Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Part 2 · Chapter 3

Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Part 2 · Chapter 3

p. 670CHAP. III. Of the Sense of the second Commandment.

HAving endeavoured, with so much care,§. 1. to give a just and true account of the Controversie between us, as to the Worship of Images, and therein shewed from the Doctrine and Practice of the Roman Church; 1. That they set up Images in Churches over Altars, purposely for worship. 2. That they consecrate those Images with solemn prayers for that purpose. 3. That they use all the Rites of Worship to them which the Heathen Idolaters used to their Images, such as bowings, prostrations, Lights, Incense, and praying. 4. That they make solemn Processions in honour of Images, carrying them with as much Pomp and Ceremony as ever the Heathens did their Idols; The Question now is, whether these Acts of Worship towards Images were unlawful only to Heathens and Iews; but are become p. 671lawful to Christians? But if these Acts of Worship be now equally unlawful to us, as to them, then Christians performing them, are liable to the same charge that the Iews and Heathens were; and if the Scripture calls that Idolatry in them, it must be so in Christians too, as much as Murder, or Theft, or Adultery is the same in all, for the words of the Law of God makes no more difference as to one, than as to the other. We are therefore to enquire on what account the Sense of this Law is supposed to be consistent with the practice of the same things among Christians, which were utterly forbidden by it to Iews and Heathens: The words of the Law are these, Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image, nor the Likeness of any Thing which is in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, or in the Waters under the Earth; Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them; for I the Lord thy God am a Iealous God, &c.

My Adversary T. G. denies, that God herein did forbid himself to be worshipped by a Crucifix, or such like sacred Image; p. 672and he asserts, that the design of the Law is only to forbid the Worship of Idols. The first part, T. G. p. 38, 39.he saith, toucheth not the worship of Images, nor of God himself by them, but only the making them; the second forbids indeed in express terms to bow our selves down to the Images themselves, but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by them. To bow our selves down to the Images themselves, without any relation to God, is by the concession of all to worship them instead of God; The Iews we know did worship God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubims, and yet they did not worship them instead of God; therefore, p. 49.he asserts, that by Image an Idol is to be understood, and that by Idol such an Image as is made to represent for worship a figment that hath no real Being; and by similitude, an Image or resemblance of some real thing, but falsely imagined to be a God. This is the sense which T. G. gives of the second Commandment. But if I can make it appear,

1. That there is no reason to take the word he translates Idol here, for the representation of a meer figment set up for worship, and that if it were so taken, it would not excuse them.

p. 6732. That the worship of God before the Ark and the Cherubims was of a different nature from the Worship of Images here forbidden, and that the sense of the Law doth exclude all worship of Images; then this interpretation of T. G. will appear to be very false and groundless.

1. That there is no reason to understand,§. …, what we render Image, of such an Idol as represents a meer figment set up for worship. If there were any colour of Reason for such an acception of the word Idol here, it must either be, 1. From the natural importance of the word; or, 2. From the use of it in Scripture; or 3. From the consent of the Fathers, or 4. From some Definition of the Church. But I shall shew that there is no ground for affixing this sense to the Commandment from any one of these.

1. Not from the natural importance of the word. He that reads such an express prohibition in a divine Law, of something so displeasing to God, that he annexes a very severe sanction to it, had need be very well satisfied about the sense he gives to the words of it, lest he incurr the wrath of God, and be found a perverter of his Law. If a man should reject all humane p. 674Authority, because the First Commandment saith, Thou shalt have no other Elohim besides me; but in Scripture, Magistrates and Iudges are called Elohim, therefore it is unlawful to own any civil Magistrates; he would have much more to say than T. G. and his Brethren have in restraining the sense of the Law about Images to such Idols as are only representations of Imaginary Beings. For the Original word hath no manner of tendency that way, it signifying any thing that is carved or cut out of wood or stone; and as I told T. G. before, it is no less than forty several times rendred by the LXX. by foreign, and but thrice by foreign, and which is very observable, although Exod. 20.4. they render it foreign, yet in the repetition of the Law, Deut. 5.8. the Alexandrian MS. hath it foreign, and Deut. 4.16. in some copies of the LXX. the same word is translated foreign, and Isaiah 40.18. they translate it by foreign, which is properly an Image, and the Vulgar Latin it self useth Idolum, Sculptile, and Imago (Isa. 44.9, 10, 13.) all to express the same thing. To this T. G. replyes,T. G. p. 54, 55. that the LXX. generally translating it foreign, had some particular reason to render it Idol here; and because p. 675this is a word of stricter signification, it ought to regulate the larger; and in the other places, he saith, there is still some term or clause restraining the words to such a graven thing or Image, as is made to be compared with God or to be the object of divine worship, that is, to be an Idol. Then it seems a graven Image when it is made the object of Divine worship becomes an Idol in T. G's sense; and yet an Idol in the Commandment is the representation of a meer Figment; but might not that be the sense of an Idol in this place, which he grants is meant in another? where the words are express concerning the representation of God, as in Isaiah 40.18. And if he allows this to be the meaning of an Idol in the Commandment, I will grant that the LXX had a particular reason to render Pesel by foreign here. For Aquinas well observes,Aq. 3. q. 25. art. 3. ad 1. that this Commandment doth not forbid the making any sculpture or similitude, sed facere adorandam, to make it for worship; because it follows, thou shalt not fall down to them and worship them. And Montanus expresses the sense of the Commandment after this manner;Montan. de Gen. & Regen. Adam. l. 4. c. 9. simulathrum divinum nullo pacto conflato. Signa cultûs causa ne facito; and Nicolaus Faber p. 676(both learned men of the Roman Church.) Fa…ri opuscul. p. 97.Sculptilibus nè flecte genu, pictaeve tabellae. and again, Non pictum sculptúmve puta venerabile quidquam. If this be T. G's sense of an Idol, I freely yield to him that the LXX. had very good reason so to render Pesel in this place, where it is supposed to be an object of divine worship. But how can this agree with what T. G. saith, that the Law speaks not one word of the unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by an Image? For doth not the Law condemn the worship of an Idol? And doth not T. G. say, that an Image when it is made an object of Divine worship becomes an Idol? And doth it not then follow that the Law in express terms doth condemn the Worship of God by such an Image? Nay, is it not the selfsame T. G. that saith,T.G. p. 96. that the making such Images as are conceived to be proper Likenesses or representations of the Divinity, p. 677is against the Nature and unalterable Law of God? But what Law of God is there that doth forbid such Images, if it be not this? And if this Law doth forbid such Images, then the signification of an Idol is not here to be taken for the representation of a Figment, but of the greatest and most real Being in the World. Have not I now far better reason to return his own words upon him,T.G. p. 38. such frequent self contradictions are the natural consequences of a Discourse not grounded upon Truth; and although the Reader may think I take delight to discover them in my Adversary, yet I can assure him it is a much greater grief to me to see so subtle a Wit so often intangled in them? But it may be T. G. thinks to escape by saying, that when he saith an Image being made the object of divine worship is an Idol, he doth not understand it of an Image of God, but when the Image it self is taken for God; which evasion can do him no service; for, 1. He grants that Images which are made for Likenesses of God are condemned by the Law of God, and that they are an infinite disparagement to the Divine Nature. 2. I have at large shewed that in the Roman Church, Images of God and Christ are made the objects of Divine worship. p. 678And 3. That the very Heathens did not take the Images themselves for Gods. T. G. p. …1.4. The place he answers, Isa. 40.18. doth imply that the Images of the Divinity are therefore condemned, because nothing can be made like unto God. But of that afterwards.

Let us then suppose that the LXX. had particular reason to render Pesel by foreign in the Commandment, §. 3.yet what is this, to the representation of a meer figment for worship? Doth foreign so properly, so naturally, so necessarily signifie a figment, that it cannot be taken in any other sense? I see T. G. makes only use of good Catholick Lexicons (such a one as that called Catholicon which Erasmus is so pleasant with) that assure him what the sense of a word must be in spight of all use of it by prophane and heretical Authors: thus simulachrum must signifie only Heathen Images, and foreign, a Sphinx, a Triton, or Centaure; and why so? did it alwaies signifie so? did all Greek Authors use it only in that sense? Doth the Etymology of it imply it? no, none of all these: what then is the reason that a word should be so restrained against the former and common acception of it? The reason is very plain; for if it p. 679be taken for the representation of real Beings, then for all that we know, the Image of the Trinity, or of the B. Virgin, or of any other worshipped in the Roman Church may prove Idols; and therefore this must be the sense, because the Church of Rome cannot be guilty of Idolatry. This is the real Truth of the case, but it is too great Truth to be owned. Only Bellarmin (who often speaks freelier than the rest) confesses,Bellarm. de. Imag. l. 2. c. 5. their design herein is to shew that the Images worshipped in the Church of Rome cannot be Idols, because they are representations of real Beings. A very miserable shift! as will appear by the examination of it. Let us therefore see whether there be any pretence from the use and importance of the Word, for restraining the sense of an Idol, to an imaginary representation. And I am so far from T. G's opinion, that by the best enquiry I can make, the proper signification of foreign is, a representation of something that really is. So Hesychius interprets it by foreign and foreign; and the old Greek and Latin Glossaries render foreign and simulachrum by each other (and notwithstanding T. G's severity against me for translating simulachra Images, I can make it appear from some of the most p. 680authentick Writers of the Roman Church, that they do not scruple calling such Images as they worship simulacra, I leave T. G. then to judge whether they be not Idols too) Isidore makes Idolum to be properly Simulachrum quod humana effigie factum & consecratum est: an Image made and consecrated in the figure of a man: as Plutarch calls the Image of Sylla foreign;Catech. Rom. explic. praec. 1. n. 10 Onuphr. de 7 urb. Eccl. de Basil. Lateran. Carol. Borrom. in Concil. Mediol. 8. p. 1. Isid. Orig. l. 8. c. 11. Plut. vit. Syllae. and Porphyrie in the beginning of the Life of Plotinus, when Amelius desired a Picture of him, he answered, Is it not enough to carry such an Idolum about me, but I must leave foreign an Image of an Image? So we find Idolum used in the Chaldaick Oracles, foreign, where Psellus observes,Psell. in. Orac. Chaldaic. p. 53. That according to the Platonists, the mind is said to be foreign the Image of God; and the rational soul, the Image of the mind, and the irrational, the Image of the rational; and nature of the irrational soul; and the body of the Image of Nature; and Matter of the Body. But Isidore applying Idolum to an Ecclesiastical sense, supposeth not only representation, but consecration to be necessary to it; wherein he follows p. 681Tertullian, Tertul. de Idol. c. 4.who speaking of the created Beings that were worshipped, saith, Eorum Imagines Idola; imaginum consecratio Idololatria: Their Images were Idols, and the consecration of them is Idolatry: and a little before, he saith, That all service of an Idol is Idolatry, c. 3.and every representation is an Idol; Omnis forma vel formula Idolum se dici exposcit; For, saith he, foreign is from foreign which signifies a form or representation of a thing. Or as the Greek Etymologist thinks it comes immediately from foreign to resemble. Among the Philosophers it was taken for the Image of things conveyed to our sight, so Diogenes Laertius saith, That Democritus held Vision to be performed foreign by the incursion of Images; foreign saith Plutarch;Diog. Vit. Democr. Cicer. ad Attic. l. 2. p. 3. Plut. de placit. Philos. l. 4. c. 13, 14. Empedocles saith he, joyned raies to the Images, (foreign:) and Democritus and Epicurus said that reflection in a glass was performed foreign by the subsistence of the Images. Cicero, Lucretius, and S. Augustin render these foreign by Imagines; Catius the Epicurean called them Spectra; Macrobius Simulacra;Lucret. l. 4. Cic. ep. l. 15. ep. 16. August. ep. 56. Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 14. but all of them understood the most proper representations of things to our sight; which Epicurus was so far from thinking that they represented p. 682things that were not, that he made them infallible criteria of the truth of things. The Poets, and some other Authors made use of foreign to signifie Spectres and Apparitions; but still they supposed these to be the representations of some real Beings; So Homer calls the soul of Elpenor that appeared to Ulysses foreign;Odyss. foreign. v. 83. but Eustathius there observes, That these foreign were exactly like the Persons they represented as to Age, Stature, Habit, and every thing: and so Homer himself expresses it, saying that Apollo made an foreign a representation of Aeneas, Iliad. foreign. v. 450.foreign. So in another place speaking of Minerva's making a representation of Iphthima, Odyss. foreign. v. 796.foreign.

By which we see that the very Poetical use of the word, for a Spectre, doth imply an exact resemblance to some real Being which it represents: from whence then hath this signification of an Idol come into the Roman Church, that it must signifie a representation of something that is not? but from whenceoever it comes, p. 683we are sure it is neither from the natural importance, nor the use of the word among Greek Authors.

