at Jerusalem, even from the time of Saint James, not making an image of him, but keeping his chair, that he used to sit in, as a monument, declare evidently, what manner of reverence hath been given by true Christians from the beginning to this day, unto holy mē? that is, to have them in remembrance without superstition and idolatry, but not by making of their images. For except this Antithesis be understood, it were in deed a foolish connection, & as evil an argument, to prove that they which made images of Christ & his apostles after y ^e heathenish custom, did well, because the Christians at Jerusalem kept the chair of S. James, and had it in estimation. So that the matter being well considered the conjunction is wiser then Master S. can understand for all his outcries and amplifications.

To that which the Bishop saith this image being in the street, proveth not the setting up of Images in the Church, he answereth, there were other images which Eusebius saw, and where should he see them, but in the Church in Constantine his time? I have shown before where he might see them, among the Heathens and Heretics. And that he saw none in the Church, appeareth in the Panaegynt ad Paulin. Tyr. Epū, Lib. 10. Cap. 4. where a godly Church is described in every small parte and ornament of it, yet no image at all spoken of, which should not have been omitted if it had been seen there, especially being such necessary ornaments of Churches as the Papists account them.

But Julianus y ^e runagate (saith he) out of the tripertite history. Lib. 6. Cap. 41. brake that Image, and the Christians afterward gathered up the pieces and laid them in a Church. If this be not giving of honor to Christ's images, he cannot tell what is honoring of Images. Yes M. Sander, to set candles before them, to kneel to them, to pray to them, to kiss them, to offer to them, to make vows to them, to ascribe health to them, &c. These are honoring of images used of Papists, other manner of honoring then those Christians are said to have used. For if it be credible, that the pieces of brass lay in the street until Julianus was dead, that they might be gathered up of the Christians, and were not molten to none other use by the Pagans, yet why did not the Christians rather melt them & make them a new image, then lay them up in the Church? But M. Jewel is charged to speak if he dare, what he would do, if he chanced to come into the same Church, where the image of Christ were kept, whether he would follow Julianus in breaking it, rather then the Christians in reserving it.

He is now at rest with God, having fought a good fight, fulfilled his course, and kept the faith, waiting for the crown of righteousness which shall be given him by God the righteous judge in that day, so that he can make M. Sander none answer, but thus I think he would have resolved his question, when he lived in this world. He would neither follow the spiteful malice of Julian, nor the superstitious emulation of those Christians, but do with it as it became a Christian man according to God's commandment, and his calling. And for my parte, M. Sander I dare speak unto you what I think. I am one which esteem monuments, as much as any one poor man of my degree. In so much y ^t a wise man perhaps might say unto me. Insanis veteres statuas Damasippus emende. And therefore if I had in my private possessiō such images of Christ, Peter and Paul, as Eusebius did see, and that I were assured they were the true counterfeits of their bodies or countenances as those which he did see were supposed to be. I would so esteem them, as I do the Images of Caesar, Pompeius, Tulla, and such like, and peradventure for the rareness, much more, but not a pin the more in respect of religion. For I do so honor ancient images, that I make as great account of a piece of Nero, or Heliogabalus, as I do of Constantius, and Theodosius. But if I had authority of a Church, in which were an image of pure gold representing the whole stature, countenance, & apparel of Christ as he walked upon the earth, which were abused to idolatry, as your Popish images have been, and are in some places unto this day, I would rather break it in pieces by the example of Hezekiah, & cast it into the deep sea, then either I would suffer idolatry to be committed unto it, or preserve it to be a snare to them that lived after me to run a whoring after it. But as for your evil favored blocks and stones, which have none other shape or name but such as the idol of the workemans brain hath given them, and being set up to be worshipped, I would no more esteem them, then the mire in the street, or that which is more vile, although you cry until you be hoarse, they are the holy images of Christ, of the blessed Trinity, of Saint Peter, and S. Paul. For to a Christian man they are abomination.

THE XI. or X. CHAP.

The holy Ghoste by Saint Paul, hath well given us warning: saying: Take heed that no man spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, and not according to Jesus Christ. Col. 2. ver. 8. and by the same sentence he hath also taught us, how we should esteem all that doctrine that is commended unto us without the word of God, under what glorious and plausible title so ever, namely for vain deceitfulness. By which rule when we examine this Chapter of Master Sanders book, swelling with such a proud title, of the Law of nature, we do plainly perceive, that it is nothing else but a deceiptful vanity: with vain sound of words and frivolous reasons, to go about to make us think, that God hath written one law in nature, and a clean contrary to that, in his word and holy scriptures.

The honoring of images in case of religion, being expressly forbidden by the law of God written, and the same an hundredth times repeated by the Prophets and Apostles, is the eternal will of God, and hath nothing in nature uncorrupted, which is the ordinance of God contrary unto it. And therefore I marvel what nature is, in Master Sanders judgment, whose law he defendeth to be never changed, although God hath ruled his people in diverse manners, sometime by inspiration, sometime by outward voice, custom and tradition, sometime by written letter of the Law, last of all by writing his own law of grace and spirit in their hearts. I pass over that he calleth the last, God's own law, as though the rest were but borrowed, but what is that unchangeable law of nature, but God's eternal law: if that be not changed by the law written in letters, then surely the law of nature abhorreth worshipping of images in religion, which the law written forbiddeth. Thus his first exposition overthroweth all the purpose of his Chapter. Now to the second. He hath two special grounds to help us to find out what the law of nature is in any case. The one is the judgment of right and sound reason, the other is y ^e practice of all nations. But where shall we find sound reason in any natural man? When the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not John. 1. and the natural man understandeth not those things that be of the spirit of God. 1. Cor. 2. ver. 14. and where shall we find the practice of all nations according to the law of nature, when they have all declined and gone astray, there is not one that doth good, no not one. Ro. 3. Psal. 13. Wherefore there are other two most certain infallible rules, whereby the law of nature in any case may be found out and known, namely the word of God, and the spirit of God, which give mutual testimony one to the other, the word and spirit of God being contrary to the worshipping of Images: The Lord saying in the first table of religion, Thou shalt not fall down to them nor worship them: it is manifest, that worshipping of images, is contrary to the Law of nature. So that you see the foundation of this building already subverted, by which you may conjecture, how long it is possible for the house to stand after it.

For whatsoever he iangleth of the internal conceptions of the mind, improperly and metaphorically called images, and comparing artificial images unto them, it is nothing else, but vain deceiptfulnesse to be contemned and hissed out, not only of all Christian Churches of every faithful man, but also out of all schools of Divinity, by all them that are learned as well in the scriptures of God, as in human phylosophie. But that you may see what soundness there is in his doctrine, thus he weaueth his copwebbe. One telleth him that Christ died only to save man from everlasting pains: he hearing and believing this, straight conceiveth Christ dying for him, and is moved to love him. Secondly he is much delighted with the Image which he conceived in his mind of Christ dying for him, and loveth that also. Thirdly, he loveth and honoreth him that told him this matter, as a bringer of good tidings. So here be three kinds of honor, the chief to Christ the thing it self, the second to the inward conception or Image of him in his mind, the last is to the reporter.

And here you have a pattern of popish profane divinity, for here is no love nor honor due to the spirit of God, who only must open his heart, to receive such tidings profitably: nor to the word of God, which must be the warrant of this tidings to be true: nor to faith, which applying these tidings to his own salvation, is the root of all virtuous obedience, love, honor and thankfulness in him. But even as he considereth of any profane report, so doeth he consider of this glad tidings of the gospel and not otherwise. But to proceed of this wise distribution of threefold honor, he inferreth seven causes of honoring artificial Images. The first is, that it beareth the office of a reporter, and therefore it must needs have a reward of honor. A slow messenger, & a dumb reporter, which can neither go of this errande, nor tell his tale. But what skilleth it (saith Master Sander) whether I learn by hearing or by seeing? For Basel saith, y ^t both eloquent orators and cunninge paynters, the one with their tongue, the other with thei • pensil, have set forth valiant acts done in war, and stirred up many to fortitude. Hom. in 40. martyr. But it skilleth us to learn by hearing of God's word, because faith cometh by hearing, Rom. 10. verse. 17. and they are blessed which believe without seeing, John. 20. verse. 29. Howsoever it skilleth papists, & howsoever all other things except religiō & faith may be learned. As for y ^e reporter of the glad tidings of y ^e gospel, he is in deed worthy of honor, if he do his message truly, willingly & diligently, but it is honor of the second table & not of the first, that pertaineth to him. And except there be in him love to God & his neighbor, he is worthy of no honor, although he do the message. Therefore if the Image were as a reporter▪ he could have but honor of the second table, which is of charity & not of religion. But seeing there is in an image neither love, will, diligence, truth, for which causes a reporter is loved & cherished, neither is an image cause of any thing, there is no love honor or worship due • nto it.

The second cause of honoring artificial images is, for that it doth speedily, and most cōueniently inform our inward imagination, and therefore is more to be honored, thē any orator. For the eye being the principal sense, is most ready to instruct the mind, and therefore a painted image is a more easy and lively way to enstruct us, then any orator. In deed if faith were a register of visible things, as it is of invisible things, Heb. 11. verse. 1.7. the sense of seeing, were a more easy, speedy & convenient way of instructing, then by hearing, but yet images were no more to be honored, then the sound of words is now to be worshipped, when we hear the gospel preached. But God (saith he) hath joined visible signs to his word, as in the proclaiming of the law, yea sir, but God shown not there the image of anything, to teach them thereby, but expressly forbad the use of them, in his religion and service. But if God gave visible words, as he doeth his sacraments, it is not therefore lawful for men to make images, as visible teachers, which God hath forefended. There is therefore hitherto no natural cause of the honoring of images.

