A Key to the Key of Scripture, Chapter 1 · Exposition of verse 25
Verſe 25. Which turned the truth of God vntounto a lie, and worſhipped and ſerued the creature, forſaking the Creator, which is bleſſed for euer. Amen.
IN this verſe, and thoſe that follow, is ſet downe a repitition of the Gentiles ſinne, with the amplification thereof; as alſo of the puniſhment with like amplification.
The ſinne is repeated in this 25. verſe in words ſomething different; for what before he called the turning of the incorruptible God into the ſimilitude of an image: hee here cals the turning of Gods truth into a lie. The increaſe of their ſinne is that they worſhipped the creature paſſing by the Creator; where is annexed a ſhort, but pithie confutation of that fact, by a deſcription of God; who is bleſſed for euer.
Touching the meaning of the words, there is ſome difference amongſt interpreters; for my part I thinke with Martyr and others, that by the truth of God, we are here to vnderſtand the ſame, that before hee called the glory of God, that is, the true eſſence of God; or the Deitie, as it is in truth: by the lie or falſhoode nothing elſe, but the images made to repreſent him: ſo called often in the Prophets, becauſe they repreſent God falſely, and otherwiſe then he is in the truth of his nature. Confer Ier. 10.10.14.
So is eueryevery image of God falſhood, Obſer. and no better then a lying repreſentation of the Deitie.Ier. 10.14. Therefore called falſhood. Ier. 10.14. and lying. Iſay 44.10. Neither will it ſuffice to ſay that the Prophets ſpeake of heatheniſh images, made to repreſent falſe Gods: for both the places ſhew that they ſpeake of Images that were made to repreſent the true God▪ Iohn 4.24. 1 Tim. 6.16.and reaſon euinceth it from the qualitie and quantitie of Diuine eſſence: being a ſpirit inuiſible, neuer ſeene by the eye of man, and o… an infinite, vnme…ſurable, and incomprehenſible maieſtie. I ay 40.12.18.
Whence it will ea…ily follow, that it is altogether vnlawfull, to purtrey God in an image; and let Pap…ſts ſay what they will, in defence of their audacious practiſe in this kinde …et ſeeing the commandement of God,Deut. 4.15.16.17. backt with ſuch reaſons as hauehave now been mentioned, ſtands ſtill in force▪ they ſhall neuer be able to free themſelues of that crime of violating the Diuine maieſtie; ſo iuſtly in this regard imputed vntounto them. Many prety ſhifts they hauehave deuiſed to keepe off from themſelues this imputation, and reaſons to iuſtifie their practiſe, but how vaine they are all, will appeare if we a little take view of them.
As firſt that the ſcripture condemnes ſuch images of God onelyonly, as are made to expreſſe the perfect ſimilitude of the Diuine eſſence and nature; not ſuch as are deu…ſed analogically onelyonly, and by miſticall ſigni…cat on. Anſ. But it is appa…ant, that the Lord vtterly for…ids all images, and likeneſſes, whether of perfect, or analogicall repreſentation: for marke the reaſon. D ut. 4.15 16. Y…u … …o image in the day when God …ke vntounto y…u in the m…unt: no image eyther of perfect, or analogicall ſignification: therefore you ſhall make no image at all: and who can thinke that the calfe made by the Iſraelites, was any otherwiſe deuiſed, but as myſtically to repreſent ſome action, benefit, or propertie of God▪ and yet are they condemned as well for making, as for worſhipping the golden image.
But let vsus conſider briefely their reaſons. Firſt, they ſay Angels that are ſpirits alſo and inuiſible, yet were lawfully pictured in the olde Teſtament. Anſ. Firſt, there was an expreſſe warrant giuen to Moſes, and Salomon, whereas they were expreſſely forbidden to make any image or repreſentation of the Lord: Secondly, graunt that there may be ſome libertie taken herein (as what dare not Painters, and Poets?) yet how vnequall this reaſon is, appeares by that great inequalitie, and diſproportion betwixt Angels that are finite creatures, and God which is of infinite and incomprehenſible maieſtie.
