A defence of M. Perkins booke, called A reformed Catholike against the cauils of a popish writer, one D.B.P. or W.B. in his deformed Reformation. By Antony Wotton.

The difference.

[speaker W. P.] Our dissent from them touching images stands in three points. I. The Church of Rome holds it law∣full for them to make images to resemble God, though not in respect of his diuine nature: yet in re∣spect of some properties and actions. Wee on the contrarie hold it vnlawfull for vs to make any image, any way to represent the true God: or, to make an image of any thing in way of religion, to worship God, much lesse the creature thereby. For the se∣cond commandement saith plainely, Exod. 20. 4. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image, or the likenesse of any thing in heauen &c. The Papists say the commaundement is meant of the images of false gods. But, will they, nill they, it must be vnderstood

of the images of the true Iehouah; and it forbids vs to resemble God, either in his nature, properties, or works, or to vse any resemblance of him for any sa∣cred vse: as to help the memorie, when we are about to worship God. Thus much the holy Ghost who is the best expoūder of himself, teacheth most plainly, Deut. 4. 15. 16. Thou sawest no image at al (either of false or true god) and therefore thou shalt not make any likenes of anything. And againe, the Prophet Esay, c. 40. 18. reprouing idolaters asketh to whom they will liken God, or, what similitude will they set vp to him. And vers. 21. Know ye nothing? haue ye not heard? hath it not bin told you from the beginning? as if he should say, haue yee forgotten the second commaundement, that God gaue vnto your fathers: And thus he flatly reprooues all them that resemble the true God in images.

[speaker D. B. P.] This passeth all kind of impudencie to quote the Roman Catechisme in defence of that opinion, which it doth of set purpose disproue. It tea∣cheth indeed, that the very nature and substance of God, which is, who∣ly spirituall, cannot be expressed and figured by corporall lineaments and colours, and all edgeth the places produced by M. Perkins to proue that vnlawfull; yet by and by annexeth these words: Let no man there∣fore thinke it to be against religion, and the Law of God, vvhen any person of the most holy Trinities is pourtraied in such sort as they haue appeared, ei∣ther in the Old or Nevv Testament, &c. But let the Pastor teach, that not the nature of God, but certaine properties and actions appertaining to God, are represented in such Pictures. If the man be not past grace he wil surely blush at such a foule error. His textes of Scripture are taken out of the same place of the Catechisme, and do proue only, that Gods proper na∣ture cannot nor may not be resembled in any corporall shape or liknes.

[speaker A. W.] If you would haue dealt as kindly with Master Perkins in this quotation, as I haue dealt with you in many, you might haue applied it to the former part, that the commandement is meant of the Images of the true Iehouah: which your Ca∣techisme grants, though onely so farre as concernes the ex∣pressing of his forme by an Image, as your selfe also con∣fesse. And the c Councill of Trent affirmes that to be vn- 〈2 pages missing〉〈2 pages missing〉

being al one in the coueting of wife, and coueting of house, seruant, maide, oxe, asse, and whatsoeuer els, as the h Apostle expresseth it, without mētioning any particular. But the two first differ almost as much as may be. The first forbidding the worship of any other God, but the true: the second pro∣hibiting the worshipping of him by an Image or Idoll. The last reason, which only your Catechisme brings, beside Au∣stins authoritie, and custome of your Church, is insufficient also. For it was very fit that God should adde that reason of promise, and threatning to that, rather than any of the rest, because hee had speciall care of that, and knew that the Iewes, and all men generally, were likely to worship him after their owne deuices, and namely by Images. Beside, is not the reason annexed to the third Commandement as ge∣nerall, that God will not hold him guiltlesse which breakes any of his lawes? why then doe you not make that also a part of the first Commandement?

[speaker W. P.] And the distinction they make that an Image is the representation of true things, an Idol of things supposed, is false.