2. Not from the use of it in Scripture. §. 4.The Author of the Book of wisdom gives this account of the beginning of the worship of Idols, Wisd. c. 14. v. 15.Wis 14:15viz. That Fathers having lost their Children, made Images of them, and appointed solemnities to be kept before them, as if they were Gods; then by degrees, Princes passed these things into Laws, and made men to worship graven Images: and thus either out of affection or flattery the worship of Idols began: where it is observable, that he makes the representation of Persons, that were really in Being, to have been the first Idols: and he distinguishes the bringing in of Idols from the worship of the Elements, Ch. 13. v. 6, &c.or heavenly bodies; and he thinks these much more excusable than those who worship the Work of mens hands; the folly of which he there elegantly describes; but he still supposes these Idols to have the resemblance either of man or some living creature. v. 13, 14.To the same purpose Diophantus the Lacedemonian in Fulgentius, Fulgent. Mythol. l. 1.saith, That Syrophanes the Egyptian, being greatly afflicted for the loss of his son made an Image of him, p. 684and all his servants to please him did what they could to adorn this Image, and some when they had offended ran to it as a Sanctuary; from hence, saith he, came the worship of Idols. And Eutychius gives the like account of the Original of Idols, Eutych. Annal. Tom. 1. p. 56.That when a great man was dead, they set up his Image on his Sepulchre; from whence the World was filled with Idols, i.e. with Images of Men, Women, and Children: this he thinks began among the Chaldeans and Egyptians; but Herodotus saies the Egyptians were the first who made Images of their Gods: Herod. l. 2.Lucian, Lucian. de Deâ Syr.that they borrowed this custom from the Assyrians. Epiphanius makes the beginning of Idolatry to be in the time of Seruch;Epiph. l. 1. Sect. 8. but he saith, that it went no farther than to Pictures in his time; and came to Images and Statues in the time of Nahor. Cedrenus saith,Cedren. hist. Comp. p. 45. That Seruch and his Companions made Statues for the honour of those who had done any famous action; which their posterity misunderstanding, worshipped them as Gods. Thus far we find that the first Idols that are supposed to have been in the world, were the representations of things that had real Beings. The only people that could be suspected to be meant in Scripture as those who had such Idols as were p. 685representations of what had no real Beings, must be the Phoenicians and Egyptians: who besides the worship of Beasts, and the Images of them, had many extravagant Images. Sanchoniathon saith, Taautus made the Images in Phoenicia with Wings, Saturn with four, Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 1. p. 39.and the rest of the Gods with two. And Dagon, and Atergatis or Derceto, is supposed to be an Image, whereof the upper part is of humane shape, and the lower of a Fish; among the Egyptians, one of their Images had the face of a Ram, and another of a Dog, &c. If these be the Idols T.G. thinks are prohibited in the Second Commandment, I desire him to consider, 1. Whether the Images of humane shape were not prohibited by the Law equally with these? or whether it were lawful to worship such Images as did represent real beings in that manner, that it was unlawful to worship those Images that were only Chimaera's and fancies of mens brains? If not, this distinction serves to no purpose at all. To make this more plain, I ask T. G. whether it were unlawful to worship God among the Egyptians under the representation of an Image with the body of a man, and the Head of a Hawk, which was a representation of something that had no real p. 686Being just like it; but it was lawful to worship Him with the Image of a man, as Eusebius saith,Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 11. that Oneph or the Creator of the world was worshipped under such a representation among them? It is certain, that both these sorts of Images were among the Egyptians, and according to T. G.'s notion, one of these was an Idol, and the other not. But is it possible for men of common understandings, to suppose that God by the words of the Law hath forbidden the one, and not the other; when both were intended to represent the same Being? But according to this sense, the Inhabitants of Thebais, of whom Plutarch saith,Plut. de Isid. & Osiri. p. 357. That they only worshipped Oneph the immortal God, or the Creator under the Image of a man, were altogether as innocent, as those in the Roman Church, who worship God under a like representation. And can it enter into T. G.'s head, that God should, notwithstanding all the words of this Commandment, allow such a kind of worship of Images as was received among the Egyptians? But if this were condemned in them, then if the Second Commandment be in force, the like worship must be condemned in the Church of Rome. 2. That there is a distinction to be made between such Images as have no p. 687real resemblance in nature, and such Images which represent that which hath no real Being; for although the Phoenician and Egyptian Images had nothing in nature which answered to their figure, yet there might be something which answered their representation, i. e. they were only Symbolical Images, and the Nature of those Symbols being understood, there was no difference as to matter of worship between these and other Images. As for instance, a Sphinx is one of those Images which T. G. would have to be understood for an Idol in the Second Commandment; supposing then that I allow him (as a Sphinx was painted among the Egyptians with wings, and the face a man, and the body of a Lion) that it was the representation of something that had no real Being agreeable to it; yet Clemens Alexandrinus saith,Clem. Alex. Str. 5. That their design was to represent hereby that God was both to be loved and feared; now this Image did Symbolically represent a real object of worship; and therefore could be no Idol even in T. G.'s sense. So Kircher saith,Pignor. exposit. Mensae Isiacae. p. 34. Kircher. Sphinx. Mystagoga par. 2. c. 3. one of the chief and most common Images of the Egyptians was a winged Globe with a Serpent passing through the middle of it; by the Globe, saith he, they represented the Divine nature, p. 688by the Serpent, the spreading of life, and by the wings, the Spirit of the World. Here is an Image that hath no real Being correspondent to it, and yet it represents the infinite nature, and power, and goodness of God: Sometimes, saith he, they represented Providence by a Scepter with a Dogs head within a Semicircle; by which, and innumerable other waies they represented the hidden Mysteries of the Divine Being: and they thought this Symbolical way most pleasing to God; and was certainly farthest from that danger which T. G. thinks to be most considerable in Images, viz. making men Anthropomorphites. To avoid which, the Egyptians generally mixed the figures of men and beasts together, not so much to shew the communion of nature, as Porphyrie imagines,Porphyr. …e abstin. l. 4. as that these were meer Symbolical Images, and not intended for any proper Likenesses, and therefore according to T. G.'s principles, those which he calls Idols, were more innocent, than those which he calls Images; for the one might bring men to erroneous conceits of the Deity; but the other being Symbolical were not apt to do it. Plutarch saith,Plut. de Isid. & Osir. p. 355. That when they represented Mercury by the Image of a man, with the head of a Dog, p. 689they only intended thereby to represent Care, Watchfulness, and Wisdom: and that they represented Osiris by a Scepter with an eye in it, by a Hawk, and by the figure of a man; now by Osiris, p. 371.he tells us, They meant the most powerful God, and so doth Apuleius; and Tacitus saith,Apul. Metamor. l. 11. Tacit. hist. l. 4. The same God which was called Jove among others, was called Osiris by them. These Images, and many other of very strange shapes, with a mixture of very different forms, are supposed, in the Mensa Isiaca, and the Egyptian Obelisks, to represent the most true and perfect Being in regard of his nature and production of things;Oedip. Aegypt. Tom. 3. as Athanas. Kircher hath endeavoured at large to shew. If therefore the Egyptians did make such Symbolical figures with respect to the most real Being; and yet these Images were Idols properly so called: then it follows, that some representations of the true God are Idols, and condemned in the Second Commandment.

3. The Scripture uses the word Idol for the representation of all sorts of things which are made the objects of worship. Thus in the first place the LXX. makes use of the word foreign, it is taken for the Teraphim of Laban, Gen. 31.19, 34, 35. which are supposed to be of humane shape; p. 690not only from the general opinion of Jewish Writers; but because of the mistake of the Teraphim for David, 1 Sam. 19.13. The Images of Baal are called Idols, 2 Chron. 17.3. Jer. 9 13. and what the LXX. render, 2 Kings 11.18. foreign the Images of Baal; in the parallel place, 2 Chron. 23.17. they express by foreign the Idols of Baal. Whether by Baal be understood the Assyrian Belus, or the Phoenician Beel Samen, i. e. whether a representation of a man, or of the Sun, we are sure this was an Image of a real Being, and yet the LXX. call it an Idol. Idols are joyned with Molten Gods by the LXX. Levit. 19.4. i. e. what ever Images are set up for Divine worship: And all the Gods of the Heathen are said to be Idols, 1 Chron. 16.26. but they were not all meer figments of mens brains, being either dead men that were worshipped (as S. Hierome saith,Hieron. in Isai. c. 37. l. 11.Isa 37 by the Idols of the Heathens we understand imagines Mortuorum the representations of dead men) or the works of the Creation, especially the heavenly bodies, which was the most early and the most common Idolatry of the Eastern parts, and most frequently condemned in Scripture.

p. 691If it be said, That although they had real Beings, yet their Deities were fictitious, I answer, 1. That is not to the purpose; for the question is, whether the proper signification of an Idol be the representation of meer imaginary Beings, Sphinxes, Tritons, Centaures? but what a ridiculous answer is this to that question, to say that although their being real, yet their Deity is fictitious? for this is to grant, that Idols are not representations of imaginary Beings, but of imaginary Deities: which I readily grant. 2. This will equally hold against all representations of created Beings that have divine worship given to them; for by giving them any part of divine worship they are so far made Gods; but since they are not truly so, they are still but the representations of imaginary Deities, although they be of real Saints, or Angels. In which sense the Scripture calls them foreign and foreign nothings, and vanities, and S. Paul saith, That an Idol is nothing in the world; not because it represented that which was not; but because neither the Image nor the thing represented were any real Deity.

4. The far greatest part of the Idols expressly mentioned in Scripture were the representations of real Beings: not only p. 692that the things had Subsistence which were represented by them, but that the very Images were of some creatures existing in the world. Lyra saith,Lyra in Lev. 18.Lev 18 That Moloch was in the fashion of a man; and so Benjamin Tudelensis supposes,Benjam. Itiner. p. 33. ed L' Emper. when he saith, That two femal Images stood of either side of him. Kircher shews,Kirch. Pantheon Hebraeorum. from Baal Aruch, that Asima was worshipped in the form of a Goat: and from other Jewish Authors, That Nibcas had the figure of a Dog, Thartak of an Ass, Adramelech of a Mule, and Anamelech of a Horse; Bel and Nebo of Serpents and Beasts; Succoth Benoth of a Hen and Chickens; Astaroth of Sheep. Will T. G. say that these were not Idols, because they were Images of real Beings? If he doth, he must excuse the grossest Idolatry condemned in Scripture; if he doth not, he must then confess, that this is not the notion of an Idol in the sense of Scripture, viz. a representation of what hath no existence, but in the imagination, as Sphinxes, Tritons, Centaures, and the like.

3. But T. G. would have us believe, that this is the sense of the Fathers; §. 4.for he quotes Origen and Theodoret for this p. 693interpretation of the second Commandment. It is well known that Origen had a great many of T. G.'s Idols in his head, viz. imaginations of things that were not; and therefore it is ill fixing upon an interpretation of Scripture of which he was the first Author. But I have proved at large from the unanimous consent of the Fathers in charging the Arians with Idolatry, and the Gnosticks in worshipping the Images of Christ with divine honours, that this could not be their sense. For if this were the notion of an Idol, to represent what hath no existence, neither the Arians nor the Gnosticks could be accused of worshipping an Idol; but the Fathers do in express terms call Christ an Idol, if he had divine worship given him, and yet were not God. And it is farther observable, (1.) That the second Council of Nice confesses,Concil. Nicaen. 2. Act. 6. p. 411.Acts 6 that the Arrians were justly condemned for Idolatry, not only by one or two Fathers, but by the Catholick Church; from whence it is evident, that the Catholick Church did declare that T. G.'s sense of an Idol is false. (2.) That when the Fathers repeat the second Commandment, instead of foreign, they use other words, which they would never have done, if they had thought there had been any peculiar importance p. 694of the word Idol in that place different from Image. Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Iew, Iust. Martyr. dial cum Tryph. p. 321.repeats the words of the Law thus, foreign, Thou shalt not make any Image or similitude. Clemens Alex. Clem. Alex. Str. l. 3. p. 441.makes the thing forbidden to be foreign, to worship graven Images; and the thing required to be, not to make foreign, either a graven or a molten Image. And even Origen himself, layes so little weight on his observation about foreign, that when he gives an account of this Law in his Books against Celsus, Orig. c. Cels. l. 4. p. 182. Tertull. de spect. c. 23.he never mentions it, but useth foreign; and saith, the meaning of the Law was to forbid any kind of Images. Tertullian saith, that God hereby did forbid all kind of similitude, quanto magis Imaginis suae, how much more any Image of himself: and elsewhere he makes an Idol and an Image the same thing;De Idol. c. 3, 4. and in another place, that God did prohibit all similitudes to prevent any occasion of Idolatry; for, he adds, thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them. C. Marcion. l. 2. c. 22.Therefore, saith he, the brazen Serpent was not against the Law, being not for worship, but for a Remedy; nor the Cherubim, being meerly Ornaments, and therefore not falling under p. 695the Reason of the Law, and afterwards he reckons up the several terms of the Law, by Images, Statues and Similitudes. c. Marcion. l. 4. c. 22.S. Cyprian interprets the meaning of the word Idols in the Commandment,Cyprian. de exh. Martyr. c. 1. when he saith, they are such as the Psalmist speaks of, that have mouths and speak not, &c. which is certainly meant of Images of humane shape; and in another place, he saith, the Heathen Idols were made, De Idol. vanit. c. 1.ad defunctorum vultus per imaginem detinendos: to preserve the countenances of the dead by Images: which are almost the same words with those of Minucius Felix speaking of the same subject,Minuc. Fel. p. 21. while they desired, saith he, defunctos Reges in imaginibus videre, to see their Princes Images and to retain their memories in their Statues, that which at first was intended for their comfort, became an object of worship. So Lactantius saith,Lact. l. 2. c. 2, 3. that their Simulachra, their Idols, in T. G's sense, were either the monuments of the dead, or of the absent; and he makes the sense of the Law to be nihil colendum esse quod oculis mortalibus cernitur, nothing to be worshipped that can be seen. S. Augustin giving the sense of this commandment saith,S. Aug. ep. 119. c. 11. that therein any similitude of God is forbidden to be worshipped; and therefore surely not the meer p. 696figments of mens brains, or representations of Sphinxes, and Tritons, and Centaurs.

(3.) That those very persons who put that sense upon the word Idol, do yet make the sense of the Commandment to be against the practice of the Roman Church. For both Origen and Theodoret make it unlawful by the force of this commandment,Orig. in. Exod. hom. 8. Theod. in Exod. q. 38. to perform any external act of worship towards any representation whatsoever: and the difference they both put between worship and service is,Orig. Exhort. ad Martyr. ed. Wetsten. p. 167. that the latter is that of the mind, and the former of the body; but both, they say, are here forbidden; and therefore I cannot imagine what comfort T. G. can have in supposing their Images are not forbidden under the name of Idols, if they be forbidden under the name of similitudes, and it be as unlawful to worship them under one name as under the other? Our quarrel is not with them, meerly on the account of the word Idolatry; but it is on the account of their worships being contrary to the express Law of God; and whether it be forbidden under the name of Idol, or similitude, it is all one to us, as long as the worship they practise, is as plainly against the sense of this Commandment, as Perjury, p. 697Adultery, or Theft is against the other Commandments: and that even in the opinion of Origen and Theodoret themselves. Besides, if we look into the sense of these two Authors, we shall find their meaning was not, as T. G. imagines, to make those only Idols that were made to represent fictions of the brain; but to shew that God had forbidden all sorts of Images, Symbolical as well as others. For, saith Origen, Moses being skilled in all the Wisdom of the Aegyptians; did forbid those things which are used in their secret and hidden Mysteries; i. e. their Symbolical and Hieroglyphical representations: and Theodoret particularly mentions the Aegyptian Images, with the face of a Dog, and the Head of an Ox; whereby it is plain that they thought Moses by this Law intended to forbid all manner of representations of things in order to worship, whether it were by Hieroglyphicks, or by proper similitudes. So that, neither Origen, nor Theodoret by this interpretation do give the least countenance to the practice of the Roman Church.