And whereas they alleadge, that the Lord hath appeared in viſible ſhapes. Anſ. Firſt, that they vvere not ſhapes of his eſſence, but pledges of his preſence; neither was it Gods purpoſe thereby to teach the people what an one hee was in his nature or properties; but onelyonly to teſtifie, and euidence that he was now preſent with them: Secondly, beſides that, how will they proue that it is lawfull for vsus to picture God in thoſe images and ſhapes wherein hee hath appeared vntounto men?
Neither is their third reaſon though more plauſible, yet any whit more forcible: The ſcripture they ſay attributes vntounto God all the members of mans bodie: And why may we not reſemble him in a picture, as God hath as it were painted out himſelfe in the ſcripture? Anſ. Though other anſweres be giuen by many; yet this is that I take ſureſt to reſt in; Gods will to the contrarie, and his flat prohibition, and that is anſwere ſufficient to all ſuch plauſible why nots? made by the wiſedome of fleſh. What though the Lord deſcending to our capacitie thus pleaſe to ſpeake? ſhall we therefore preſume thus to picture? hauing ſo expreſſe prohibition, with a reaſon; the voice was heard but no ſhape ſeene. Deut. 4.5.16.
Their fourth reaſon is this; that man may be pictured, and his image drawne; therefore God alſo whoſe image man is; for the image of the image, is the image of the exemplar, and firſt patterne. Anſ. That man as he is the image of God cannot be pictured; for wherin is man an image of God? in the lineaments of his bodie? Let Papiſts leaue that dreame to the condemned Anthropomorphites. But he is the image of God, in regard hee pertakes analogically in holineſſe,Epheſ. 4 24. and true righteouſneſſe, which though it ſpread it ſelfe ouer body and ſoule, yet cannot be ſeene otherwiſe then by effects in eyther.
The laſt reaſon artificiall is drawne, from the many profits that ſuch images ſerue for: as inſtruction, remembrance, deuotion, reſtraining of wandering imaginations. Anſ. Where marke the quickneſſe of an Idolaters ſent,Hab. 2.18. Iſay 44.9. that hath ſmelt out ſo many great benefits of thoſe things, that the Lord thought, and taught to be vtterly vnprofitable.
But for more particular anſwere to this argument, how will they euer be able to proue this, which muſt be the propoſition of their ſyllogiſme: that whatſoeuer may be a meane of inſtruction, admonition, deuotion, &c. may be vſed as helpes to theſe ends: when as God hath tyed vsus to thoſe meanes onelyonly which himſelfe hath ſanctified to this end: and hath giuen Chriſt to be the onelyonly doctour of the Church, and hath prouided vsus ſufficiently of meanes to theſe ends by the great booke of the creatures, booke of the ſcriptures, viſible word of the ſacraments, inward teaching of his ſpirit: ſecondly, how was it that when theſe were ſuch excellent meanes of teaching, the Lord denied them to the Iewes? and how fals it, that the people ſet to ſchoole to theſe teachers are found moſt ignorant of Gods nature and will? thirdly, what teach they, but lying, and falſhood? as lamentable experience ſheweth: what groſſe conceipts of the Deitie theſe doctours hauehave filled our peoples mindes withall. And leſt they ſay this hath come to paſſe by defect of other teaching by their miniſters. Anſ. That may well be in part; but yet ſuch groſeneſſe comes principally from the image; and this alſo their inexpiable ſinne, that hauehave giuen them teachers no better then images; hauing no more of true paſtors, then their images hauehave of the Deitie. But enough of this popiſh deuiſe.
Secondly, come to ourſelues, Ʋſe. and let vsus be admoniſhed to take heede how in our very mindes we conceiue any likeneſſe, or image of God. It is true of this Law alſo, that it is ſpirituall, as Rom. 7.14. and forbids not onelyonly corporall, but euen mentall reſemblances, or ſimilitudes of the Godhead, conceiued by the mind;Acts 17.29. we may not ſo much as thinke God like to any thing that we ſee or can conceiue.
And the beſt way to conceiue God, is as an Ancient Diuine well teacheth, viâ negationis, by way of negation. And he that can moſt abſtract God from likeneſſes, hath beſt learnt to conceiue GOD, ſuch as he is.