[speaker D. B. P.] But Master Perkins goeth on and saith, that our distinction betweene Image and Idoll (that an Image representeth a thing that is, but Idoll, a thing supposed to be, but is not) is false and against the auncient writers, vvho make it all one: We proue the contrary, First, by the authority of the auncient Doctors, Origen and Theodoret, vvho in expresse vvords deliuer the same difference of Image and Idoll: vvhich is taken out of S. Paul, laying that an Idoll is nothing in the vvorld: that is, such Idols as the Heathen take for their Gods, are nothing formally, that is, though they be great peeces of wood or stone materially; yet they represent a thing that is not, that is, such a thing to be a God, which is nothing lesse. Let M. Perkins but quote one place in the whole Bible, where they are vsed both for one.

I will cite some, where if you vse the one for the other, you must offend all good Christiā eares; As where mā is said to be made after the Image of God, may you say after the Idoll of God? Christ is said to be the I∣mage of his Father; will you call him the Idoll of his Father? Surely he cannot deny, but the seuenth general Councel holden about 900. yeres past and gone, is so farre off from making Image and Idoll al one, that it doth accurse al them, who call the Image of Christ and his Saints, Idols.

[speaker A. W.] Master Perkins saith no more, but that it is false, without

adding, that it is against the ancient writers; and yet hee might haue said so well enough, for all Origen and Theodo∣ret. For they two are but a few of many, and by their other writings ouerthrow that distinction betwixt Image and I∣doll. To make the case plaine, we must vnderstand, that they call an Image the resemblance of any thing that hath a be∣ing in nature. For example, if you carue, graue, paint, or cast the forme of a man, horse, tree, plant, fowle, fish, Sun, Moon, Star, or any such like thing, you make an Image: but if you make a monster, as a man halfe flesh, half fish, like our Mair∣maides; or a beast compounded of diuers parts of sundrie creatures; for example, the head of a man, the bodie of a horse, the feete of a lion, &c. or in a word, as the common opinion is of Gryphins, which are said to haue the forepart like an Eagle, and the hinder part like a Lion; that is an Idol: because in truth there is no such creature in the world. By this it is manifest, that no shape of a man, by their doctrine, can be an Idoll. For that shape hath some thing like it in na∣ture. Yet i Origen doubts not, with the Apostle, to con∣demne them of Idolatrie, who worshipped God in the like∣nes of an Image of a corruptible man, of fowles, foure∣footed beasts, and creeping things. So doth k Theodoret, where hee disputes against the Gentiles, out of that same place of the Apostle, reciting his words, who calles those I∣dols of the Gentiles, l likenesses of the image of a corrup∣tible man.

Theodoret grounds his interpretation vpon the words of the commandement mistaken, but he meddles not so much as by any signification with that place of the Apostle. In∣deede Origen hath it, but not in your sense, as appeareth by your exposition, which agrees not with Origen nor Theodo∣ret about the difference betwixt an Image and an Idoll. For you comming neerer to the m Apostles meaning, expound that Nothing, to signifie no God, or diuine power, as if the error were in making that a God, which is nothing lesse. But they vpon whom you would build your distinction, make an Idoll such a shape as hath no substance answering to it in

nature. And therefore they denie that the image of a man is an Idoll, though it be worshipped, as I shewed before: you make it an Idoll, be it of what shape it will, if it repre∣sent such a thing to be God, as is nothing lesse. He makes an Idoll (saith Origen) who (according to the Apostle that saith an Idoll is nothing) makes that which is not. Marke you what Origen saith? That which is not; you say, that which is not God. But he proceedes. What is that (saith he) which is not? a shape which the eye hath not seene, but the mind faines to it selfe. For example, if a man be made with a dogs head, &c. And Theodoret propounds for example of an Idoll Sphinx the monster, n which had a maids face, a birds wing, and a dogs body, and the Tritons or Sea-gods, halfe men, halfe fishes; and the Centaures, halfe men, halfe horses. So that the only authors you can bring of that distinction, make nothing at all for it, as you vnderstand it: yea they make against it, cal∣ling that an Image, which you terme an Idoll, namely the statue of Iupiter, Mars, Venus, and the rest of the heathen Idols, who both had the shapes of men or women, and that such men and women as had a true being in nature, though they were no Gods. Besides, Origen the first founder of that distinction, brings it but doubtfully, with o I thinke; though Theodoret 150 yeres after came to affirme it without doub∣ting. But what skils it whether there be such a distinction or no betwixt the Greeke words, seeing the p Hebrew, wherein the Commaundement was written will not admit any such difference, and both Origen and Theodoret hold Images forbidden by the Commaundement as well as I∣dols; and your vulgar translation followes not the Greeke, but the q Hebrew? Yea the Greeke translators r otherwhere and that often for the same Hebrew word, giue the s gene∣rall Greeke word, that expresseth it very fully, and some∣times the very word t Image.