4. I shall in the last place shew,§. 5. that this interpretation of the term Idol is overthrown by the most learned persons of p. 698the Roman Church; who do confess that the Images of real Beings may become Idols. And that in these following cases, 1. When proper Latria is given to an Image; that is truly Idolatry, saith Bellarmin, Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 24.when proper Latria is given to any thing besides God; and it is not only Idolatry when an Idol is worshipped without God, but when an Idol is worshipped together with God; and from hence he concludes, that no Image ought to be worshipped with proper Latria; which conclusion cannot be of any force, unless such an Image becomes an Idol: but he goes farther, and saith, that those who worshipped an Image of Christ with divine honours, although it be for the sake of Christ, and not of the Image, did commit Idolatry; for, saith he, although a man pretends to give these honours for the sake of God or Christ, yet in as much as he gives divine honours to them, he doth really give it for themselves, although he denies it in words, (which is a very fair confession) and from hence those were condemned as hereticks, who gave divine worship to the Image of Christ; as appears by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, S. Augustin, and Damascen. According to which concession, the dispute cannot any longer be, whether the Images p. 699of Christ or the Saints be Idols or no, if we can prove that divine honours are given to them by the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church. And even T. G. himself saith,T.G. p. 162. Is not the giving Divine Worship to a Creature the same as to make it a false God? And is it not Heathen Idolatry to worship a false God? From whence it follows, that it is the Worship makes any thing an Idol, and not the representation of an Imaginary Being. 2. When Images are worshipped as true representations of the Divine Nature. So Sanders expresly;Sander. de honor. Imag. adorat. c. 4. init. He that goes about to represent the invisible Nature of God by an Image, sins grievously and makes an Idol; and he that proposes such an Image for worship commits Idolatry: but such an Image is no representation of a meer figment of mens brains; but a vain endeavour to set forth the most perfect Being. If he had only said it had been a foolish and vain attempt, he had only expressed the impossibility of the thing; but when he makes such an Image an Idol when it is proposed for worship, he doth imply, that an imperfect representation of an infinite Nature when it is worshipped becomes an Idol. This is not to be avoided by saying, that such an Image is a false representation: for it is no otherwise p. 700false than every Image of a man is so; for no Image can represent the invisible Nature of a Man. And it adds much force to this, that the Author of the Greek Excerpta about the use of Images, Biblioth. Patr. To. 4. p. 734.from the Nicene Council and the Writers of that time, saith, that the design of the second Commandment is against making any Images of God; which he looks on not only as an absurd but a very wicked practice; and which, he saith, was then common among the Aegyptians. 3. When an Image is worshipped for the sake of any sanctity, vertue, or Divinity abiding in it. Whosoever doth so, saith Iacobus Almain, Iacob. Almain. in sentent. l. 3. dist. 9. prope sin.is an Idolater; and so much is implyed in the Council of Trent it self; when it declares, that no worship is to be given to an Image on any such account; if so, then the doing it is a thing forbidden and unlawful; and not only so, but they looked on this as the certain way of putting a difference between Idolatry and their worship; but men may suppose sanctity, vertue, and Divinity to be in an Image of a real Being; and therefore such an Image may be properly an Idol: and so Vasquez confesses that this is Idolatry to give worship, Vasq. q. 108. c. 9. art. 3.although it be inferiour, to any inanimate being (as an Image is) for the sake of any thing belonging p. 701to it, or inherent in it. Thus I have shewed that there is no pretence to excuse the worship of Images from being Idolatry and a breach of the second Commandment, because an Idol is only a representation, of only imaginary beings, as T. G. saith, such as Sphinxes, Tritons, Centaurs or the like.

2. I now come to shew more particularly what the sense of the Law is, § 6.by considering what T. G. saith in answer to what I had formerly said about it: the original Question between us, was, whether God by this Law hath forbidden the giving any worship to himself by an Image? No, saith T. G. he hath not; but what he forbids there is only giving his worship to Idols. To resolve this Question, being about the sense of a Law, I proposed three wayes. 1. From the Terms in which the Law is expressed. 2. From the Reason annexed to it. 3. From the judgement of the Law-giver himself. But before T. G. comes to the handling of these,T. G. p. 39, 40, he lays down some arguments of his own to shew, that God did not intend by this Law, to forbid the worshipping of himself by an Image, but only the worship of Idols. 1. Because the Iews did worship God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubim. p. 7022. Because S. Austin makes this Commandment to be only an explication of the first. To these I shall give a distinct answer.

1. T. G. on all occasions,T. G. p. 40, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 77, 79, 81, 103, 206, 207. lays great weight on the worshipping of God before the Ark and the Cherubims: which he makes to be the parallel of their worshipping God by bowing or kneeling before a Crucifix; to which instance I had given this Answer, 1. That the Iews only directed their worship towards the place where God had promised to be signally present among them; which signifies no more to the worship of Images, than our lifting our eyes to heaven doth when we pray; because God is more especially present there. 2. That though the Cherubims were there, yet they were alwayes hid from the sight of the people, the High-Priest himself going into the Holy of Holies but once a year; and that the Cherubims were no representations of God, but his Throne was between them on the Mercy Seat; but that they were Hieroglyphical Figures of Gods own appointing, which the Iews know no more than we do: which are plain arguments they were never intended for objects of worship, for then they must not have p. 703been meer appendices to another thing, but would have been publickly exposed as the Images are in the Roman Churches, and their form as well known as any of the B. Virgin. But T. G. still insists upon it,T. G. p. 206. that the Reverence which the Iews shewed to the Ark and Cherubims, was of the same nature with the worship they give to Images; and he thinks, I have not answered the argument he brought for it. Therefore to give him all reasonable satisfaction, I shall 1. Compare their worship of Images and these together. 2. Examine all the colour of argument he produces for the worship of these among the Iews.

1. For comparing their worship of Images, with the Iews worshipping God before the Ark and the Cherubims. As to their worship of Images, I need only repeat; 1. That they are publickly set up and exposed for worship in their Churches, and over their Altars. 2. That they are consecrated for this end. 3. That the people in their devotions bow to them, kneel and pray before them with all expressions of Reverence. 4. That the Councils of Nice and Trent have decreed that worship is to be given to them on the account of their representation; because the honour p. 704given to them passes to the exemplar 5. That the Images themselves on the account of their representation are a proper object of inferiour worship, and that considered together with the exemplar they make up one entire object of supreme worship; in these their Divines generally agree, and condemn the opinion of those who say, That they are only to worship the exemplar before the Image; as contrary to the Decrees of Councils. But if the Ark and Cherubims were neither set up, nor exposed, nor consecrated as objects of worship; if the People of the Iews never thought them to be so, nor worshipped them as such; if the utmost were only that, which the Divines of the Roman Church condemn, viz. making them only a circumstance and not an object of worship, then I hope the difference will appear so great that T. G. himself may be ashamed of insisting so much on so weak a parallel.

§. 7.In external Acts of worship these two things are to be distinguished, (1.) The Object of worship, or the thing to which that worship is given. (2.) The local circumstance of expressing that worship towards that object. That there is a real p. 705difference between the object and local circumstance of worship, by our lifting up our hands and eyes towards heaven when we worship God; but no man that understands our Religion can say, that we worship the heavens, but only God as present in them; wherefore God is the object, and looking up to heaven, barely the circumstance. When we praise any person for some excellency in him, if he be present, we naturally turn our face towards him, to let others by that circumstance understand, of whom we speak; but which way soever we looked, the same person would be the object of our praise; when we do this at anothers mentioning his name, no man of common understanding will say, that the praise is directed to the very name of the Person; and if a man makes a Panegyrick upon another, and reads it out of a Book, no one suspects that his praise is therefore directed to his Book. Thus it is in the acts of worship, the Object is that Being to which the worship is directed; but because external Acts must have some local circumstances, by the position of our countenances, and the tendency of our posture either towards Heaven, or towards some place as the more immediate Symbol of a divine presence, the difference p. 706is apparent between such a direction of the act towards a place, and the direction of it towards an Object, in case it can be made appear that may be a place of worship, which is not an object of it. For which we must consider, (1.) That the object of worship is that to which the worship is given either for its own sake, or for the sake of that which it represents; but a local circumstance doth only circumscribe the material act of worship within certain bounds. And the proper object of worship is a Person, either really present, or represented as present. The Idolaters who worshipped their Images as Gods (if at least any considerable number of them ever did so) it was upon this account, that they supposed some Spirit to be incorporated in the Image, and so to make together with it a Person fit to receive worship. Those who worshipped the Elements, or heavenly bodies, did it not on the account of the matter whereof they were made; but of those spirits which they believed to rule over those things they worshipped, as I have already shewed in the general discourse. But it is not necessary in order to an object of worship, that the Person be really present; for if men by imagination do suppose him present as represented p. 707by an Image, that makes those who worship that Image perform the very same acts, as if he were actually present; and in the Church of Rome they do make this representation by an Image, a sufficient ground for making that an object of worship; which we say is the very thing forbidden in the Second Commandment, viz. that any Image should be worshipped on the account of what it represents; and therefore it forbids all kind of representations to be worshipped by men: because an Image seems to have such a relation to the thing it represents, that they may pretend they give worship to it on another account than meerly its matter and form, viz. the thing represented by it. Thus when the Reason of the worship of Images is drawn from the exemplar, as it is both in the Councils of Nice and Trent, they thereby shew, that they do make the Image a true object of worship, although the reason of it be drawn from the Person represented. But suppose men worship God towards the West, as the Iews did, or towards the East, as the Christians did; what is there in this that doth represent God to us? what is there that we fix our worship upon, but only himself; God hath no where forbidden men to worship Him towards the place p. 708of His presence; for even our Saviour hath bid us pray, Our Father which art in Heaven; and supposing God had promised a more peculiar presence in His Holy Temple, it was as lawful to worship God towards that, as towards Heaven; but that which God hath strictly forbidden, is the worshipping of any thing on the account of the representation either of himself, or of His creatures; for this doth suppose that Image to be made the object of worship, although it be on the account of what it represents. 2. Supposing the same external acts to be performed towards an Image, and towards a place of Gods particular presence; yet the case is not alike in both these, if those who do them, declare they do them not with a design to worship that place. For to the making any thing an object of worship, there must be some ground to believe that they intend to worship it, either from the nature of their actions, or the doctrine and practice of the Church they live in; but in case it be expressly declared, that what they do, is only intended as a local circumstance, there is no ground to charge them with making it an object of worship. Thus those in the Church of Rome, who declare that they do not worship the Image, but p. 709only worship God before an Image, although they perform the same external acts of worship, yet are condemed of Heresie, because hereby they declare they do not give worship to Images, which is contrary to the decrees of their Councils: Much more certainly will those be condemned by them who declare it unlawful to worship any thing on the account of representation; and that they do only determine the acts of outward worship towards a particular place, without any intention to worship that place, but only to worship God that way. And this was the case of the Iews as to the worshipping of Images, and of God towards the Holy of Holies; they declared it utterly unlawful to do one because God had strictly forbidden it; and they though it as lawful to do the other, because he allowed the practice of it: and it was sufficiently known among the people of the Iews, that they had no intention to worship either the Ark or the Cherubims. 3. Where there is only a local circumstance of worship, the same thing would be worshipped, supposing that circumstance changed; but where any thing is an object of worship, that being changed, the same thing is not worshipped. This makes the difference between p. 710these two easie, and intelligible by all. If a Iew should worship towards the East, or Christians towards the West, the same object of their worship continues still; for they worship the same God both waies; but if the Image of Christ or the B. Virgin be taken away from the Altar, a Papist cannot be said to worship the same thing there, that he did before. Which plainly shews, that there is a real difference between these two; which is of great moment to clear the Iewish worship of God towards his holy place, and to shew how different it was from the worship of Images.

§. 8.2. But T. G. pretends to bring clear Scripture for the Iews worshipping the Ark; Adore ye the foot-stool of God, for it is holy, Psal. 98.5. so all the ancient Fathers, T.G. p. 206.he saith, read it without scruple; and S. Hierome, he saith, confirms it. And why was it placed in the Holy of Holies, and why were the people commanded to adore, or bow down before it, but to testifie their reverence to it? To this I answer, 1. One might venture odds against T. G. that when he quotes all the Fathers for him, he hath very few of his side: Nothing less will content him here than all the Fathers reading it p. 711without scruple, for It is holy, when Lorinus saith,Lorin. in Psal. 99.5.Ps 99:5 That all the Greek Fathers, not one dissenting that he had seen, read it, For He is holy: and among the Latins he confesses, That S. Hierome and S. Augustine both read it so; for, saith S. Augustine, Quis sanctus est in cujus honore ador as scabellum pedum ejus? Genebrard acknowledges likewise, that S. Hierome translates it so, and Suarez yields that not only the Greek, Genebr. in loc. Suarez in 3 ep. q. 54. art. 3.but S. Augustine and S. Hierome read it, For He is holy. 2. Those words do not imply, that the Iews did make the Ark the object of their worship; for the Chaldee Paraphrast renders them, Worship Him in His Sanctuary; and the last verse of the Psalm, where the same sense is repeated, interprets this, Worship at his holy hill, for the Lord our God is holy: where, the holy Mountain is the same with the Foot stool before mentioned: and so Muis confesses,Sim. de Muis in loc. who saith withal, That by the phrase of worshipping His Foot-stool, no more is meant than worshipping God at His Foot-stool: and the Sanctuary, he saith, is called Gods Foot-stool, not only by the Chaldee Paraphrast and Kimchi, but Lament. 2.1. And so Lyra interprets it, Ante scabellum pedum ejus: worship before His Footstool: or worship p. 712at His Footstool, as it is Psalm 182.7. And it would be very strange, if the Psalmist should here propose the footstool for an object of worship to them, when the design of the whole Psalm is to call all Nations to the worship of God, as sitting between the Cherubims, Psal. 99.1. i. e. in His Throne which is surely different from His Footstool. I will not contend with Suarez about the sense of the Footstool of God here mentioned, (although he confesses that Basil and Vatablus understand the Temple by it:) but I will yield him that the Ark is most probably understood by it, because of his sitting between the Cherubims being mentioned before; in which respect the Ark may properly be called his Footstool. For the Cherubims were the Mercabah, or the Divine Chariot, and so called, 1 Chron. 28.18. where the Vulgar Latine renders it Quadriga Cherubim: Iacob. Leon. de Cherubinis.in such a Chariot Pyrrhus Ligorius, Pyrrh. Ligor. de Vehic.the famous Italian Antiquary,Antiq. c. 19. Liv. l. 5. c. 23. saith, The Deities were wont to be drawn: and Livy, and Plutarch take notice of it in Camillus as an extraordinary thing that he made use of such a Triumphal Chariot which had been before looked on as proper to Iove the Father of Gods and Men.Plut. in Camill. p. 132. Such a Triumphal Chariot, I suppose that p. 713to have been in the Holy of Holies, but without any representation of the Divine Majesty, and this Chariot is that we call the Cherubim, and the Ark was a kind of Footstool to the invisible Majesty that sate between the Cherubims, and there delivered his Oracles. Now I appeal to the understanding of any reasonable man, whether God being represented as sitting upon His Triumphal Chariot, without any visible Image of Him, the worship was there to be performed to the invisible Deity, or to the visible Chariot and Footstool? which is all one as to ask whether persons approaching to a Prince on his Throne, are to worship the Prince or his Footstool, or Chair of State? But Lorinus and Suarez say, The Hebrew particle being added to a word implying worship, doth not denote the place but the object of worship; which is sufficiently refuted by those two places before mentioned, viz. the last verse of this Psalm, and Psalm 132.7.3. Those of the Fathers, who understood this expression of the object of worship, do declare by their interpretation that it was not lawful to worship the Ark after that manner. Therefore Lorinus saith, most of the Fathers understood it of the humanity of Christ, as S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, p. 714S. Augustine and others generally after him; and among the Greeks, he reckons S. Athanasius, and S. Chrysostome. But what need all this running so far from the literal sense, in case they had thought the Ark a lawful object of worship? Let S. Augustine speak for the rest,Aug. in Psal. 98.5,Ps 98:5 The Scripture, saith he, elsewhere calls the Earth Gods Footstool; and doth he bid us worship the Earth? This puts me in a great perplexity; I dare not worship the Earth, lest He damn me who made the Heaven and the Earth; and I dare not but worship His Footstool, because He bids me do it. In this doubt I turn my self to Christ, and from Him find the resolution of it; for His Flesh was Earth; and so he runs into a discourse about the adoration due to the flesh of Christ, and the sense in which it is to be understood. And elsewhere saith, That the humane nature of Christ is no otherwise to be adored than as it is united to the Divinity. Aug. de Verbis Dom. secunda Ioh. Ser. 58.Which plainly shews that he did not think the Ark literally understood to be a proper object of worship.

