The Remains of John Corbet, Part 2
The Second Part of Idolatry.
§ 1. Of Superſtition in general.
AS there is a defect in Religion, ſo there is an exceſs, and this is called Superſtition.
This exceſs is not in the formal reaſon of Religion (for we cannot too much obſerve, reverence, and love God) but either in the undueneſs of the object, or the acts thereof, Internal, or External. Exceſs in the undueneſs of the object of Religious Worſhip, is Idolatry. Exceſs in the Internal acts thereof, lies in the inward anxiety, ſcrupuloſity, or other exorbitant fancy about it.
The Exceſs in the External acts, is either in the Kind, or the Meaſure thereof; in the Kind, as being forbidden either in particular, or in general; in the meaſure, of what for the Kind is lawful, as when it is to the neglect of other duties.
The Exceſs is more rare in natural, than in inſtituted, or poſitive Worſhip.
To be too religious, is in ſome reſpect to be irreligious; it is ſometimes Sacrilegious, in robbing God of his due in other kinds; and at all times it wants the formal nature of True Religion.
Superſtition is either poſitive, in forbidden acts of Worſhip; or negative, in religious abſtainings from things not forbidden, as ſome diſtinguiſh. But I conceive, that in this latter kind the formale of Superſtition lyes not in a negation, or meer not doing, but in a certain obſervance about not doing, and a conſcientious nolition.
§ 2. Of Idolatry in general.
IDolatry is a ſpecies of Superſtition, being an exceſs in the object of Worſhip. It is the giving of Worſhip, that is proper to God, to that which is not God.
An Idol in its moſt proper ſence, is an Image, that is the likeneſs or reſemblance of any Being; more eſpecially, that which is made for the reſemblance of the true, or a falſe God. It alſo ſignifies, whatſoever Being, viſible, or inviſible, yea or figment of the brain, that is worſhipped as God.
Moreover, an Idol is not onelyonly that, which beſides the true God is avowed for God; but alſo that, which hath any part or kind of Divine Honour given to it; for it is thereby made interpretative another God.
If any incommunicable Attribute of God be given to another, as Omniſcience, or to be the ſearcher of hearts, that other is made another God, though not ſimply, yet foreign or ſo far.
Idolatry may be committed by ſuch as own no more gods than the onelyonly living and true God; for though they do not acknowledge more Gods than one, yet they may give his incommunicable honour to that which they confeſs to be no God.
To pray to any Creature for that benefit, which God onelyonly can do for us, as to give Rain, or fair Weather, is Divine Worſhip and Idolatry.
§. 3. Of Latria and Dulia.
AS for the famous diſtinction of foreign and foreign, we will conſider it firſt according to the Words, then according to the Sence that is given thereof by thoſe that uſe it.
As for the words; foreign is not uſed onelyonly for worſhip given to God, Deut. 28.48. Levit. 23.7. Nor is foreign uſed onelyonly for worſhip given to Creatures, Acts 20.19. Rom. 12.11. 1 Theſ. 1.9. Latria is a Word that generally ſignifies all Service; and dulia ſignifies Service in a ſtricter way; to wit, of thoſe that are not ſui juris, but abſolutely at the diſpoſing of him whom they ſerve.
As for the ſenſe of this diſtinction given by the Uſers; Latria is that worſhip whereby the object is acknowledged to be the firſt beginning, and the ultimate end of all: and dulia is that wherein the object is not acknowledged ſo to be.
This their way of diſtinguiſhing, doth not make two kinds of worſhip, either in the outward acts, which are the ſame in latria and dulia, even among the Papiſts, except Sacrifice onelyonly; or in the Internal acts of the Will; to wit, Love, Fear, Truſt, &c. which may be the ſame in both, and through Superſtition may be greater in their dulia than latria; but onelyonly in an intellectual apprehenſion, which the vulgar are not apt to mind.
Moreover, when the object is not apprehended to be the firſt Cauſe, and laſt End; that is, the Supreme God, nothing hinders, but it may have that kind of Worſhip given to it, which is due to him onelyonly; as to Pray to it, to Swear by it, to burn Incenſe, to dedicate Temples and Altars, and to make Vows to it.
The Worſhip which Cornelius was about to give to Peter, and which John was about to give to the Angel, from a tranſport of Mind, was more than was due to Creatures: yet Cornelius did not think Peter, nor John the Angel, to be the firſt Cauſe, and laſt End. Nor did the Devil move our Saviour ſo to acknowledge him, when he would have had him fall down and Worſhip him; yet he rejected his motion, as ſeeking the worſhip due to God onelyonly; yea, and that which is called foreign, Luk. 4.8.
§. 4. Of Idolatry, ſerious and diſſembled.
SErious Idolatry is, when the mind gives the honour due to God, or any part thereof, to a Being that is not God; and when the uſing of the External ſigns of that honour proceeds from the intention of the mind to honour it thereby.
In all ſerious or undiſſembled Idolatry, there is ignorance or error about the object, or the act of Worſhip. Firſt, about the object; either the thing worſhipped is taken to be God, when it is not God; or it is taken to have ſome Attribute of God, which it hath not, or to injoy ſome Prerogative of God, which it doth not. In the Two later caſes the thing is worſhipped, though not ſimply, yet foreign as God. Secondly, About the act of Worſhip, 1. When the worſhip given to that which is not God, is not taken to be Divine Worſhip, when indeed it is ſuch. 2. When the Worſhip taken to be Divine, is not taken to be applyed to the object, when indeed it is applyed.
