the material figures of Wood or Stone and therefore it will be necessary to shew that the true Notion of Idolatry or Image-worship is not giving Religious worship to the Images themselves but worshipping God by Images and what the difference between these Two is 1. And the first thing I shall observe to this purpose is the difference between the First and Second Commandment which all Protestants own and defend against the Church of Rome which makes the Second Commandment only a Branch and Appendix of the First Now the First Commandment forbids all false objects of worship the worship of all creatures and fictitious Deities and therefore the worship of all Beings besides God whether rational animate or inanimate is a breach of the First Commandment and must be reduced to it and consequently the Second Commandment which forbids the worship of Images cannot forbid them as false Objects for all such are forbid in the first Commandment but as a false and corrupt way of worship and therefore Image worship as it is forbid in the Second Commandment cannot signifie worshipping the Image it self as distinguished from the Prototype for that would make it a false object of worship against the first Commandment but only a false and superstitious way of representing and worshipping God by an Image 2ly And therefore I observe that an Image does not alter the object of worship which yet it must necessarily do if it were Essential to the Notion of Image-worship to worshipt the Image it self which would make the Image a new object of worship Now it is plain that men who do not dispute themselves into endless subtilties and distinctions intend no more in the worship of Images than to worship that God whose Image it is and therefore the object of worship is the same with or without an Image They who worship the True God with an Image and they who worship him without an Image worship the same God though in a different manner and besides what judgment men make of their own actions and what they intend to do the Scripture it self acknowledges this When the Israelites made a golden Calf Aaron proclaims a Feast to the Lord Jehovah which proves that they intended to worship the same God still in the golden Calf which they did before without it Thus the Two Calves which Jeroboam set up were made in imitation of the golden Calf and for Symbolical representations of the God of Israel who was worshipped by them For it is plain that Jeroboam did not intend to change their God but only to prevent their going up to Jerusalem to worship God there and therefore he tells them It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem behold thy Gods O Israel which brought thee up out of the Land of Aegypt that is the Lord Jehovah Now we may observe that God himself though he was grievously offended with the Sin of Jeroboam yet he makes a great difference between the Sin of Jeroboam and the Sin of Ahab who introduced the worship of Baal a false God whereas Jeroboam retained the worship of the true God though he worshipped him in a false and Idolatrous manner If the Calves of Don and Bethel had been false Gods as Baal was the Sin had been equally provoking but the worship of the Calves did not change their God as the worship of Baal did and therefore Elijah distinguishes the Israelites into the worshippers of God and of Baal How long halt ye between Two Opinions if the Lord be God follow him but if Baal then follow him and yet most of those who are said to be worshippers of God did worship God at the Calves of Dan and Bethel which was the established Religion of the Kingdom And thus Jehu tho' he departed not from the Sin of Jeroboam the golden Calves in Dan and Bethel yet he calls his Zeal in destroying Baal out of Israel his Zeal for the Lord Jehovah Now if the worship of an Image do not change the object of our worship neither in the intention of the worshipper nor in the account of Scripture as I have now proved it evidently follows that the Image is not worshipped as an object but as a Medium of worship it receives no worship for it self but only for God whom it represents And that which is so offensive to God in it is not that they set up any Rival and Opposite gods against him but that they worship him in a reproachful and dishonourable manner which makes him abhor and reject the worship and because he will not receive this worship himself he calls it worshipping Idols and graven Images and molten gods that is vicarious and representative gods which though they receive the worship in God's Name yet are an infinite reproach to his Majesty by that vile and contemptible Representation they make him This is the strict Notion of Idolatry not the giving the worship of God to Creatures which is the Breach of the First Commandment in making new Gods but the worship of God by an Image which makes such Images Gods by Representation but not the objects but only the Medium of worship and therefore though we should grant M. de Meaux that he does not worship Images but only Christ and the Saints in or before their Images this does not excuse him from Idolatry which does not signifie worshipping an Image in a strict sence but only worshipping God in an Image which terminates all the worship not on the Image but on God 2ly Let us now consider wherein the Evil of this Idolatry or Image-worship does consist and that I said was in Representation which I shall briefly explain in these particulars 1. That it is an infinite reproach to the Divine Nature and Perfections to be represented by an Image To whom will ye liken God Or what likeness will ye compare to him The workman melteth a graven-Image and the Goldsmith spreadeth it over with Gold and casteth Silver Chains He that is so impoverished that he hath no Oblation chuseth a Tree that will not rot he seeketh unto him a cunning Workman to prepare a graven Image that shall not be moved Have ye not known Have ye not heard Hath it not been told you from the beginning Have ye not understood from the Foundations of the Earth It is he that sitteth upon the Circle of the Earth and the Inhabitants thereof are as Grashoppers that stretcheth cut the Heavens as a Curtain and spreadeth them out as a Tent to dwell in How incongruous and absurd is it to make a Picture or Image of that God who is invisible to represent a pure Mind by Matter dull sensless Matter to give the shape and figure of a Man or some viler Creature to that God who has none To make an Image for the Maker of the World and to bring that Infinite Being to the scantlings and dimensions of a Man who fills Heaven and Earth with his presence If it