But T. G. adds, that S. Hierome saith, That the Iews did worship or reverence the Holy of Holies, because there were the Cherubims, the Ark, &c. It is well he puts in Reverence as well as worship, p. 715for Venerabantur signifies no more than that they had it in great veneration; and that not only for the sake of the Ark and Cherubims, but for the pot of Manna, and Aarons Rod; and doth T. G. think in his conscience, that the Iews worshipped these too? But S. Hierom explains himself, when he saith immediately after, That the Sepulchre of Christ is more venerable than that; which he interprets by saying, It was a place to be honoured by all. And are these the doughty proofs which T. G. blames me for not vouchsafing an Answer to them? I think he ought to have taken it as a kindness from me. Let him now judge whether I have neither Scripture, nor Father, nor Reason to abet me, in saying, That the Iews only directed their worship towards the place where God had promised to be signally present among them.

As to the worship of the Cherubims, all his attempts come only to this, They might be worshipped although they were not seen; and if it were lawful for the High Priest to worship them once a year, T.G. p. 207it was alwaies lawful; but I deny that the High Priest ever worshipped them; for he only worshipped the God that sate upon His Triumphal Chariot; and their p. 716being hid from the sight of the People, was an argument they were not exposed as objects of worship, as Images are in the Roman Church. Their being Appendices to the Throne of God, he saith, was rather a means to increase than diminish the Peoples Reverence to them. If by Reverence he means worship, we may here see an instance of the variety of mens understandings. For no less a man than Vasquez, from hence argues,Vasquez disp. 104. c. 6. That the Cherubims were never intended as an object of worship, because they were only the Appendices to another thing; but a thing is then proposed as an object of worship, when it is set up by it self, and not by way of addition or ornament to another thing: with whom Lorinus, Azorius, and Visorius agree. And even Aquinas himself grants,Lorin. in Act. 17.25. & in Psal. 98.5. Azor. Instit. Mor. l. 9. c. 6. Visor. resp. ad Moncei. p. 16. Aq. 1.2. qu. 102. art. 4. ad 6.Acts 17:25Ps 98:5 That the Seraphim (he means the Cherubim) were not set up for worship, but only for the sign of some Mysterie; nay, he saith, the Iews were expressly forbidden to worship them. Thus I hope I have made it appear, how very little the worshipping of God before the Ark and the Cherubims doth prove towards the lawfulness of the worship of Images in the Roman Church.

p. 717The second Argument of T. G. is, From the judgement of S. Augustine, who makes that which we call the Second Commandment to be only an explication of the First. Which I thought so weak and trifling an Argument, that I gave a short answer to it in these two particulars, 1. That S. Augustine did not seem constant to that opinion. 2. That supposing he were, yet it doth not follow that according to his judgement, these words are only against Heathen Idols, and not against the worship of God by Images. Here T. G. thinks he hath the bit fast between his teeth, and away he runs, raising a dust to blind the eyes of beholders; but he must be stopt in his carier, and brought to better Reason. I asked T. G. how he was sure this was S. Austins constant judgement, since in his latter Writings he reckons up the Commandments, as others of the Fathers had done before him? upon this he insults, and calls it a new way of answering Fathers, and the readiest he ever met with, T.G. p. 46.except it be that of denying them: and if this be allowed, when an express Testimony of a Father is alledged, there is no more to do, than to ask how he is sure, that the Father did not afterwards change his p. 718mind? but, he saith, he is sure he hath his judgement professedly for him in his former Writings; and that I ought to bring better evidence of his being of another mind than I have done. But if I do evidently prove, that S. Augustine was of our mind in the main point as to the unlawfulness of the worship of God by Images; then what matter is it, whether it be the first, or second, or third, or fourth Commandment, so we are sure it is one of the Ten? And I have already produced sufficient Testimonies from him to this purpose; For doth not S. Augustine declare,Aug. de Fide & Symb. c. 7. That it is unlawful to worship God by an Image, when, he saith, it were impiety for a Christian to set up a corporeal Image of God in a Temple; and that they who do it are guilty of the Sacriledge condemned by S. Paul, of turning the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man? Doth not St. Augustine commend Varro for speaking so reproachfully concerning the very manner of worshipping the Deity by an Image? De Divit. Dei. l. 4. c. 31.and he saith, That if he durst have opposed so old a corruption, he would have both owned the unity of the Godhead, Et sine simulachro colendum esse censeret, and have thought he ought to be worshipped p. 719without an Image. Doth not S. Augustine, when he purposely explains that which he accounts the First Commandment, say, That any similitude of God is thereby forbidden to be worshipped;Epist. 119. ad Ian. c. 11. because no Image of God is to be worshipped but what is God himself, i. e. his Son? And can any one speak more expressly our sense than S. Augustine here doth? Let not T.G. then boast of his possession of S. Augustine, unless it be, as he did lately of all the Fathers; and in truth, the reason is much alike for both. But as to the division of the Commandments he is of T. G's side; and what is that to our business? If S. Augustine be of our side as to the sense of the Commandment, I can allow him to find out something of the Mysterie of the Trinity in having three Commandments of the First Table; and I can be contented with this, that the generality of the Fathers were for the other division, and upon more considerable Reasons. But T.G. saith,T.G. p. 43. That S. Augustine translates this Precept, Thou shalt not make to thy self any Idol, and the sense of the Law to be the forbidding the giving the worship of God to Idols. One would think by this, S. Augustine had no other word but Idolum here; whereas he uses both figmentum p. 720and simulachrum, both which words he elsewhere uses about the Images of the True God. But this is their common method, if they meet with a word in the Fathers that sounds their way, they never stay to consider the sense of it, but presently cry out Idolum, Idolum; and then with the Man at Athens, take all that comes for their own: So doth T. G. boast of the possession of the Fathers upon as slight grounds as he did; and makes up by the strength of Imagination what is wanting in the goodness of his title; if at least imagination can sway him so much against the plain evidence of Reason.

§. 10.Having thus cleared the way by removing these mighty difficulties which T. G. had laid in it to obstruct our passage, I now come to consider the several methods I proposed for finding out the sense of this Law. The first whereof was from the general Terms wherein it is expressed, which are of so large and comprehensive a sense as to take in all manner of representations, in order to worship; and I challenged him to shew where the word Temunah which they render similitude as well as we, is ever used in Scripture to signifie such an Idol as he supposes this Law p. 721intends. And to what purpose are words of the largest signification put into a Law, if the sense be limitted according to the most narrow acceptation of one word mentioned therein? for there is no kind of Image, whether graven or painted, whether of a real or imaginary Being, but is comprehended under the signification of the words set down in the Law. To this T. G. answers,T.G. p. 47▪ 48, 49, &c. that how large soever the signification of this word Temunah or similitude be when taken by it self, yet in our present case, it is limited by the following words, Thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them, to signifie something which is made to be worshipped as God, that is, to be an Idol. And so, by the word Idol in the Commandment he understands such an Image as is made to represent for worship a Figment that hath no real Being; and by similitude an Image or resemblance of some real thing, but falsely imagined to be God; but, he saith, it was nothing to the purpose to put the word similitude in its largest meaning, that is, as signifying any Image whatsoever though made with respect to the worship of the true God, when God himself commanded the Ark and the Cherubims to be made with that respect: (doth he mean to represent the true p. 722God? or to be objects of worship? which I have already shewed to be false.) That which I am to prove, he saith, is, that the word Similitude is to be taken so here; whereas, he affirms, that the word similitude is to be restrained to the similitude of false Gods: And to make all sure, he interprets similitude only of the representation of false Gods, and bowing down to and worshipping that similitude is the Worshipping that Similitude as God: i. e. taking the Likeness to be the Thing it self. I cannot blame T. G. for making the thing forbidden in the Commandment, if it be possible, more absurd than their practice in the worship of Images is; but, whether he hath made the sense of the Law or himself more ridiculous let the Reader judge. By similitude, he saith, is here to be understood, only the Similitude of False Gods, as the Sun, Moon and Stars, and other like things which they worshipped as Gods; this I confess is intelligible and true, although not the full meaning of the Commandment; but what then is, bowing down to and worshipping this similitude? that is, saith he, to worship this similitude as God: How is that? Is it by believing the Similitude to be the Thing? as the Image of the Sun to be really the Sun? p. 723this is absurd enough of all Conscience, and they were sottish Idolaters indeed that did so. Or is it, that they thought there was no other God, besides that similitude? That were strange indeed, they should think the similitude to be God, and not the thing represented by it. But so the wise Pope Gregory 2. interpreted this Commandment in his incomparable Epistle to Leo Isaurus; Greg. 2. Ep. 1. ad Leon. p. 10.The Emperour tells the Pope he durst not allow the Worship of Images, because of this severe Prohibition of any kind of similitude, and he desires him to shew, who it was that since had made it lawful to worship the work of mens Hands. The Pope for this calls him,foreign an Ignoramus, a dull, and insolent Fool; and bids him lay aside his pride and haughtiness, and come and learn of him the meaning of the Commandment. And now we expect something becoming an Infallible Head of the Church; This Commandment, saith the Pope, was made for the sake of the Idolaters who lived in the Land of Promise, that worshipped living Creatures of Gold and Silver, and Wood, and all sorts of Creatures and Fowls of the Aire; and said, These are our Gods, and there is no God besides them; and for the sake of this workmanship of the Devil, God said that p. 724we should not worship them; but there is other Workmanship for the Honour of God, and this men may worship. Exceedingly well spoken! The mischief is, Maimonides saith, there never were such Fools in the world to believe there was no other God but their Idols;More Nevoch. l. 1. c. 36. but what is Maimonides his saying to the Head of the Church? I am not yet satisfied about T. G's worshipping a similitude as God, and so making it an Idol. If it be a God, how is it the similitude of a God? If it be not, how comes it to be worshipped as God? What is it the similitude of? of God? yes. But it is God it self to him that worships it as God; and so it is the similitude of it self. So that the similitude here forbidden to be worshipped, is a Thing that is like its own self. T. G. in another place saith,T. G. p. 39. the thing forbidden in the Commandment, is bowing our selves down to the Images themselves, and this by the Concession of all is worshipping them instead of God. What is this bowing down to the Images themselves? Is it supposing them to be really Gods? then they are not worshipped as similitudes; and this seems to be his meaning, when he saith, To bow down our selves to the Images themselves, without any Relation to God, is to worship them instead p. 725of God. But I am still to seek for his meaning; is it bowing down to Images themselves, without relation to any other God? that must suppose that those who do so worship them believe there is no God besides the Images, and that were to make God to forbid a thing, that we never read to be practised in the World. Or, is it to suppose those Images themselves to be Objects of Worship? if it be, then all those stand condemned for Idolaters who assert that Images themselves are to be worshipped. Which I have shewed to be the common opinion of their Divines, and by them thought to be the Decree of the Councils for the worship of Images. Or lastly, is the worshipping Images themselves, without relation to the True God, the worshipping them instead of God? but this is both false, and impertinent. It is false, because they who worship Images without relation to the true God, may yet worship them barely as they represent a false God (as the wisest of the Heathens did) and therefore not as God; and Eusebius saith in general of the Heathens, Eusib. Praep. l. 4. c. 1that they did not look on their Images as Gods: it is impertinent, because by the confession of their own Writers (as I have shewed) an Image that p. 726hath relation to the True God may be worshipped as God, when divine worship is given to an Image of God or Christ. And therefore all this adoe is to no purpose; for this Commandment must then be so understood, as to exclude the worship of the True God by an Image. Otherwise it cannot be unlawful to give any kind of worship to an Image of the True God; and so the Gnosticks were not to blame in the worship they gave to the Image of Christ, although they stand condemned in all Ages of the Church for it. If this were unlawful, (as they all say it is unlawful to Sacrifice to an Image) then some kind of worshipping the True God by an Image is forbidden by the second Commandment. And now let the Reader judge, how well T.G. hath acquitted himself in his admirable undertakings,T.G. p. 38, 39. when he saith, with so much confidence, that the second Commandment speaks not one Word against the worshipping God himself by an Image; which is to charge the whole Christian Church with Folly and Ignorance in condemning the Carpocratians, for worshipping the Image of Christ with divine worship; who saith Bellarmin, Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 24.sine dubio Imaginem ejus propter ipsum colebant, without all doubt worshipped the Image of Christ with relation to him.

p. 727But still when T. G. is miserably mistaken,§. 11. the Fathers must bear the blame of it. Alas poor Fathers! Must you bear the load of all his miscarriages? It is but doing you justice, to vindicate your innocency in this righteous Cause. He tells me,T. G. p. 50. that I must prove against these Fathers (viz. Origen and Theodoret) and the general sense of the Church of Christ for so many hundred years, that the word similitude is to be taken in the second Commandment for any Image made with respect to the worship of God. A very easie undertaking in it self; but by no means either against those Fathers, or the sense of the Christian Church for many hundred years, which is as plainly on my side in this case, as it is in the Articles of the Creed; as may be seen in the foregoing Chapters. But T. G. is again unlucky when he pretends to the Fathers; for those two Fathers he mentions are point-blank against him in this matter: witness the many citations I there produced out of Origen; wherein, he saith, the Christians durst have no Images of the Deity, because of this Commandment; and that they would rather dye than defile themselves with such an impiety. And even p. 728Theodoret himself saith,Theodor. in Deut. quaest. 1. …. 168. they were forbidden to make any Image of God, because they saw no similitude of him: and which is more to T. G. even the Nicene Council and the great Patrons of Images for a long time after, did yield that the second Commandment did forbid the making or worshipping any representation of God; as I have already at large proved. If I might advise T. G. I would never have him venture at the Fathers again; but be contented to bear his own burdens; and out of meer pity to them, not to load them with the imputation of his own infirmities, if not wilful mistakes. To make it appear that the intention of the Law was not meerly against the Idols of the Heathens, I added these words If this had been the meaning of the Law, why was it not more plainly expressed? why were none of the words elsewhere used by way of contempt of the Heathen Idols here mentioned, as being less liable to ambiguity? why in so short a comprehension of Laws, is this Law so much enlarged above what it might have been, if nothing but what he saith, were to be meant by it? For then the meaning of the two first precepts might have been summed up in very few words, p. 729Thou shalt have no other Gods but me, and Thou shalt worship the Images of no other Gods but me. To all this, which is surely something more than saying, that it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else; T. G. answers not one word:T. G. p. 51, 52, 53. but instead of that he spends some pages about two similitudes, one of mine, and another quainter of his own; which must stand or fall according to the Reason given for the sense of the Law; and therefore I shall pass them over. Only for his desiring me, to make my similitude run on all four, as the Beasts mentioned in it; it is such a piece of Wit, that I desire he may enjoy the comfort of it.