The third cause of honoring of Images, is, because they be naturally knit and joined to the truth, concerning their shape and representation: as the reporter, if he be an Ethnike or Jew, he is joined to Christ in moral honesty and natural love of truth: if he be baptized, much more as a member of Christ: if he be a bishop, &c. as a minister of God's word: if he be a Prophet, by a more special grace: if an Apostle, as one nerest to Christ: if it be Christ himself, as the chief and God himself. So Images as they be nearer to Christ, they are more to be honored, and Christ's Image most of all, which speaketh always (and yet saith never a word) to them that have spiritual ears of understanding: Nay carnal eyes of blinded and hardened hearts. But this difference he maketh, the former reporters deserve honor, being reasonable creatures, freely and voluntarily reportinge the truth, but letters and Images deserve no honor, and yet it is due to them, which is a strange matter: a due without desert, yea necessarily due to them in respect of that whose image it beareth. But admit that the image were a true reporter, as he is nothing but a false & dumb stock without any action, yet seeing he compareth an image to the written letters of the gospel, which be figures of that truth which is represented and learned by them, I pray you what honor is due to the written letters of the Bible, more then to the written letters of any other book, and yet they are necessary for the preservation of the doctrine thereof, yea they are true & natural figures of the sense that is contained in the book, if no man be so mad, as to put of his cap to those letters, or to that book, or to set it up to kneel to it, to sense it, &c?

What monstrous madness is it, to defend the worshiping of Images, which if they were granted to be lawful means to bring men to spiritual knowledge, yet were they nothing comparable to the written letter and syllables of the scriptures?

The fourth cause of honoring of Images is, that all nations have honored them in respect of their virtue whose Images they are.

I have shown before in a word, that this proveth it not to be a law of nature, that Images are to be honored, because all nations have been ignorant of God, have committed Idolatry, have committed whoredom, &c. And although the art of making of Images be good, yet it proveth not that all Images may be made, or any worshipped. The art of making swords is good, yet it neither proveth that all swords are well used, nor that any is to be worshipped. But Master Sander saith, seeing that all nations have made and worshipped Images, it is against the law of all nations, and of nature, to forbid the worship of them. For he would better like of that law, which forbadde Images of Christ to be made, then of that which forbiddeth them to be worshipped, which he calleth a filthy decree, and yet it was a decree of Pope Gregory the first to the bishop of Massilia, as we have shown before.

But concerning the example of all nations, thus I answer briefly, what Images they made out of religion, and how they worshipped them, it toucheth our controversy nothing in the world. But such as they made and worshipped in religion were abhominable Idols, and contrary to the law of nature. For Sainte Paul in the first to the Romaines, and in the 17. of the Acts, reproveth the Gentiles for making and worshipping of Images by the law of nature.

But whereas he saith the Jews worshipped the Images of the Cherubims which Solomon had made to garnish the walls of the temple, with the figures of palm trees, and other flowers, quoting, 3. Reg. 6. & 2. Par. 3. he is a most impudent & shameful liar. For there is no word in those chapters, nor in all the Bible sounding that way.

Neither doth Hieronyme ad Marcellam say, they worshipped the holy place, but they reverenced it in respect of the great mystery thereof, as they did the temple it self. For all reverent estimation of a thing, is not honoring or worshipping of it, as Master Sander always dreameth.

Of the image in Pauende, made (as he saith (by the woman, and preserved by Christians until the days of Julian, we have said enough in the Chapter next before this. Hitherto the wicked custom of all nations, contrary to the word of God, proveth not the worshipping of images to be necessarily good by the law of nature.

The fifth cause is, that the relation of honor is so necessarily between the image and the thing meant to be honored by it, that if the image be not honored, the thing cannot be honored thereby. Nay by your leave Master Sander, the relation of honor is between them that meant to give honor, and the thing meant to be honored, inter honorantem & honoran ••• and not between the image and the thing meant to be honored by an image, so that if the image be not honored, his foolish meaning is disappointed, that meant to honor a thing by an image. But admit it were as you say, what inconvenience is in the conclusion? If the image be not honored, the thing cannot be honored by the image. For if the thing be worthy honor, it needeth not the vain honor of an image. But you say, it is the law of nature and right reason, that if an image be made of an honorable personage, it may also be honored, that is, honourably regarded and esteemed, according to the virtue of the man more or less. As if it be the image of Cato, you think his worldly wisdom well worthy of an image, but you will not think it to be an holy image, as you think the image of Christ or his mother to be, But if you think the image of a holy person to be a holy image, why do you not by the same reason think the image of Cato a wise man to be a wise image? and the image of Socrates a virtuous man to be a virtuous image, and the image of Cicero an eloquent man to be an eloquent image, if the images of these men be not wise, virtuous, nor eloquent, no more be the images of Christ, his mother, or his Apostles, divine, holy or honorable. And if it be the law of nature that the image of an honorable person should be made and honored as his virtue is more or less, then by the contrary, the image of a wicked man should be made and dishonored as his wickedness is more or less. So that as we must have a religion of images of good men made and honored to stir us unto virtue, so we must have a religion of making and dishonoring the images of wicked men to dissuade us from wickedness. If this later be a fond imagination: so undoubtedly is the former.

The sixth cause is because the name of Christ is communicated to his image, for it is called Christ, so the honor due to his name is in the same degree to be communicated to his image also. For the name of God is to be blessed, and the name of his saints shall live in honor forever. Yea sir, but as y ^e name of Christ is falsely, wickedly, and blasphemously communicated to a dead image, so is his honor falsely, wickedly and blasphemously communicated to the same.

And where as he saith, we are ashamed to confess that we break the images of Christ, he lieth falsely & impudently. For if we saw the true images of the countenance of Christ abused to idolatry, we would no more doubt or fear to break them, then Hezekiah did to break the Brasen serpent, which was a figure of Christ, and commanded by God himself to be made. But as for their ridiculous images, which are no more the images of Christ, then of Judas Iscarioth, but that it please • h them to call them so, we may justly deny them to be the images of Christ, which have no proper resemblance unto his body, more then to any other man.

The last reason is, that if it be a contumelye to the Prince to have his image broken, and an honor to have it regarded, the like must needs come to pass in Christ. And here M. Jewel is bidden to break if he dare the Image of the Queens majesty, or the arms of the realm, or any noble man's banner. But if the prince had as precisely forbidden any image of her to be made, and commanded the same to be broken if it were made, as Christ hath forbid̄ images to be made & honored in any religious worship, and commanded such as were so made and worshipped to be broken, Master Jewel durst execute his princes commandment. And master Sander showeth himself a wise man to compare a thing permitted, with a thing forbidden, a thing of one nature that is civil, with a thing of another nature that is religious. And these be the seven wise reasons of one man, not so wise as the seven wise men of Greece. But yet to knit up the matter, we must have a comparison of the doctrine of the Catholics with master Jewels doctrine concerning images.

1 Christ is as worthy to have an image as any noble man.

To this master Jewel must answer, this is no good faith, therefore this is his doctrine, Christ is less honorable then Julius Caesar. A witty conclusion, Christ refuseth a vain heathenish honor & forbidden by God, therefore he is less honorable then Julius Caesar: Nay master Sander the honor of Christ and Julius Cęsar are not meet to be matched together, the one the son of GOD, the other a dampened spirit.

2 Christ's image, is set up in the Church that we might remember him, love him, and follow him. This ende being good maketh the act of setting up the Image good. Master Jewel must say it is not well done to set up such remembrance and to honor it. And so I warrant you he saith because God hath forbidden it, for if your reason be good, the good ende maketh the act to be good, the act of them that killed the Apostles was good, because they thought to do God good service therein, as our savior Christ him self witnesseth, John. 16. verse. 2.

3 Item, we adore Christ so perfectly, that we suffer not so much as his image to be vnhonoured: Master Jewel must say, Christ is not worthy of so much honor, that for his sake his image should be honored of us, but in deed he would say, as Saint Augustine saith to them which affirmed they honored the Angels for God's sake. I would you would honor Christ as he hath appointed you, then should you learn not to honor images for his sake, which he abhorreth.

4 Item, we believe it to be a contumely done to Christ, if his image be broken: Master Jewel must say: It is well done to break Christ's images. Yea, such images as are worshipped to the contumely of Christ, & in contempt of his law.

5 Item, it is a contumely to a Prince, to break his image. Master Jewel must say, it is no contumely to a Prince to have his image broken. But why must he say so? what hath he to do with Princes images, or arms, which are matters of civil honor? If you make the comparison to Christ's image, it is a foolish tautology, for you said the same immediately before, and the comparison is unfit between God and man, where the one forbidding, the other allowing: between divine, religious, spiritual, and true worship, and civil, worldly, vain, and transitory honor. Therefore, though Princes arms and images may be set up to the advancement of their worldly honor, yet the glory of Christ and his worship requireth no such things, but utterly forbiddeth them.

THE XII. or XI. CHAP.

Pope Adrian writing to the Emperor concerning the second Nicene Council, alledgeth for the making and honoring of images, that saying of Genesis: God made man according to his own image and similitude: which he expoundeth to consist in free will, and in calling all creatures by their proper names. M. Jewel not understanding how these places of scripture cited in that Council, ought to be applied to making and honoring of images, mocketh at all those Fathers learning &c. And so he might right well, being a company of unlearned asses and flattering parasites, who to currie favor with that idolatrous Empresse Irene, abused the scriptures most shamefully and absurdly, to the maintenance of the making and worshipping of images. But Master Sander hath chosen a few of those places, thinking to wring out some fore matter of them, leaving out the rest (which he was ashamed to name) for brevities sake. And first he bringeth in the authority of Damascene, a worshipful Doctor, above seven hundredth years past, which bringeth many of the same places for the same purpose, making a comparison between him and Master Jewel, and both their books. Well, let the judgment be among learned men. But Damascene. De Ortho. fid. cap. 17. frameth an argument thus. GOD made man to his own image. For whose cause therefore do we worship one another, but because we are made after the image of GOD? Alledging Basil, which faith, The honor of the image is transferred into the honor of the pattern.