But I must handle this point more largely then I thought, because you challenge vs to bring one place in the whole Bible where they are vsed both for one, which I shew thus. The word which in the Commaundement they translate

Idoll, in u another place they interpret Image. He seekes a cunning workeman to prepare an Image; and in the 19. verse, The workeman melteth an Image. Besides, the word Image is often put for the Idols of the heathen. x Then the people of the land destroyed the house of Baall with his Alters and his I∣mages; y They made Images of their Abhominations. Thou madest thy selfe Images of men. When she saw men painted vpon the wall the Images of the Chaldeans, that is, the Idols o•• the Chaldeans, attired after the fashion of the people of that countrey. Lastly, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 word which the Chal••e Paraphrast vseth in the Commaundement, and so generally, where the word of the Commandement is in the Hebrew, the Greeke doth commonly translate Image, as you may see in the pla∣ces last recited.

I thinke it is very hard to find any two words that agree in all significations, both proper and tropicall. Neither do we say that Idoll may be vsed wheresoeuer image may, for custome is the rule of speech. But we denie both that distin∣ction which Origen deuised, and that which you would haue past for currant, as if Idoll did signifie some certaine kind of shape, and not generally any forme, as the word Image doth.

[speaker W. P.] Tertullian saith, that euery forme or representati∣on is to be tearmed an Idol.

[speaker D. B. P.] But Tertullian (saith M. Perkins) affirmeth them to be all one; not so neither: For he maketh Idolum a diminuture of ••••dos, which signifieth a forme or similitude: So that Jdolon, is but a small similitude or slender Image, not so much for the quantitie, as for that it representeth but darkely.

[speaker A. W.] Master Perkins doth not say so of Tertullian, that he af∣firmes them to be all one, but that Tertullian saith Euery forme or representation is to be tearmed an Idoll. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (saith b Tertullian) in Greeke signifies formam, a forme or shape, from thence by deriuation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is framed, and hath in like sort with vs made the word Formulam, therefore c euery shape great or little must be called an Idoll. Thence comes Idolatry, which is any seruice about any Idoll. Iudge your selfe now whether Master Perkins did not report Tertullians opinion truly, and

whether you do not wrong him by making him say that he neuer meant. So do you Tertullian himselfe, in giuing a false reason of the word not intended by him. And howsoeuer the word may in deriuation be a diminutiue, yet in vse it is not so, but signifieth any shape great or little, representing a thing perfectly or imperfectly, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth.

[speaker W. P.] And Isidore saith, that the heathen vsed the names of image and idol indifferently in one and the same signification.

[speaker D. B. P.] Eustathius and excellent Greeke interpreter, vpon the eleauenth book of Homers Odyssea, describeth Idolum to signifie a vaine and vanishing Image, as the shadow of a man, a ghost, or phantastical imagination. And so it cannot be, that al profane Authors vse these two words indifferētly, seeing both in proper signification, and by the declaration of the lear∣ned, there is great difference betweene them.