But he hath not yet done with the word Pesel; which, he saith,T. G. p. 54. the LXX. would never have rendred it here contrary to their custome, Idol, without some particular Reason for it. What particular Reason was there here, more than in the repetition of the Commandment, Deut. 5.8? where they translate it by foreign, in the Alex. M S. and in other Copies of the LXX. Deut. 4.16. Was there not as much reason to have used the same word in those places as in this, since the Commandment is the very same? And for the other places, he mentions, as Isaiah 40.18 — p. 73044.9, 10, 13. I dare leave it to the examination of any man, whether they do not far better prove, that an Idol in Scripture is an Image set up for worship, than that by graven Image is meant an Heathen Idol. This I am certain of, that Pet. Picherellus an excellent Critick, Picherell. Opusc. p. 220, 221.and learned Divine in the Roman Church, was convinced by comparing of these places, that the signification of an Idol in the second Commandment, is the same with that of a graven Image; and that the using any outward sign of worship before any Image is the thing forbidden in this Commandment, p. 230, 231.and that the doing so is that Idolatry which God hath threatned so severely to punish: which I beseeth T. G. and those of his Church to consider, and repent.

The second way I proposed to find out the sense of the Commandment was from the Reason of it;§. 14. which, I said, the Scripture tells us was derived from Gods infinite and incomprehensible nature which could not be represented to men, but in a way that must be an infinite disparagement to it. For which I produced Isaiah 40.19, 20, 21, 22. To whom will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare to him? The workman p. 731melteth a graven Image, and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, &c. Have ye not known, have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundation of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, &c. Whence I desired to know, whether this reason be given against Heathen Idols, or those Images which were worshipped for Gods or no? or whether by this reason, God doth not declare, that all worship given to him by any visible representation of him is extremely dishonourable to him? And to this purpose when this precept is enforced on the people of Israel by a very particular caution,Deut. 4.15, 16.Deut 4:15Deut 4:16 Take ye therefore good heed to your selves, lest ye corrupt your selves, and make you a graven Image, the similitude of any figure, &c. the ground of that Caution is expressed in these words, For ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you. If the whole intention of the Law had been only to keep them from worshipping the Heathen Idols, or Images for Gods, to what purpose is it here mentioned that they saw no similitude of God, when he spake to them? p. 732For although God appeared with a similitude then, yet there might have been great Reason against worshipping the Heathen Idols, or fixing the intention of their worship on the bare Image. But this was a very great Reason why they ought not to think of honouring God by an Image; for if he had judged that a suitable way of Worship to his Nature and Excellency, he would not have left the choice of the similitude to themselves, but would have appeared himself in such a similitude as had best pleased him. This Discourse T.G. saith,T. G. p. 58. is apt enough to delude a vulgar Auditory out of the Pulpit (I with their Pulpits had never any worse before not vulgar Auditories) but altogether empty and insignificant when brought to the Test of Reason. That is to be tried, whether my Reason or his Answer will be found so: However, he saith, this doth not prove it Idolatry. No! that is very strange, for if the Image of God, when worshipped, be an Idol and forbidden as such in the Commandment, then I suppose the worship of it is Idolatry. But none so blind as they that will not see.

Now for the terrible Test of Reason. He saith 1. That all representations of p. 733God, are not dishonourable to him; and for that, he produces a Hieroglyphical Picture of a three corner'd light within a Cloud, T. G. p. 59.and the name Iehovah in the midst of it in the Frontispiece of a Book of Common Prayer, by Rob. Barker, 1642. from whence he inferrs, that the Church of England doth not look on all visible representations as an infinite disparagement to God. As though the Church of England were concerned in all the Fancies of Engravers in the Frontispieces of Books publickly allowed: He might better have proved that we worship Iupiter Ammon in our Churches, because in some he may see Moses painted with Horns on his Forehead; I do not think our Church ever determined that Moses should have horns, any more than it appointed such an Hieroglyphical Representation of God. Is our Church the only place in the World, where the Painters have lost their old priviledge, quidlibet audendi? T. G. p. 60.There needs no great atonement to be made between the Church of England and me in this matter: for the Church of England declares in the Book of Homilies, Homil. p. 3. p. 40.that the Images of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are expresly forbidden and condemned by these very Scriptures I mentioned. For how can God a p. 734most pure Spirit, whom man never saw, be expressed by a gross body, or visible similitude? or how can the infinite Majesty and Greatness of God incomprehensible to mans mind, much more not able to be compassed with the sense, be expressed in an Image? With more to the same purpose, by which our Church declares, as plainly as possible, that all Images of God are a disparagement to the Divine Nature; therefore let T. G. make amends to our Church of England for this and other affronts he hath put upon her. Here is nothing of the Test of Reason, or Honesty in all this; let us see whether it lies in what follows.T. G. p. 61. 2. He saith, That Images of God may be considered two waies, either as made to represent the Divinity it self, or Analogically; this distinction I have already fully examined, and shewed it to be neither fit for Pulpit nor Schools, and that all Images of God are condemned by the Nicene Fathers themselves, as dishonourable to Him. 3. He saith, That the Reason of the Law was to keep them in their duty of giving Soveraign Worship to God alone, p. 63.by restraining them from Idolatry. This is now the Severe Test, that my Reason cannot stand before. And was it indeed only Soveraign worship to God, p. 735that was required by the Law to restrain them from Idolatry? Doth this appear (to return his own words) in the Law it self, or in the Preface, p. 57.or in the Commination against the transgressors of it? if in none of these places, nor any where else in Scripture, methinks it is somewhat hard venturing upon this distinction of Soveraign and inferiour worship, when the words are so general, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them? And if God be so jealous a God in this matter of worship, he will not be put off with idle distinctions of vain men, that have no colour or pretence from the Law: for whether the worship be supreme or inferiour, it is worship; and whether it be one or the other, do they not bow down to Images? and what can be forbidden in more express words than these are? But T. G. proves his assertion,T. G. p. 64▪ 1. From the Preface of the Law; because the Reason there assigned, is, I am the Lord thy God; therefore Soveraign honour is only to be given to me, and to none besides me. Or, as I think, it is better expressed in the following words, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me: and who denies, or doubts of this? but what is this to the Second Commandment? Yes, saith T. G. The same reason p. 736is enforced from Gods jealousie of his honor: very well, of His Soveraign Honour? but provided, that supreme worship be reserved to Him, He doth not regard an inferiour worship being given to Images: Might not T. G. as well have explained the First Commandment after the same manner, Thou shalt have no other Soveraign Gods besides me; but inferiour and subordinate Deities you may have, as many as you please, notwithstanding the Reason of the Law; which T. G. thus paraphrases, I am the only supreme and super-excellent Being, above all, and over all, to whom therefore Soveraign Honour is only to be given, and to none besides me. Very true, say the Heathen Idolaters, we yield you every word of this, and why then do you charge us with Idolatry? Thus by the admirable Test of T. G's reason, the Heathen Idolaters are excused from the breach of the First Commandment, as well as the Papists from the breach of the Second. 2. He proves it from the necessary connexion between the prohibition of the Law on the one side, p. 65, 66, 67.and the supreme excellency of the Divine Nature on the other; For from the supreme excellency of God, it necessarily follows that Soveraign Worship is due only to it, and not to be given to any other Image or p. 737thing: but if we consider Him as invisible only and irrepresentable, it doth not follow on that account precisely, that Soveraign worship or indeed any worship at all is due unto it. Which is just like this manner of Reasoning. The Supreme Authority of a Husband, is the Reason why the Wife is to obey him; but if she consider her Husband, as his name is Iohn or Thomas, or as he hath such features in his face; it doth not follow on that account precisely, that she is bound to obey him and none else for her Husband. And what of all this, for the love of School Divinity? May not the reason of obedience be taken from one particular thing in a Person; and yet there be a general obligation of obedience to that Person, and to none else besides him? Although the features of his countenance be no Reason of obedience, yet they may serve to discriminate him from any other Person, whom she is not to love and obey. And in case, he forbids her familiarity with one of his servants, because this would be a great disparagement to him; doth it follow that because his Superiority is the general Reason of obedience, he may not give a particular Reason for a special Command? This is the case here. Gods Supreme Excellency is granted to be the general Reason of p. 738obedience to all Gods Commands; but in case he gives some particular precept, as not to worship any Image, may not he assign a Reason proper to it? And what can be a more proper reason against making or worshipping any representation of God, than to say, He cannot be represented? Meer invisibility I grant is no general reason of obedience; but invisibility may be a very proper reason for not painting what is invisible. There is no worship due to a sound, because it cannot be painted; but it is the most proper reason why a sound cannot be painted, because it is not visible. And if God himself gives this reason, why they should make no graven Image because they saw no similitude on that day, &c. is it not madness and folly in men to say, this is no Reason? But T. G. still takes it for granted,T.G. p. 67. That all that is meant by this Commandment, is that Soveraign worship is not to be given to Graven Images or similitudes; and of the Soveraign worship, he saith, Gods excellency precisely is the formal and immediate Reason why it is to be given to none but him. But we are not such Sots (say the Heathen Idolaters again) to give Soveraign worship to our Images of Mercury, or Apollo, &c. therefore the Reason of your Command doth not reach us; but we may worship our Images, p. 739as well as you do yours. 3. He proves it, ad hominem, thus, I grant that no perfect Image of God can be made, and that God need not by a Law forbid an impossible thing; but from the Divine Natures being invisible it only follows that men ought not to presume to make any Image, or likeness to represent it as it is, i. e. a perfect Image; and the Law in vertue of it must be to forbid making any such Image; therefore according to my self, the irrepresentableness of the Divine Nature as precisely considered, cannot be assigned for the proper cause or reason of this Law. Very subtilly argued! What I said, could not be the sense of the Law, he takes to be the sense of it, and from thence argues against the Reason I had given: which is as if I should say to him; T. G. denies, That this Commandment doth contain any prohibition of the worship of God by an Image; but the Law must be understood to forbid worshipping God by an Image; therefore according to T. G. the Law doth forbid worshipping God by an Image. Call you this arguing ad hominem! One would think it were to a creature of a lower rank. He saith, I deny that the Law forbids making an impossible thing, i.e. a perfect Image of God; he asserts, That the p. 740Law must be understood to forbid the making of any such Image; and from hence he infers, that according to my self, that cannot be the reason of the Law which I assigned; because from that reason that only follows to be forbidden by the Law, which I said could not be the thing forbidden by the Law: and he saith, must be only forbidden by it. Before T. G. had gone about to prove any thing from hence against my self, he ought to have shewed, 1. That Gods irrepresentable Nature doth only hold against making impossibilities, that is, perfect Images of God. 2. That this must be the meaning of the Second Commandment, which he saith, I denied. 3. That when I denied, and he barely affirmed it, he can argue ad hominem from my denial and his affirmation of the same thing, against the Reason alledged by me, viz. I assigned from Scripture, that no Image is to be made of God because He is Infinite and Invisible; now saith T.G. I will prove from your own words, this cannot be the Reason of this Law. How so? You say, that the Law doth not forbid making a perfect Image of God, for that is impossible. And what then? doth it hence follow, that the Law doth not forbid making a possible Image of God? Hold, saith T. G. p. 741Gods infinite Nature doth only hold against a perfect Image, and this must be the meaning of the Commandment; which I utterly denied. And so if T. G. will argue ex concessis, it must proceed thus, I deny that the Law doth forbid an impossible Image of God, or that Gods infinite Nature doth only hold against such Images; and therefore according to my self, this infinite Nature of God cannot be the reason why Images are forbidden in the Second Commandment. Can any man in the earth discern the consequence of this? When I say the Law is made against possible Images, and that the Nature of God is represented so perfect to deter men from making the most imperfect Images of God, because they are a disparagement to Him; doth it follow from my words that this Reason cannot hold against the making of Images?

T. G. having given us such a Test of his Reason; I now follow him to the interpretation he gives of the places of Scripture produced by me. To the First, Isa. 40.18. To whom will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto Him? T.G. p. 69.He Answers, That there is a likeness of representation and a likeness of Comparison; if the words be understood of the p. 742former, then he saith, it only follows that such a likeness is not to be made. Which is all that I desire. But again he is at it, That I deny the prohibition hereof to be any part of the Law: Is it possible for T. G. to say this, when my design is to prove the contrary? but By Likeness T. G. understands a perfect representation; why doth he not say then, by likeness is understood sameness? which is not representation, but the thing it self. All representation by the art of man must fall very much short of the perfection of the meanest animal; and no Image can represent a thing as it is, but as it appears; not in regard of its invisible nature, but of its outward lineaments; either therefore T. G. must deny any likeness of representation, or he must yield that to be a likeness of representation in an Image of God which doth not perfectly represent him. For if it had the Perfection of God, it would be God. If the words be understood of a likeness of comparison, then the meaning, he saith, is, that none of the Idols of the Heathens are to be compared to Him in Wisdom, p. 70.Greatness, or Power. But me thinks if not the Hebrew words, nor the Chaldee Paraphrast, nor the LXX, nor other versions, could prevail with T. G. yet the Vulgar Latine should have p. 743had Authority enough to let him know, that these words are not spoken of Heathen Idols, but of an Image of God, Cui ergo similem fecistis Deum? aut quam Imaginem ponetis ei? which surely ought to signifie more with him, than meerly the Contents of the Chapters do with us.