Cyrillus likewise reasoneth in Cat. 12. The wooden image of an earthly King is honored, howe much more the reasonable image of GOD. But these reasons, that serve for the honoring and reverencing of man, which is God's true image, for God's sake serve nothing in the world for honoring of false images artificial, which contain nothing in them of that which is to be worshipped or honored in the pattern. And therefore Master Jewel may well mock such a bald reason, as hath no good consequence in it. Man being the true image of God, made by God him self, and having in him a true similitude of those things which are honorable in God, as wisdom, holiness, righteousness, &c. is to be honored for God's sake: therefore a stock which is a false or counterfeit image of Christ made by a cursed man, and hath no true resemblance in it of those things that are honorable in Christ, is to be honored for Christ's sake. For what wit, sense, or shame hath he, that maketh such an argument? But (saith he) we must mark the proportion between the image and the thing whereof it is an image, to see the weight of this reason. But what proportion is there between truth and falsehood? even such there is between man the image of God, and a block the image of man. But it beareth man's shape, & also his name (saith he) but it beareth it falsely say I. For man's shape is not a dead or insensible shape, no more then a dead carcase is a man, and much less it deserveth the name of a man. Yet continuing this proportion, he saith: Among all men, none is so truly honorable, as those who continued to the end of their life according to that image of GOD whereunto they were first made, such are all the Saints. Setting the question of images aside, see howe he honoreth the Saints with the dishonor of the redemption of Christ, which was needless to them, if they continued in the image of God, in which they were first made. The Apostle witnesseth, that by Christ we are restored unto the image of God, from whom by sin we are fallen Coll. 3. ver. 10. For to say, that any man hath continued according to the image of God to his lives end, is to say that he never sinned.

Furthermore he saith, their images are made in y ^e faith of God's church. A wholesome faith, which is contrary to God's word, yea, he concludeth there is no doubt, but by the force of God's word we are bound to honor Saints images, because thei are made according to the shape of them in that behalf as they were most like unto God. First, where is y ^t word of God (M. San) by whose force we are bound? You seem to be an anthropomorphite, when you say that Saints images are made according to the shape of them in that behalf, as they were most like unto God. For the images of Saints, when they are best made, are made but according to the shape of their bodies. And were the Saints most like to God in y ^e shape of their bodies? O brutish heretic! But let us see another conclusion in this Popish proportion. Our Ladies image approacheth nearer to hir in nature, then she doth approach to God, therefore her image must be more honored for her sake, then she her self for God's sake. By y ^e former proposition we must learn, that y ^e man which made our Ladies image is able to make a truer image thē God, who made our Lady to his image. For to compare the substances of the images, is nothing to the purpose, to show y ^e excellency of the images, as you yourself (M. San.) in your Metaphysical abstractions have taught us. For an image of stone being like to a man, is a better image then one of gold being not like to him. I say a better image, & not a better matter. And will you now compare the matter of our Ladies image (for so you cal her) as liker in nature to her substance, then her substance is to God, to prove her image in it more to be honored, then the image of God in her? Truly if you be so insensible, that you see not that grossness of this falsehood, I am ashamed in respect of that University which gave you the title of a Doctor, not worthy with these arguments to step out of y ^e schools of y ^e sophisters. Last of all you reason thus, the image of God in us may be dimned & darkened, insomuch y ^t men have ben worshipped, as God's, but our Ladies artificial image being only known or called by the name of her shape and image, can never be principally worshipped as our Lady her self. You play the sophister too foolishly, for no more can a man so long as he is known and called by the name of the image & similitude of God, b • principally worshipped as God him self. But that name forgotten, man hath been worshipped as God, so hath the image of our Lady bearing the name of our Lady, been worshipped, as her self, or rather as GOd him self, neither hath the insensibleness of images, defended them from danger of being worshipped as God.

An other testimony of scripture y ^t Pope Adrian citeth, is Gen. 28. of the stone which Jacob set up right, for a monument or standing image (saith M. San.) and poured oil upon it, and called the name of the place Bethel, that is, the house of God. Therefore we may set up images, and honor them: a substantial reason. For make as mystical interpretations as you can, of the stone to signify Christ, & the oil y ^e spiritual unction of the holy Ghost: yet was it no image, but a sign or monument erected in remembrance of the vision, by a special instinct of God's spirit, which when the Israelites would draw into an example of will-worship, erecting a temple there, and setting up an image thereon, the place was called of the Prophets Bethaven, that is, the house of vanity, and not Bethel, the house of God. O see the 4.5. &. 10. Chapter.

And whereas Augustine noteth, that although he called the stone, God's house, yet he worshipped not the stone, neither sacrificed to the stone, nor called it God: You think to escape by answering, that no more do you adore images of stone with godly honor, or with any honor for the stones sake. But Augustine denieth y ^t he resorted afterward to it, y ^t he adored the stone with any honor at all, or in any respect, or that he did anything like to idolatry, but you adore the image of Christ & cal it Christ, and go a pilgrimage to it, therefore Jacob's example cannot shroud you from idolatry. For although the anointing of the stone were a consecration of it to be a holy monument by a special direction of God's spirit, yet it followeth not, that it was any adoration of the stone, or that every man may set up, and annoint stones after that manner, which hath no such warrant of God's word or his spirit. And that God chose one place above another for his honor, it proveth not, that men may choose one stock above another to make an idol thereof or an image to worship, as you had rather call it.

The third text of scripture is, that Jacob adored the top of Joseph's rod, or scepter: Heb. 11. Which Sedulius saith did mystically betoken the kingdom of Christ, to be honored in the end of the world, as he adored the rod or scepter of his son. Yet is there here no image honored. Nay here is not the top of Iosephe • scepter honored out of the scripture. For the Hebrew text is, He worshipped toward the bedshead. Gene. 47. verse. 31. And the Greek text. Heb. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and he worshipped toward the end of his staff, or leaning upon the end of his staff, So that neither in the Hebrew, nor Greek, there is any worshipping of the staff or scepter of Joseph.

The 4. text of scripture: God appearing to Moses bad him pull off his shoes, for the place where he stood was holy ground. The presence of God made the ground-holy. What then? Therefore, an image appointed to bring us to the remembrance of holy things may be holy & honored. I deny the argument, where is the presence of God in the image, to make it holy?

The 5. David honored the Ark and daunced before it. The Ark was a holy sacrament ordained by God, therefore hath he nothing to do with images forbidden of God.

The 6. God commandeth the brazen serpent to be made Nu. 21. Show the like special commandment to dispense with the general law. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, for the making of your Popish image and the day is yours.

The 7. the tribes of Reuben, and Gad, and y ^e half tribe of Manasseh, made an image of an altar. Ios. 22. Nay they made an altar in deed for a memorial, & yet their fact was not comēdable, though it was in some sort excusable.

The 8. God commanded two cherubims to be made over the mercy seat Exod. 25. those were graven Angels (saith M. Sander) of the highest degree in heaven save one. O vain presumptuous hypocrite, that will take upon him to know the degrees of Angels, which the scripture hath never revealed. To this I answer as to the brazen serpent, show the word of God dispensing with the general law for any images in religion. The rending of the veil a sunder, showeth us not the images of Cherubims, as on the Ark he saith, much less other new Images which were never there, but the glory of Christ with uncovered face, while we our selves are transformed into the same image. 2. Cor. 3. ver. 18.

The 9. the temple was an image of Christ's body, therefore the Jews had an image of Christ openly set up before their eyes. The temple was a figure of Christ's body, so was every sacrifice that was offered, but no image.

The 10. the Temple was honored by the Jews, yea, & Daniel prayed toward Jerusalem when the Temple was destroyed, you might as well say, they honored Jerusalem. No doubt but the temple was reverently esteemed of the godly, as a place erected by God's commandment, which seeing images do lack, there passeth no consequence from the honoring of the Temple, to the honoring of images.

The 11. y ^e law had a shadow of good things to come, & not the self image of things He. 10. therefore if the dumb shadows of the law were to be worshipped, much more the expressed image of his body, of those who will perform that in the New Testament, which was prefigured in the law? Who can bear these blasphemies? Did the shadows of the law prefigure the worshipping of images, or our redemption by Christ? Are your dumb stocks and stones that self image or pattern of those shadows which the Apostle speaketh of, or was Christ himself? O brazen forehead and blasphemous mouth!

The 12. God's honor is given to the flesh of Christ in respect of the unity in person with the Godhead, therefore the image may be honored in another respect. But every respect (thou blundering idolater) cannot make a cause of honor, but only the unity in person, which seeing it is not in thy blocks with the pattern, thine argument proveth nothing.

The 13. the image of Caesar in his coin, proveth, that it may be given to Cęsar, so doth every image lead us to that truth whereof it is an image. No Master Sander, the image of Caesar on his coin proveth that the Jews were subject to Caesar, and therefore tribute was due unto him. So your argument hath no deduction from Caesar's image.

The 14. the sign of the cross is to be worshipped, for Amelech was overthrown by that sign, which Moses made when he prayed with his hands lifted up and spread abroad. Exod. 17. Therefore we may and must honor the sign of the cross, in what matter or stuff so ever it be made. Vanity of vanities, and nothing but vanity, where is there any one title in that Chapter, of the sign of a cross, yea or of the spreading of his hands abroad which should make a cross, with his lifting up?

The 15. the sign of Thau, that is to say of the cross, was marked in the forehead of such as hated idolatry. Ezech. 9. and they were not slain corporally, no more shall they be slain everlastingly which now embrace it. An easy way to escape everlasting death. But where find you that the sign of Thau was the sign of the cross? Or that the print of the letter Thau was set on their forheades? For this word Thau is as much to say, as a mark or sign, and not a special figure or mark, although the vulgar translation doeth not translate it, but setteth it in the Hebrew word as he found it.

The 16. the sign of the son of man shall appear at the day of judgment Mat. 24. which is the sign of the cross. Howe prove you that Master Sander? Or if you could prove it, what is that to worshipping of images▪ You say it shall be to the confusion of them which have thrown down that sign, but you only say it, and then we force not. Yea say you, a thousand times, what say I, a thousand? Euerlastingly accursed is he that hateth or destroyeth any one jot belonging to Christ, be it never so far distant from his holy flesh and person. Then how many times accursed are they, that have destroyed so many bibles, in which was not ten thousand iots belonging to Christ, but his whole doctrine perfectly contained?

