Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Chapter 1

Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Chapter 1

p. 49A Defence of the foregoing Answer to the Questions.

CHAP. I. Of the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome, in the Worship of Images.

The introduction, concerning the occasion of the debate. The Church of Rome makes its members guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry: First, Of the Worship of God by Images: Some propositions for clearing the notion of Divine Worship. It is in Gods power to determine the way of his Worship, which being determined, Gods Law, and not our intention, is to be the rule of Worship. The main question is, Whether God hath forbidden the worshipping of himself by an Image, under the notion of Idolatry? Of the meaning of the second Commandment, from the terms therein used, the large sense and importance of them, which cannot be understood only of Heathen Idols. Of the reason of that Law, from Gods infinite and invisible nature: How far that hath been acknowledged by Heathens? The Law against Image Worship no ceremonial Law respecting meerly the Iews; the reason p. 50against it made more clear by the Gospel: The wiser Heathen did not worship their Images as Gods, yet their worship condemned as Idolatry. The Christian Church believed the reason of this Law to be immutable; Of the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice; the opposition to it in Greece, Germany, France and England. Of the Scripture Instances of Idolatry contrary to the second Commandment, in the Golden Calf, and the Calves of Dan and Bethel. Of the distinctions used to excuse image-worship from being Idolatry: The vanity and folly of them. The instances supposed to be parallel answered.

Madam,

§. 1. THat increase of Controversies in my answer,The Introduction. which the Proposer of the Questions, calls a superfoetation, was but the natural issue of his own Questions. To which, I could not give a just answer, without mentioning the hazards a person runs of his salvation in the communion of the Roman Church: and if he thinks these too many (as in truth they are) he ought to condemn that Church for it, which hath been the cause of them. And, I know no other end I had herein, but to let you see, there can be no reason to forsake the communion of our Church, wherein the way of p. 51salvation is the same, with that of the Apostolical and Primitive Church, for another, which hath degenerated so much from it; as I hope will appear in the following Discourse.

To wave therefore any farther debate, concerning the terms or sense of the Questions: As to the occasion of them, I could not but suppose it to relate to your own condition, and I dare appeal to himself, Whether the Question of the possibility of the salvation of a Protestant turn'd to the Church of Rome were moved for any other end, than thereby the easier to draw persons of our Church into their communion; which being so common, and yet so weak an Artifice, I had reason to premise an answer to that purpose: and I do still affirm, that such a possibility being granted, it is no sufficient Motive to any one to leave the communion of one Church for another. And whether this be to his Question or no, I am sure it is very much to the purpose, for which this Controversie was first started. I beseech you therefore Madam, do not so much disparage your own Judgement, and the Church you have been bred up in, to forsake it, till some better reason be offered, than the Proposer pretends that his Questions imply: Which, if not for your own sake, yet for mine I desire you to insist upon, that I may know one reason at least from them, (which I cannot yet procure, although I p. 52have often requested it) why the believing all the ancient Creeds and leading a good life, may not be sufficient to salvation, unless one be of the communion of the Church of Rome? But lest I should be thought to digress, I return to his Papers, and am willing to pass over his unhandsome reflection on our Church as in a sinking condition, which God hath hitherto preserved, and I hope will do, to the confusion of its enemies: But why he should call my comparison a supposition, and his own a truth, before he proved their Church to be the Catholick Church, I am yet to seek. And so I come to the main business.

§. 2. My second answer was, That all those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome, do run so great a hazard of their salvation, that none who have a care of their souls, ought to embrace it, or continue in it. which I am amazed he should say, was not pertinent to the Question, if the Question were propounded for any ones satisfaction, that doubted which Churches communion it were best to embrace? This I proved,

1. Because They must by the terms of that communion, Of the Idolatry of the Roman Church.be guilty either of Hypocrisie or Idolatry; either of which, are sins inconsistent with salvation. Here he charges me with a contradiction, because I overprove what I intended; but he may easily excuse me from it, if he will allow the possibility p. 53of salvation to any one who commits any wilful sins; for in the case of any such sins, it is true, that they are inconsistent with salvation, and yet he that doth commit them, doth but run the hazzard of salvation, because he may repent of them. But if it be a contradiction to say, that some sins are inconsistent with salvation, yet those who commit them, may be saved, though hardly; he must make all who commit any wilful sin to be unavoidably damned; and then it is to no purpose, what Church we are of. The meaning therefore was this, That Hypocrisie and Idolatry, are sins inconsistent with a state of salvation; and there is no way to escape being damned, but by the repentance of those who are guilty of them. (But of this more at large in the vindication of my third Answer) and those who are in the communion of the Church of Rome, must be guilty either of the one or the other of these, I proved by this Argument, That Church which requires giving to the creature the Worship due only to the Creator, makes the members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry; but the Church of Rome in the Worship of God by Images, the adoration of Bread in the Eucharist, and the formal invocation of Saints, doth require giving to the creature the worship due only to the Creator, therefore it makes the members of it guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry. p. 54Which I did prove by parts.

1. §. 3. Concerning the Worship of God by Images, Of the Worship of Images.I proved that it could not be terminated on God, because in the second Commandment he not only denys to receive it, but threatens to punish those who give it. To this he answers 1. That it is a contradiction to say, that it is the worship of God by an Image, and yet be terminated wholly on the creature. 2. That this is built, on a mistake of the nature of humane acts, which though they ought to be governed by the Law of God, yet when they swerve from it, cease not to tend to their own proper objects: and that Gods prohibition of such or such a kind of Worship, may make it to be unlawful, but hinders not the act from tending, whither it is intended; which he proves by the prayers of Thieves and Murderers, to God for good success; the Iews offering to God in Sacrifice the blind and the lame, which he hath forbidden; Cains offering a Sacrifice to God, which he refused to accept of; from whence he concludes, That though God should have forbidden men to worship him by Images, yet it doth not follow, but the worship so given, would be terminated on him. 3. That the second Commandment only forbids the worship of Idols, or the giving the Soveraign honour due to God to an Idol; but this doth not forbid the worship of Images, because they give to them only an inferiour and relative honour, p. 55and not, that worship which is due to God. This is the substance of his answer: but to let you see the insufficiency of it, I shall prove these two things: 1. That where God hath prohibited any particular way or means of giving worship to himself, that worship so given, cannot be said to be terminated on him. 2. That God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any worship to himself by an Image; and not barely the worship of Idols.

1. That where God hath prohibited any particular way or means of giving worship to himself, that worship so given, cannot be said to be terminated on him: And however new this way of proposing this Argument, seems to him, I do not question to make it good, notwithstanding his so peremptory denying it, as absolutely false. But in order to the clearing of it, I shall lay down these Propositions.

1. That worship is nothing else but an external signification of honour and respect. For we do not here speak concerning the bare internal acts of the mind; but of the way whereby the esteem we have in our minds, is expressed in such a manner as to give honour to that which we so esteem.

2. That the signification of honour, which is due to God is not to be measured by the intentions of men, against the declared will p. 56of God. For, it being in his power to determine in what way he will be worshipped, we are not to enquire, whether men do intend any act of theirs for his honour; but whether God doth allow it or no? And herein lyes his great mistake in thinking, That mens intentions are to be the rule of Divine Worship: so that what they design for the honour of God, must needs end in it. Whereas, if God hath the power of making a rule for his own worship, he cannot be honoured by mens doing any thing against his declared Will, whatever their intention be. For, then God might be honoured by the most palpable acts of disobedience; which is a plain contradiction; for what can be greater dishonour to God, than to break his Laws for his Honour.