Proceed we now vntounto the encreaſe of the Gentiles ſinne. And worſhipped and ſerued the creature, &c. This, though I know it may be verified of the Gentils in reſpect of their idolatrous worſhip of the Sunne, Moone, &c. and other viſible creatures; yet I take it, is here to be vnderſtood of the worſhip giuen by them to their images.
To make way to the doctrine, this queſtion ſhall be propounded; whether the Gentiles gaue vntounto their Images Diuine worſhip? or whether their vvorſhip had the terme in the images without reference to the prototypa, the things which their images repreſented. Papiſts gladly lay hold on the affirmatiue part, that they may put difference betwixt theirs and heatheniſh Idolatry committed with images. And this, they ſay is that worſhipping of an image, which the ſecond commandement condemnes, namely the worſhipping it as God.
Now for anſwere, know we that if wee ſpeake of the rude multitude, whom God had principally blinded, no doubt, but they many of them intended their worſhip to the images, wherein they thought ſome Deitie, and diuine power to dwell, and what maruell, that men ſhould grow ſo ſottiſh, when God giues vp to blindneſſe? Iſay 44 18.19.20. But for the learneder, and wiſer ſort of them, they knew well enough that they were no Gods, neither did their worſhip ſtay in the image, but was referred to the thing thereby repreſented, as Auguſtine, Lactantius, Ambroſe, & others ſhew; and as Plutarch, de Iſide & Oſir. and other of the heathen profeſſed. Auguſt. in Pſal. 96. thus brings in an heathen, ſpeaking for himſelfe: I do not worſhip that ſtone, or that image which is without ſenſe, but I adore that which I ſee, and ſerue him whom I ſee not, who is that? The inuiſible diuine power that is preſident of the Image. Many ſuch teſtimonies might be produced.
Now if it be replyed, that the ſcripture imputes vntounto them this groſſeneſſe: Anſ. The ſcripture ſpeaks generally, not of their intention, but of the euent, as amongſt other places that one. 1 Cor. 10.20. ſufficiently euinceth. The things which the Gentiles offered, they offered not to God. but to diuels; not that they intended their ſacrifices to the honour of diuels, but becauſe this was indeed, in the euent, an honouring of Sathan▪ whoſe ſuggeſtions they rather followed then the will of God. So Pſal. 107.19. the Iſraelites are ſaid to hauehave worſhipped the molten image, not that their intention reſted in the Image, as Exodus 32.5. but becauſe all this worſhip intended to be conueied vntounto God by the image, fell backe vponupon the image; God vtterly reiecting ſuch a worſhip from acceptance, which he had ſo oft forbidden by his precept.
Now this ſenſe ſtanding (as I ſee not how it diſagrees from the rule of faith, or is impertinent to the Text) affords this obſeruation.
That the worſhip intended to God by an image, Obſerv. is not the worſhip of God, but of the image. That indeed is honoured. but God diſhonoured, whoſe will is hereby altered, and his precept violated. Confer 1 Cor. 10.20. Exod. 32.4 5. vnderſtand this, as before, not of the intention of the worſhipper, but of the euent. Vſe.
Here then are the Papiſts iuſtly charged vvith as groſſe Idolatry, as euer the heathen practiſed; that worſhip images of God, and Saints, though not intentionally, yet in the euent with the worſhip due to God alone.
Many large diſputes, and queries they hauehave concerning the kinde, and degree of worſhip that is due to holy images: ſome of them reſoluing foole wiſely, that images are to be worſhipped with the ſame worſhip that is due to the preſident; others, thinking that ſome thing to groſſe, concluding, that this is to be vnderſtood vnproperly, by way of concomitance onelyonly. It were long to reckon vp all their fooleries in this kinde. Alas, that ſuch wits ſhould be ſo occupied? and that there were not ſome good Ioſiah amongſt them, by axes and hammers to put end to ſuch heatheniſh reaſonings. Read Iſay 30.22. and thou ſhalt ſee vvhat honour is due to ſuch traſh. Their common excuſe is ſufficiently remoued by that which hath beene ſaid in the former queſtion.