The 17. the people Act. 5. coveted to lie only within the compass of S. Peters shadow, the woman desired to touche but the hem of Christ's garment. Why, because anything of his is worthy of estimation? Verily the image of Christ is somewhat of his, or else it were not his image. No verily M. San. the image of Christ is nothing of his truly, but falsely, nothing to his honor, but to his dishonor. The enemies of Christ are none of his, & yet we say these be his enemies. But you say: if a man had that faith, as to believe, that if he might touche, or only see his image, he should be safe, I see no reason why that faith may not make him safe. O blind beast, or rather block that seest no reason, why that faith which was never heard out of God's word, should not save a man. But the heretics you say tie all things to his person, and nothing to his other instruments. The word of God teacheth us to tie all things to Christ, and to acknowledge none other instruments, then he hath provided and appointed for us. For images be the instruments of the Devil, and not of Christ to work by.

The last. All that ever Isai Cap. 2. Jeremiah, Cap. 50. Ezekiel Cap. 30. Micah, Cap. 1. Sophonias, Cap. 2. Zechariah, Cap. 13. or King David In Psal. 9. say of the destruction of Idols in y ^e time of grace, is vterly void & of none effect, if it be not lawful to worship, or adore images. Do you not marvel what is y ^e reason of this monstrous assertion? Verily even as monstrous a lie, y ^t the whole Church of Christ in all Temples, & Chapels, always & especially since the time of Constantine the great, hath set up and used reverently the Images of Christ and of his Saints. What answer shall I make to this? Let him have the whetstone as big as a mountain.

THE XIII. OR XII. CHAP.

Master Sander telleth us that when he speaketh of the worshipping of the cross, he meaneth either the material cross whereon Christ suffered, or else the sign and image thereof. The material cross, he saith is not only holy, as y ^e sign of him y ^t died on it, but also as sanctified with the blood of Christ. As though the blood of Christ was a sanctification unto an insensible block of wood. It was the altar whereon the sacrifice of our redemption was offered. Although it be sometimes so called improperly, because it seemed so in the eyes of men, yet our Savior Christ himself, was both the priest and the sacrifice, the temple & y ^e altar of our redemption, whereof Augustine saith, De fide ad Petrum Dia. ca. 2. Iste igitur est, qui in se vno totum exhibuit quod esse necessarium ad redemptionis nostrae sciebat effectum, idem scilicet sacerdos &. sacrificium, idem Deus & templum. This is he that in himself only exhibited all whatsoever he knew to be necessary for the effect of our redemption, the same being both the priest and the sacrifice, the same beeinge God and his temple. But a temple he could not be, except an altar were within him, and not without him. Christ is therefore the holy altar, and not the cursed cross. But he addeth that it is an holy relique and not only an Image, If there were so great holiness in that material cross, it is marvel none of the Apostles made any acounte of it, nor any of the faithful, not Joseph and Nicodemus, which with much less suite might have obtained it of Pilate, then the body of Jesus. Nor the church by the space of three hundredth years, until the time that Helena is said to have found it with the two crosses of the two thieves: which I take to be but a fable and an imposture of some that after Helena was dead, forged a cross & nails, affirminge that they were found by Helena.

For it soundeth like no truth, that Eusebius which knew the same Helena the mother of Constantine the great, and writeth of her devotion and of her doings in the holy lande, would have omitted such a noble invention of the cross, with so many miracles about the same, either in his story, or in the life of Constantine.

I know there is a short note of it in his Chronicles, but that seemeth to be added by some other since his time, which he would not have omitted to declare at large in his story, where he setteth out in many words, matter of much less importance then that supposed invention was. Again they that in latter times write of it, as Ambrose, Ruffinus, Socrates, Theodoretus, and Sosomenus seem to have received that matter only of report and of no written monument, for scarce one of them agreeth with another. For to omit how incredible it is, that the Jews would have buried that cross to keep it from the Christians; which they more safely might have burned. Wherefore should they bury with it the two other crosses of the thieves? And admit there were such holiness in Christ's cross, that it could not corrupt, yet howe were not the other two crosses rotten in three hundredth years lying in the earth?

But admitting that story to be true (as I promise you, it is no article of my belief) what meaneth M. Sander to say the material cross is not only an Image, by which he meaneth that it is an Image? whereof I pray you should it be an Image? Will you now confound the thing with the image thereof, as you do offer the Image with the thing? • f that material cross were an image, then the images thereof be images of an Image, which is nothing of it self, and then by your own rule they be Idols. But you say it was an instrument of our redemption and therefore holy. If that be a good reason, Pilate, Annas, Caiaphas, Judas, the soldiers which crucified Christ, were holy, for they were instruments of our redemption. But Ambrose, De obitu Theodosi • ; calleth it the standerde of salvation, the word of truth, yea life it self.

I pray you give Ambrose in his eloquente oration leave to use rethoricall figures of amplification, and let him expound him self in the same.

Thus Ambrose although he credited this invention, yet he affirmeth it is an heathnishe error, and a vanity of wicked men to worship the tree that Christ died on, much more the sign or Image thereof, seeing all worship belongeth to God.

Speakinge of honor due to the wood in respect • that it belongeth to Christ. But Ambrose speaketh not one word of honor due to the wood of the cross, but defendeth the estimation of the cross of Christ, which i • our redemption. For speaking of the nail which Helena caused to be forged into the diademe of her son the Emperor, he saith: Sapienter Helenę egis quae crucem in capite regum leuauit, & locauit, vt crux Christi in regibus adoretur. Non insolentia ista, &c. Helena did wisely, that lifted up the cross in the head of kings and so placed it, that the cross of Christ might be worshipped in the kings. This is no insolency, &c. as above. So that he speaketh not of the wood of the cross, but of the iron of the nail.

Beside we see a great difference between the reverent offering of a thing, and the honoring or worshipping thereof, which yet Master Sander everywhere confoundeth.

Here saith Master Sander, we have the adoration of iron. Is this like that Ambrose, who before condemned the adoration of the wood for an heathenish error, doeth now commend the bowinge to iron? why Master Sander, do you not confess, that the Jews spake this and not Ambrose, or Ambrose spake this in the person of the Jews? And who knoweth not in such fictions of persons speaking, the Orator must frame his talk as they, whom he supposeth to speak are like to say. The Jews then in sport do say, kings bow down to a piece of iron: meaning to the Emperor, in whose creste this iron nail was, is it then the judgment of Ambrose to allow the bowing to iron in any respect? O vain & frivolous arguments of the Papists, that must borrow their authority of the complaint of the perfidious Jews. But you may know what honor was done to y ^e iron, y ^t as y ^e one nail was placed in an honorable place, namely in the Emperors Diademe, so another was placed in his horse mouth, for so saith Ambrose De vno clauo frenos fieri precepis: she commanded his bridle to be made of one nail. This was no great honoring of that holy iron, to put it to be champed and slaboured in an horse mouth, although Ambrose make a mystery of it. And the third nail other writers say, was cast into the Sea to stay a tempest. All three being thus bestowed by ancient testimony, y ^e Papists have fourteen more in diverse places of France, Italy & Germany, beside y ^e fifteenth that was shown at Paul's cross by master Jewel since the Queens reign.

But Ruffinus calleth it blessed. And Cyrillus healthful, and precious, because it leadeth us to the memory of Christ's death. So would an image of Judas Iscarioth do. It was the best reason those ancient writers had to defend that superstitious estimation, which they had of the sign of the cross.

As for the report of Paulinus, that the same cross had a Church and a secreate place made at Jerusalem where it might be honourably reserved, which y ^e Bishop brought forth at Easter to be worshipped of the people, if it be true, yet proveth it not the worshiping of images, for the cross was no image.

But that it is not like that any church was erected to the Cross, Saint Augustine showeth, that it was counted sacrilege in his time to make a Church unto any creature.

Except M. Sander will say the cross was no creature, we must say with Augustine, it ought to have no temple. What superstition and Idolatry hath done, is not the question, but what should be done and what is well done, is all the controversy.

The feasts of the invention of the cross which he maketh of 1200. years old, and the exaltation of nine hundredth, (beside that the antiquity of the inventing is not proved,) yet argue not any worship of the cross, more then the feasts of the Apostles and martyrs. which were kept only in remembrance of them, and not to adore or worship them.

That master Jewel granteth the sign of the cross to have been had in great regard among the Christians, what helpeth it your cause, seeing he alloweth not the superstitious abuse thereof? But you say, if it be a thing used in the whole primitive Church, it must not be called a superstitious abuse, for master Jewel hath submitted himself to the first six hundredth years. A man may easily perceive, with what conscience master Sander handeleth this cause, y ^t so impudētly affirmeth so manifest an untruth: For whoever heard master Jewel submit himself to the first six hundredth years in all matters of controversy? Where did he ever take upon him to discharge the first six hundredth years of all error and superstition? Although for certain questions uttered in his sermon, he made challenge of 600. years, yet did he never allow of all things that were done or taught in the church for 600. years. But I pray you let us see how substancially M. Sander proveth the sign of the cross to have ben in estimation with y ^e whole primitive church.

His first author is Tertullian, almost 200. years from Christ. And from him he descēdeath to Cyprian, Basel, Augustine, Chrysostom, &c. Tertullian showeth only the sinning of men's foreheads therewith, whethersoeuer they went. The later age brought in that sign into baptism, confirmation, the Lord's supper, and almost in to every ceremony. So superstition crepeth like a ringworme, at the first as a tolerable indifferent matter, then as a holy thing, next as a necessary thing, and last of all into open and gross Idolatry, as in the times following those six hundredth years.

But before all those whom M. Sander nameth, Irenaeus lib. 1. testifieth that the Valētiniane heretics brought the sign of the cross in great estimation, calling it Oron confirmatiuam crucem the limit and term of all things, & the confirming cross, abusing even the same testimonies of scripture for the proof thereof, which the Papists do, and namely master Sander in this Chapter.

Next to this he citeth Chrysostom Or. 1. De adorat. cru • is. that not only the Cross it self whereon Christ died, but also the sign and shape of it, ought to be worshiped and adored.

And again he citeth afterward in this Chapter either y ^e same or such another. Hom. de adoratione crucis. But in all Chrisostomes works there is no book, oration, homily, sermon or treatise of any such title. There be in y ^e second tome two homilies de cruce & latrone, and a third de cruce dominica, but in none of them is any such words as he citeth, eius figuram & effigiem coledam adorandam{que} : or anything to such purpose. Wherefore I cannot otherwise think, but this is some blind forgery under the name of Chrysostom, which is not extant in all his authentical writings.