3. The Divine Law being the rule of Worship, all prohibited wayes of worship must receive that denomination which God himself gives them. As if a Prince should declare it by his Laws, to be Treason for any man to bow down to a Sign-Post with his head upon it, under pretence of giving the greater honour to his Prince; I desire to know, whether a mans intentions of honouring his Prince thereby, excuse him from Treason or no? So it is in our case, if God absolutely prohibits the worship of himself by an Image, whatever the intention of the person be, and calls this p. 57by the name of Idolatry, no mans directing the intention of his mind beyond the Image, can excuse him from it. From whence, it necessarily follows, that the worship of God by an Image, when himself hath prohibited it, and declared it Idolatry, as I shall prove he hath done in the second Commandment, cannot be terminated on God, but only on the Image; for no man will be so absurd, as to say, that an act of Idolatry is terminated upon God. By which we see, how far it is from the appearance of a contradiction, to say that the worship of God by an Image being declared to be Idolatry by himself, should be terminated wholly on the creature, (which are but other words explaining the nature of Idolatry) and what an easie answer will take off all his other Instances. For those do not suppose, any prohibited object or means of worship, which is the only thing we speak of; but either praying to the true God for bad ends, as in the case of Thieves and Murderers praying for good success; or bringing something in Sacrifice to him which he had forbidden, as the Iews offering the blind and the lame: or some miscarriage in the minds of them that sacrifice or pray to him, as in Cains oblation, and wicked mens prayers; but all these are very remote from the present debate, concerning an object or means of worship prohibited by God p. 58himself under the notion of Idolatry. This being cleared, I come to prove,

§. 4. 2. That God in the second Commandment hath expresly prohibited the giving any worship to himself by an Image:Of the meaning of the second Commandment. and not meerly giving the worship of God to Idols, as he asserts. Our Controversie now being about the sense of a Law, the best wayes we have to find out the meaning of it, are either, from the terms wherein it is expressed, or from the reason annexed to it; or from the judgement of those whom we believe best able to understand and interpret it. I shall therefore prove that to be the meaning of this Law of God which I have set down, from every one of these wayes.

1. From the terms wherein the Law is expressed: this I the rather insist upon, because it is the way himself hath chosen: for he saith, The Hebrew word Pesel, in Latin Sculptile is used in Scripture to signifie an Idol, and so the LXX. translate it in this place by foreign, and therefore saith, it was an artifice of the Protestants to translate it Image instead of Idol, and not any certain kind of Image neither, but any whatsoever; Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image, instead of, Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol. By his own acknowledgement then, we are to judge the sense of the Law, by the importance of the words therein used; p. 59but I shall prove, First, That supposing Pesel did signifie only an Idol, yet that were not enough. Secondly, That Pesel is very properly rendred by the Protestants, and that it doth not signifie barely an Idol.

1. Supposing that were the signification of Pesel which he contends for, that were not enough, unless there had been no other word but that used in the Law: but another word is added to prevent a mistake of that nature, of as large a signification as may be to this purpose: which is, Themuna, which they render similitude as well as we, and is never used in the whole Scripture to signifie such an Idol as he supposes this Law intends. To what purpose then are words of the largest signification put into a Law; if the sense be limited 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: for not only the making a similitude in general, is forbidden, but any kind of similitude whether of things in Heaven, or Earth, or under the Earth, to bow down to them, or worship them. I confess it cannot enter into my mind, how God should have forbidden the worship of Images by more express and emphatical words than he hath p. 60done; and if he had used any other words, their sense might as well have been perverted as these are. If a Prince should under a very severe penalty forbid all his subjects making any Image or resemblance, with an intent to give honour to him by kneeling before them; would not that man be thought very ridiculous, who should go about to interpret the Law thus, that the Prince did not forbid them making any picture of himself or his Son, or any of his Favourites (for the worship of these could not but redound to his own Honour) but only that they should make the Image of an Ape, or an Ass, or a Tyger, thinking to honour their Prince thereby? Much such an exposition is that here given of the Law; God forbids any Image or similitude to be made with respect to his worship (for it is ridiculous to imagine the Law means any thing else) but, he saith, This Law must not be understood to exclude a Crucifix, nor I suppose any Image of God himself: (at least as he appeared of old;) nor of his Saints or Angels, with an intention to worship God by them; but only they should not worship Apis or Dagon, an Ichneumon or a Crocodile, or any of the most ridiculous follies of the Heathen. 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 p. 61Heathen Idols here mentioned, as being less lyable to ambiguity? Why in so short a comprehension of Laws, is this Law so much inlarged above what it might have been, if all that he saith, were only meant by it? For then the meaning of the two first Precepts might have been summed up in very few words: You shall have no other Gods but me; and you shall worship the Images of no other Gods but me. This is his meaning, but far enough from being that of the second Commandment.

2. The only word he insists upon which is Pesel, is very properly rendred an Image, and it doth not signifie barely an Idol: the word properly signifies any thing that is carved, or cut out of wood or stone: and it is no less than forty several times rendred by the LXX. by foreign, sculptile, and but thrice by foreign, and which is very observable, although Exod. 20. 4. they render it by foreign, yet in the repetition of the Law, Deut. 5. 8. the Alexandrian MS. hath it foreign, and Deut. 4. 16. in other Copies of the LXX. the same word is translated foreign; from whence it is plain, that when they translate it by an Idol, they mean no more thereby than a graven image, and Isa. 40. 18. they translate it, by foreign, which is properly an image; so that no assistance can be given him by that translation; and the Vulgar Latin it self useth Idolum, p. 62Sculptile and Imago, all to express the same thing, Isa. 44. 9, 10, 13. By which it appears, that any Image being made so far the object of Divine Worship, that men do bow down before it; doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in this Commandment.

§. 5. 3. We consider the reason given of this Law,Of the reason of the second Commandment. which will more fully explain the meaning of it; which 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.Isa. 40. 19.Isa 40:19 To whom will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? 20.The workman melteth a graven Image, and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with Gold, 21.&c. Have ye not known? Have ye not heard? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? 22.Have ye not understood from the foundation of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, &c. I desire 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 extreamly 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, &c. Take ye therefore p. 63good 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, were 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? For 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 upon 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.

§. 6. From hence the wiser persons of the Heathens themselves condemned the Worship of God by Images,Of the wiser Heathens Notion of Images. as incongruous to a Divine Nature and a disparagement to the Deity. Theodoret. c. Graec. Serm. 3. p. 519.So Theodoret tells us, that Zeno in his Books of Government, did absolutely forbid the making any Images for Worship, because they were not things worthy of God: And that Xenophanes Colophonius derided the p. 64folly of those who made their Images which they Worshipped, to be like themselves, and by the same reason saith he, if Horses and Elephants could paint as men can, no doubt the Gods would be made in their shape; as the Aethiopians and Thracians and others made their Gods in their own Colour and Fashion: but he addes, That the true God ought not to be represented by the resemblance of men to whom he was unlike in body and mind. And that the only reason which hindred Plato from prohibiting all manner of Images was only the fear of Socrates his Fate:Clem. Alexand. Strom. 5. p. 584. for, saith he, he did forbid all private Images, all Images of Gold and Silver, of Ivory, of Iron and Brass, and left only Wood and Stone, which being so contemptible matter might more easily keep the people from Worshipping Images made of them. As God himself, saith he, derideth the Idolater in the Prophet;Isa. 44. 16, 17.Isa 44:16Isa 44:17 he burneth part thereof in the fire, and the residue thereof maketh he a God, even his graven Image. Antisthenes in Clemens Alexandrinus condemns the use of Images for Instruction,Clem. Alexand. Protrept. p. 46. because there is so great a dissimilitude between God and any visible representation of him, that no man can learn any thing of God, from an Image: and Xenophon to the same purpose, that God is great and powerful, but we know not how to represent him. Strom. 1. p. 304.And Clemens gives that reason why Numa prohibited p. 65among the Romans all Images to represent the Deity, because we could not attain to any due conception of the Deity, but only by our minds, which is the same reason that Plutarch gives.Plutarch in Numâ. And therefore Varro in the known Testimony to this purpose,Varro apud Augustin. de Civit. Dei l. 4. c 31. speaking of the old Romans who had no Images for 170 years in their Divine Worship, saith, that if the same Custome had continued, their Worship would have been more pure and chaste; and that those who first placed Images in places of Divine Worship, increased their Errour and took away their Reverence; Wisely judging saith St. Augustine that the folly of Images would easily bring the Deity into contempt. Philo de legat. ad Caium p. 1035.And Augustus, as Agrippa in Philo reports, after he understood, that the Iewes in their Temple had no Images or visible representations of the Deity, expressed his wonder with great Reverence, having no mean skill in Philosophy. So that we see the wisest persons who had no such Law from God to direct them, yet by the bare use of reason did agree in the thing it self, that it was unsuitable to the Divine Nature to Worship God by any Images or visible representations of him. From hence we have reason to suppose among the more ancient Nations who kept nearer to the dictates of natural reason,Eus…bius de prepar. the Worship of Images was almost generally rejected.Evang. l. 6. c. 10. So Bardesanes in Eusebius saith of the p. 66most Eastern Countries then known; of the Seres and the Brachmanns, Herodot. l 1. Strabo l 15. Diog. Laert. prooem.So Herodotus, Strabo, Diogenes Laertius say of the Persians. So Tacitus of the Germans, that they rejected Images,Tacit. de morib. German. c. 9. Lucian. de Dea Syria. init. because they thought them unsuitable to the greatness of their Deities. So Lucian likewise saith of the most ancient Aegyptians; and Historians agree of the Romans, as we have already seen. If all this had been a meer positive Law intended only for the Iewes, because of their dulness and stupidity, as some imagine, whence comes it to pass that those who never heard of this Law yet judged such a way of Worship to be wholly unbecoming a Divine Nature? It was not meerly the fear lest they should Worship the Images themselves for Gods, which was the reason of the Commandment, but the incongruity of such a way of Worship to a being supposed to be of an infinite and a spiritual nature.