Diſſembled Idolatry, is meerly External, when an External Sign of Honour due to God alone is given to that, which is not God, without the intention of the mind to honour it thereby.
Every outward act, that is ordinarily uſed for ſignification of Divine Honour, is not of it ſelf, as Phyſically conſidered, a ſignification thereof, and conſequently not Idolatry. But whenſoever ſuch an act is knowingly and voluntarily done, at ſuch time and place, and in ſuch circumſtances as make it to be taken for a ſignification of Divine Honour, it is imputed to him that doth it for a ſignification thereof. Though it be true, That that which is not a ſign of Internal Honour, is not Worſhip; nevertheleſs, he that doth not internally honour, may give the outward ſign of doing it. He doth really give the ſign of ſuch honour, though but a feigned one, and ſo is really guilty of Idolatry, though but diſſembled. He doth really make ſhew of giving that honour to another, which is due to God onelyonly, and profeſſedly owns another object of Divine worſhip, and ſo far an other God. And though it be not Mental, yet it is Corporal Idolatry, as an Atheiſt or impious perſon doth not Internally Honour God, but contemn him; yet doing thoſe things which are External Signs thereof, he doth Externally worſhip God.
§. 5. Of adoration given to the Hoſt.
THat the Papiſts give Divine Worſhip to the Hoſt, is by themſelves acknowledged; and it is no ſmall part of their Religion. The Council of Trent determines, That the ſame Divine Worſhip which we give to God himſelf, is to be given to the most Holy Sacrament. And by the Holy Sacrament, they mean the Body of Chriſt under the accidents of the Bread.
This, according to the Proteſtants Doctrine, is the giving of Divine Honour to a morſel of Bread; and therefore a moſt ſtupid, and ſtupendious kind of Idolatry.
Some of the Proteſtant Profeſſion have gone about to Extenuate the ſame, ſaying, That it is material, but not formal Idolatry in the Papiſts. For that the Conſecrated Bread is taken to be very Chriſt, who is very God; and therefore, though the thing Worſhipped be not God, yet it is Believed to be the True God by thoſe Worſhippers, and Worſhipped as ſuch.
Nevertheleſs, it hath been granted by ſome of the Popiſh Writers, That if the Doctrine of Tranſubstantiation be an Error, they are guilty of the moſt abominable Idolatry in the Adoration of the Hoſt; and they could not find out the aforeſaid extenuation of it, in caſe of ſuch Error, by diſtinguiſhing between Material and Formal Idolatry.
And ſome Romaniſts do ſay, That theſe words, This is my body, may bear a Figurative ſence; as thoſe Words, That Chriſt was a Rock: and that if there were no other Evidence for Tranſubſtantiation, but what the Scripture gives, there were no reaſon to make it an Article of Faith. Bellarmine ſaith, Theſe words neceſſarily infer either a real Mutation in the Bread, as the Catholicks hold; or a Metaphorical, as the Calviniſts hold; but by no means admit the Lutheran ſence. And he concludes, That though there be ſome obſcurity and ambiguity in the Words, yet it is taken away by Councils and Fathers.
The Perſians, in old Gentiliſm, Worſhipped the Sun for the Supreme God; and their Idolatry was not the leſs abominable for their Error about that Object of Worſhip. And ſurely it was Formal Idolatry; that is, There was in it the formalis ratio, or true nature and reaſon of that Sin.
Nay, I think it more Sacrilegious, and Blaſphemous againſt the True God, to take any Creature to be he, and to worſhip it accordingly, than to give Divine Worſhip to a Creature not imagined to be the Supreme God, but ſome inferior deity.
St. Auſtin ſpeaks in his Preface to his Sermon on Pſal. 93. of certain Hereticks that honoured the Sun, and ſaid, That it was Jeſus Chriſt. Now divine honour given to the Sun under ſuch a miſtake, is horrid Idolatry; and why not alſo divine honour given to a morſel of Bread by the ſame miſtake?
The Lutherans Doctrine of Conſubſtantiation, doth not infer that the Eucharist is to be adored. They believe indeed, That Jeſus Chriſt is really preſent in the Sacrament; but they do not believe, That the Sacrament is really Jeſus Chriſt, nor adore it as ſuch.
But that the Papiſts condition in reſpect of this ſottiſh Superſtition of Bread-worſhip being ſo bad, may not be made worſe than it is, it may be conſidered, That they do not take the Bread to be the Deity, nor to be he that is God, ſave onelyonly according to his Human Body, into which they believe the Bread is changed, and ſo worſhip it as our Lords Body; or to expreſs it in the moſt favourable ſence, they worſhip him as there preſent in his proper Body; and withal, worſhip the bread ſuppoſed to be that Body.
§. 6. Of the Popiſh Invocation of Angels and Saints departed.
THis Invocation is without Precept or Precedent in Holy Scripture. Invocation on God alone is according to Scripture. Chriſt teacheth, to pray, Our Father, in his great Rule and Standard of Prayer. We are taught to Invocate him, on whom we believe, Rom. 10.14. which is God alone. As Incenſe the Type, ſo Prayer the thing typified, is to be offered to God alone.