But Chrysostom in deed calleth the cross whereon Christ died, which was so much esteemed, and whereof every man desired to have a piece, enclosed it in gold, hanged it about their necks &c. lignum condemnationis the wood of condemnation: and the sign thereof so much used and esteemed Simbolum mortis the sign of death: in demost, ad gent. quod Chr. sit Deus. But M. Sander will prove the worshipping of the sign of the cross by law, if it will not stand with divinity he citeth Cod. Just. tit. 11. tom l. Vnica. but it is Cod. Just. lib. 1. tit. 8. le nemini licere &c. The Emperors Theodosius and Valentinianus made a law in these words:

Whereas we have diligent care to defend the religion of the highest God in all things, we specially command that it shall be lawful for no man to grave or paint the sign of our savior Christ either in y ^e ground, or in flint, or marble stones (lying on y ^e ground) but whersouer it is found (to be taken away) under a most grievous forfeit to be paid of thē y ^t attempt y ^t which is contrary to our statutes. Cod. Just. Ti. 11. vnica. This was a kind of honoring the sign of the Cross (saith he) when it was forbidden to be graven on the ground, least it should be dishonored, if it were trodden on, even as Helena, S. Ambrose witnessing feared to tread upon the cross of Christ, which he calleth the sacrament of salvation. Of Helena we heard before y ^t she worshipped not the cross, howe much soever she made thereof.

And if this law were to be understood as M. San. would have it, yet here is no worshipping of the cross spoken of. But touching the understanding of this law, M. Jewel is reproved, first in citing it out of Petrus Crinitus, who leaveth out these words, humi positis, lying on the ground, which Iustinians Code addeth, then in false translation, whereof he will speak afterward. But concerning the first, for as much as Petrus Crinitus was a learned man, about that time when books began to be printed, before this controversy of images was moved, his report is more to be credited then the Printers press, for the ancient reading of this law, how so ever M. Sander fondly compareth him with Justinian corrupted. Moreover, to prove this corruption probable, those words humi positis, are altogether superfluous, for when he had said before in solo on the ground▪ what need he add afterward lying on the ground? Also the disiunctiue, vel, or, set before these words in solo, (which M. Sander hath clean left out in his translation) doth sufficiently declare, that the Emperors meaning was, to prohibit all grauing and painting of the sign of Christ, whether it were of the cross or of the image of Christ, either on the ground, or else where, because it is against the religion of the high God, to make any images or signs of him to any purpose. As for the danger of treading upon the sign of the cross, is not in any one word of this law touched. Neither was it a thing regarded in the deepest dungeon of Popery, for crosses & images of Christ and of the Trinity, are yet to be seen of their making, upon a great number of grave stones in England to this day, which argue, that either the Papists did against this law, or else that this law had no such meaning as M. Sander feigneth it to have.

But M. Jewel confesseth, that the sign of the cross was had in great regard among the Christians, for that most worthy price that was offered upon it: and yet he confesseth not, that either they worshipped the sign of the cross, or that their regard was no greater thē it ought to have been. For if any such regard had been due to the sign of the cross by God's ordinance, the Apostles that delivered to us all the counsel of God, would not have omited it in their writings. Eph. 20. verse. 20. & 27. And M. Sander him self, after he hath iangled a while confusely, of regarding and worshipping, at length confesseth, that every regard is not commonly taken for a worshipping, but some is, as the covetous man's regarding of money. So that his argument and his conclusion is nothing else, but a sophistical conversion of particulars, which nothing toucheth the matter in controversy: Some worshipping is a regarding, therefore some regarding is worshipping. Both these are true, and yet the regarding of the sign of the cross, is not thereby proved a worshipping thereof. And yet he is not ashamed to proceed, as though he had proved all regarding to be worshipping. For he saith, If M. Jewel had a piece of that cross that Christ died on, he would prefer it before gold and silver &c. and this regard should be a worshipping or honoring of it. I believe if M. Jewel had a piece that had been worshipped, he would have burned it, and so would I. And yet if I had but a pebble stone, that came out of the land of promise, I would keep it, and make much of it, so would I do of the cross, if it were free from idolatry, but I would worship the one, no more then the other. How long will this sophistical Doctor walk under a cloud of ambiguity of words? Let him either prove such honoring & worshipping as the Papists use unto y ^e cross or sign thereof (which is the thing we impugn) to have been used in the eldest Primitive Church, or else let him strive about terms and words among sophisters & children. But if M. Jewel should take the cross for no better then a common piece of wood, he should (saith he) be blasphemous against the death of Christ. O grievous accusation. Hezekiah took the brazen Serpent for no better then a piece of brass, which was a figure of Christ, and yet he was not blasphemous against the death of Christ. But hear his reason, Christ vouchsafed to segregate it from other wood, to make it the instrument of his passion. Where find you that Christ did choose his cross? I think it was rather appointed to him by the Jews, then provided by him self: if you say, he did segregate it in his secret determination, I answer, y ^t so he did segregate Judas, Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate, the Jews and soldiers, to be instruments of his passion. And yet none of them therefore to be regarded or worshipped, except of those detestable heretics that think they were profitable instruments of our redemption. But O holy swords & axes of tyrants, and tormentors, that were embrued with the blood of the Martyrs, O holy fire that burned them, O holy water that drowned them, O holy gallows and ropes that hanged them! For why should not these also have their regard and worship according to the proportion of their deserts, whose eternal felicity they were instruments to procure?

Yet once again M. Jewel is challenged, for denying the cognisances of the cross, in flags, banners, or targets, to be images. Also the letter that Ezekiel saw in vision, the cross that Constantine saw in the air, the marks in men's garments, and the mystical letters in the temple of Serapis. First touching the mark which Ezekiel saw, it is not described of what figure it was, only that a mark was set, for Tau, signifieth a mark, and not only the name of a letter, which in that time perhaps it had not, & so did S. Cyprian read it, Contra Demetrianum, transi mediam Jerusalem & notabis signum super frontes virorum. Go through the midst of Jerusalem, and thou shalt mark a sign upon the foreheads of the men. The sign that Constantine saw, was the character of the name of Christ, in two letters X & P after this manner, as both Euseb. witnesseth, and his coins yet remaining do show. ☧ Eu. de vit. Con. lib. 1. and therefore no cross nor sign thereof. The marks that have appeared in men's garments, perhaps were imagined rather thē images, as children imagine dragons, & Gryphons in the clouds. The mystical letters in y ^e temple of the idol Serapis, could have no relation to the cross of Christ, which y ^e idolaters knew not. Therefore y ^e folly of those ecclesiastical writers is bewrayed, y ^t thoght christianity much helped by such heathenish & superstitious fantasies: as for the rest, I answer as M. Jewel, that they are but bars laid one over another, and no images. Yet M. San. maruelleth what blind ignorance this is, so to say. But to make the matter more plain on his side, he maketh the shape of Christ hanging with his arms abroad, all one with these signs or characters aforesaid, which is no blind ignorance, but willful abusing of his readers, w ^t out all shame or shape of honesty. And yet, he will baffull us with a doutie definitiō of an image (as he saith out of Gregory Nazianzen) that every similitude, likeness, or shape of one thing taken out according to the samplar of another thing, is an image, & then he runneth out into his old common place of inward imaginations. But I pray you syr, whoever in those days or in ours, saw the cross that Christ died on, to make an image thereof according to the samplar? If none, but y ^e painter or graver hath imagined it, then is it an image of an imagination, which is the samplar thereof, and not of the cross of Christ, and so it is counterfeit, and consequently by your own distinction an idol. And in very deed, so many diverse figures and forms thereof as we see to be made, argue that there is no certain truth known unto men, of what form or figure it was: for some make it headless, thus ✚ some draw one bar through the other thus ✚ some draw this bar at the upper end, some through the midst, some make circles, some squares, some triangles at the four ends, some make them blunt, some make them sharp, &c. some make the cross ragged, some even, so that there is no certainty, and if all these be images of Christ's cross, it skilleth not what proportion be kept in making of images according to the pattern. Hitherto therefore M. San. fond argument to prove worshipping of images by M. Jewels confession, hath no force to enter into any reasonable man's credit, because he hath neither proved these signs of the cross to be images, nor such regard as M. Jewel confesseth, to have been a worshipping of them, in that sense that the controversy is between us for worshipping of images.

But whearas master Jewel saith, the same crosses were not set up in any Temple, master Sander confesseth not the same, but other such as they were, for proof whereof he citeth a new found old Doctor called Euodius Bishop of Vzal in Affrike, writing about S. August. time, a book of the miracles of S. Stephen, in which he saith, S. Stephens image was painted with a cross on his shoulder &c: this old Doctor was first painted at Louan anno, 1564. but he cometh too late, to claim his antiquity after so many hundred years, in which neither he nor his writing was ever hard off.

That the people were taught to kneel down to crosses, which Master Jewel denieth, he proveth by the example of Probianus, of whom Sozomenus in y ^e tripartite history doth write: That being sometimes a pagane, but afterward made a Christian, he did in some parte follow the doctrine of the Christians. But he would not adore the cause of all our health, that is, the moste holy cross. He being of this mind, the divine power apeared to him, and shown him the sign of the cross set on the altar of that church. And did manifestly declare that since Christ was crucified, all things that were done for the utility of mankind, had not been done by any means without y ^e virtue of the reverend cross, neither of holy Angels nor of godly men.