§. 7. And it seems of all things the most strange to me,The reason of this Law more clear by the Gospel. that any persons should think this precept only respected the Iewish Oeconomy; and that now under the Gospel where we have clearer discoveries of Gods spiritual nature and Worship, that we should be left at liberty to do that, which was before, unlawful to be done. Was it inconsistent with Gods nature then, and is it less so now, when we understand his nature p. 67much better? and that is given as a particular reason why we ought to Worship him after a spiritual manner; John 4. 23, 24.John 4:23John 4:24and not by any corporeal representation as the Iews say the Samaritans Worshipped God in the form of a Dove in their Temple on Mount Garizim: in which, notwithstanding what Morinus saith,Morinus in Pentatench. Samarit. there seems to be no improbability not only from our Saviours words and the occasion of speaking them to a Samaritan woman,Exerc. 1. S. 9. c. 5. (which we do not find he insisted on so much to the Iewes as being then free from this kind of Idolatry) and the constant tradition of the Iewes; but from the nature of the Samaritan Religion which they received from the ten Tribes, which Worshipped God under Images, as will appear afterwards, and the agreeableness of the Symbol of a Dove to the name of Semiramis and their Assyrian off-spring among whom the Dove was accounted Sacred. But however this be, since the reason of this command drawn from the invisible and spiritual nature of God, is now enforced upon us by the Gospel as the ground of giving spiritual worship to God, how can any men in their senses imagine that Worship should be lawful among Christians which was unlawful to the Iewes? Is it, that there is now no danger of falling into Heathen Idolatry as there was among the Iewes, on which account God tied them p. 68up so strictly in this point of Images? But this is to begg the Question, and to take it for granted that there was no other reason of this command, Whereas God himself hath told us another, and that is, the incongruity of it to his infinite nature; which the very Heathens themselves apprehended in this case. I grant God might by this means design to keep them at the greatest distance from the Heathen Idolatry; but that doth not hinder, but there was an evil in the thing it self, as it doth imply so great a disparagement of the divine nature to be Worshipped by a corporeal representation. As we may say that the prohibition of common Swearing was intended by God to keep men from perjury; but besides that, it implyes so great an irreverence of God, that it is evil without that further respect. And can any one imagine there should be greater irreverence of God shewn in calling him to witness upon every slight occasion, than there is in bowing down before a block or a hewn stone representing God to my mind by it? What can such an Image do to the heightening of devotion, or raising affections? if it be by calling to my mind that Being I am to Worship, then there must be supposed some likeness, or Analogy, or Vnion between the object represented and the image, every one of which tends highly to the dishonour of p. 69the Deity, and suggests mean thoughts to us of the God we are to Worship. And is there no danger among Christians that they should entertain too low and unworthy thoughts of God? and can any thing tend to it more effectually, than the bringing down the representations of him to the figure and lineaments of a man drawn upon a Table or carved in an Image? On which account, it seems much more reasonable for me to Worship God by prostrating my self to the Sun, or any of the Heavenly bodies, nay to an Ant or a Fly, than to a picture or an Image: For in the other I see great evidences of the power, and wisdom and goodness of God, which may suggest venerable apprehensions of God to my mind; whereas these can have nothing worthy admiration, unless it be the skill of the Painter or Artificer? And I cannot, for my heart, understand; why I may not as well, nay better, burn Incense and say my Prayers to the Sun, having an intention only to honour the true G…d by it, as to do both those to an Image: I am sure the Sun hath far more advantages than any artificial Image can have; the beauty and influence of it may inflame and warm ones devotions much more. If the danger be, that I am more like to take the Sun for God than an Image: on that account, that which deserves most honour should have least p. 70given it, and that which deserves least should have most. For the danger is there still greater, where the excellency is greater, and by that means we ought rather to Worship a beast than a Saint, for there is less danger of believing one to be God than the other; and so the Aegyptians were more excusable than the Papists. I must ingenuously confess, if I had been an Heathen Idolater, only upon such principles as these, that there is one supreme infinite Being, who makes use of some more illustrious beings of the world, to communicate benefits to the rest, on which account, I thought my self bound to testifie the honour I owe to the supream Deity, by paying my devotions in subordination to him, to those subservient and ministerial Gods; I should not have been afraid, of what any Papists in the World could have said for my Confutation. Nay, I should have been tempted to have laughed at their folly and despised their weakness, who should plead for the worship of God in or by a dull and rude image, and condemn me for honouring God in the most noble parts of the Creation? If they had told me, that the supream God, must have a worship proper to himself; Yes, I should answer them in their own terms, I by no means question it, and that is it, which is called foreign, which is reserved to the supream Deity, all that I p. 71give to inferiour Deities, is but foreign, only the Sun deserved an foreign, because of his eminent usefulness. If they had said, I made them Gods by giving them religious Worship: no more, than they do Images. If yet they had urged, that God had forbidden Worshipping the Host of Heaven; Yes, that is, giving the Worship of the Supreme God to them, but not a subordinate relative, inferiour Worship, which was all I intended, and I hope they are not so ignorant of the nature of humane actions as not to know that they go whither they are intended; and my intent was only to honour the true God by it: or else, that the Worshipping the Host of Heaven was forbidden to the dull and stupid Iewes, who had no kind of Philos…phy in them, and did not see those admirable Images of the Divine perfections in them which I did; but for men of Philosophical and contemplative minds what injury to God could there be, as long as the more I saw cause to honour these, far greater I still saw to honour him who produced all these things? or lastly, I would appeal to themselves whether the precept against Worshipping the host of Heaven, or images were more plain in the Scripture? the second commandment is not in words against the Worship of the things but the images of them, and the first against Worshipping them as the Supream God; p. 72I did neither; but they could not possibly excuse themselves who did the same things to an Image, which they do to God himself. Thus we see the reason of the commandment is by no means appropriated to the Iews, but doth extend as far as the knowledge of it doth: and the same arguments which notwithstanding that command would justifie the Worship of Images, will likewise justifie the most early, the most general, the most lasting Idolatry of the World, which is the Worship of the Sun, Moon, and Starrs. And a mighty Argument that the reason of this command, drawn from the unsuitableness of the Worship of Images to the nature of God is of an unalterable and universal nature, is, that the same reason is urged under the New Testament against the Idolatry of the Heathens. So St. Paul dealt with the Athenians, proving the unreasonableness of their Worshipping God by Images, Act. 17. …, 25.Acts 17because he was the God that made the World and is Lord of Heaven and Earth, and that we are his offspring, therefore we ought not to think that the God head is like unto Gold or Silver,29. or Stone graven by art or mans device: he doth not speak meerly against their other objects of Worship besides the true God, nor their supposing their Gods to be present in their Images, nor taking their images for Gods, but against their supposition that there was p. 73any resemblance between God and their Images, or that he was capable of receiving any honour by them. The same Argument he useth to the Romans, speaking of those, in whom that which may be known of God is manifest, Rom. 1. 19.Rom 1:19even his eternal power and God-head; yet these persons who knew God, 21.did not glorifie him as God, but changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, 23.&c. where changing his glory into Images, is immediately opposed to the glorifying him as God in respect of his eternal power and God-head; so that those two are inconsistent with each other, to glorifie God by an Image and to glorifie him as God. For here the Apostle doth not discourse against the most gross and sottish Idolaters of the Heathens, but as St. Chrysostome well observes against the Philosophers and the wisest among them: Who, though they differed in their opinions of Religion extremely from the Vulgar, yet they concurred with them in all the external practices of their Idolatry. And therefore the Apostle doth not charge them with false notions of a Deity, for he saith, they held the truth in unrighteousness, V. 18. 21.that they knew God, but they shewed their vanity and solly in thinking they had found out subtiller wayes of defending the common Idolatries among them, and instead of opposing them, made use of their wits, to p. 74excuse them. And the most intelligent Heathens did never look on their Images as any other than symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave divine Worship.Celsus apud Origen. l. 7. p. 373. No one but a Fool thinks otherwise of them, saith Celsus; They are only Books for the ignorant saith Porphyrie, Euseb. de preparat. Evang. l. 3. c 7.and the Heathens in Athanasius. They deny, in Arnobius, that they ever thought their Images to be Gods, or to have any Divinity in them, but what only comes from their Consecration, Athanas. c. Gent. p. 24.—31.to such an Vse; and in St. Augustin, that they Worshipped the Images themselves, Arnob. c. Gent. l. 6. p. 203.but through them they Worshipped the Deity; Maximus Tyrius discourses largely on this Subject,August. Tom. 8. in Psal. 113.Ps 113 and shews, that Images were but the signs of divine honour, and helps to remembrance. They are but Symbols of the presence of the Gods, Maxim. Tyrius dissert. 38.saith Iulian; We do not think them Gods, saith he, but that through them we may Worship the Deity; Iulian. op. frag. ep. ed. Peravii p. 537.for we being in the body, ought to perform our Service in a way agreeable to it. And Eusebius testifies in general of the Heathens, Eus…b. prepar. Evang. l. 4. c. 1.that they did not look on their Images as Gods; however some among them had an opinion of the Gods being incorporated in them. I desire to know whether these men who worshipped Images upon those grounds did amiss or no in it? I do not ask whether they were mistaken as to the objects of their Worship, but on supposition they were not, p. 75whether they were to blame in the manner of serving God by Images in such a way as they describe? If not, wherefore doth St. Paul pitch upon that, to condemn them for, which they were not at all to blame in? He ought to have done as the Iesuits in China did, who never condemned the people for worshipping Images, but for worshipping false Gods by them; and perswaded them not to lay them aside, but to convert them to the honour of the true God: Trirant. de Christian. Expedit. apud Sinas, l. 5. c. 16. p. 588.and so melted down their former Images, and made new ones of them. Can we imagine St. Paul meant the same thing, when he blames men not for believing them to be Gods, but that God could be worshipped by the work of mens hands; and for changing thereby the glory due to God in regard of his infinite and incorruptible being, into mean and unworthy Images, thinking thereby to give honour to him.