[speaker A. W.] d Eustathius doth not vndertake to deliuer in that place the proper nature of the word, but to shew what Homer there meanes by it, namely, that he vseth it to signifie the ghosts or shapes of men departed, e fashioned of ayre, or f imprinted in the ayre by a certaine shadow or slight re∣semblance, where the g very word comming from image, is put to expresse the likenes. The same word (Idoll) Homer vseth h otherwhere to signifie the shape or likenes which Apollo made of Aeneas to saue him from Diomedes. Both these kinds of Idols Virgil (who vnderstood Homer well e∣nough, and knew the nature and vse of Greeke and Latine words) calls Images. For the former, viz. the shapes of the deceased, thus he speakes of Aeneas wife Creusa, i Infoelix si∣mulachrum atque ipsius vmbra Creüsae, visa mihi ante ocu∣los, & nota maior image: where hauing termed Creusas ghost first a likenes, and then a shadow, last of all he calls it an Image, and presently after comparing it to the wind, and to a sleepe or a dreame, he giues it the name of Image againe. Ter frustra comprensa manus effugit image, par leuibus ventis volucrique simillima somno. So he speakes of k Anchises ghost, vsing the very same verses, and in the l fourth booke. Turbida tenet i∣mago; so againe of him Tua tristis Imago. And of Adrastus, m Adrasti pallentis Imago; yea the apparitions of the Cen∣taures,

and Sea-Monsters, which by Origens distinction are Idols, Virgil calls n—Tenues sine corpore vitas, and saith that they flye vp and down,—Caua sub imagine formae. The other shapes made of aire, or some such thin stuffe, he describes by the same word Image, as in that fiction of Aeneas shape, made by Iuno to draw Turnus out of the battaile, which he cais o—Tenuem sine viribus vmbram, and compareth it to the ghosts of the deceased, and to apparitions in dreames. This he calls an Image, At primas laeta ante acies exultat imago, which Homer would haue termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Whom would you refute by this? p Isidore is the author, Master Perkins the reporter only. But you strike at aduen∣ture, not respecting where the blow light, but where you meane to hit; yet you should haue said no more then they do, that the heathen vse the names indifferently; not that all prophane authors do so, and you should haue vnderstood them aright too, as I shewed before; not that both words are vsed in all significations, in which either is, but that they are vsed indifferently for any kind of shape, whether it haue something or nothing answering to it in any true naturall being.

[speaker W. P.] And. S. Steuen in his apologie, Act. 7. 41. calls the golden calfe an Idol.

[speaker D. B. P.] But S. Stephen cals the golden calfe an Idoll, so it was indeed: What is that to the purpose?

[speaker A. W.] Do you aske what it is to the purpose, that S. Stephen cals the golden Calfe an Idoll? it directly ouerthrowes the di∣stinction against which Master Perkins disputes. For a Calfe is a thing that hath a reall being in nature, and is not an ima∣gination of the braine, as Sphinx, and Triton, and such like are, according to the authors you alleage in this case.

[speaker D. B. P.] Hierome saith, that idols are images of dead men.

[speaker W. P.] And S. Ierom saith, That Idols are the Images of dead-men (adde) that are taken for Gods: True, many Idols be Images: all such as truly represent any person that was once liuing here; but no Images be Idols, vnlesse it be taken for a God: And so Idols requires besides the Image, that it be made a God, or the Image of a false God.

[speaker A. W.] If we adde your glosse, we shall adde nothing in defence 〈2 pages missing〉〈2 pages missing〉

barbarous Nations, Scythians, Numidians, Seres, and Per∣sians; he answers, that they agree indeed in the matter, refu∣sing to build, or vse any Altars and Images, but that the rea∣sons of their opinions are diuers; they following I know not what fansies, the Christians refraining these things, in obedience to Gods Commandements, namely the first and second, which hee there recites. Therefore Origen holds it forbidden in those Commandements to make, or vse any Image in the seruice of God.

To this doctrine of Origen the practise of the Primitiue Church is agreeable, that I may please you with more testi∣monies. We are slatly forbidden (saith a Clement of Alexan∣dria) to vse that deceitfull craft or art. For the Prophet saith, Thou shalt not make the likenes of any thing in heauen, or earth below. And againe, We haue no b materiall image, but such an Image as is perceiued by the vnderstanding: God, who only is the true God, is conceiued by vnderstanding, not by sense. c In ano∣ther place: Moses, many ages agoe, made a direct law, that wee should not make any grauen, cast, or painted image; that we might not ••sed sensible things, but might passe to the consideration of those things which are perceiued by the vnderstanding. And further, d The daily fight or beholding of an Image, causeth the maiestie of God to become vile and contemptible; and, to wor∣ship, by a materiall thing, that which is conceiued by the vnder∣standing, is to make it vile by sense.