Prayer is an Act of ſuch Worſhip as Papiſts call latria. It ſuppoſeth the Being to whom it is directed, to be the Author and Fountain of the good we pray for. And ſo they that are prayed to, are invocated in Gods ſtead. And whereas ſome ſay, That the Saints are to be invocated, not as Authors of Divine benefits; it is apparent that Papiſts invocate them as Authors directly and without ambages, praying to them for health and deliverance from danger, yea for the higheſt benefits, as to St. Peter to open Heaven Gates to them. They direct their prayers to them as to thoſe that can diſpence the Grace of God to men at their pleaſure.
Alſo prayer implies a proſtration of the whole Soul and Spirit, and Body, to the perſon that is invocated, by Acts of Subjection, Devotion, Dependence, Reverence, and all higeſt Obſervance. Experience ſhews the fond raviſhments of Soul in the ſuperſtitions towards thoſe to whom more eſpecially they are devoted, ordinarily making no inferior Expreſſions of their Devotion towards them, than toward God and Chriſt: Yea, they are ſo intercepted and taken up by this Dotage, as to forget God.
If Saints are invocated as Mediators, they are invocated in Chriſts ſtead. Chriſt is our Interceſſor in Heaven, as our Redeemer, 1 John 2.1. And therefore they that are not our Redeemers, cannot be our interceſſors in Heaven.
Moreover we cannot rationally commend our prayers to any but ſuch, as we know both can, and will repreſent them to God.
The Popiſh Invocation of Saints and Angels, is an aſcribing to them the incommunicable Excellencies of God, as to be foreign ſearchers of hearts, and perceptive of all the caſes and concernments of thoſe that invocate them; and an Omniſcience and Omnipreſence, if not abſolute, yet at leaſt re…ctive to this lower World, the Habitation of us Mortals, is aſcribed to them thereby.
To excuſe this Sacriledg and Idolatry, that incredible conceit of the Saints beholding all things, in ſpeculo Trinitatis, is but a ſorry ſhift. Such Omniſcience the Manhood of Chriſt hypoſtatically united to the Godhead, did not pretend unto. And the deviſing of it, is a tranſcendent preſumption of mans wit, for the invading of Gods right.
The truth is, the Worſhip of Saints and Angels maintained in the Roman Church, in parity of reaſon anſwers the Pagans Worſhipping of Daemons, being either Souls of Men departed, or other Inviſible Powers, whom they imagined to be Inferior Deities ſubordinate and miniſtring to the Supreme God. And after the manner of the Heathens, the Papiſts have appointed among the Saints certain particular Patrons of Provinces, Cities, Artificers, living Creatures, &c.
When we deſire holy perſons on Earth to pray for us, we feek not to them as Patrons, or Interceſſors in the vertue of their Merits; but as Brethren at the ſame diſtance from God with us. And the help is mutual, according to the Communion of Saints, and for which we have Promiſe, Precept and Example.
§ 7. Of Erecting Altars, and bringing Oblations to any beſides God.
THoſe external Acts, that by Nature or Cuſtome, or Divine Inſtitution, are or were appropriated Expreſſions of that internal honour or obſervance that is due to God alone, are Divine Worſhip. And ſuch are the Acts of Erecting Altars, and bringing Oblations, and burning Incenſe, and making Vows, and dedicating Temples, and ordaining Feſtivals.
The Erecting of Altars, either for Sacrifice or other Oblations to any being, imports either an apprehenſion of that being, as an avenger of ſin in a higher way than mans temporal Judgment and Vengeance, and the propitiating thereof towards us; or elſe a grateful acknowledgment of benefits received from a higher hand, than any humane Benefactor upon Earth, even from a ſoveraign providence. And that which is ſo propitiated, or gratefully acknowledged, muſt be either the Supreme God, or ſome Inferior Deity, to which that is aſcribed, which the moſt High God hath not communicated to any other.
And beſides the reaſon of the thing, the cuſtom of all mankind, and Divine Ordination, hath made this a proper Act of Divine Worſhip. If it were high preſumption to render that kind of Worſhip to any ſubject, which the Soveraign Prince hath appropriated to himſelf; much more preſumptuous and ſacrilegious is it for us to uſe the appropriated ſigns of Divine honour, towards any Creature.
Nay, tho God hath now relinquiſhed ſuch a Mode of Worſhip, as Altars properly ſo called, and Sacrifices, and Oblations, Propitiatory or Euchariſtical, (the reaſon of them ceaſing by the new Diſpenſation); yet it is Idolatrous to uſe the ſame afterwards towards a Creature. For tho it be diſuſed in Divine Service, yet ſtill it hath the Impreſs or Signification of Divine honour.
Wherefore the Erecting of Altars and bringing Oblations to any beſides God, is Idolatry.
§ 8. Of making Vows to any beſides God.
BOth Divine Ordination, and the Cuſtom of Nations, hath made the making of Vows a proper act of Divine Worſhip; and therefore when it is directed to any Creature, it is Idolatry.
In the reaſon of the thing, Vowing is an act of Divine Worſhip.
Vowing to God imports Heart-Subjection and Devotion to him, and truſt in him as the Soveraign diſpoſer of us and our concernments.
Vehement and reſolute Promiſes made to men upon Earth, may Metaphorically be called Vows to them. And things ſet apart for the uſe and Service of ſome perſons only, may in like manner of ſpeaking be ſaid to be devoted to them.
The Popiſh Vows made to Saints departed, are of the ſame reaſon with Vows made to God, importing that Subjection, Devotion and Dependence, which is due to God alone, and therefore are Idolatrous.