Here saith master Sander, it is evident, that the sign of the cross was set upon y ^e alter of S. Michaels church in Constantinople. Yea sir in that vision if it were true. But it is small evidence to prove that it stood in the church in deed. For if it had stood on the alter in such honorable estimation, Probianus would not have contemned it before. But where you say, he was compted no perfect Christian, because he would not adore the holy cross of Christ: you walk still under your cloud of ambiguity. For how prove you that y ^e adoration here spoken of, is y ^t kneeling to the cross, which the Bishop denieth to have been taught? it seemeth that Probianus newly converted from paganism, had not yet that honorable estimation of the reprochefull sign of the cross, which the Christians of that time had. But whereas M. Jewel upbraideth them with that blasphemous prayer, which they make to the cross, kneeling on their knees, O crux aue, spes vnica, Alhaile O cross, our only hope, M. Sander saith, those words do so convince his blasphemous doctrine, that he shall never be able to avoid the argument, which is grounded upon them. You have need M. Sa. to set a good face on those words, even of the same metal that your cross to whom you speak is oftentimes made. But what Herculian argument I pray you do you bring forth? Forsooth S. Paul used the same phrase, when he said, God forbid that I should glory but only in the cross of Christ. But good sir, S. Paul speaketh neither to y ^e wooden cross, nor of the sign thereof, but of the death of Christ. And you would make men believe, that you do so. Namely, that you say not those words to the cross, but to Christ crucified. Thus you would cover your shame with impudency. But you cannot so escape: for Thomas Aquinas a great Saint and Doctor of your Church. 3. Sen. di. 9.91. ar. 2 q. 4. affirmeth that the cross of Christ is to be worshipped with the s • me Latria or Divine worship, that Christ crucified is to be worshipped, & that even unto the cross you speak, when you say all hail O cross, our only hope.

And if you will say this was but one Doctors opinion, yet the very words of that hymn and the rubrike thereof, shall convince you, that you speak to the cross, and not to Christ Beata cuius brachijs preci • on pependit sęculi, flatera facta est corpori, prędam{que} tulit Tartari. Blessed is that cross on whose arms the price of the world did hang, it was made a beam to weigh his body, & took the pray away from hell. Immediately after these words the rubrike biddeth the quire turn to the altar where the cross standeth, as M. Sander saith, and then follow these words. All hail O cross our only hope, in this time of passion, increase rightehusnesse to godly men, & give pardon to guilty persons, By these it is plain, that this prayer is made to the cross, and not to Christ, neither is it anything like to the phrase which S. Paul useth, of glorying in the cross of Christ.

But to justify the former blasphemous hymn, Master Sander will prove that it was made of old time, either of Hilary, Ambrose, Fortunatus, Sedulius, Prudentius, or Gregory, or else he cannot tell of whom, or when. But what is his reason trow you? Marie, because it doeth concern the holy time of Lent, and is received not only in England, but also in Italy, France, and Spain. O invincible reasons, it was not for naught that he bragged, that Master Jewel should never be able to avoid the argument, that is grounded on these words.

The last writer cited for the worship of the cross is Chrysostom Hom. de adorat cruc. saying, Hodiernus dies pre • iosae crucis venerationi constitutus est. This day is appointed to the worshipping of the precious cross. Admodum beati ii qui castis labijs sancto{que} ore eam vt amplexantur, exeunt. Very blessed are they that go forth with chaste lips and holy mouth to kiss it.

But what a mockery is this, that those words which this author speaketh allegorically of the spiritual cross, y ^t is to say, of the death and redemption of Christ (which no man doubteth, but with all honor it is to be embraced) should be drawn to a wooden image of I cannot tell what cross, to be worshipped, licked and kissed. For it followeth immediately Re enim vera illud domini verbum implent: Si quis me sequi velit seipsum abneges, tollatquecrucem suam et me sequatur. For they do in very deed fulfill that saying of our Lord: if any man will follow me, let him deny him self, & take up his cross & follow me. And expounding what cross he meaneth, he saith: An vt lignum vnusquis quae nostrum ferat? certe non. Que enim hęc virtus est? Sed vt ad pericula instructi simus, & sanguinē in animis nostris suum ferentes, ad cędem et mortem quotidie parati ita omnia faciamus vt si ad vesperum nos victuros esse non speraremus. What, doth he command every on of us to bear a piece of wood? No surely. For what virtue is that? but that we should be furnished against dangers, and carrying about his blood in our minds, we should be ready to be slain & to die and so do all things as if we hoped not to live until the evening. Chrysostom also in many other places speaketh magnifically of the cross but then he meaneth the death and passion of CHRIST, he commendeth also the figure of the cross, but yet without any adoration of it: of the cross he saith in epist. ad Colloss. Hom. 3. Deo reconciliauit per seipsum, per mortem, per crucem. Pape quomodo illa rursus commiscuit, etenim ne putares vnum esse, ne{que} crucem aliquid esse iuxta seipsam, per seipsum dicit. He hath reconciled us to God, by him self, by his death, by his cross: good lord how he hath again joined these together, for that thou shouldest not think that they are one, nor that the cross is anything by it self, he saith by himself. The sign of the cross he calleth y ^e sign of death, to put the people in remembrance not only of y ^e death of Christ, but also of their own suffering & patience. So far he was of from setting up the sign of the cross to be adored or kneeled unto, that gross idolatry had not prevailed in his time, nor long after.

THE XIIII. OR XIII. CHAP.

Saint Augustine is cited, De doct. Christian. lib. 3. cap. 9. Qui aut operatur aut veneratur, &c.

For God did never institute any sign to be worshipped, in that sense which Master Sander defendeth worshiping of Images. But all signs instituted of God are to be reverently esteemed & regarded, as baptism, which we do reverently esteem, & yet we worship not either the water, or the action of baptizing.

Secondly we have to consider, how Master Sander can prove images to be profitable signs instituted by gods authority. They be profitable (saith he) because they bring us in remembrance of good things. I deny this argument, because nothing is profitable in religion but that which is instituted by God, for otherwise we might bring the gallows into the Church, which bringeth us in remembrance of God's Justice, &c. as I have shown before. Likewise the Prophet Abacuc utterly denieth Images to be profitable: Cap. 2. verse. 18. But let us see how he proveth popish images to be instituted by God's authority which is all in all, for if that be proved we will not doubt of the profitableness of them. First he alledgeth the imitation of nature, and of nations, the institution of some images in the law of Moses, last of all, the tradition left to his Church freely to make images of good things.

The former reasons are answered before in their proper chapters, namely the law of nature and nations, cap. 11. the making of some images in Moses law, cap 12. also the example of practice of this supposed tradition out of Eusebius cap. 10. And they are all three wiped away with the express commandment of God in his law of religion: Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, or the likeness of anything, &c. Nevertheless let us see how by tradition left to the Church, images are proved to be instituted by God. We read (saith he) in S. Augustine as well of the Ethnikes, as of the Christians. There is first one falsehood, for Augustine in the place by him cited speaketh only of Ethnikes. De consen. Euang. lib. 1. cap. 10. which because they had seen Christ's image pictured with Peter and Paul, imagined that Christ had written books to Peter and Paul.

In this allegation, he addeth words that are not in Augustine. Although not contrary to his meaning, yet showing thereby that he borrowed this place, as many of our English papists do commonly, of some other man's noting, rather then of his own reading. But the greatest fault of all is, that he doth deceitfully suppress the words following immediately, which declare howe profitable Sainte Augustine esteemed the doctrine of Images to be. His whole sentence is this:

Now see with what honesty, Master Sander hath alleged this place of Augustine to prove that images are of God's institution. But you will say perhaps, this place doeth prove, that Images of Christ and his Apostles were then made by Christians, I grant, but not in the Churches, for then the Ethnikes could not have seen them, because they were never suffered to enter into the Churches of the Christians.

But Gregory Nyssen in his Oration De Theod. martyr. laud. testyfieth, that the paynter had set forth the whole story of Theodorus the martyr in his Church. And yet the Image of the martyr was none otherwise painted, then the fierce and cruel forms of the tyrants, neither otherwise on the walls, then on the pauemente. For he saith, Capillorum item concinnator, historiae par opu • in pauimento quod pedibus calcatur, effecit.

Also the pauier hath made the like work of history upon the pauemente, which is trodden under feet.

These devises of painters and pauiers Master Sander is fain to take hold of, in steed of the holy scriptures and ancient writers. But if he say that Gregorius doeth also allow these, I answer as ornaments of the Church, not as matter of God's religion and worship, which yet he should rather have defaced with Epiphanius, then suffered or allowed for inconuenienc • that followed.

This report of Gregory showeth the error of that time, rather then proveth images to be instituted by God. That Paulinus caused images to be painted on the Church walls, as it is confessed to be done, so it is denied to be well done. The like I say of the images painted in Saint Martins Church in Towers in France, witnessed by Gregorius Turonensis, although it was long after the time of Paulinus, in which Satan began to lay the platform for his Idolatry, which afterward he brought into the world. And these be all the arguments, that he hath to prove that images are profitable signs instituted by God's authority. Except he mean the text of Paul to the Galat. 5. to be an argument, which he citeth to prove that we are made free in Christ, both to know our signs and images to be images and signs, and also to know whereof they are signs, which the Jews (saith he) did not. So that the liberty of Christ is by M. Sanders doctrine, not from a yoke of bondage and servitude unto ceremonies, but from ignorance and want of knowledge of the use of them. And whereas by the law we are utterly discharged of Images, this man's freedom is to bind us to the service of Images. O blasphemous & absurd doctrine! Again, howe falsely doeth he affirm y ^t the godly Jews knew not whereunto their signs were referred, as though Messias was not preached to them by those signs. Likewise as untruly he saith, that the signs of the Gentiles ended in the only honor of the creature, and not of God, when they did never honor any creature, but their final ende was thereby to honor God, and not a creature.

Again, what beastly doctrine is this, that he affirmeth y ^t y ^e signs of y ^e Jews are not utterly abolished, but changed into y ^e sacraments directly instituted by Christ, but also into signs made with faithful men's hands, as Altars, vestments, Chalices, lights and images, whereby he maketh Christian liberty but a change from one bondage into another, and yet worse then that of the Jews, because they were subject to the yoke of God, we must be under the yoke of men's institutions and traditions.

But he proceedeth and will prove that images may be profitably and freely worshipped, and that in practice it was so done within the first six hundredth years, by the testimony of Chrysostom, Paulinus, and Gregory.

Chrysostom is alleged in his Liturgy, where it is said that the priest turning to the image of Christ, between the two doors, bowing his head, saith a prayer.