the Worship of Images unless he will say That it is unlawful to make the Images of any thing in Heaven or Earth or under the Earth but then they can have no Images to worship Tertullian indeed and some others condemned the very Arts of Painting and Carving Images as forbid in the second Commandment and it is certainly unlawful to make any Image in order to worship it But I desire to know of this Author whether it be lawful to make an Image or Picture of the Sun and Moon and Planets of Birds and Beasts of Men and Women which are the Likeness of Things in Heaven and Things on Earth If it be then the making of those Images is not forbid in the second Commandment and then the worship of them is not forbid neither But he says He means such Images as are made to represent God and those which are made to show him present and which are worshipped with the same intention as full of his Divinity But is this the Work of the Carver or the Painter to make a God Can the Pencil or the Knife put Divinity into a Picture or Image This is the work of him that Consecrates and him that Worships Qui fingit Sacros auro vel marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit He had forgot the Brazen Serpent which Hezekiah broke the making of which I suppose was not forbid in the second Command but it seems the worship of it was But to return Though the second Commandment forbids the worship of all sorts of Images and every act and degree of Worship without leaving room for any Exceptions or Distinctions yet we may learn from Scripture what was the currant Notion of Image-Worship at that time viz. That they worshipped their Images not for Gods but for Symbols and Representations of their Gods that is they set them up as visible Objects of Worship to receive their Worship in the name and stead of their Gods They did not worship the Images themselves but their Gods in and by their Images Indeed this is the only Notion of Image-Worship that any Men ever had till Christians began to worship Images and then were forced to defend it and to distinguish away the Idolatry of it This is the Account the Heathens gave of their Worship of Images That they did not believe them to be Gods but only worshipped their Gods in their Images Thus Cicero ascribes the making Images of their Gods in humane Shape to their Superstition Vt essent simulacra quae vener antes deos ipsos se adire crederent that they might have Images to make their Addresses to as if the Gods themselves were present And Maximus Tyrius gives a large Account of their Images to the same purpose That they are all but so many Pictures and Representations of the Deity to bring us to the conception of him and it matters not what the Image be so it bring God to our Thoughts and direct our Worship to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Celsus and Julian deny that they thought their Images to be Gods and so did the Heathens in Arnobius Athanasius and St. Austin as those Fathers acknowledg And Julian tells us That a lover of God loves the Representations of the Gods and beholding their Images doth secretly fear and reverence them which although invisible themselves do behold him And Dio Chrysostom in his Olympick Oration gives this Account why Men are so fond of Images which they know cannot express the invisible and inexpressible Nature of God Because Mankind doth not love to worship God at a distance but to come near and feel him and with assurance Sacrifice to him and Crown him Nay those very Heathens who believed that some invisible Spirits after Consecration were not incorporated with their Images which it does not appear to me that any of them thought but present in them did not therefore worship the material Figure but through the visible Image worshipped those invisible Spirits which were hid in it Non hoc visibile colo sed numen quod illic invisibiliter habitat And therefore Arnobius says That they formed the Images of their Gods Vicariâ substitutione that is to set them in the place of God to be a vicarious Object of Worship to receive their Worship in the name of their Gods and that God receives their Worship by Images per quaedam fidei commissa by way of Trust as if they were intrusted to receive their Worship for God in his stead Hence St. Austin tells us that no Image of God ought to be worshipped but only Christ who is what he is and he not to be worshipped instead of God but together with him which shows plainly what Notion the Father had of proper Image-worship that it is to worship the Image instead of God and therefore tho Christ be such an Image of God as must be worshipped yet he must not be worshipped as an Image that is not in the stead but together with God And St. Hierom on Rom. 1. gives the same notion of Image-worship Quomodo invisibilis Deus per simulacrum visibile coleretur that it is to worship the invisible God by a visible Image and therefore falling down before their Images is called by Arnobius Deorum ante ora prostrati prostrating themselves before the Face of their Gods which is aptly expressed by Caesar ante simulacra projecti victoriam a Diis exposcerent falling down before their Images they begged Victory of