Sometimes the very matter of Vows made to Saints, are matters of Religious obſervance, or Devotion towards them, as of Invocation, Oblations, Dedication of Temples to them, &c. Sometimes the matter of ſuch Vows may be ſomething to be performed to men upon Earth, as for one to Vow to a Saint, that he will give ſo much to the Poor; and even in this later caſe the Vow quoad formale is a religious Subjection or Obſervance towards the Saint, as an Inviſible Celeſtial power, in expectation of favour from him in caſe of performance, and of vengeance in caſe of failing therein.
It will not excuſe theſe Popiſh Votaries to ſay, That in Vowing to the Saints they do not imply an Obſequium or Devotion towards them, as the firſt Principle or Cauſe, &c. which they ſay is latria; nor an expectation of favour or vengeance from them, as their abſolute Supreme Governours, and diſpoſers of them and their Affairs; but only as Inferior to God. For the things which God challenges to himſelf, they render to the Saints, (tho pretendedly but in an inferior reſpect), as namely, the proſtration of the Soul and Spirit, the Subjection of the Conſcience to them, and Dependence on them, as cauſes of good or evil in a Supernatural, tranſcendent, and Divine manner of diſpenſation.
It was one kind of the Idolatry of the old Heathens, to Erect Altars, and make Vows, and Prayers, and offer Sacrifices to ſuch as they knew were not the Supreme God, but the Souls of men departed, or other Daemons. And Idolatry was rare among the Romans, if this were not Idolatry. The Papiſts do in their practice make the Saints departed ſuch Inferior Deities, as the Heathen Daemons were. And indeed they have borrowed the names Divi and Divae from them.
Moreover, to make Vows to Saints, ſuppoſeth them capable of receiving Vows, and that capacity ſuppoſeth them to know all things on Earth, or at leaſt all things whenſoever and whereſoever directed to them, even the ſecret intents of the heart; and this makes them Gods foreign.
§ 9. Of burning Incenſe to any beſides God.
BUrning of Incenſe is a kind of Worſhip which God hath appropriated to himſelf, and therefore this Worſhip given to any Saint or Angel is Idolatry.
The burning of Incenſe did typifie prayers, and praiſes; and other ſpiritual Services offered up as a ſweet favour, or acceptable to God; therefore can no more be offered to a Creature, than prayers, or the like Services may.
Being offered by the Prieſt in the Sanctuary, while the people were praying in the Court of the Temple, it did typifie the Interceſſion of Jeſus Chriſt with God. Therefore it is Divine Worſhip; and being transferred to any Creature, it is no leſs than Idolatry.
§ 10. Of dedicating Places and Times, and erecting a ſymbolical preſence to any beſides God.
THESE are acts which God appropriated as his own Worſhip.
The dedicating either of Temples and Chappels, or Groves or other places, to any Saint or Angel, as the place of his worſhip and ſpecial reſidence, and benign influente upon mortals that make their Addreſſes to him (which the Papiſts do) is Idolatry; it being divine worſhip directed to a wrong object, or that which is not God.
But to dedicate Temples or Chappels to God and his Service only, but in memorial of Saints or Angels, is not Idolatry, it being not a rendering ought to the creature that is due to God alone, tho thoſe places be called by the names of ſuch Saints and Angels in honour of their memory.
The caſe of dedicating Days and Times to Saints and Angels, may be ſtated and reſolved in the ſame manner.
The erecting of a Symbolical Preſence, with incurvation thitherward, was declared by God to be a manner of worſhip due to him, and not to be given to any elſe; and therefore to obſerve the ſame towards any other, is idolatry.
§ 11. Of worſhipping Reliques.
I Suppoſe by Reliques are meant not only any parts of Chriſt or the Saints, but alſo any adjuncts, as Raiment, &c.
When the Papiſts ſay, That a Saints Reliques are to be worſhipped with the ſame worſhip that is due to the Saint; and Chriſts Reliques with the ſame worſhip that is due to Chriſt, they are ſelf-convicted idolaters.
No doubt a reſpect may be had to the true Reliques of Saints, as we reſpect the Reliques of dear Friends, or of Anceſtors, or of worthy Patriots or Princes, as ſome remaining Monuments of thoſe that have left the World.
For any to make uſe of Reliques to keep the Devil away from them, or for any preſervation ſpiritual or temporal, is a ſortiſh ſuperſtition.
§. 12. Of worſhipping the Croſe.
STaurolatry is Idolatry.
It is a queſtion with me, Whether many of the Papiſts can mean by the worſhipping of the Croſs, and of Reliques, any more than high veneration, or reverend reſpect. Surely they are not all ſo ſtupid as to pray to them, or to expect help from them, as from principal agents, but only as from inſtruments or means.
Yet there is no ground of veneration or reverence to the Croſs for its relation to Chriſt: For it was the inſtrument of the Cruelty of his Murtherers. And the Croſs did not bring ſalvation, as a cauſe thereof, any more than the men that crucified Chriſt. Chriſt overcame not by the Croſs, but on the Croſs, it being taken in the proper, and not in a figurative ſenſe.
Paul's glorying in the Croſs of Chriſt, is to be taken tropically for Chriſt as crucified.
Beſides, if the Croſs properly taken, were to be gloried in, it doth not follow that it, it to be reverenced, much leſs adored. One may glory in a ſhameful ſuffering for Chriſt; and yet the ſuffering is not to be adored nor reverenced.
§ 13. Whether Chriſt as Man, or Mediator, is to be worſhipped.