But because this liturgy is proved to be false, & counterfeit by master Jewel, for that therein is contained a prayer for Pope Nicholas which lived not 500. years after Chrysostom, and for the Emperor Alexius which lived near 700. years after Chrysostom, master Sander taketh upon him the defense of it to be written by Chrysostom, which was written seven hundredth years after his death. His first reason is, that it beareth his name, which is a good reason to prove all forgeries to be true writings. Secondly other Grecians which have written since that time, do make mention of it, as Proclus, Cabaselas Methenencis, and M. Ephesius. But of these, some only make mention that Chrysostom did write a liturgy, they do not justify that this which is now seen is that, the other being of late days, are not to be credited. Thirdly he saith y ^t Greek church doth allow it for Chrisostomes, as y ^t latin doth those Psalms Quicun{que} vult to be written by Athanasius, and Te deum by Ambrose and Augustine. And yet the best learned in these days, cannot be persuaded of those authors although the Psalms be good and Godly. Fourthly he would fain disprove M. Jewels reason, touching those prayers for Pope Nicolas and the Emperor Alexius, saying that in all public service & forms of prayers there are certain common places, which must be left void for names according to the times and persons.

But these places are not left void, but filled with the names of the princes and prelates of that time, in which it was first written, as the public service in king Henries days, in king Edward's time, yea prayers made in Queen Mary's time, and in Queen Elizabeth's time, do prove and show in what time they were first made. But in some copyes (saith he) the places are left void. He must prove those copies to be auncienter then the time of Alexius, or else they help not his cause. But seeing there is no copy that hath any other names but these, it is manifest that this liturgy was first composed in the days of the Emperor Alexius, and Pope Nicholas. And where as master Sander useth many words and reasons to prove, that this Pope Nicholas was not Bishoppe of Rome, as master Jewel saith, but Patriarch of Constantinople in the reign of Alexius, I yield unto him: for thereby it is more certain y ^t this liturgy was made in y ^e time of Alexius, then if it had been Nicholas of Rome, which was near 200. years before Alexius. Last of all where as Claudius de Sanctis that brauling Sorbonist, would prove by conferring it with diverse places taken out of Chrisostomes own works, the said liturgy to be his, he hath labored in vain. For as it may be granted, that diverse things in this liturgy are taken out of that, which perhaps Chrysostom did write, yet it followeth not that the whole form thereof is his, but that the same was corrupted and altered, with additions and detractions in the days of Alexius, and especially in this matter of the images, which I prove by two reasons. First among so many counterfeit and falsified authorities as were alleged out of old writers in the idolaters counsel of Nice the second for the use and worship of images, this liturgy was never alleged, though other testimony of Chrysostom was cited which could not have been omitted seeing nothing is so notorious as the public service of the Church. Whereby it is manifest that the liturgy which went under the name of Chrysostom in that time, had in it no mention of images or the worshipping of them.

My seconde reason is, that Chrysostom himself in his own undoubted writings, coumpteth the art of painting to be altogether superfluous, and such as might well be spared out of the world, which he would not have done, if he had appointed in the public service of the Church, the use of an image as necessary or profitable. For thus he writeth in Math Hom. 50.

Now as concerning the image of S. Martin painted in the Baptistery by Seuerus, and allowed by Paulinus bishop of Nola, I have answered before, that his error proveth not God's institution. But whereas he citeth his verse to prove the worshipping of images, he doth him wrong. Martinum veneranda viri testator imago. The reverend image of the man doth show forth Martin: for pocres have ever had license of all figures in their verses, wherefore he doth none otherwise call the image reverend, or to be reverenced, then Virgil calleth the image of his father Anchises troubled: Admonet in somnis & turbida terret imago: Meaning not that the image, but that Anchises was troubled, so doth Paulinus mean that S. Martin, and not his image was to be reverenced.

Finally where as master Jewel saith that Gregory speaketh not one word of the adoration of images, master Sander objecteth this saying lib. 7. Ep. 53. Non quasi ante diuinitatem, ante illam imaginem prosternimur : which he englisheth thus, we lie prostrate before y ^e image, not as before god. And then he triumpheth like a crow in a gutter, saying, is not lying flat down before an image, one word spoken of adoration of images? yea, it is clear y ^t it was the use in Saint Gregory's time, to lie prostrate or to fall down before holy images. What say you master Sander will you abide by it? Have you either forgotten the grammar you taught us before of joining the adverb with the verb, or think you that we have learned so little either grammar or logic, that we cannot see a difference between a proposition affirmative and negative? If a boy should construe Gregory's latin as you have englished it, he were worthy of a dosen strips, though he had gone to grāmer school but two or three years. Non quasi ante diuinitatē, ante illam imaginē prosternimur. We fall not down before that image as before y ^e divinity: thus would I english it & conster it if it were for my life. And that which you make affirmative, I must make negative, for I have learned five or six & twenty year ago, that it is a negative proposition, when the principal Verbe is denied. But perhaps you will gather that though he fell not down before an image, as before God, yet he fell down before it, as before an image.

Howe certain this collection is, you may see by an hundredth examples if you list to consider them. If I say, Non quasi ante diuinitatem, ante diabolum prosternimur : would you translate it we fall down before the devil, but not as before God, or rather thus, we fall not down before the devil as we do before God.

Non quasi panem, lapides commedimus, would you turn it thus? we eat stones, but not as bread: or rather we eat not stones as we eat bread.

Non quasi ante regem, ante mendicum prosternimur, would you translate it thus? we fall down before a beggar but not as before a king, or else we fall not down before a beggar as before a King. Such examples might be multiplied infinitely, by which you may see, what pith there is in master Sanders argument, to prove that Saint Gregory lay prostrate before an image, where as contrariwise he denieth it, and maketh such prostration and falling down with affection of religion to be dew only to GOD, even as the Angel infinitely more excellent then all the images that ever were made, refusing that honor offered to him by Saint John, willed him to give it to God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , fall down to God. Apoc. 22.9.

THE XV. or XIIII. CHAP.

The Bishop of Salisbury rejecting the authority of this Council of Nice the second, saith, it was holden well near eight hundredth years after Christ, and therefore was out of the compass of those six hundred years, of which he made his challenge. Master Sander answereth, it was seven hundredth years before Master Jewel, as though the controversy were of antiquity of the men, and not of the doctrine.

The Bishop said, it would require a long treatise, to open the whole folly and fondness of that Council. M. Sander answereth, it is more like, that M. Jewel is a fond fool, then 350. Bishops of such wit, virtue, and learning: as though their multitude could prove their wit, virtue, and learning, when their words and deeds plainly declare their folly, ignorance, and ungodliness.

The B. said, Irene the Empresse which gathered this Council, was a wicked woman. M. Sander citing diverse writers to and fro in the end concludeth, that by repentance she was made a good woman, and her zeal towards holy images did make her the better, so he bringeth that for an argument, which is the matter in controversy.

The Bishop said. She was the kings daughter of Tartaria, an Heathen borne. So was Constantine the great, saith M. Sander, yet was she Christened before she procured that Council, whereas he doubteth whether Master Jewel think that Constantine was baptized, when he gathered and confirmed the first Council of Nice. The Bishop doth not for that cause only reject the second Council at Nice, because Irene was an Heathen borne, but thereby showeth, that she savored of Gentilitie, in being earnest to set forward idolatry. And whereas Master Sander doubteth, whether Master Jewel think Constantine were baptized before he gathered the Council, he need not at all, seeing Eusebius which knew Constantine very well, affirmeth that he was not baptized, but even immediately before his death. Contrarie to that fond fable, which among other is avouched by Pope Adrian in this Council, that Constantine was cured of a leapresie, & baptized by Sylvester Bishop of Rome. And whereas he thinketh it a dangerous matter, to take the authorizing of that Council from Sylvester, and to ascribe it to one that was not baptized, there is no peril at all in it, for Constantine did then believe in Christ, and was certainly determined to be baptized in Jordan, if he had not been prevented by death. Yea, although he had been an Heathen man, seeing he gave no sentence, but assented to the sentence of the Bishops, it had been none inconvenience at all.

The Bishop said. She caused that Council to be summoned in despite of the Council of Constantinople, that had decreed against images. Master Sander, although he confess there was such a Council, yet because the whole process of the acts thereof is not extant, being defaced by the idolaters, he quarelleth that it was an obscure Council, and asketh by what Emperor it was gathered: as though it were not testified that it was gathered by Leo the third, but it lacked (saith he) the Bishop of Rome's authority, and therefore was no general Council, so did the Chalcedonense, and the sixth of Constantinople in some partes, and yet it went forward with the decree, which had been in vain if the Romish Bishop had a negative voice in all Councils.

The Bishop said. She took her own son Constantine and pulled out his eyes. The Council is not therefore naught, saith Master Sander. But she is thereby proved to be a cruel woman, which was the Bishops meaning.

The Bishop saith, She did it only, because he would not consent to the idolatrous having of images. Master Sander denieth this, but proof he bringeth none, saving that he showeth there was another cause why she might do it, namely because he deposed her of her government, wherein he did well, after the example of Asa, which is commended in the scripture, for that he did put down his mother Maachah from her estate, because she had made an idol in a grove, and destroyed her idols, and burned them by the brook Elledron. 1. Reg. 15. verse. 13. But Master Sander will defend her title of succession, because she was elder then her son, and to be honored of him. O cunning Lawyer, that will make the wife inheritor to her husband, and that in the Empire before her son begotten by her husband, which had the Empire by descent. Concerning the divorcement of Constantine from his first wife Marie, and marrying of another, as I know not the cause, so I will not take upon me the defense.

The Bishop said: the Bishops and Doctors of that Council manifestly corrupted the Scriptures. Master Sander saith, it is not so, as he hath proved in parte, what he hath proved you may read in the twefth Chapter: but because he is so impudent to defend those corruptions and deprauations, I will set down some of them.

Johannes Legate of y ^e East citeth this, Shew me thy face, for" it is beautiful. Theodorus alledgeth this saying, God is marvelous in his Saints. An other, to prove that images must be set on the altar, useth this text. No man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a bushel &c. An other this text to prove images necessary to know God by them. As we have heard, so we have seen, in the city of our God. These are not the one half of those beastly applications of the scripture used in that blasphemous Council, but these are sufficient to show, what learned bewclearks they were in the holy word of God, and the interpretation thereof.