To Deut. 4.15. he answers, That de facto no manner of similitude was seen at the giving of the Law, by the people;p. 71. that afterwards they might not take occasion to conceive it to have been a proper representation of the Divinity, and so entertain an erroneous conceit of God. And doth T. G. think, there was not as much danger of dishonouring God by worshipping any such representation of God, as by entertaining an erroneous conceit of God in their minds? But why must this be understood only of a proper representation, when the words are, no manner of similitude; is there no manner of similitude, but a proper representation? and yet after all this, the Images of God allowed and worshipped in the Roman Church are as much in danger of making men entertain erroneous conceits of God, as any similitude of that time; and therefore as much against the Reason of this Commandment. But T. G. very modestly denies, these words to contain a Reason p. 744of this Commandment (although they be, For ye saw no manner of similitude, p. 72.&c. Therefore take heed lest ye corrupt your selves and make a graven Image, &c.) but the matter of fact was made use of by him as a motive to induce the People to the observance of the Law in a Sermon he makes, Deut. 4. to press them to that duty. I see T. G. is resolved to make just such another Test of Scripture as he did of Reason; Could it ever enter into a mans head waking, that these words are a general reason of the Whole Law, and not a particular Reason of that Command which immediately follows it, and by the very words relates to it? Ye saw no similitude, therefore make no similitude; this is proper, and natural, and easie to all capacities: but ye saw no similitude; therefore obey my Law; Hold there, saith T. G. himself (if he be not in a dream and hath forgotten himself) to be supremely excellent is the proper reason of Obedience, and not the seeing no similitude, therefore this is no proper Motive to obedience, whatever the Contents of Chapters or tops of the Pages of our Bibles say, which are the pitiful refuges T. G. betakes himself to, to escape down-right sinking. But some men would rather give all for lost, p. 745than think to save themselves by such a mean defence.

Well;p. 73. but T. G. hath something yet to say; which is, That supposing all this to be true which I have said, as to the Reason of the Law, yet this doth not reach home to them; for it doth not follow from hence, that Christ according to his humanity cannot be represented but with great disparagement to him: or that to put off our hats when we behold the figure of his sacred body with intent to worship him, must be extremely dishonourable to him. This argument therefore doth not concern Catholicks in making the Image of Christ and his Saints with respect to their honour. p. 74.This is the last effort of T. G. on this argument, and as weak as any of the rest: For, 1. it is a false and most disingenuous representation of their practises, as may appear to any one that will but look back, on what I have said upon that Subject. One would think, by T. G'S words, they had never used or allowed, or worshipped any Images of God or the Trinity in the Church of Rome; which he knows to be otherwise; and I have abundantly proved it already. 2. The force of the second Command, extending to Christians, doth equally hold against the worship of Christ by an p. 746Image, as it did under the Law against worshipping God by an Image. For if the Law be perpetual, as the Christian Church alwaies believed, and Christ be only the object of worship as He is God, we are as much forbidden to worship Christ by an Image, as the Iews were to worship God by one. I do not say, there is as great an incongruity in representing the humane nature of Christ, as there was in representing the infinite nature of God; but I say, there is as great an incongruity still in supposing an Image, of whatsoever it be, can be the proper object of divine worship. For the humanity of Christ is only capable of receiving adoration from us, as it is hypostatically united to the divine nature; and S. Austin saith, Being considered as separated from it, In. Evang. secund. Ioh. Serm. 58.is no more to be worshipped than the Robe or Diadem of a Prince when it lies on the Ground; and if the humane nature of Christ be not, what then is the Image of it? What union is there between the Divine Nature and a Crucifix? All that can be said is, that imagination supplies the union, and Christ is supposed to be present by representation; but this overthrows all measures and bounds of worship, and makes it lawful to worship any Creature, with respect to God; it contradicts p. 747the argument of S. Paul, For then God may be worshipped with the Work of mens hands; it is contrary to the sense and practice of the Primitive Church which interpreted this Commandment, to hold against all Images set up for worship, as well those proper to Christians, as others among Iews or Gentiles.

3. The last way I proposed to find out the sense of the Law, §. 13.was from the Iudgement of the Law-giver: which was fully manifested in the case of the Golden Calf, and the two Calves of Ieroboam. This he calls a solid principle indeed to work upon;T.G. p. 153. I am glad to see that we Protestants can fall into the way of Principles; and more glad that Gods judgement recorded in Scripture is acknowledged for such a Principle: but after all, he calls this meer imagination;p. 156. and it must undergo the Test of his Reason. The force of my argument, as he laies it down, is this, That the Israelites were condemned by God of Idolatry, for worshipping the Golden Calf, and yet they did not fall into the Heathen Idolatry by so doing, but only worshipped the true God under that Symbol of His presence. To this T. G. opposes his Opinion,p. 154. That the Israelites p. 748herein fell back to the Egyptian Idolatry. Here then is the state of the Question between us; to resolve which, and to bring it home to our business, I shall propose these two things. 1. Whether the Israelites did in worshipping the golden Calf, fall back to the Egyptian Idolatry? 2. Whether it be sufficient to T. G's purpose to prove that they did so? for in case the Egyptians themselves did worship the true God under Symbols, T. G. falls short of his design, if he could prove that the Israelites did relapse to the Egyptian Idolatry: for it would then appear however to be Idolatry to worship the True God by an Image. 1. I shall examine the evidence on both sides, whether the Israelites did fall back to the Egyptian Idolatry? I offered several reasons to prove that the Israelites had no intention to quit the worship of that God, who had so lately given them the Law on Mount Sinai. 1. From the occasion of this Idolatry, which was not any pretence of infidelity as to the true God; or that they had now better reasons given them for the worship of other Gods besides him; but all that they say is, that Moses had been so long absent; that they desired Aaron to make them Gods to go before them. To this T. G. answers, that the p. 749very text I mention shews their infidelity, viz. in their despair of Moses returning. But if their infidelity had been with a respect to God, it had been far more pertinent to have said, Up make us Gods to go before us; for as for this God who gave us the Law, we know not what is become of him; but they only speak of Moses and not of God, and the reason was, because immediately before Moses his going up into the Mount, the last promise God made to the People was of an Angel going before them;Exod. 23.20, 23.Exod 23:20Exod 23:23 and they understood that there was to be an extraordinary Symbol of his Presence among them; but what it was they could not tell; and Moses being so long absent, as the text saith, they grew impatient of having this Symbol, Exod. 32, 1.Exod 32:1and so put Aaron upon making the golden Calf. T. G. saith,T.G. p. 160. they had forgotten this promise, or thought that God was not able to perform it: for which he hath not the least colour from Scripture or Reason; as will appear by the following particulars. 2. From the intolerable folly of desiring Aaron to make that God, which before he was made delivered them out of the Land of Aegypt. For so the People say, This is thy God, or these are thy Gods, which brought thee out of the Land of p. 750Aegypt. Is it possible to suppose people so extreamly stupid to imagine a God just then made, should before it was made, deliver them out of Aegypt? But T. G. is a notable man, and hath made a rare discovery, viz. that Calvin said some such thing before me; I thank him for the discovery, for I do assure him it was more than I had ever read in Calvin; but T. G. hath a great mind to make Calvin my Master in every thing. I should not be ashamed to learn from a man of so great abilities; but it falls out unhappily, that I do not find one thing he charges me with following Calvin in, but it is from him that I learn what Calvin said. And if he had pleased he might have quoted an Author of their own for these words; neque enim tam stupidi erant, Fer. in Act. 7. p. 94.Acts 7saith Ferus, quod crederent Aaron posse facere Deum; they were not so stupid to believe that Aaron could make a God; and therefore he saith, very honestly, that the Israelites worshipped the True God, by the Calf. But suppose Calvin did say this, is there ever the less reason in the saying?T.G. p. 155. But we can imagine as sottish things of them, viz. that they terminate their worship on the Images, although they deny any Divinity to be in them? Is it indeed so sottish a thing to p. 751terminate their worship on the Images? what becomes then of all their Divines who plead for it, and say that by the Decrees of their Councils, worship ought to be terminated on the Images themselves? as T. G. may see in the precedent Chapter. But the Scripture, T. G. saith,p. 165. represents the Israelites as a people void of understanding; and they were without learning, and oppressed for four hundred years together, by the most Idolatrous Nation in the world; and served their Gods, Ezek. 20.8. I grant the Scripture gives that severe character of them, but it was because they did not consider the consequence of their disobedience; as appears by the next verse Deut. 32.29. Must we because of this imagine them to be such Fools and Sots, that no Idolaters in the World can be parallel'd with them; viz. to make a God which did mighty things for them, before it was made? Therefore the meaning of making a God can be nothing else, but making a Symbol or representation of God; and the Question then is, whether it were the representation of an Aegyptian Idol, or the God of Israel? That it was not the former I proved — 3. From the way of worship used by the Israelites, which was an abomination to the Aegyptians, p. 752Exod. 8.26. To this T. G. returns not the least word of Answer; but he shall not escape so, for from hence I shall make it appear beyond contradiction, that it was not Aegyptian Idolatry, which the Israelites fell into; for which we must consider the sacrifices that were offered to the golden Calf. And they rose up early on the morrow, Exod. 32.6.Exod 32:6and offer'd burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings, and the people sate down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. Act. 7.41.Acts 7:41S. Stephen saith, And they made a Calf in those dayes, and offered sacrifice unto the Idol, and rejoyced in the Works of their own hands. Now the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, are expressed, Exod. 20.24. to be their Oxen and their Sheep: and immediately before Moses his going up into the Mount it is said, that they offered burnt-offerings, Exod. 24.5.Exod 24:5and sacrificed peace-offerings of Oxen unto the Lord: where the very same words foreign and foreign are used, and the LXX. there render the word we translate oxen foreign, and the Vulg. Lat. Vitulos, the same word which is used for the Golden Calf. Now I shall shew that nothing could be more repugnant to the Aegyptian Idolatry, than such sacrifices as these. For which we have this considerable Testimony of Horus in p. 753Macrobius, Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 7.Nunquam fas fuit Aegyptiis pecudibus aut sanguine, sed precibus & ture solo placare Deos. It was never lawful for the Aegyptians to sacrifice with Cattel and blood, but only with prayers and incense: Cuperi Harpocrat. p. 105.and from thence he proves that the Worship of Saturn and Serapis were but lately received among the Egyptians, in the time of the Ptolemies; and after they were received, their Temples were without the Cities, that they might not be polluted with blood within the Cities. And every one knows, that the Feasts were upon their sacrifices; but the Satyrist says of the Egyptians;

Lanatis animalibus abstinet omnisIuv. Satyr. 15. v. 11.

Mensa; nefas illic foetum jugulare capellae.

Anaxandrides in Athenaeus, Athen. l. 7.saith, that a Greek could have no conversation with an Egyptian; because the one worshipped an Ox which the other sacrificed: and Herodotus saith,Herod. l. 2▪ c. 41. that the Egyptians would not touch so much as the knife, or spit, or pot which the Greeks had used; so great an aversion had they from those who either eat or sacrificed the Creatures they worshipped. Herodotus indeed saith, that p. 754the Thebans abstained from sheep, Herod. l. 2. c. 42.and offered Goats; the Mendesians on the contrary abstained from Goats and offered Sheep; but this was on the account of the particular Religion of those two Provinces; (for they differed very much among themselves as to particular animals:) but all the Egyptians agreed, as Herodotus there saith, in the worship of Osiris and Isis, Now Diodorus Siculus affirms that Apis and Mneuis the Bulls of Heliopolis and Memphis were sacred to Osiris;Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 13. Plutarch saith,Plut. de Iside p. 366. that the Ox was the Image of Osiris; and Strabo that Apis was the same with Osiris; and Mela, Mela l. 1. c. 9.that Apis was the Deity of all the Egyptians. Strabo gives the most particular account of the Egyptian worship, Strabo l. 17.and what creatures were worshipped in the several Provinces; but, he saith, there were three universally worshipped, whereof the first is, the Ox; and it was an universal practice not to touch or hurt those creatures that were sacred among them; as the Oxen were quite through Egypt; from whence Moses desired to go into the Wilderness to sacrifice, Exod. 8.26.Exod 8:26for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God. Lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they p. 755not stone us? i. e. saith the Targum of Onkelos, because the Egyptians worship Oxen. Because Lambs are the Idols of the Egyptians, saith Ionathan. If we kill, saith S. Hierome, the things which they worship. I leave it now to the consideration of any man, whether the Israelites using their accustomed burnt-offerings and sacrifices, and Feastings upon them, as they did in the Worship of the golden Calf, can be supposed to have returned to the Egyptian Idolatry.