LET it be conſidered, 1. There is but one immediate, formal, and adequate reaſon of Divine Worſhip, to wit, the Supreme Majeſty, independent and infinite excellency of the Eternal Godhead. 2. All Divine Worſhip is, for the nature of it, the higheſt obſervance and honour that can be given, becauſe the formal object, and the adequate reaſon or ground of it, is the higheſt and infinite Excellence and Soveraignty. 3. Tho in Chriſt the Mediator the Godhead be neceſſary to mediation; yet mediation is not neceſſary to the Godhead. 4. Our Faith doth not reſt ſimply and finally, but mediately on Chriſt, as he is our Mediator God-man. 5. Chriſts Mediatory power and glory as God-man, is different from his natural and eſſential power and glory.
Now to anſwer the queſtion, That Jeſus Chriſt, the Mediator God-man, is to be worſhipped, appears plainly from Rev. 1.6. Rev. 5.8, 12, 13, 14. Rom. 14.3, 9. But from the aforegoing conſideration it is evinced, that he is Worſhipped with Divine Worſhip, not as Mediator, but as God. Chriſt as Mediator is the material or terminative, but not the formal object thereof. For if upon ſuppoſition of what cannot be, our Mediator had not been God, he could not have been Worſhipped with Divine Worſhip. That God ſhould communicate the honour due to him, as God to another that is not God, is impoſſible.
Indeed Chriſt is Worſhipped as Mediator, if we take as Mediator ſpecificative to denote the perſon Worſhipped, and not reduplicative to denote the formal reaſon of his being Worſhipped. Therefore Divine Worſhip aſcribed as due to Chriſt, invincibly proves his Divine Nature.
Tho the Office of Chriſt, and the diſcharging of it, be not the formal ground, yet it is an excellent motive to give him that Worſhip that is due to his Infinite Excellence and Soveraignty.
When any one ſaith, Lord Jeſus pray for me, the prayer is directed to him as God, tho the buſineſs recommended to him, is performed by him as man. And withal note, that we deſire him to intercede for us, in a way becoming the coeſſential Son of God.
Chriſt is adored, not as Judg reduplicative, but becauſe he is Judg, and becauſe the Godhead judgeth principally, but the Manhood only by inſtrumental concurrence and Aſſociation.
Chriſt in his Mediatory Office doth put forth Divine Operations, but not as in ſuch an Office formaliter, and immediately, but as it is ſeated in a Divine perſon. 2ly. Some further anſwer, That the Divine Operations ſo put forth, are impulſive cauſes, but not formal reaſons of Adoration.
In what reſpect the Divinity is communicated to the humanity of Chriſt, in that reſpect Divine Worſhip is communicated thereunto, that is, in reſpect of Hypoſtatical Union. The Divinity withal its adorable Attributes, is hypoſtatically reſiding in the Humanity. And the Man Chriſt Jeſus is Worſhipped not as man, but as hypoſtatically united to the Godhead.
When we Worſhip Chriſt, our Worſhip is terminated on his p…rſon as God-man; but the ground of the Worſhip is wholly taken from his being God.
§ 14. Of Worſhipping Images, or of Idolatry in the Mediate object of Worſhip.
AN Image is the likeneſs or reſemblance of any thing. And the uſe of it in Religious Worſhip, is to repreſent that whoſe Image it is.
More largely, an Image may be taken for that which repreſents another thing, tho not ſuppoſed to be the likeneſs thereof, an Inſtance whereof is given in an unhewn Stone for Neptune.
A Symbol of preſence is not the ſame thing with an Image. For only the preſence of a thing after a fort is denoted by the one; but the other preſents the thing it ſelf. Therefore God allowed Symbols of his preſence, but forbad the making of any Image of him.
The Worſhipping of an Image may be conſidered, either as giving Worſhip to the matter of it, which is Wood, Stone, Metal, &c. or to the object repreſented by it, a ſuppoſed Deity.
Moreover, a material Image may be conceited to be more than a meer Image or repreſenting likeneſs, and taken for an animated body, or an incorporated Deity, and the Worſhip may be directed both to the material, and the inviſible ſubſtance together, as to a compound conſiſting of Body and Soul.
The Worſhip given to a meer Image, cannot be underſtood to be given to it, in regard of its phyſical ſubſtance, as it is Wood or Stone, &c. but meerly upon the account of its reſembling and repreſenting the Prototype. And it is Worſhipped not abſolutely as the ultimately terminating object; but relatively, as a medium or mediate object; and no rational Idolater can render more to an Image. Wherfore the Prototype is Worſhipped in it, and the Worſhip paſſeth through it to the Prototype as to the ultimate object.
And conſequent to this it is, that the Worſhip given to the Image, muſt be of the ſame kind with that which is given to the Prototype, yet given to the Image but improperly, and relatively; for if it be of another kind, it doth terminate in the Image it ſelf, and doth not by the Image paſs to the ultimate object.
The Worſhippers of Images are not agreed, what Worſhip is due to them. Bellarmine ſaith, The Worſhip that is due to an Image properly by it ſelf, as terminating the Worſhip, is a kind of imperfect analogical Worſhip reductive to the Worſhip due to the Exemplar, which is neither latria, nor hyperdulia, nor dulia, but is reduced to them as imperfect to the perfect.