Now for their worſhip of Images they hauehave theſe reaſons; firſt, that they are ſignes of holy things, and are for their relation to God to be worſhipped. Anſ. But I demaund, by whoſe inſtitution come they to be ſignes of holy things, and what is the foundation of this reuelation? if by humane appointment onelyonly, they will neuer be able to proue that man can giuegive to any thing ſuch a reuelation, or ordaine a ſigne, thus to ſignifie a holy thing, or to binde vsus to ſuch reuerence of ſignes by man ordayned. And for diuine inſtitution, which alone hath power to conſecrate ſignes to ſuch holy ſignifications, when they ſhall ſhew it vsus out of the ſcriptures, we will entertaine their images with that reuerent eſteeme, and regardfulneſſe in vſing, as is due to ſuch ordinances, but yet will euer be far from religious adoration of them.
Secondly, they affirme that God by images hath wrought miracles, therby to procure honor vntounto them. Anſ. Whether God wrought miracles to procure them honour, or the diuell maruels to delude Idolaters, is hard for Papiſts to determine.
But firſt we anſwere that they were mira non miracula, maruels not miracles many of them, that God permitted to be wrought, at or by them: ſtrange things perhaps many, that filled the poore people with wonderment, whilſt they knew not the cunning and power of Sathan.
Secondly if miracles, yet not to procure them honour, but to proue our obedience, did the Lord permit them. See Deut. 13.1.2.3. miracles are not alwayes ſeales of truth; but ſometimes trials of loyaltie.
Thirdly, they reaſon a pari, or ſimili: man is worthy of veneration becauſe he is the image of God; therfore other images alſo becauſe they are images of Chriſt, or Saints, &c. Anſ. To this I anſwere; that images made by man to repreſent God, or his Chriſt, are but equiuocally called images of God and Chriſt. Indeed we honour man as the image of God with ciuill honour, becauſe God hath ſo commanded vsus: ſecondly, and hath giuen to men venerable gifts of holineſſe, and righteouſnes, that make them honourable; and when they can ſhew eyther GOD to command worſhip of their images, or demonſtrate ſuch charecters of Diuine excellencies in them as GOD hath placed in man, wee will alſo giuegive them their due reuerence.
Their fourth argument is, à paribus in contrarijs. Images are capable of infamie, and reproach, therefore alſo of honour, and worſhip; which argument ſome vtter thus, the contempt done to the image of GOD and his Chriſt redounds to God, and Chriſt: Ergo, the honour done to their images is done to them. Anſ. Our Diuines fitly anſwere that it followes not: neither are thoſe contraries paria: for it ſufficeth to the diſhonouring of God that there be an euill affection, or intention; but a good intention is not ſufficient to the honouring of God, except the meanes as well as the meaning be preſcribed of God.
Their other arguments are friuolous, and not worth the naming: for what is it to preſcribe in errour? And what though euill men hauehave oppugned images, and good men reuerenced them? for neither did the one oppugne, as they were euill; neither were the other good ſo farre as …hey defended them. That laſt argument from the infortunate end of thoſe that hauehave oppoſed, and the happineſſe of thoſe that hauehave maintained them, hath an apparent miſtaking of no cauſe for a cauſe; for neither were theſe plagued for oppoſing, nor thoſe bleſſed for maintaining images.
Now I conclude this whole place with that ſaying of Lactantius de origin: error. lib. 2. cap. 2. where hauing at large diſputed againſt the folly of Image-making, and worſhip, he concludes: Fooliſh men as they are, they conſider not nor vnderſtand, that if their images had ſenſe, or motion, they would of their owne accord worſhip men by whom they were poliſhed; which, had they not beene faſhioned and brought into ſhape by man, had ſtill been eyther incult and horride ſtones, or vnſhapen and rude matter.
Obſer. One other thing onelyonly will I obſerue in this text and ſo proceed to that that followeth: And that is the ordinarie connexion of theſe two ſinnes, the making, and worſhipping of an image. See Pſal. 106.19. &c. partly through that bewitching which is in them when they are clad as it were with Diuine repreſentations: partly through Gods iuſt iudgement, giuing men ouer to blind dotage, becauſe of their firſt declining from his will.