§. 8. And upon these grounds the Primitive Fathers disputed against the Heathen Idolatry; The Christian Church believed this Law immutable. Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. p. 559.for, the making use of corporeal representations makes the Deity contemptible, saith Clemens of Alexandria. Origen saith, That Christians have nothing to do with Images, because of the second Commandment;Origen c. Cels l. 7. p. 375. and on that account will rather dye, than defile themselves with them: and that it is impossible any one that knows God, should p. 76pray to them. That it is no sufficient excuse to say, L. 6 p. 284.they do not take them for Gods, but only for symbols or representations of them, for they must be ignorant, mean, and unlearned persons, who can imagine the work of an Artificer can be any representation of a Deity. It would be too tedious at this time to transcribe all the invectives in the Writings of the Fathers upon this subject: where they dispute against the Heathens from this argument, and do still suppose the force of the reason of this Law, to oblige Christians as much as ever it did the Iews; but I purposely forbear, only taking notice that after the worship of Images came in, with the decay of the Primitive Pi…ty and Learning in the Eastern Churches, yet the great defenders of them still declared their abhorrence of any representation of the Divine Nature. So Germanus Patriarch of Constantinople in his Epistles yet extant in the actions of that wise Synod at Nice; Synod. Nic. 2. Act. 4. Ep. ad Iohan. Synad. Ad Thom. Claudiop. Ep. ibid.Acts 4We make, saith he, no kind of Image, or similitude, or figure, or representation of the invisible Deity; and that the meaning of the Commandment of the Law against Images was, that the Divine Nature was invisible and incomprehensible, and like to nothing we see, and that we ought not to entertain any corporeal conceptions of God. And Damascen saith expresly,Damascen. Orthod. sid. l. 4 c. 17. That it is the highest madness and impiety to go about to make an Image of p. 77God: i. e. saith Clichtovaeus, so as to think any Image to be like unto God, or able perfectly to represent him to us; which is likewise Bellarmins answer: as though ever any men were such fools to believe an Image could perfectly represent an infinite Being; or, that God need to make a Law to forbid that, which is utterly impossible in the very nature of the thing; he might more reasonably forbid men to paint a sound, to grasp all the Air in the hollow of their hands, to drink up the Ocean, to wear the Sun for a Pendant at their ears, or to make new worlds, than to command them not to make any Image which should perfectly represent his Nature: And yet of this kind of Image alone of the true God, Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. cap. 8.Bellarmine understands the prohibition of the Law, and the sayings before mentioned, but all other, he saith, were allowed by both, whether by way of History or analogical resemblance, or the fashion of a man wherein he hath appeared: i. e. all possible representations of God are allowed, and only that which is impossible forbidden. But this answer is not more weak and trifling, than contrary to the meaning of Germanus, Tharasius, or the rest of the Nicene Fathers, who do acknowledge, there was no ground to make any Images with respect to the Divine Nature, till the incarnation of Christ; but since God appeared in humane nature, there p. 76duplicate page p. 77duplicate page p. 78is no incongruity in representing that by an Image, and by that to give honour to the invisible Godhead, as long as they preserve the true belief concerning the Deity; and consequently may honour God, by giving worship to the Images of those Saints whom they believe to be in Heaven with God.