Hence it follows, that for image-worſhippers to avoid Idolatry, it is requiſite that they underſtand theſe diſtinctions of latria, dulia, hyperdulia, by it ſelf, and by accident, properly, improperly, ſimply, ſecundum quid, analogically, reductively. And is this ſafe proviſion for the ſouls of men, that they may not incur the anger of the jealous God, by the provoking-ſin of idolatry, and all to ſet up a Worſhip that is needleſs?
A meer inanimate thing can have no kind of excellence in it ſelf to deſerve Worſhip from us men; nor any reverence as the abſolute and properly terminating object thereof; and conſequently, a meer material image cannot be rationally intended for ſuch an object of worſhip. But if the image be taken for an animate body, or an incorporated Deity, then it is an abſolutely terminating object of the worſhip performed to it.
Worſhipping towards a Symbolical preſence, is not a worſhipping of the ſymbol, as the bowing to the throne of a Prince, is not a worſhipping of the throne. And ſo the bowing towards the Mercy-ſeat in the moſt holy place, was not a worſhipping thereof. It was medium cultus, but not medium cultum.
The idolatry of image-worſhip is moſt frequently ſpoken of in Scripture, becauſe it was moſt ordinary; and it is the concomitant of almoſt all other kinds of idolatry. For both the true and falſe gods are by idolaters commonly worſhipped in images. I ſhall conſider this kind of idolatry, firſt as it is uſed in the worſhip of falſe gods, and then as it is uſed in the worſhip of the true God.
§ 15. Of the worſhipping of falſe Gods in Images.
AMong the Heathens, the images of their gods were called gods, not properly, but tropically; as the Picture of a man is called a Man; for humane underſtanding cannot take a meer ſtatue, or a picture, for a god. Therefore as to this point the heathens were as juſtifiable as the Papiſts.
The Heathens thought that the ſpecial reſidences of their gods were in the images, and that their power was exerted by them. So do the Papiſts take their Sacred images for the ſpecial reſidences, as of God, and of Chriſt, ſo of the Saints and Angels, which they alſo worſhip with the worſhip due to God only, and ſo make them idols.
The Devil by Gods permiſſion was wont to dwell and operate in certain images, by which means they came to be famous, and more adored than others. So the Papiſts think a divine or ſupernatural efficacy to be tyed to one image, more than to another.
The Vulgar Heathens being infatuated by Satanical illuſions, might without much difficulty be brought in part to terminate their worſhip in the images themſelves, being ſet forth and adorned as they were, to aſtoniſh the beholders, and raiſe fear in them, that they might apprehend them the very gods which they worſhipped, but not the whole of them, but only as it were the bodies, where with the inviſible Deities did incorporate. And multitudes of ignorant vulgar Papiſts m…y be ſuppoſed to be under the ſame groſs in…atuation.
Upon the Reaſons aforegoing it might be, that the Prophets laboured ſo much to prove that images were not gods.
As the more intelligent Papiſts look upon the images no otherwiſe than as Symbols and Repreſentations of thoſe beings to which they give divine worſhip; ſo the more intelligent Heathens did no otherwiſe.
As the wiſer Heathens extremely differed in their opinions about the gods, from the Vulgar; yet concurred with them in all external rites of worſhip; ſo do the more learned Papiſts concur with the ignorant vulgar among them in all external practiſes of their idolatry.
To worſhip a falſe God in an image, is double idolatry, becauſe here two things that are not God, are worſhipped with divine worſhip, viz. the ultimate object abſolutely, and the Medium or mediate object, to wit, the image relatively.
§. 16. Of making images of the true God.
AN image to repreſent the true God, is an idol, as the golden Calf in the Wilderneſs, and the Calves of Dan and Bethel
To make an image of God, is to blaſpheme him. An infinite Nature cannot be repreſented, but it muſt be an infinite diſparagement to it.
It may be asked, May not God be repreſented by ſuch corporeal forms, as ſometimes he appeared in? Anſ. In the burning buſh, and in the glory on Mount Sinai, God appeared not as in an image or repreſentation of himſelf, but as in ſymbo…s of his preſence. Whether it were God or Angels only that appeared to Abraham and Jacob in humane ſhape, is controvertible; or it might be God the Son as a preludium to his incarnation. Beſides, God did not take thoſe humane ſhapes as images or repreſentations of himſelf, but as ſigns of his preſence.
The ſoul of man is Gods image, but in an equivocal, improper, metaphorical ſenſe. And ſuch an image of God as it is, it cannot be pictured; and an image of mans body is not ſo much as the image of Gods image.
No made image can be the image of that Excellency, in reſpect whereof God differs from the creature.
The virtues of the mind are more capable of being pictured, than God is.
God forbad the Iſraelites to make an image of him, and adds this reaſon, That in Mount Sinai they ſaw no ſimilitude, Exod. 20.4. Deut. 4.5.
It is folly to ſay, Only ſuch images are forbidden as are intended to expreſs the perfect likeneſs of God; and that he hath allowed an image for analogical reſemblance of him. For none is ſo mad as to think any image doth expreſs the perfect likeneſs of God. The Heathens, that acknowledged the Eternal God, did not think that any of their images did expreſs the perfect likeneſs thereof. And did God make a Law to forbid that which is impoſſible in the nature of the thing, and allow all poſſible Repreſentations of him?
The Cherubims were no Repreſentation of God; they were only Hieroglyphical ſigns of Gods own appointment.
To make an image of Fire or Light, to ſignifie the inacceſſible light which God dwells in, or to picture rays of light with the Name of God, is not to make an image or repreſentation of him; it is no other than Hieroglyphical writing.