The B. said, They falsified the holy Fathers without shame. Master Sander saith nothing, but that he doeth bely them. What shall we say of the falsifying of Basil in Oratione 40. Martyrs: for the worshipping of images, which Oration is extant, and no such matter found in it? Shall we believe the forged Oration in the name of Athanasius, of the image of Christ in Beritus, which being stricken by a Jew, blood issued out of the side of it? Howe impudently do they deny the authority and writings of Epiphanius, Amphilochius, Theodotus, Eusebius, which were brought against the irreligious use and honoring of images, by the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus, slandering also Eusebius of Arianism.

The B. said, They said Imago melior est quàm oratio. An image is better then a prayer. Here are three faults found in citing five words. Great faults I warrant you. The first, he writeth they said: which one only Bishop did say, but in y ^e end of that fourth action all the Bishops and Legates subscribed and allowed all that had been said in defense of images, and no man reclamed, therefore he might well write: they said. The second fault is, he said not melior est imago, but major est imago, greater i • an image, for a thing may be greater which is not better. This is no great fault, but an oversight, and the sense is not altered, for in this case he meaneth by greater, better.

The third fault that he translateth Oratio for prayer, which signifieth an oration or speech. Yet doeth it signify a prayer also. But if the circumstance of this place would have it to be taken for speech or an oration, or sermon, the absurdity is nothing less to say, there is greater force to teache in an image, then in a sermon, oration, or speech.

But seeing you find so many faults in the citing of that saying to excuse it from absurdity, I pray you see if you can find as many in this, which I cite, spoken by Johannes the Monk, Priest and deputy or vicar of the East, to defend it from blasphemy.

The B. said: And again whosoever will not adore the godly images, accursed be he. This M. Sander confesseth to be written in deed, and to be true, saving that he cavilleth at the translation of Diuinas imagines, into godly images, which he saith should be divine images. But how liketh he the saying of Constantine Bishop of Constantia in Cypres? which affirmeth that he will worship images with that honor which is due to the blessed Trinity, & accurseth him that, refuseth with the Manichees and Marcionites, unto which sentence all the rest agree. Where is now the distinction of Doulia and Latria, when they will worship the image of Christ, with the same honor that is due to the Trinity? What saith he to the zeal of John the deputy of the East, which affirmeth that it is better to admit all stews of whores and brothels into the city, then to deny the worshipping of images? If these be not beastly and blasphemous absurdities, worse then childish sayings, which he cannot abide the Bishop to term them, let the world judge.

Hitherto M. Sander hath made no defense for this idolatrous rablement, which he calleth the seventh general council. But he will answer all the Bishops arguments against it with these 4. reasons. First he saith, there is no impiety or falsehood approved or decreed in that council. A substantial reason, which concludeth upon that which is in controversy. But yet to lay open his shameless impudency, I will prove that to have been decreed and approved in that council, which he him self will not deny to be impiety and falsehood. Action. 5. We read thus, out of the book of one John Bishop of Thessalonica. De

Herevpon Thorasius the Patriarke said:

But if M. Sander will stand in the defense of it, because it is so decreed by this general council: at least let him hear the greatest council for multitude, that is read of, namely. The Lateran Cap. 1. For impiety beside that which we have already shown, John deputy of the East to whom all the synod agreed uttered these words out of Sophionius. If this also may be excused from impiety, what say you to that conclusion? If none of all these be impiety, yet to condemn the Pope of Rome for an heretic, (I answer with M. Sander) is counted great impiety, and a pernicious error. But Honorius sometime Pope of Rome, was in this council condemned for an heretic Action. 6. To. 2. and Actione. 7. in the definition.

His second reason in defense of this council is, that every word uttered by any father, is not the determination of the whole council, no more then the voice of every burgesse, is an act of Parleament. This granted, we have shown the consent of the synod to moste of the speeches we have recited which maketh a full determination.

His third reason is, that the scriptures are better applied for honoring of images, then they are impugned by Master Jewel, as he hath partly shown. What he hath shown, and how well he hath applied them, we have seen already.

His fourth reason is, that the miracles there told are not against the faith, and therefore not to be derided, but credited. If all that be against the faith, which is against the word of God, those miracles that are brought to confirm the worshipping of images, must needs be against the faith. That I speak not of so many dreams, as be there alleged to prove the same. But M. Sander thinketh images might as well work miracles, as the shadow of Peter did heal diseases, Saint Paul's girdle or napkins did heal diseases, and drive out devils. But Peter him self confesseth, that not he himself, much less his shadow, or any virtue in him did heal diseases, but only Jesus Christ. Ye men of Israel saith he, why marvel you at this, or why look ye upon us, as though by our own power & godliness we had made this man to walk? If Peters own person may not be looked unto to have any praise of the miracle, much less his shadow, or Paul's girdle and napkins, and least of all his image: for God used those as means by which he wrought, but their images he never used. Again, no man was so mad to worship Peters shadow, or Paul's napkins, or Elizaeus staff, for that he hath up also, although it wrought no miracle. As for the herb which was reported to grow under y ^e image in Paneade, it took no virtue of the image, if any such herb were, but of God. Although in that point, Eusebius as I think was more credulous then a wise man should have ben, to write such a strange matter upon report, which he might have seen himself, within a few days journey.

After these general answers, he promiseth to bring a most evident reason, why every man ought to believe & obey the same general council, under pain of everlasting damnation. And what is that I pray you? Forsooth, they that defended honoring of images, were in possession of honoring of images, because it had been impossible that images had been overthrown, if they had not been first set up and honored. A lawlike reason in deed.

Why Master Sander, will you defend a possession without a title. The setting up and worshipping of Images, when it first entered into the Church, was but a Disseisure of the true and spiritual worship of God, & therefore by diverse assizes holden at Constantinople & Ephesus was dispossessed, and the true worship of God restored, until this packed Jury of Nice, put her out of possession again. And where you reject the councils of Constantinople and Ephesus, as private conventicles, as holden in the dark, & hating the light, because the whole process of their calling and acts, is by your false Idolatrous Council of Nice defaced, you show yourself both void of reason and honesty. Of reason, because many councils were held, and things in them decreed & observed, although the records of them are not to be found at large. Of honesty, because you would take advantage of your own wrong, who have burned the records, and then urge your adversary to show them.

You say they followed in this council the use of their forefathers. The council of Constantinople also followed the use of their elder fathers, whose writings they alleged against images. As Epiphanius:

Again they cited Chrisostomes, saying. Nos perscripta sanctorum fruimur presentia, non sane corporum ipsorum, sed animarum imagines habentes. Non quae ab ipsis dicta sunt, animorum illorum imagines sunt. We enjoy the presence of the saints by their writings, verilye not having the images of their bodies, but of their minds. For those things which are said by them, are the images of their minds.

Moreover they rehearsed the saying of Theodotus bishop of Ancyn.

But if it deserved not the credit of a council, what needed Irene to have gathered this worshipful council of Nice against it? And where M.S. for further allowance of it, saith it was confirmed & registered for a known lawful general council throughout all christendom, he speaketh out of all compass of the truth. For the Emperor Charles the great would not receive it, but write, or at the leastwise commanded Albinus or Alcuinus his teacher to write a book against it in his name, which book is yet extant.

These things considered, the conference that he maketh between this council and the first held at the same place, is chyldishe and ridiculous, for though they were both held in one place, called by Emperors or Popes, equal in number, disputation in both, 4. Patriarchs in both, custom observed, the decree put in execution, &c. yet they disagreed in that which is the only authority of councils. The first decreed according to the word of God, the later clean contrary to it. The first confirmed the Catholic faith which always was held, the later a new heresy of Idolatry, of which the Church was clear more then six hundredth years. And therefore whatsoever he talketh of the authority of general councils is vain & wicked, for a general council of Angels is not to be believed against the holy scriptures, & what is more plain in the scriptures, then the forbidding of Idolatry and worshiping of Images?

The great prerogative that Master Sander findeth in this council, that so many bishops recanted in it, as in none other, is a fond matter to authorize it. Rather it showeth what turn coats they were, which changed as every prince was affected.

Finally the number of names, that he rehearseth of them that believed, as this council decreed, maketh it not of sufficient credit, beside that he is not able to prove it of many, whom he nameth, as Beda, Theophylacte, Euthymius, &c. It were an easy matter to prove as many mo of more antiquity, which believed the contrary. As Clemens Alexandrinus, Origines, Irenaeus, Justinus, Cyprianus, Lactantius, Epiphanius, Arnobius, Tertulianus, Augustinus, Chrysostomus, Hieronymus, Ambrosus, Athanasius, Basilius, Gregorius Naza. Eusebius, Osius and 18. bishops with him in the council of Eliberis. Theodosus and 21. bishops with him in the council of Laodicea. Aurelius and 71. bishops with him in the council of Carth. 5. Amphylochius Iconiensis, Theodorus, Ancyramus, Serenus Massiliensis, Claudius Taurinensis, Albinus, Carolus magnus, yea Gregory 1, of Rome, and Jonah of Orleans against the worshipping of Images. If I would descend to later times as Master Sander doth, I might add a great number more, as Waldo, Masilus, Henricus de Gandauo, John Wiclef, John Hus, Jerome of Praga, and many other. So that there remaineth in record four to one, that M. Sander can name for the use and worshiping of images, against either one or both. And the greatest part more ancient then the second council of Nice, which he would maintain by rehearsing so many names of men that allowed it, the most part were since it was holden, & scarce two or three before it was held.

THE XVI. OR XV. CHAP.

This Chapter containeth nothing else but a shameless cavilling and quarrelling upon master Jewels words, with little wit, less learning, and least of all of honesty.

The bishop writeth thus: The old fathers in their writings commonly cal the sacrament a representation, a remembrance, a memory, an image, a likeness, a samplar, a token, a sign, a figure. And in another place he writeth thus: Neither do we only adore Christ as very God, but also worship and reverence y ^e sacrament & holy mistery of Christ's body. Here upon master Sander reasoneth thus. If the sacrament being an image, a sign &c, of Christ's body & not his own body, may be worshipped and reverenced, therefore it doth follow, that an image of an holy thing being absent, as of Christ or saint Laurence, may be worshipped of the new Gospellers. Who will say the Papists lack learning, that make such witty arguments? An image or sign instituted by God may be reverenced, therefore an image forbidden by God may be honored. That which is vnproperlye called an image may be worshiped, ergo