§. 9. This is the substance of the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice; Of the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice.which they justifie by fabulous stories, and impertinent citations, and insufficient answers. For, when the Fathers of the Synod at Constantinople had said,Synod. Nicaen. 2. Act. 6.Acts 6 that Christ came to deliver us from all Idolatry, and to teach the worship of God in Spirit and in truth; they bravely answer, That then it is impossible for Christians to fall into Idolatry, because Christs Kingdom was alwayes to continue, and the gifts and graces of God are without repentance. Which would as well hold against the prevalency of the Turk, as Idolatry among them. Those Fathers urge, That the Devil now not being able to reduce the world to the former Idolatry, endeavours under hand to introduce it, under a pretence of Christianity, bringing them again to the worship of the creature, and making a God of a thing that is made, when they have called it by the name of Christ. These answer, That it is true, the Fathers used that Argument p. 79against the Arrians, who supposed Christ to be a Creature, and they grant that they were guilty of Idolatry in giving Divine worship to Christ, when they believed him to be a creature; but the difference lyes herein, that the Arrians trusted in Christ, and gave properly divine honour to him, which they say, they did not to the Images, but only worshipped them for the sake of the object represented by them. Aquinas Summ. p. 3. q. 25. art. 3.But Aquinas and his followers have at large proved, that where any thing is worshipped, meerly for the sake of another, it must have the same kind of worship given it, which they give to the thing represented by it: for as Aquinas observes, the motion of the soul towards an Image is twofold: either as it is a thing, or as it is an Image: the first, he saith is distinct from that motion which respects the object; but the second is the same; so that to the Image of Christ, as made of Wood or Stone, no worship at all is given: and therefore it being given meerly on the account of its being an Image, it necessarily follows, that the same worship must be given to the Image, which is given to Christ himself. And so they are in the same case with the Arrians, whom they acknowledge to be Idolaters; notwithstanding their Christianity, or that the gifts and graces of God are without repentance. Besides the Constantinopolitan Fathers urge The great absurdity of p. 80making an Image of Christ, for worship; because Christ is God and Man, therefore the Image must be of God and Man, which cannot be, unless the Deity be circumscribed within the created flesh, or there be a confusion of both natures after their union, both which are blasphemies condemned by the Church. The Nicene Fathers in answer to this yield, That the Name Christ is significative of both natures, and that an Image can only represent the visible humane nature, and that it agrees only in name, and not in substance with the thing represented: and after many reviling expressions against their adversaries, (no argument of the goodness of their cause) they say, that if the Divine nature were circumscribed within the humane nature in the Cradle, and on the Cross, then it is in an image, if not in one, neither is it in the other. But what doth this answer signifie, unless there be an equal presence and union of the Divine nature of Christ with the Image, as there was with the humane nature? Which union, was the reason of the adoration given to the person of Christ; and what ground can there be then of giving divine worship to the Image of Christ, unless the same union be supposed? If the humane nature without the union of the divine, could yield us no sufficient reason of divine worship being given to it, how much less can p. 81an Image deserve it, which can only at the best represent but the external lineaments of that humane nature? And if the divine nature be supposed united with the Image, then the same divine honour is due to the Image of Christ, which is to God himself, which yet these Nicene Fathers deny: and the Image then joyned with the divine nature, is as proper an object of divine worship without respect to any Prototype, as the person of Christ is consisting of the divine and humane nature. Again, they urge, If the humane nature of Christ be represented in the Image of Christ to be worshipped as separate from the divine, this would be plain Nestorianism. To this the good Nicene Fathers, not knowing what to answer, plainly deny the conclusion, and cry, They Nestorians? No, they lye in their teeth; they were no more Nestorians than themselves, nor so much neither: And now, good men, they say, It is true, they do represent Christ only by his humane nature in an Image; and when they look on Images, they understand nothing but what is signified by them; as when the birth of the Virgin is represented, they conceive in their minds, that he who was born, was truly God as well as man. Alas for them! that they should ever be charged with the worship of Images! They plead for nothing now, but a help to their profound Meditations by them. p. 82But the Controversie was about worship, what ever they think; and their Adversaries argument did not lye in the Images being considered as an object of perception, but of worship: i. e. if the Image can only represent the humane nature of Christ, as separate from the divine; and in that respect be an object of worship to us, then the charge of Nestorianism follows; but this they very wisely pass by; and their distinction of the Image from the principal, cannot serve their turn, since the Image receiving the worship due to the principal, must have not only the name, (as they say) but the reason of worship common with the principal which it represents. After this, the Fathers of Constantinople proceed to another Argument, which is, That all the representation of Christ allowed us by the Gospel, is that which Christ himself instituted, in the Elements of the Lords Supper, whose use was to put us in remembrance of Christ. No other Figure or Type being chosen by Christ as able to represent his being in the flesh, but this. This was an honourable Image of his quickning body, made by himself, say they; which he would not have of the shape of a man to prevent Idolatry; but of a common nature, as he took upon him the common nature of man, and not any individuated person; and as p. 83the body of Christ was really sanctified by the divine nature; so by institution this holy Image is made divine through sanctification by Grace. Here the Nicene Council quarrels with them, for calling the Eucharist an Image, contrary, as they say, to the Scriptures and Fathers; but they are as much to be believed therein, as in their admirable proofs, that the worship of Images was the constant doctrine of the Church; and having strenuously denyed this, they suppose that to be enough to answer the argument.

