FVLK. 5. We knowe that the Iewes had images without sinne, and so haue we: but to haue images in a∣ny vse of religion without Gods expresse commaunde∣ment, neither is it lawfull for thē nor vs, because we haue a generall commaundement to the contrary. They were accounted like the Gentils therefore, for hauing images contrarie to Gods commaundement, of their owne ap∣pointment, & worshipping them: not for hauing images appointed by God, which yet it was not lawful for thē to worship. But the Protestāts (you say) are like to the Am∣monits, and Moabits, of whom S. Hierom writeth, that comming into the temple, and seeing the Cherubins co∣uering the propitiatorie, they said, loe, euen as the Gen∣tiles, so Iuda also hath idols of their religion, as we ac∣cuse the church of God of idolatrie, because we see there the sacred images of Christ, and his Saincts.
This that you say S Hierom writeth, he onely repor∣teth it, as a ridiculous fable of the Iewes. Ridiculam verò in hoc loco, Haebrei narrant fabulam. The Hebrewes in this place, tell a ridiculous fable. But fables are good e∣nough, to bolster false accusations. Secondly, he re∣porteth them to say: Sicut cunctae gentes colunt simulachra, ita & Iuda habes suae religionis Idola. As all nations wor∣shippe images, so hath Iuda also idols of their religion. By which wordes you see, that he calleth images, and i∣dols, the same thinges. For simulachrum, to be taken as largely as Imago, I haue proued before, in so much that man is called Simulachrum Dei, the image, not the i∣doll of God, as idoll is taken in the euill parte. But neither are you like to Iuda, nor we to Ammon, and Moab, in this case. For Iuda had Gods commaunde∣ment, to warrant their images, so haue not you, but his commaundement against your images. Againe, Mo∣ab and Ammon (if the tale were true) had idolatrous images of their owne, so haue not we.