4. I urged this, as an argument that the Israelites intended to worship the true God, because Aaron proclaimed a Feast, Exod. 32.5.Exod 32:5foreign to Iehovah. And however the People were void of understanding, I suppose Aaron being High Priest, and Head of the Church at that time, was not so berest of common sense, as to give the incommunicable name of Iehovah to a Calf of his own making. All that T. G. saith to this, is,T.G. p. 159. that Aaron perhaps and some of the wiser men among them might not be so sottish, as to suppose the Calf he made to be the God that delivered them out of Egypt, yet it is certain they were so weak, as to concurr with the people in the external practises of their Idolatry. But this is not the force of my argument, which p. 756lies in this, that Aaron said, it was a Feast to Iehovah, when they were to sacrifice to the golden Calf; either therefore he must suppose that worship was intended for the honour of the True God, or he must give the name of Iehovah to the Calf; which would shew him to have been more sottish than the People, for they only called the Calf by the name of Elohim, but he gives the name of Iehovah to it, which was that peculiar name God was known by to the people of Israel upon the accomplishment of his promise in bringing them out of Egypt. Exod. 6.3, 6.Exod 6:3Exod 6:6I appeared unto Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Iehovah was I not known unto them: wherefore say unto the Children of Israel, I am Iehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, &c. Therefore when the people say, This is the God that brought us out of the Land of Egypt, Aaron presently proclaims a Feast to Iehovah, i. e. to the God that brought them out of the Land of Egypt. And when afterwards the Ark (which was the Symbol God himself appointed of his presence among them) was removed, upon their travelling from the Mount of the Lord,Numb. 10.35, 36.Num 10:35Num 10:36 Moses said, Rise up Iehovah; and when it rested, Return O p. 757Iehovah unto the many thousands of Israel. Thus the name of Iehovah was used by Moses himself upon occasion of the appointed Symbol of Gods presence; but when Aaron proclaimed a Feast to Iehovah upon making the golden Calf, Moses calls it a Golden God, because God saith,Exod. 32.31.Exod 32:31 they had made a molten Calf, and worshipped it, and sacrificed thereunto, v. 6.and said, This is thy God which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. Which therefore by S. Stephen is called an Idol. Act. 7.41.Acts 7:415. The expressing it to be the God that brought them out of the Land of Egypt, doth imply, that they did not intend one of the Egyptian Gods. For what reason could they have to think that one of the Gods of Egypt should deliver them out of the Egyptian bondage; and while their own worshippers were forsaken by them, to preserve those who were so great enemies to them? And how could they think the Gods of Egypt had wrought all the miracles for them which were seen in that deliverance? And how unlikely was it they should forsake the God of Israel and return to the Egyptian Gods; when they make use here of the very Preface of the Law, which God had so lately given them on Mount Sinai: viz. I am the God that p. 758brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. To this T. G. returns no manner of Answer. 6. When the Israelites revolted to the Idolatry of their Neighbours, the Scripture punctually sets down the names of the Idols they worshipped, as Baal Peor, Moloch, Remphan; but here is nothing of that nature mentioned. To this T. G. answers,T.G. p. 162. What then? Is it the Idols having a name, that makes the worshippers Heathen Idolaters? If they conceived or believed the Calf to be a God, were they not as much Heathen Idolaters for worshipping it without a name, as the Egyptians for worshipping it under the name of Apis? But T.G. cunningly dissembles the force of the argument, which was not from their worshipping it without a Name, but from the Scriptures not expressing it, which it doth upon other occasions: and Bellarmin himself tells us, from Abulensis, Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 13.Cajetan and others, that the Israelites had two sorts of Idols, one without a certain name, as the Idol of Micha, Judges 17. and it may be, the golden Calf which Aaron made, and Jeroboam renewed, for the Scripture doth not call it Moloch or Baal, &c. The other had a certain name, as Baal, Moloch, Ashtaroth, Chamos. Therefore say they not improbably (mark that) that it may be p. 759allowed of the first sort, that the Iews did worship the True God in the Idol. Then an Image of the true God may be an Idol, and those Idolaters, who worship such an Image. But they erred most grievously, saith Bellarmin, in three things: 1. That they sacrificed to the Idol, i. e. gave divine worship to it. 2. That they believed the Divinity to be in it: how doth that appear? no more surely, than those who believe Images to speak and to work miracles. 3. That they thought God to be corporeal and like the Idol, i. e. the Israelites thought the great Iehovah to be just of the fashion of the Calf. What prodigious Fools must some men make the Israelites, that they may not appear as great Idolaters themselves? 7. I argued from S. Stephens words, And they made a Calf in those dayes and offered sacrifice to the Idol: Acts 7.41, 42.Acts 7:41Acts 7:42then God turned and gave them up to worship the Host of heaven; whereby, I said it was observable, that the Idolatry of the Calf was distinct from the other Heathen Idolatry, this being a punishment of the other. To this T. G. saith nothing; and yet it is a thing which deserves consideration, that that which the Fathers accounted the most justifiable Idolatry of the Heathens, viz. the worshipping the Host p. 760of Heaven, is looked upon as the judgement following the worship of the Golden Calf. So Clemens Alexandrinus, Clem. Alex. Str. 6. p. 482. Orig. c. Cels. l. 5. p. 238.and Origen plead for this so much in comparison with other Heathen Idolatries, as hardly to think it a fault in them; and it is farther observable that in no kind of Idolatry, which the Israelites ever fell into, save only that of Ieroboam, which was of the same nature with this, that expression was ever used, These are thy Gods which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt; which shews that this worship had a peculiar respect to that God who brought them in so remarkable a manner out of the bondage they were under there. These are the Reasons which I have to prove, that the Israelites did intend to worship the True God by the Golden Calf: and we have seen what weak answers T. G. gives to some of them, and none at all to others.

I must now attend to the Reasons he gives to the contrary,§. 14. and those are either from Scripture or Fathers. 1. From Scripture, T.G. p. 155.where they are charged with forsaking God, Deut. 32.15, 16, 17, 18. As though the Israelites committed no Idolatry in the Wilderness but that of the Golden Calf: whereas it is well known p. 761that they worshipped Baal Peor, Moloch, and Remphan; of which a blacker character is given than of the other. But the Psalmist saith, that in worshipping the Calf, they did forget God, Psal. 106.19, 20, 21. And was not that forgetting the God that appeared with such a terrible Majesty on Mount Sinai, to turn His glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth grass? But in the expressions of Scripture to forget God is to disobey Him; Deut. 8.11, 14.6.12.Deut 8:11Deut 8:14Deut 8:6Deut 8:12Beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God, in not keeping His Commandments, and His Iudgements, and His Statutes which I command thee this day. And was not this forgetting God in this sense, so openly to break one of the Laws he had so lately given them? That which seems to come nearest the matter is, the expression of S. Stephen, That our Fathers would not obey, but thrust Him from them (that is, the true God, saith T. G. whereas the words are plainly meant of Moses) and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, saying, Act. 7.39.40.Acts 7:39Acts 7:40Make us Gods to go before us; which relates not to the object but to the manner of worship by such a Symbol of worship as was in greatest veneration among all the Egyptians. This is the force of all that he brings out of the Scripture.

p. 7622. From them he betakes himself to the Fathers: T. G. p.and he quotes two passages of S. Athanasius, and S. Hierome; and a doubtful place of S. Chrysostom to his purpose. This is the first time I have found T. G. citing the Fathers truly and pertinently; and it were too hard dealing with him, not to allow him these Testimonies; especially about the exposition of a place of Scripture; wherein their best Commentators take so much liberty of receding from them, when they apprehend the scope and circumstances of the place do enforce another sense; as I have already shewed at large concerning this. And to these Fathers, I shall oppose the Testimony of others, who make the Egyptian Ox to be only a Symbolical representation of the Patriarch Ioseph, and say that on this account the Israelites made choice of the Golden Calf; so the Author of the Book De Mirabilibus S. Script. in S. Augustins Works, (as good an Author as the Homilist de Poenit. De mirab. S. Script. l. 1. c. 15.whom he quotes under S. Chrys. name) saith, That the Egyptians set up the Image of an Ox by the Sepulchre of Joseph; and for this cause the Israelites made choice of that similitude, when they made an Idol in the Wilderness. Iulius Firmicus Maternus saith, That the p. 763Neocori did preserve in Egypt the Image of Joseph, by which he understands Apis, or the Sacred Bulls; the same is affirmed by Rufinus and Suidas. De errore prosan. Relig. p. …8. Rufin. hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 23. Suid. v. foreign.Sir 50:2From whence it follows, that this being looked on as the Symbol taken up in Egypt in remembrance of the service of Ioseph, it was very unlikely, that the Israelites should look on the Image it self as so powerful a thing, as the Testimonies of Athanasius and S. Chrysostom imply; to be able even before it was made, to deliver them out of Egypt: which is such a horrible contradiction, that we had need to have better Testimonies than those, to make us think the Israelites such Sots to believe it. But if it were only looked on as a Symbol of Gods presence, this gives a probable account why the Israelites should make choice of this, before any other of the Egyptians Images, because by it, the Kindness of Ioseph (who by Moses is compared to a young Ox) was supposed to be remembred by them. But,Deut. 33.17.Deut 33:17

2. We are to enquire whether supposing that the Israelites did revolt to the Egyptian Idolatry in the worship of the Golden Calf, §. 15.that be sufficient to prove that they did not worship the True God under this Symbol? For if the Egyptians themselves p. 764did worship the Supreme God under Symbolical representations of Him, then although the Israelites might return with their hearts into Egypt, yet this doth not prove, that they did not worship the true God by the Golden Calf. Plutarch, Plut. de Isid. p. 366. Iuven. Satyr. 15.who discourseth largely concerning the Egyptian Worship, saith, That the Golden Bull was the Image of Osiris, which was shewed for four daies together, from the seventeenth of the Month Athir; And it was a common practice in Egypt to have Golden Images (effigies sacri nitet aurea Cercopitheci) wherein Lucian saith,Lucian in Iove. Tragoed. The barbarous Nations did exceed the Greeks, who made their Images of Wood, or Ivory, or Stone. For there were two sorts of Images of their Gods among the Egyptians. Those Images and representations which were in their Temples, or places of worship, and those which they accounted the living Images of their Gods, viz. Beasts; such as the two famous Bulls, Apis and Mneuis: the one at Memphis, the other at Heliopolis; both in honour of Osiris: which places were as the Dan and Bethel of Egypt;Marsham. Chronic. Can. p. 60. Memphis being the Metropolis of the upper, Heliopolis of the lower Egypt; wherein the Israelites lived, and saw the worship of the sacred Bull of Heliopolis. Plutarch saith, p. 765The Egyptians looked on Apis as the Image of the Soul of Osiris. Diodorus saith,Plut. de Isid. p. 36…. Diod. l. 1. p. 76. That they looked on the soul of Osiris as passing by transmigration into Apis (from which doctrin the worship of Beasts was not only entertained in Egypt, but is so in the East Indies to this day, in which case the Beast is only the material object of worship, but the formal Reason is the Presence of some Divine Soul which they suppose to be there, which on their supposition ought to have divine worship given to it by the principles of the Roman Church, as the Elements of Bread and Wine on a supposition more extravagant, viz. of Transubstantiation.) But whether the worship of Animals came into Egypt, from the doctrine of transmigration, or from their usefulness, or from some politick Reasons, which are mentioned both by Plutarch, and Diodorus; this is certain, that Plutarch thinks, Their wiser men did not worship the Animals themselves, but looked on them only as representations of some divine perfection which they discerned in them, and on that account gave worship to them. Plut. de Isid. p. 382.foreign, Those persons ought to be most esteemed, who did not worship the Animals themselves, but through them did worship the Deity; and they ought to be p. 766looked on as clearer and more natural representations of God, than inanimate things; and we ought to esteem them, as the Workmanship and Instrument, foreign … the God that orders all things. And there is all the reason to imagine, that what hath a soul and sense, is better than that which hath none, viz. an Image: and the Divine Nature is not seen in colours and Figures, and smooth Superficies; which are worse than dead creatures, for these never had life in them: but that which hath life, and sense, and motion, hath a greater influence from that Divine Wisdom which governs all things; therefore, saith he, these ought not to be looked on as inferiour representations of the foreign the Divine Being, than those Images which are made of Brass or Stone by the Workmanship of men, and are subject to corruption, and destitute of all sense and understanding. Whereby we see that Plutarch did put a difference between the common practises of the People, and the intention of the wiser men in the Egyptian Idolatry. He before takes notice of the follies of the People, that worshipped the living creatures themselves as Gods, p. 379.and thereby not only exposed their Religion to the scorn and contempt of others; but p. 767led some men into horrible superstition, and tempted others to turn Atheists; and then he gives this, as the most reasonable account of the worship of these Animals according to their wiser men, whose opinions ought most to be followed in Religion. From whence it appears that the distinction of the practice of the People, and the Doctrine of Divines hath obtained among the grossest Idolaters; and if the Peoples Practice be excused because the Divines teach otherwise, the most sottish Egyptian Idolaters are excusable, as well as those in the Roman Church. For what is there in this principle of worship laid down by Plutarch, which may not be defended by the avowed doctrine of the Roman Church? Here is (1.) a right ultimate object of worship, viz. the foreign the Divine Being, which orders and governs all things. (2.) Here is a representation of that object by the perfections derived from that Being to a Creature. (3.) Here is a right directing the Intention through that representation to the ultimate object. And (4.) the formal reason of worship is the derivation or participation of that perfection which represents God from the divine Being: and therefore this is no Soveraign worship which is given to it.

p. 768§. 16.The only difficulty here is to shew that the Egyptians did intend to worship the Supreme God by either sort of their Images: which is not only affirmed by Plutarch, who saith, They understood by Osiris the wise Providence of God, and by Porphyrie, Porphyr. de Abstin. l. 4. sect. 9.who saith, The Egyptians, by the several animals they worshipped, did express their devotion towards the Almighty power of God; and by Apuleius, who was initiated in the Egyptian Mysteries, and in the conclusion of his Metamorphosis, Apul. Metam. l. 11.Osiris is called, Deus Deum magnorum potior, & majorum summus, & summorum maximus, & maximorum regnator Osiris, which are descriptions of no less than the Supremest God; but Max. Tyrius yields at last that the Egyptians did worship the foreign,Max. Tyr. diss. 38. in sin. the Deity by the worship of Animals, as the Greeks did by the Statue of Phidias. And there is a considerable Testimony to this purpose in Vopiscus, Fl. Vopisc. in Saturnino.taken out of an Epistle of the Emperour Adrian, which he wrote to Servianus from Egypt, giving an account of the manners of the Egyptians; wherein are these words, Unus illis Deus est, hunc Christiani, hunc Iudaei, hunc omnes vener antur & gentes. They had one God, p. 769whom Christians and Iews, and all Nations worshipped. Is. Casaubon suspects this passage, but without any reason as Salmasius proves, and is apparent because the same thing is said in the beginning of the same Epistle: Where he saith, that however they differed in other points, yet they all agreed in the worship of Sarapis, by whom Phylarchus in Plutarch understands That God which Governs the World: Plut. de Isid. p. 362.and Seguinus shews from ancient Coynes and Authors, Seguin. Numism. p. 2, 3, 4.that Sarapis, and Iupiter Ammon, and Iupiter Pharius, and Iupiter rerum omnium potens were all one. Thence the Inscriptions,

D.E.O. I.N.V.I.C.T.O.Grut. Inscript. p. 85.

S.E.R.A.P.I. S.E.R.V.A.T.O.R.I.

D.E.O. M.A.G.N.O.

S.E.R.A.P.I.

and that mentioned by Tristan,Tristan. Comment. Histor. To. 2. p. 190.

I.O.M. S.A.R.A.P.I.D.I.

P.R.O. S.A.L.V.T.E. I.M.P.

From which it appears that supposing the Israelites did relapse to the Egyptian Idolatry, it doth not from thence follow that p. 770they did not worship the true God by an Image.