Besides these particular arguments against the Images of Christ, the Council of Constantinople useth many more against the Images of any other, Because these being the chief, there can be less reason for any other besides, that there is no tradition of Christ or his Apostles, or the primitive Fathers for them, no way of consecration of them prescribed or practised, no suitableness in the use of them to the design of Christian Religion, which being in the middle between Iudaism and Paganism, it casts off the Sacrifices of the one, and not only the Sacrifices, but all the Idolatries of the other: and it is blasphemy to the Saints in Heaven, to call in the Heathen superstitions into Christianity, to honour them by: that it is unbecoming their glory in Heaven, to be p. 84set up on earth in dull and sensless Images; that Christ himself would not receive testimony from Devils, though they spake truth; neither can such a Heathenish custome be acceptable to the Saints in Heaven though pretended to be for their honour. That nothing can be plainer in the Gospel, than that God is a Spirit, and will be worshipped in Spirit and in truth; to which nothing can be more contrary, than the going about to honour God by worshipping any Image of himself, or his Saints. These and many other arguments from the Scriptures and Fathers, that Council insists upon, to shew the incongruity of the worship of Images, to the nature of God, and the design of the Christian Religion; to which the Council of Nice returns very weak and trivial answers, as shall more largely appear, if any one thinks good to defend them. And we have this apparent advantage on our side, that although the Popes of Rome sided with these worshippers of Images, yet the Council at Francford condemned it, called together by Charles the Great: Not out of misunderstanding their Doctrine, as some vainly imagine;Vasquez in l. 2. q. 25. disp. 107. c. 5. because as Vasquez well proves, the Copy of the Nicene Council was sent to them by Pope Adrian, because the Acts of that Council were very well known to the Author of the Book written upon this subject p. 85under the name of Charles the Great, and published by du Tillet at Paris, about the middle of the last Century; which is acknowledged by their learnedst men to have been written at the same time; because the Popes Legats Theophylactus and Stephanus were present, and might easily rectifie any mistake, if they were guilty of it; and none of the Historians of that time do take notice of any such error among them. But Vasquez runs into another strange mistake himself, that the Council of Francford did not condemn that of Nice, which is evident they did, expresly by the second Canon of of that Council published by Sirmondus. Sirmond. Concil. Gall. To. 2. p. 194.And all the Objections of Vasquez are taken off by what Sirmondus speaks, of the great authority and antiquity of that MS. from which he published them, and from the consent of the Historians of that time, that the Council of Francford did reject that of Nice: and Sirmondus saith, they had good reason to deny it to be an Oecumenical Council, where only the Greeks met together, and none of other Provinces were called, or asked their opinion, and Pope Adrian himself, he saith, in his defence of it against the Caroline Books, never gives it the name or authority of an Oecumenical Council. Spelman. Con…. Tom. 1. p. 306.The same Council was rejected here in England, as our Historians tell us, because it asserted the adoration p. 86of Images, Hovedeni Annal. p. prior. ad A. D 792:which the Church of God abhors; which are the words of Hoveden and others. And we find afterwards in France by the Synod of Paris called by Ludovicus Pius upon the Letters of Michael Balbus Emperour of Constantinople, Simeon Dunel Histor. p. 111.in order to the Vnion of Christendome in this point,Matth. Westmon. ad A. D. 793. that these Western Churches persisted still in the condemnation of the Nicene Council which they would not have done after so long a time to inform themselves, if a meer mistake of their Doctrine at first,Caroli Capitut. de non adora…dis imagi…ibus. Paris. A. D. 1549. & in Goldasti. had been the cause of their opposition. But whosoever will read the Caroline Books, or the Synod of Paris, or Agobardus and others about that time, will find that they condemn all religious worship of Images, as adoration; Co…stit.and contrary to that honour which is due to God alone,Imperial. To. 1. and to the commands which he hath given in Scripture. Synod. Paris. in Supplement. Concil. Gall. ad A. D. 824.And I extreamly wonder how any men of common sense, and much more any of learning and judgement, that had read the Book of Charles the Great against the Nicene Synod, Agobardi opera Ed. Massoni & Balazii.could imagine it altogether proceeded upon a mistake of the meaning of it; when it so distinctly relates and punctually answers the several places of Scriptures and Fathers produced by it for the worship of Images. In the first Book an answer is given to many impertinent places of the Old Testament alledged in p. 87that Council; which the second proceeds with, and examines several testimonies of the Fathers; and in the two remaining Books pursues all their pretences with that diligence, that no one can imagine all this while that the Author did not know their meaning. And that by adoration he means no more than giving Religious Worship to Images appears from hence, because he calls the Civil worship which men give to one another, by the name of adoration: Caroli liber de Imag. l. 2. c. 24.when he shewes, that it is another thing to give adoration to a man upon a civil respect, and to give adoration to Images upon a religious account, when God challenges all religious worship or adoration to himself: and whatever reason will hold for such a worship of Images will much more hold for the worship of men, who have greater excellency in them, and more honour put upon them by God, than any Images can ever pretend to.Cap. 25. That God allows no other kind of adoration to be given to any but himself, but that which we give to one another. Can any be so senseless to think, that by this civil adoration, he meant, we honoured every man we met as our Soveraign Prince? And as little reason is there to say, that by adoration given to Images, he meant only the incommunicable worship due only to God, in the sense of those Fathers. Can we imagine, saith he, that p. 88S. Peter would allow the worship of Images, who forbad Cornelius to worship him? Or St. John whom the Angel checked for offering to worship him, and bid him give that honour to God? Or Paul and Barnabas, who with such horror ran among the men of Lycaonia when they were about to worship them; and yet, surely Angels and such persons as these deserved more to be worshipped than any Images can do. But we see by these examples, that even these are not to be adored with any other kind of adoration, than what the offices of civility require from us. Besides in his language those who followed the Council of Constantinople are said,C. 31. not to adore Images, by which nothing else can be meant, than their giving no Religious worship to them; and when he shews the great inconsequence of the argument from the adoration of the Statues of the Emperours to the adoration of Images, because in matters of Religious Worship we are not to follow the customes of men against the will of God;L. 3. c. 15. he thereby shews what kind of adoration he intended, not the worship of Latria, but supposed to be of an inferiour sort.Concil. Tom. 5. p. 553. In so much, that Binius confesseth, that the design of these books was against all worship of Images. It is true Pope Hadrian in the answer he sent to these Books which is still extant in the Tomes of the Councils doth deny,Tom. 6. p. 143. that the Synod intended to give p. 89proper divine worship to Images; but that is no more than the Synod it self had in words said before; but that was not the Question what they said, but what the nature of the thing did imply? Whether that religious worship they gave to Images was not part of that adoration which was only due to God? And he that expects an answer to this from him, will find himself deceived; who is so pitifully put to it for an answer to the demand of any example of words of the Apostles to justifie Image-worship, C. 36.that he is forced to make use of some Mystical passages of Dionysius the supposed Areopagite, wherein the word Image hapning to be, is very sufficient to his purpose. And this answer of Hadrians gave so little satisfaction to the Western Bishops, that A.D. 824. the Synod at Paris being called by Ludovicus Pius to advise about this point,Delaland Supplem. Concil. Gall. p. 109. did condemn expressely Pope Hadrian for asserting a superstitious adoration of Images; which they look on as a great impiety: and say that he produces very impertinent places of the Fathers, and remote from his purpose; and that setting aside his Pontifical authority in his answer to the Caroline Books, there were some things apparently false: and they have nothing to excuse him by, but his Ignorance. And therefore they at large shew, that the Religious worship of Images came first from p. 90Hereticks; and that it was alwayes condemned by the Fathers of the Christian Church: and answer the arguments produced on the other side out of the Writings of the Fathers. And supposing that superstitious custome of worshipping Images, had for some time obtained, yet they shew by several testimonies, that it ought to be abrogated.Bellarm. Append. ad. lib. de cultu Imag. c. 3. No wonder then that Bellarmine is so much displeased with this Synod, for offering so boldly to censure the Popes Writings, and a Synod approved by him: wherein the saith, they exceed the fault of the Author of the Caroline Books: because, as he confesseth,C. 4. they offered to teach the Pope, and resisted him to the face. And yet, no doubt, they had read and considered Hadrians words, wherein he disowns the giveing true divine honour to Images. Not long after this Synod came forth the Book of Agobardus Archbishop of Lyons against Images, occasioned saith Papirius Massonus, by the stupendous superstition in that Age in the worship of them. And this, saith he, is the substance of his Doctrine out of St. Augustine and other Fathers, that there is no other Image of God, but what is himself, and therefore cannot be painted, and he ought not to be worshipped in any Image, but what he hath prescribed us to worship, which is Christ; that adoration is external or internal; that, both of them p. 91are called Religion, by which we are bound eternally to God, and only to him: from whence it follows, that neither Angels nor Saints are to be worshipped by any religious worship: for this is the Law of Adoration, that no creature, no phantasm of God in our minds, no work of mens hands ought to be worshipped: for if Gods creatures are not to be worshipped, much less ours, such as Images of God, Angels and Saints are. Neither is it enough to say, that they do not worship the Image, but the thing represented; for the object terminates the worship, and it is a deceit of the Devil under the pretence of honouring the Saints, to bring mens minds to Idols, and from the true God to carnal things: that Images are to be used only for shew and memory, and not at all for Religion; that God alone is to be worshipped with all Religious worship, whether called Latria or Doulia, or what name soever, and for the casting away all superstition, that no Images be painted in Churches, no Statues erected, nor accounted holy, that the true God may be worshipped alone, for ever. This is the abstract of his Doctrine delivered by Massonus, whose other Writings shew he was far from being partial towards the Reformation. And the Book it self is lately published by Baluzius again, where any one may easily satisfie himself concerning p. 92fidelity.Agobardi opera p. 221. Ed. 1666. But Baluzius very honestly tells us, some have suspected this Book not to be very Catholick: and therefore it was censured by Baronius and the Spanish Index; yet he ingenuously confesseth, he saith no more than the whole Gallican Church believed in that Age. What that was, I have already shewed. This I have the larger insisted upon, to shew, that it is no new thing for us to plead for all Religious worship being appropriated to God, and that the command against Image-worship was no Ceremonial Law respecting meerly the Iews, but that the reason of it doth extend to all Ages and Nations, and especially to us who live under the Gospel. From all which it follows, that it was not meerly the Heathen Idolatry which was forbidden by God, nor barely to prevent their falling to that by degrees, but the giving to himself such a worship; which he judges so unworthy of him.