God (saith e Tertullian) forbids as well the making as the worshipping of an Idoll. And afterward, For this cause, namely to roote out the matter of Idolatrie, the law of God proclaimes, Make no Idoll: and adding, nor likenes of any thing in heauen, in earth, or in the Sea, forbids the seruants of God all ouer the world to vse that Craft. In f another place: Iohn saith, Babes keepe your selues from Idols; he saith not now from Idolatrie, as from the seruice of them, but from Idols, that is, from the shape of them. For it is an vnworthie thing, that g the image of an I∣doll, and dead thing, should bee made the image of the liuing God.

That I will not let passe (saith h Lilius Giraldus) that we

Christians, as sometimes also the Romanes, had no Images in the Primitiue Church.

Optatus an ancient Bishop of Africa, counted it a defi∣ling of the Altar, to haue an Image set vpon it, and i saith, that when it was reported, that Paul and Macarius would come and place an Image on the Altar, they that heard it were asto∣nied at it, and accounted it as execrable to partake with it.

Images (saith k Austin) are of more force to corrupt the mi∣serable soule, because they haue a mouth, eyes, eares, nosthrils, hands, and feete, than to instruct it, because they speake not, heare not, smell not, handle not, walke not: out of which place of Austin, l Cassander concludes, that there was no vse of Ima∣ges in Churches in Austins time. The reason is alike, where∣soeuer they be vsed to religion.

Notes

• So saith the Romane Ca∣tech. 2. Com.
• If you had grace, you vvould not say so. Belike some nature of God not pro•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• c

  Concil. Trid. sell. 25. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• h

  Rom. 7. 7.
• How. 8. in Exod. Q. 38. in Ex. 1. Cor. 8.
• i

  Origen. lib. 1. in cap. 1. ad Rom.
• k

  Theodor. de de curan. Graec. affect. ser. 3. de Dijs & Angel.
• l

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• m

  1. Cor. 8. 5.
• n

  Hvginus fab. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. c. 151.
• o

  Opinor.
• p

  Exod 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• q

  Sculp••••le.
• r

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 16 1. Deut. 7. 5. & 1••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 15. Iud. 17. 13. 14. & 18. 14. 18. 30.
• s

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• t

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• u

  Isay. 40. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• x

  2. Reg 1••. 1••
• y

  Ezech 7. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 16. 17. & ••3. 14.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• De Idol. c. 3.
• De Idololar.
• b

  Tertull. de Idolola•••• 3.
• c

  Omnis for∣•…•…, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 formu∣la.
• Etym. lib. 8.
• d

  Eustath. in Hormer. Odyss. 11.
• e

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h

  Homer. Ili∣ad. lib. 5.
• i

  Virgil. Aene∣id. lib. 2.
• k

  Virgil. Aene∣id. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 3.
• l

  Lib. 4.
• m

  Lib. 6.
• n

  Lib. 6.
• o

  Lib. 10
• p

  Isidor. Ety∣mol. lib. 8.
• Act. 7. 41.
• In Isai. 37.
• a

  Clemens A∣lexa•…•… in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad ge•…•…s.
• b

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c

  Clemens Stromat. lib. 6.
• d

  Ibid.
• e

  Tertul de Idololatr c. 4.
• f

  Tetul, de co∣ron. militis. cap. 20.
• g

  Vt imago Dei vini, ima∣go idoli & mo••••••i fiat.
• h

  Lilius Gi∣rald. de dijs gentium. Syn∣•…•…. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• i

  Optat. lib. 3. penè in ex∣tremo.
• k

  August. in Psal. 113.
• l

  Cassander. in consul. ad Masimil im∣perat. de imag cap. 21.