§. 17.I proceed now to the two Calves of Ieroboam at Dan and Bethel; which being made in imitation of the Golden Calf must stand or fall by what hath been said already concerning that. But I shall here make good the peculiar arguments to Ieroboam's case, which were brought to prove that he did intend to worship the God of Israel by the Calves of Dan and Bethel. 1. Because Ieroboam manifests no design of taking the people off from the worship of the true God, but only from the worshipping Him at Hierusalem. For all that he saith to the People is, It is too much for you to go up to Ierusalem, 1 Kings 12.28.1 Kgs 12:28behold thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt. If Ieroboam's intention had been to have altered their Religion, he would have spoken against that, and not only against the place of it; and to shew to them that he had no such intention, he continued the same Feasts and way of worship which were at Ierusalem. To this T. G. answers,T.G. p. 164. That Jeroboam's end was to secure the Ten Tribes to himself; and the likeliest way to effect it, was the making them such Idols as their Fathers p. 771had worshipped in Egypt and the Wilderness: and yet soon after T. G. represents him as a great Polititian, that would not make any sudden Changes. p. 165.But could there be any change greater or more sudden, than to change the true God for Molten Gods and Devils; as T. G. saith he did: which words (if they be understood in T. G's sense for the Egyptian Idols and Devils in them) was as great a change as could be made in Religion, and too sudden to be made by such a Polititian. He should have begun the alteration in the smaller matters, if he intended no sudden change; and first have gained some of the Great men to him to be ready to joyn with him, when opportunity served, with hopes of Preferment and Places at Court; when these were secured, then put in some of the vilest of the people into the Priesthood (as he did) to render that sacred Office mean and contemptible, the better to prepare the people for a change; then to send Agents abroad to tamper with the most active among them, to allure some and to terrifie others according to their several dispositions; then to give liberty to those tender consciences that longed for the Onions and Fleshpots and Bulls of Egypt; and when he had by degrees prepared a considerable p. 772party, that would be sure to adhere to him, then by little and little to open the great Design to them, which he aimed at all this while. But it was too great a Change for such a Polititian, to say at the very first to them; Come, renounce the God of Israel without more ado; I have set up other Gods for you to worship, and I command you all immediately to obey me: methinks, this would seem too harsh and unpolitick, and too dangerous for so new a Government as his was; a little Indulgence for tender consciences, for a time, with the sweetest words, had better become such an Achitophel, as T. G. calls Ieroboam. This, this had been the way to have wheadled and drawn in the silly and injudicious multitude, By telling them what an oppression it was for them to be under the jurisdiction of the High Priest and his Brethren at Ierusalem; and that there was no Reason such a vast number of lazy Priests and ignorant Levites should be maintained out of their labours by Tythes and Offerings; that all the pretence of the true worship of God being confined to the Temple at Ierusalem, was only out of a design to enrich the Priests and the City; that it was only zeal for their own interest and revenues, p. 773which made them so earnest for that particular way of worship which was so different from the rest of the World. What! could they imagine that God had no other people in the World, but such as went up to Ierusalem to worship? what would become of the Catholick way of worship, which was in all the Nations round about them? Was it credible, that God should suffer so great a part of mankind to run on in such Idolatry, as a few Iews accounted it? If it were so displeasing to God, could it ever be thought that the Wisest King they ever had, viz. Salomon, should in the wisest time of his Life, viz. in his old Age, fall to the practice of it? Besides all this, they ought to consider, how much the honour and safety of the Nation was concerned in embracing the same Catholick way of worship which prevailed round about them. Their pretending to greater purity of worship than their Neighbours, made them hated and scorned, and reproached by their Neighbours of all sides, viz. by Moab and Ammon, and Amalek, the Philistins, and those of Tyre: but if they returned to the worship of the Neighbour Nations, they might be sure of the assistance of the p. 774King of Egypt, with whom Ieroboam had lived many years, who would be ready to help them on all occasions; and their lesser enemies would then be afraid to disturb them. Thus we see what plausible pretences there were to have drawn the people off from the Law of Moses, to the Idolatries of Egypt; but we read not the least intimation of this Nature in the whole History of this Revolt: but Ieroboam only saith, These are thy Gods which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, which was the most unpolitick way of perswading them to return to the Gods of Egypt. Besides he not only appointed a Feast like unto that in Iudah, but it is said,1 Kings 12.32.1 Kgs 12:32 That he offered upon the Altar, and sacrificed unto the Calves which he had made, i. e. according to the custom of the Iewish Sacrifices, than which nothing could be more repugnant to the Egyptian Idolatry, as I have already proved. But T. G. saith,T. G. p. 165. The Text speaks but of one Feast; it is very true, it mentions but one; but it is said afterwards in several places, That they departed not from the way of Ieroboam;2 Kings 17.22, 23.2 Kgs 17:222 Kgs 17:23 and that very Feast being accompanied with so many Sacrifices, was a plain evidence it was not the Egyptian Idolatry, which he then set up. And it is p. 775remarkable to this purpose, that every one who was to be consecrated a Priest to the Golden Calves, was to be consecrated with a Sacrifice of a young Bullock, 2 Chron. 13.9.2 Chr 13:9and of seven Rams; which according to the Rites of the Egyptian Idolatry were enough to have profaned the most sacred Person. And Iosephus, Ioseph. Antiq. Iud. l. 8. c. 3.(who may be allowed to have understood the mind of Ieroboam as well as T. G.) saith expressly, That in the speech he made to the People, he only pleaded, that God being every where present, he might be worshipped at Dan and Bethel, as well as Jerusalem: and that for their greater conveniency he had set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel, that there they might worship God. Thus we see that in this worship at Dan and Bethel, Ieroboam intended no more than to worship the God of Israel there. I will not deny, that Ieroboam was for Liberty of Conscience, and allowed the practice of Egyptian Idolatry, and appointed Priests to serve at the several Altars, as the People had a mind; but the established worship, at which himself was present, was at the Calves of Dan and Bethel. For it is said, That he offered on the Altar there. 1 Kings 12.33.1 Kgs 12:33But we read that he appointed Priests, not only for the Calves, but 1. for the High places;2 Chro…. 11.15. p. 776which were of two sorts, 1. Some for the worship of false Gods, as those which Salomon allowed to be built for Chemosh and Moloch on the Mount of Olives. 1 Kings 11.7. 2 Kings 23.13.1 Kgs 11:72 Kgs 23:132. Others were for the worship of the true God in the ten Tribes. For there being some dissenting Brethren among the Israelites, who would neither join with the House of Iudah in the worship at Hierusalem, nor with Ieroboam in the worship of the Calves at Dan and Bethel; to keep these secure to his interest, he permits them to worship God on the High places, i. e. Altars erected to that purpose upon an ascent of ground. And this I prove from that passage of Elias, They have thrown down thy Altars; 1 Kings 19.10, 14.1 Kgs 19:101 Kgs 19:14speaking of the Children of Israels demolishing them in the time of Ahab, who was the eighth in succession from Ieroboam. And in the Reformation of Iosiah, he puts a difference between the Priests of the High places; for some of them were permitted to eat unleavened bread among their Brethren;2 Kings 23.9, 20.2 Kgs 23:92 Kgs 23:20 and others he slew upon the Altars. Which shews that both in Iudah and Israel there were some who did still worship the true God on the High places. 2. Ieroboam appointed Priests foreign Pilosis, to the hairy ones; which I wonder, how it come to be translated p. 777Devils both here, and Levit. 17. since in above fifty places of Scripture, it signifies Goats; and but in one, the LXX. render it by foreign, and there Aquila hath foreign,Isa. 13.21.Isa 13:21 and the Vulgar Latine Pilosi, and our translation Satyrs: and since the worship of Goats, and other hairy animals was so frequent among the Egyptians, as of Dogs, Wolves, Cats, Ichneumons, Apes, &c. but especially the Goats, as Herodotus, Herod. l. 2. c. 46.Strabo, Strab. l. 17.Diodorus, Diodor. l. 1.Plutarch, Plut. de Isid.and others relate (and the Pan, and Faunus, and Silenus, and Silvanus, and Satyri were but a sort of Goats: for the Arabick word Satar is a Goat, and the Egyptian name for Pan is Mendes, which, saith Bochartus, Boch. de Anim. Sacr. l. 2. c. 53signifies a Goat too.) And since this worship was so common in Egypt was there not reason to forbid it by a Law, Levit. 17.7? and is there not cause where we meet with this word relating to an object of worship, to understand it according to the common practice of Idolaters, and the common sense of the word? Therefore I grant that Ieroboam did permit the Egyptian Idolatry, but he established the Golden Calves as the Religion of the State.

p. 778§. 18.2. I shewed, that the true God was worshipped by the Golden Calves; because the sin of Ahab who worshipped Baal is said to be so much greater than the sin of Jeroboam. And it came to pass as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Ieroboam, 1 Kings 16.31, 32.1 Kgs 16:311 Kgs 16:32that he took to wife Iezabel, daughter of Baal, King of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him; and he reared up an Altar for Baal, in the House of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. Yes, saith T. G. Ahabs sin was greater, T. G. p. 1….because he added this Idolatry to the other. Who denies that his sin might have been greater in that respect? but that it was not so to be understood, appears by the opposition between God and Baal in the words of Elijah? How long halt ye, saith he to all the People, between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow Him: 1 Kings 18.21.1 Kgs 18:21but if Baal, then follow him. Now there being three several waies of worship among the people, if two of the three had not agreed in the same object of worship, viz. the God of Israel, Elijah could not have said that they halted only between two opinions of God and Baal; if some were for the God of Israel, others for the Gods of the Egyptians, and others for p. 779Beel Samen, or the God of the Zidonians. But, saith T. G. Elijah supposes a general Apostasie of the ten Tribes to Baal in the next Chapter. T. G. p. 167.And what then? It was but very lately so, and they were not yet so fixed but they might be put in mind that they were lately of another opinion: and some render it, How long will ye pass from one extreme to another? how long will ye be so uncertain in Religion, now for God, and then for Baal? So Vatablus renders it, Quousque tandem alternis, &c. Now of one side, then of the other? or as some imagine, they themselves worshipped the Calves, and sometimes Baal. So that notwithstanding what T. G, saith, the opposition is here plain between the God worshipped by the Calves, which was the publick and established worship of the ten Tribes, and the worship of Baal, which was newly introduced: and so the True God is supposed to be worshipped by those who did not worship Baal. To confirm this, I added, that Iehu magnifies his zeal for Iehovah against Baal, when it is said of him but a little after, That he departed not from the Calves of Dan and Bethel;2 Kings 10.16.2 Kgs 10:16 which evidently shews the opposition between the God of Israel worshipped by the Calves, and the worship of Baal. No, saith T. G. Iehu's p. 780zeal for the Lord doth not acquit him from Idolatry in following Jeroboam, any more than the lawful act of Matrimony acquits a Husband from the Crime of Adultery, who defiles his Neighbours Bed. I perceive T. G. grew very sleepy when he wrote this,T.G. p. 166. and forgot what we were about: for I never intended to clear Iehu from Idolatry by his zeal for Iehovah, but from such an Idolatry as excludes the worship of the True God. For that was my business to shew that he might be guilty of Idolatry, and yet worship the true God, by the Calves of Ieroboam; as he not only shews by that expression to Ionaedab, but by distinguishing between the Priests of the Lord, v. 23.and the Priests of Baal; and yet soon after that character is twice given of Iehu, That he departed not from that worship which Ieroboam had established.v. 29, 31.

To the last instance I brought of the Samaritans, who sent to the King of Assyria for an Israelitish Priest to teach them the accustomed worship of the God of the Land, who accordingly came and dwelt in Bethel, 2 Kings 17.26, 27, 28, 32, 33.2 Kgs 17:262 Kgs 17:272 Kgs 17:282 Kgs 17:322 Kgs 17:33and taught it them, upon which it is said, They feared the Lord; T. G. returns a strange answer,T. G. p. 168. viz. That there is no mention at all made of his teaching them to worship him in the Calves as Symbols of his presence; p. 781here T. G. nodded again: For if he would but have held his eyes open so long as to have looked back on the 22, and 23 verses of the same Chapter, he would have found these words, For the Children of Israel walked in all the sins of Ieroboam which he did, they departed not from them: until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the Prophets. So was Israel carried away out of his own Land to Assyria; and then immediately follows this story of the Samaritans, desiring to know the worship of the God of the Land; what can this refer to, but to the worship established by Ieroboam? I leave this to be considered by T. G. when he is awake,T.G. p. 168. for he seems to have written these things in a Dream. As to what he saith, of his having confuted my conjectures, or rather Monceius his; (when it is apparent I differ from Monceius in his main ground, to any man that hath read him) I leave it as a fresh token of his kindness, when he will not so much as suffer me to be the Author of such weak conjectures, which he hath so easily, and so pleasantly confuted; and for the phrase of my plowing with his Heifer, I suppose it hath relation to the Calves of Dan and Bethel; which I take notice of, that he may not think his Wit is lost upon me.

p. 782To conclude this point of the meaning of the Second Commandment, §. 19.I said, That since the Law giver hath thus interpreted his own Law, we need not be solicitous about the sense of any others, yet herein I say we have the concurrence of the Iewish and Christian Church. The Iews have thought the prohibition to extend to all kinds of Images for worship, and almost all for ornament, and the Image worship of the Church of Rome is one of the great scandals to this day, which hinder them from embracing Christianity. All that T. G. answers to this is,T.G. p. 169. That he would gladly know, whether we must stand or fall by the interpretation of the Iews? Did I bring their Testimony for that purpose? or intimate the least thing that way? did I not use so much caution on purpose to prevent such a cavil? I declared that I did not need their Testimony in so clear a case; and yet it is no small advantage to our Cause, that we have herein the concurrence of all that had any Reverence to this Law of God, whether Iews or Mahumetans; and not barely of them, but of the whole Christian Church for so many Ages, as I have fully proved in the precedent Chapters.T.G. p. 175. As to the Prophetical confutation p. 783of my opinion about Idolatry and the Second Commandment by Mr. Thorndike, I do assure him if I could have thought what that learned Person had said in this matter, to have been agreeable either to Scripture or Reason, or the sense of the Primitive, or our own Church, it might have prevented my writing, by changing my opinion; for I was no stranger to his Writings, or his Arguments. But he that can think the Israelites believed the Golden Calf delivered their people out of Egypt before it was made, may easily believe that Mr. Thorndikes Book of 1662. was a confutation of mine, long before it was written; and upon equal reason at least, I may hope that this Answer will be a Prophetical Confutation of all that T. G. will ever be able to say upon this Subject.