§. 10. 3. From those who were best able to understand the meaning of it.Of the Scripture Instances of Idolatry contrary to the second Commandment. We can imagine none so competent a Judge of the meaning of a Law, as the giver of it, and what he afterwards declares to be the sense of this Law. The first occasion given for knowing the meaning of the Law concerning Images, was not long after the making of it, when upon Moses his absence, they compelled Aaron to make them p. 93a Golden Calf, Exod. 32. 4. Here was an Image made contrary to the Law, as is on all sides acknowledged; but the question is, Whether by this the Israelites did fall into the Heathen Idolatry, or only worship the true God under that Symbol of his presence? That they did not herein fall back to the Heathen Idolatry, I thus prove: 1. From the occasion of it, which was not upon the least pretence of Infidelity as to the true God, or that they had now better reason given them for the worship of other Gods besides him; but all they say, was, that Moses had been so long absent, they knew not what was become of him, and therefore they say to Aaron, make us Gods (or a God, as in Nehem. 9. 18.) to go before us. We cannot imagine the people so sottish; to desire Aaron to make them a God in the proper sense, as though they could believe the Calf newly made, to have been the God, which before it was made, brought them out of the Land of Aegypt as they say afterwards, v. 4. but it must be understood as the symbol of that God which did bring them from thence: the controversie then lyes here, Whether they thought the Aegyptian Gods delivered them out of Aegypt, while they forsook all their own worshippers, to preserve those who were so great enemies to them, that their very way of worship was an abomination to all the Aegyptians, p. 94Exod, 8. 26. and whether they could think the Gods of Aegypt had wrought all the Miracles for them in their deliverance and after it? Whether they appeared not long before on Mount Sinai, and delivered the Law to them? Or, whether it were not the true God they meant, who had made that the Preface to his Laws, I am the God that brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt; to whom they intended still to give honour: but the only question was concerning the symbol of his presence, that was to go before them. For which, we are to consider, that immediately before Moses his going up into the Mount, the last promise God made to them was, that he would send his Angel before them, Exod. 23. 20, 23. which is elsewhere called his presence, Exod. 33. 14. Moreover, they understood that there should be some extraordinary symbol of this presence; but what it was, they could not tell; for Moses was then gone into the Mount to learn: but he not being heard of in forty dayes, they took it for granted, he was not to be heard of more; therefore they fall upon devising among themselves what was the fittest symbol for the presence of God going before them; and herein the greatest number being possessed with the prejudices of their education in Aegypt, where golden Bulls were the symbols of their chief God Osiris, they pitch upon that, and force Aaron to a complyance p. 95with them in it. 2. There is no intimation given in the whole story, that they fell into the Heathen Idolatry; for when afterwards they fell into it, the particular names of the Gods are mentioned, as Baalpeor, Moloch, Remphan. Numb. 25. 3. Acts 7. 43. But here, on the contrary, Aaron expresly proclaims a Feast to the Lord, Exod. 32. 5. and the people accordingly met and offered their accustomed offerings, v. 6. whereas if it had been the Aegyptian Idolatry, their common Sacrifices were abominations, they must not have sacrificed Sheep and Oxen, as they were wont to do. And that it was not the Idolatry of other Nations, who worshipped the Host of Heaven, is plain from St. Stephens words, Acts 7. 41, 42. And they made a Calf in those dayes, and offered Sacrifice unto Idols, and rejoyced in the works of their own hands; then God turned and gave them up to worship the Host of Heaven. Whereby it is both observable that the Idolatry of the Calf was distinct from the other Heathen Idolatry, this being a punishment of the other; and withal though the Calf was intended by them, to be only a symbol of Gods presence, yet being directly against Gods Command, and having divine worship given it, it is by S. Stephen called an Idol; and to the same purpose the Psalmist speaks, They made a Calf in Horeb, and worshipped the Molten Image; p. 96thus they changed their glory (or rather his) into the similitude of an Oxe that eateth grass, Psal. 106. 19, 20. Which certainly was Idolatry as well as that St. Paul charges the Romans with, viz. that they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things, Rom. 1. 23. And we see how highly God was displeased with the Israelites for this sin of the golden Calf, Exod. 32. 7, 8, 9, 10.

The same may be said of the two Calves of Ieroboam at Dan and Bethel; for it was neither agreeable to his end, nor so likely to succeed, to take the ten Tribes off from the Worship of the true God; but only from the place of it at Hierusalem, and the occasion of the Kingdomes coming to him was from Solomons falling to Heathen Idolatry, 1 King. 11. 33. Which would make him more Cautious of falling into it, especially at his first entrance: And when the Gods of other Nations are mentioned, they are particularly described, as Ashtoreth of the Zidonians, Chemosh of the Moabites, and Milcom of the Children of Ammon, 1 Kings 11. 33. And in Ahabs Idolatry, the occasion and description of it is given, 1 Kings 16. 31. But of Ieroboam it is only said that he set up the Calves at Dan and Bethel, and said unto the people, It is too much for you to p. 97go up to Hierusalem, behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt, 1 Kings 12. 28, 29. How easie had it been to have said that Ieroboam Worshipped the Gods of Aegypt if that had been his intention! but, how much better had he then argued, that they had been hitherto in a great mistake concerning the true God, and not meerly as to the place of his Worship, which is all he speaks against: for he continued the same Feasts and way of Worship, which were at Hierusalem, 1 King. 12. 32. Besides, how comes the sin of Ahab to be so much greater than that of Ieroboam, if they were both guilty of the same Apostasie to Heathen Idolatry, 1 Kings 16. 31.? how came the Worship of the true God in the Ten Tribes to be set in opposition to Heathen Idolatry, 1 Kings 18. 21? how comes Iehu at the same time, to boast his zeal for his Lord, when it is said of him, that he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, viz. the golden Calves of Dan and Bethel, 2 Kings 10. 16, 29? Lastly, how comes the Worship of the true God to be preserved in the Ten Tribes after their captivity, when they still continued their separation in Religion, from the Kingdom of Iudah, 2 Kings 17. 28? For, certainly, if the Samaritans had only desired information concerning the Worship of the God of Israel after the way of Hierusalem, they p. 98would have sent only thither for it; but because they sent into the Land of their Captivity, for a Priest to be sent to them; it is plain the former differences still continued, and yet it is said he taught them to fear the Lord. And notwithstanding it be thus evident that Ieroboam did not fall then into Heathen Idolatry, yet we see that he is charged with Idolatry in Scripture; for it is said, that he had done evil above all that were before him, and had gone and made him other Gods and Molten Images to provoke God to anger, and had cast him behind his back, 1 Kings 14. 9. From whence it necessarily follows, that if God may be allowed to interpret his own Law, the Worshipping of Images though designed for his honour is Idolatry.

And since the Lawgiver hath thus interpreted his own Law, we need not be solicitous about the sense of any others; yet herein 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. The primitive Christians were declared enemies to all Worship of God by Images; but I need the less to go about to prove it now, p. 99since it is at last consessed by one of the most learned Iesuites they ever had, that, for the four first Centuries and further there was little or no use of Images in the Temples or Oratories of Christians; P…tav. dogmat. Theol. To 5. l 15. …. 13. s. 3. c. 14 s. 8.but we need not their favour in so plain a cause as this; as shall be evidently proved if occasion be farther given. And against my Adversaries opinion, that the second Command only forbids the Worship of Idols, we have the consent of some of the most learned Writers of his own Church against him:Vas… e… in 3. Thom. disp. 94. q. 25. c. 3. For Vasquez acknowledgeth, that it is plain in Scripture that God did not only forbid that in the second command, which was unlawful by the Law of Nature, as the Worshipping an Image for God, but the Worshipping of the true God by any similitude of him, and he reckons up many others of the same opinion with him of great estimation in the Roman Church.