Moſes ſaw that which the Scripture calls Gods back parts, to wit, a created glory.
There is a great deal of difference between imperfect conceptions of God in our minds, and unworthy repreſentations of him to our ſenſes. And I know no other conception of God, than of a Being infinitely perfect; and this is an intellectual apprehenſion, and not a material imagination of him.
§ 17. Of worſhipping the True God in Images.
TO worſhip God in images, is not to glorifie him as God, but to extenuate his glory by a falſe Repreſentation of him.
To worſhip God in an image, is in the ſenſe of image-worſhippers to worſhip the Image it ſelf with divine honour relative.
And ſo to worſhip an image, is to make it falſe God, or idol, and to communicate Gods worſhip to the creature. The golden Calf is in Scripture called an idol.
To worſhip God as animating an image, is idolatry.
To make an image to be medium cultum, or the thing which we worſhip mediately on pretence of its repreſenting God, and that we worſhip him in it ultimately, is the thing directly forbidden in the Second Commandment.
I think it is alſo thereby forbidden, to make an image or repreſentation of God to be medium cultus, tho it ſhould not be medium cultum; becauſe it ſeems to me, that God in the Second Commandment forbids ſuch reſemblances and repreſentations of himſelf, not only to be worſhipped, but to be uſed in his Worſhip.
It is not unlawful to make an image of other things beſides God, as of ſome holy man, as an object or medium of our conſideration, exciting our minds to worſhip God.
Query, Whether a Crucifix, or an Hiſtorical image of Chriſt, according to his humane body, may not be uſed in that manner? If it be lawful to have ſuch a Picture of Chriſt, why may we not make uſe of the beholding thereof, to excite our devotion to him?
Nevertheleſs, ſeeing the Second Commandment forbids the worſhipping of God by a repreſentation, as a means of worſhip, tho not worſhipped; I doubt whether lawfully we may have a Picture of Chriſt (who is worſhipped indeed in his whole perſon, yet only upon the account of his divine nature) as a means of the worſhip rendered to him. Beſides there is peril of idolatry, and of worſhipping the Picture it ſelf.
For the ſame cauſe I think it dangerous to have a Crucifix or other Picture of Chriſt for a ſtated or fixed repreſentation of him according to his humane body.
§ 18. Of material Images and Repreſentations not of God, but of other things uſed in Gods Worſhip, and of the Symbols of the Divine Preſence; of worſhipping towards the Eaſt, and bowing towards the Altar.
TO make ſuch Images and Repreſentations to be uſed in Divine Worſhip, is not ſimply evil, as appears by the brazen Serpent, a temporary Ordinance for an occaſion in the Wilderneſs; and by the Cherubims on the Mercy ſeat, a ſtated Ordinance for the Moſaical diſpenſation.
There were alſo ſupernatural unimitable Repreſentations, tho not of the Divine nature, yet of the Divine preſence, as the burning buſh, and the appearances on Mount Sinai.
Divine Worſhip directed to ſuch Images or Repreſentations as to a mediate object, is idolatry. The Ark, and the Cherubims, and the Temple, were not made the object of Worſhip. A learned man writes, That incurvation in way of Religion towards any Symbolical preſence, as to an object, is flat idolatry; if it be in worſhip of Saints, Angels, and Demons, it is double idolatry; if in the worſhip of the true God, ſingle.
I ſuppoſe it is one thing to make ſomewhat (as for inſtance, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Mercy-ſeat, and the Temple) an object of our conſideration in the Worſhip of God, as inſtructing and exciting therein; and another thing to make it the object of worſhip it ſelf. And the ſaid Author ſaith, That to direct our adoration towards a ſupernatural and unimitable tranſplendency of the divine preſence, is not idolatry I ſuppoſe he means▪ that the burning buſh which Moſes ſaw, and the viſible glories on the Mount, were only media cultus, not objects thereof, the preſence of God ſhining th ough the ſame as a bright medium.
Whether a ſymbolical preſence of God may be erected of mans deviſing, is to be examined. I think it high …reſumption and arrogance ſo to do. For it is uncertain, at leaſt to men, whether God in the times of the Goſpel reſide in any local limits more eſpecially than elſewhere. And from our Saviours words Joh. 4. Neither in Jeruſalem, nor in this mountain, &c. the contrary is by many ſuppoſed to be evident. But if God doth chuſe any local limits of his ſpecial reſidence more than others, can any beſides himſelf aſſign the ſame?
Gods ſpecial reſidence with his people, and yet more ſpecial in the time of his worſhip, is of another reaſon than his reſidence in certain places. And this reſidence with his people he himſelf hath teſtified in his word, and the reaſon of the thing is manifeſt.
Therefore to make our Temples or Altars (as ſome call the Communion Tables) to be a Shechinah or divine preſence, I ſuppoſe is unwarrantable; as alſo to call the Communion Table (as ſome have) Solium Chriſti.
The lifting up of eyes and hands to heaven in prayer and praiſe, is warrantable and comely, becauſe there God dwells in his greateſt viſible glory; and he hath declared in his word, that he hath made the Heaven his throne, and the earth his footſtool.
The ancient Churches that worſhipped towards the Eaſt, did not worſhip the Eaſt as a middle term or object, and therefore were not guilty of idolatry. What they meant by it, I underſtand not any further, than a myſtical ſenſe in that poſture of worſhip, as that Chriſt is the day ſpring from on high, or the Sun of righteouſneſs ariſing, &c. And as to the expediency of that cuſtome, I leave it here undetermined.