Ʋſe. And it iuſtifieth the practiſe of Chriſtian Magiſtrates, that to preuent occaſions of Idolatrie, hauehave remoued them out of our Temples; I hope, neuer againe to be reſtored: many exclamations, and bitter inuectiues they hauehave heard from Idolatrous mouthes; but who knowes not but the Lord hath done them good for that euill? And how vnmeete ſuch contumelies are for them that cry out of vsus, for lacke of louelove to Chriſt, becauſe wee cannot indure the Idolatrous abuſe of his image, when themſelues are drunken with the bloud of Saints, Gods liuely images, euerie man may iudge. LoueLove to Chriſt is beſt euidenced, by louelove to his ordinances, and his Saints, and by hatred of thoſe things which God profeſſeth to hate, amongſt which are eſpecially lying images.
But ſhall wee heare their reaſons why they muſt be placed in our temples; forſooth Salomon erected Cherubims in the temple. Anſ. Yet placed he them out of the ſight of the people, in the holy of holies: ſecondly, had Gods ſpeciall warrant.
Secondly, they reaſon from conueniencie; vvhat meeter places for holy images, then holy places? beſides that, they are an ornament to the Temple, and withall a meane to keepe our mindes from vaine by-thoughts, and wandering imaginations. Anſ.
To the firſt: if they were indeed holy by Gods ordinance it were ſomewhat: But now being but as they are mens deuiſes, and found in-experience to be occaſions of Idolatrie, what more vnmeet place then the Temple for an Image? whereas the very reuerence of the place wins it too much eſteeme with ſuperſtitious mindes.
To the ſecond: that Temples ſhould be decently kept, and moderately adorned, wee deny not; but hold ſuch traſh the vnmeeteſt deckings: and as for images abuſed to idolatrie, wee iuſtly count them rather blemiſhes then ornaments to our Churches; and may truely ſay of them, as Hezekias of the like to the Leuites; carrie forth this filthineſſe out of the Sanctuarie. 2 Par. 29.5.
To the third: that they are meanes rather to occaſion, then to preuent wanderings: the occupying of the outward ſenſe, is in experience the abalienation of the minde; which made the Lacedemonians permit no picture in their Senate houſe, leaſt by beholding thereof, the mindes of their Counſailors ſhould be diſtracted from the preſent conſultations. And I wiſh men for preuenting of wandering in prayers, firſt to labour for feeling of wants, which they would hauehave ſupplyed. 1 Reg. 8.38. Secondly, duely to conſider in whoſe preſence they ſtand. Acts 10.33. theſe they ſhall finde better ſtayes from wandering, then all other ſelfe deuiſed meanes whatſoeuer. I hauehave dwelt ſomething long in theſe controuerſies; but now proceed to that that followeth.
Which is God bleſſed for euer, Amen.] Theſe words, are diuerſly conſtrued with the former; ſome thus conceiue them, as importing the diſappointing of that inconuenience, to which the nature of theſe Idolatrous actes tended: as if hee ſhould ſay, notwithſtanding, all this ſacriledge committed by theſe Idolatrous Gentiles, yet continued the Lord in his bleſſed and happie eſtate: and ſo it is a truth; that no impietie of man can really robbe GOD of his honour, or impeach his bleſſedneſſe: And if any ſhall ſay, why doth hee then complaine. Anſ. Becauſe hee meaſures impietie according to the intention of the doer, and nature of the fact, not after the euent, which by his power he diſappoints.
Some thus vnderſtand them as a ſpeech of Paules zealous affection, occaſioned by mention of that diſhonour the Gentiles laboured to faſten on the maieſtie of God.
I rather thinke that they are a ſhort reprehenſion of the Gentiles Idolatry, as if hee ſhould ſay, they worſhipped the creature, paſſing by the Creator: to whom alone all praiſes, and honour by iuſt right appertaineth, ſo Iunius interprets out of the Syri…ke: it would be too long, and perhaps impertinent, to inſiſt on that common place; this onelyonly I wiſh, that hereto we may all heartily ſubſcribe, and ſay Amen, both in affection, and practiſe.