§. 11. But we must now consider what he further produces for his opinion,Of the distinctions used to excuse this from being Idola…ry. he therefore saith, if St. Austins judgement be to be followed, the second Commandment is but a part or explication of the first. But why doth he not tell us whether St. Austins judgement be to be followed or no, if it be of so much consequence to the resolving of this Controversie? Nay how is he sure this was St. Austins constant judgement;Aug. c. duas Epist Pe…ag. l. 3 c. 4. since in his latter Writings, he reckons up p. 100the Commandments as others of the Fathers had done before him? But if St. Austins Judgement were to be followed in this? doth it thence follow that this Commandment must be only against Idols? no, but that all things concerning the Worship of God must be in one command and so they may be, and yet be as full against Image Worship, as in two: so, that no relief is to be had from hence.

And as little from his distinction of an inferiour and relative honour only which is given by them (he saith) to the Sacred Images of Christ and his B. Mother and Saints, and that which they call Latria or Worship due to God; the former he saith is only honorary adoration expressed by putting off our Hats, kissing them or kneeling before them. Which is just as if an unchaste Wife should plead in her excuse to her Husband, that the person she was too kind with, was extreamly like him, and a near friend of his, and that it was out of respect to him that she gave him the honour of his bed; Can any one think that such an excuse as this would be taken by a jealous Husband? How much less will such like pretences avail with that God who hath declared himself particularly jealous of his honour, in this Command above others, and that he will not give his glory to another; but hath reserved all divine worship as peculiar to p. 101himself; and no such fond excuses of relative, inferiour, and improper Worship will serve, when they encroach upon his prerogative. It was well observed by a very learned Bishop of our Church, that such kind of distinctions so applyed are like the dispute among some of the Church of Rome in Scotland, B. Andrews Answer to Perron p. 57whether the Lords Prayer might be used to Saints or no, and it was well resolved and very subtilly, that ultimately, principally, primarily and strictly they might not; but secondarily, less principally and largely or relatively they might. The same would certainly hold for Images too. And I wonder very much they stick at any kind of Worship to be done to Images; for my own part, were I of their mind, I should as little scruple offering up the Host to an Image, as saying my Prayers to it; and I should think my self hardly dealt with if I did not come off with the same distinctions. For if I do it to God absolutely and for himself, and to the Image only improperly and relatively, wherein I am to blame? I cannot understand if the Image have the honorary adoration as he calls it given to it, only with a respect to what is represented by it, but I may give the same kind of Worship to the Image which I do to the Prototype: and that, upon the rule he quotes from St. Basil (although he uses it quite upon another occasion, as if he looks upon p. 102the place he may see) that the Worship of the Image is carryed to the Prototype or thing represented. I desire therefore seriously to know of him, whether any Worship doth at all belong to the image or no? if none at all, to what end are they kneeled before, and kissed, which if the Images had any sense in them, would think was done to them? and why doth the Council of Trent determine that due worship is to be given them? if there be any due, whether it be the same then is given to the Prototype, or distinct from it? if it be the same then proper divine Worship is given to the Image; if distinct then the Image is Worshipped with divine Worship for it self, and not relatively and subordinately, as he speaks.

I know, Madam, when any thing pincheth them, they cry presently these are disputes of the Schools, and Niceties too deep for you to be able to judge of; but I assure you some of the best learned among them, have determined which side soever you take you fall into Idolatry; and I hope that is no Scholastick nicety with you. I shall endeavour to give you their sense as plainly as I can.Be…arm. de imag. l. 2. … …4. Bellarmin saith, That no Image is to be Worshipped properly with that Worship which the thing represented is worshipped by; for Latria, (as he calls it) is a Worship proper to God; but no Image upon account of relation, p. 103or any other way is God; therefore that Worship doth not belong to it. It may be saith he, some will say, that Latria is a Worship proper to God, when it is given for it self, and not for another, (or relatively.) I Answer, that it is of the Nature of Latria, (or Divine Worship,) to be given for it self: for, that is the Worship, which is due to the true God as the first principle of all things, and it implyes a contradiction for the highest Worship to be given to the first principle and relatively or for another; and therefore this worship is given to the Image for it self, which is plain Idolatry, or else it is not given for it self, and then it is not Latria or properly Divine Worship. Again, either the Divine Worship, or Latria, which is given to the Image relatively for another is the same with that which is given to God, or an inferiour Worship; if it be the same, the Creature is equally Worshipped with God, which certainly is Idolatry; For Idolatry, saith he, is not only when God is forsaken, and an Idol Worshipped; but when an Idol is Worshipped together with God. If it be an inferiour worship, then it is not Latria, for that is the highest Worship. Thus far Bellarmin; On the other side Vasquez a Iesuite, Vasquez. 3. Th. disp. 108. q. 25. art. 3. c. 9.a man of great reputation too, and of as searching a wit as Bellarmin, he saith, That it p. 104an inferiour Worship be given to the Image, distinct from that which is given to the thing represented, he that so gives it incurres the crime of Idolatry; for he expresseth his submission to a meer inanimate thing, that hath no kind of excellency to deserve it from him. By which we see that it is in mens choice what sort of Idolatry they will commit, who worship Images; but in neither way they can avoid it.

§. 12. But yet he thinks to escape by some parallel instances,The instances supposed to be parallel Answered. as he fancies them; such as, the honour given to the Chair of State, or the Kings picture or garment, Moses and Joshua's putting off their Shooes because it was holy ground, the Iews falling down before Gods footstool, and Worshipping the Holy of Holies, where were the Cherubims, Propitiatory, and Ark, Protestants bowing at the name of Iesus, or kneeling at the Eucharist, and bowing before the Altar; from these he thinks he hath sufficiently cleared, that inferiour and relative Worship which they give to Images. To which I answer,

1. To that of the Chair of State; that our dispute is not concerning Civil Worship, but Divine; and as to civil worship; I suppose he would not say that were any honour to the King in case he had absolutely forbidden it, as we have proved God hath done in the case of Images.

p. 1052. To the putting off the Shooes upon holy ground: (1.) That we think there is some little difference to be made between what God hath commanded, and what he hath forbidden; for in the case of Moses and Ioshua, there was an express command, Exod. 3. 5. Josh. 5. 15. but in the case of Image Worship there is as plain a prohibition. (2.) That the special presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree, that we may lawfully testifie our reverence towards it; but this will not hold for Images, unless God be proved present in them in the same manner as he appeared to Moses and Ioshua, and yet even then the reverence he required, was not kissing it, or bowing to it, much less praying to it, but only putting off their Shooes. (3.) If these things had been done towards the ground, the danger had not been so great as to Images, because the ground had nothing of representation in it, but was only Sacred by Divine consecration; and therefore it could not pretend to be any similitude of God. But in Images there is nothing Sacred, but being an Image, and so the representation is that, which gives all the excellency and value to it; and therefore the Reverence of holy places and things, is of quite a different nature from the Worship of Images.

3. To the Iewes adora…ion towards the p. 106Ark and the Holy of Holies, where the Cherubims and Propitiatory were: (1.) That they only directed their Worship towards the place, where God had promised to be signally present among them; and 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; that the Cherubims were no representations of God; and his Throne was between them upon the mercy seat; and 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 been meerly appendices to another thing, they must have been publickly exposed, as the Images are in the Roman Churches, and their form as well known as any of the B. Virgin.

4. To bowing at the name of Iesus; that he might as well have instanced in going to Church at the toll of a bell, for as the one only tells us the time when we ought to go to Worship God; so the mentioning the name of Iesus doth only put us in mind of him we owe all manner of reverence to, p. 107without dishonouring him as the object of our Worship, by any image of him, which can only represent that which is neither the object nor reason of our Worship.

5. To kneeling at the Eucharist, that of all things should not be objected to us, who have declared in our Rubrick after Communion, That thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine, there bodily received or any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood; for the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances▪ and therefore may not be adored; for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians.

To bowing towards the Altar, or at entring in and going out of the Church, that it is of the same nature with the putting off our Hats, while we are there; and is only determining a natural act of Reverence, that way which the ancient Christians did use to direct their Worship.