I believe that thoſe among us who bow towards the Altar (as they call it) do not make it an object of worſhip. Some give this account thereo…, that it is of the ſame nature with putting off our hats while we are there; which putting off the hat ſurely is no making of the Altar, or place where it ſtands, or the Building, or any part thereof, the object of worſhip, but is an expreſſion of reverence either in the worſhip of God, or to the ſtated place of his worſhip. Some may make the Altar a ſymbolical preſence, or the throne of Chriſt, which I think to be unwarrantaable, and therefore bowing towards it upon that account to be culpable. Some may have only a myſtical ſignification in it, as was in the ancient uſage of worſhipping towards the Eaſt. Some may uſe it only for uniformity's ſake, that ſeeing to bow to God in their entrance into the Church, and going out of it, is fit (as they ſuppoſe), therefore it is alſo fit to direct it the ſame way. But the expedience of this practice I leave undetermined.
§ 19. Of the Scandalous uſe of Images.
IT may be a ſtumbling-block to have ſuch Images, as others among us give unlawful worſhip to; as in Popiſh Countreys to have the image of a Crucifix, and the Virgin Mary, and other Saints, and of Angels. Yea, I think it better not to have them at all, by reaſon of the peril of idolatry.
To place ſuch images in Churches, is a publick ſtumbling-block… for it may be a temptation to ſome to worſhip them; and to ſay the leaſt, they do more hurt than good.
The Hiſtorical uſe of ſuch images in divine worſhip as are wont to be worſhipped, that is, to have them for objects of remembrance, and means of exciting devotion, is dangerous; and more eſpecially ſuch a uſe of the images of the object then worſhipped, as a Crucifix or other picture of Chriſt, becauſe it tends to pollute the mind with idolatrous imaginations, or by prepoſſing the mind to hinder the ſpiritual exerciſe thereof, which is the ordinary effect of images.
Any images of feigned Deities, or of any powers, which are a temptation to any to believe in them, and worſhip them, are unlawful.
To ſet before our own or others eyes the images of the old ſymbols of divine preſence in the time of worſhip tho as objects only of remembrance, and means of exciting our affection to God, is dangerous.
§ 20. Of the meer appearance of Idolatry in any kind.
BY the meer appearance of idolatry, I underſtand not external, or meerly corporeal idolatry, of which I have before ſpoken. For this differs from that on this manner: That is an outward ſign of inward worſhip, tho it be but ſeeming or feigned; but this is only an appearance of being ſuch a ſign, when it is not.
Query about incurvation towards the Altar, or Communion-Table, Whether it give not an appearance of idolatry before the Vulgar, and thoſe that are leſs accurate in diſtinguiſhing between an object to which, and toward which?
Query much more about directing worſhip towards a Crucifix or other pictures, tho but as to objects of remembrance.
The ſame appearance may be in the mixing of expreſſions of veneration to Saints or Angels amidſt the worſhip of God, tho they be not thoſe expreſſions that are appropriated to Gods worſhip, but only ſuch as are common to the worſhip due to God and the creatures. There may be indeed a notorious ſignifying of the difference of our veneration towards them, from what is due to God. Howbeit for fear of ſcandal, it may be better wholly forborn.
Alſo the like appearance may be in bowing to a King or Potentate amidſt the Worſhip of God, except time, cuſtom, and manner of doing, do notoriouſly notifie the diſtinction.
Alſo when that which is a common expreſſion both of Civil and Religious honour, ſhall be made by a King to be a ſymbol of giving divinee honour to him, if one uſe that expreſſion towards him or his image with a civil intent, without proteſting againſt the idolatrous uſe thereof.
§ 21. Whether a courſe of Idolatry in what kind ſoever, infer a ſtate of damnation.
THE meaning of this Queſtion is, Whether all Idolatry be mortal ſin, not only in reſpect of deſert, but exiſtence, as ſins whoſe ordinary habitual practice denies the being of grace, and preſence of the ſanctifying Spirit.
That all idolatry in whatſoever degree, is not of this nature, is plain. For idolatry in general is the giving of that honour to the creature, which is due to the Creator alone; and this lies not only in ſolemn avowed worſhip, but in the affection of the heart. There are Idola ſeculi, as well as Idola templi. And it is too common among the true worſhippers of God, to rob him of his honour, and to place it upon the creature, and that habitually, as on a Child, or Wealth, &c. tho only in a mortified, and not in a prevalent degree. The remainders of covetouſneſs, which is idolatry, is a witneſs hereof.
And if this may be in reference to the idols of the heart, why not alſo in reference to the idols of the Templ…? Nay, more eaſily may it be in this later, than in the former reſpect, in ſome devout perſons that live in darker times and places, becauſe it may proceed not from the love of the creature, more than God; but meerly from ignorance and error about the way of Divine Worſhip.
Wherefore I doubt not, but many holy Souls in darker Ages & Countries, have been habitually or cuſtomarily guilty of a lower kind of Idolatry in making Idols to themſelves, not ſimply as God, but foreign. And the exceſſive honour they gave to the creature, did not diſtroy the ſincerity of their Devotion towards God, nor deny their unfeigned giving of the higheſt honour to him alone. For ſuch we now ſpeak of, may heartily and prevalently own the true God, and all the eſſentials of Religion, and ſo they may be of the true Church of God, as True is taken for the eſſence, and not for the integral perfectneſs and healthfulneſs of the Church.