their Gods And in those days before they were acquainted with School-Distinctions to pray to their Gods before their Images and fixing their Eyes on them was thought to be Image-worship thus St. Austin expresses it by adorat Vel orat intuens simulacrum adoring or praying looking upon an Image and so does Ovid Summissoque genu vultus in imagine Divae fixit with bended Knees he fixes his Eye upon the Image of the Goddess and indeed all the Arguments of the ancient Fathers against the Worship of Images are levelled against this Notion of it that they worshipped their Gods by Images not that they thought their Images to be Gods This then being the received Notion of Image-worship among the Heathens in which they all agreed as far as we have any account of their Opinions and being the only intelligible account that can be given of the Worship of Images we have reason to believe that the second Commandment which forbids the Worship of Images had a principal regard to it but I have other Arguments from the Scripture it self to confirm this Opinion 1. The first is from the first Example of Image-worship among the Israelites after the giving this Law that is the Worship of the Golden Calf which Aaron made while Moses was in the Mount That this Calf was intended only as a Symbolical Representation of the God of Israel and that they worshipped the Lord Jehovah in the Worship of this
Calf is so evident from the whole Story that I confess I do not think that Man fit to be disputed with who denies it for he must either want Understanding or Honesty to be convinced of the plainest matter which he has no mind to believe The occasion of their making this Calf was the absence of Moses who was a kind of a living Oracle and Divine Presence with them They said to Aaron Vp make us Gods which shall go before us for as for this Moses the Man who brought us up out of the Land of Egypt we wot not what is become of him So that they wanted not a new God but only a Divine Presence with them since Moses who used to acquaint them with the Will of God and govern them by a Divine Spirit was so long absent that they thought him lost when the Calf was made they said These be thy Gods O Israel which brought Thee out of the Land of Egypt Which they could not possibly understand of the Calf which was but then made For tho we should think them so silly as to believe it to be a God it was impossible they should think that the Calf brought them out of Egypt before it self was made Nor could they think any Egyptian Gods delivered them out of Egypt to the ruine and desolation of their own Country especially since they certainly knew that it was only the Lord Jehovah who brought them out of Egypt by the hand of Moses and therefore Aaron built an Altar before it and proclaimed a Feast to the Lord or to Jehovah as the word is which makes it very plain to any unprejudiced Man that they intended to worship the Lord Jehovah in the Worship of the Golden Calf which they made for a symbolical Representation and Presence of God which no doubt was very agreeable to the notion the Egyptians had of their Images from whom they learn'd this way of Worship and I need not tell any Man how displeasing this was to God 2. Another Argument of this is That Images are called Gods in Scripture Isa. 44. 10. Who hath fashioned a God or molten a Graven Image which is profitable for nothing He maketh a God and worshippeth it he maketh it a Graven Image and falleth down thereto The residue thereof he maketh a God even his Graven Image and worshippeth it and prayeth unto it and saith Deliver me for thou art my God I need not multiply places for the proof of this for this is own'd by all the Advocates of the Church of Rome and relied on as the great support of their Cause From hence they say it is plain in what sense God forbids the Worship of Images viz. when Men worship their Images for Gods as the Text asserts the Heathens did But tho the Church of Rome worships Images yet she does not worship them for Gods but only worship God or Christ or the Saints in and by their Images This is the reason of their great Zeal to make the first and second Commandment but one because the first Commandment forbidding the Worship of all false Gods If that which we call the second Commandment which forbids the Worship of Images be reckoned only as part of the first then they think it plain in what sense the Worship of Images is forbid viz. only as the Worship of false Gods and therefore those cannot be charged with the breach of this Commandment who do not believe their Images to be Gods Now besides what I have already said to prove that the Heathens did not believe the Images themselves to be Gods which is so sottish a Conceit as no Man of common Sense can be guilty of I have several Arguments to prove that the Scripture does not understand it in this sense 1. The first is That the Golden Calf is called Gods of Gold Exod. 32. 31. and yet it is evident they did not believe the Calf to be a God but only a Symbol and Representation of the Lord Jehovah whom they worshipped in the Calf 2. The very name of an Image which signifies a Likeness and Representation of some other Being is irreconcileable with such a Belief that the Image it self is a God that the Image is that very God whom it is made to represent which signifies that the likeness of God is that very God whose likeness it is Especially when the Scripture which calls such Images Gods calls them also the Images of their Gods Which is proof enough that tho the Scripture calls Images Gods it does not understand it in that sense that they believe their material Images to be Gods for it is a contradiction to say that the Image of Baal is both their God Baal and his Image at the same time for the Image is not the thing it represents 3. The Arguments urged in Scripture against Images plainly prove that they were not made to be Gods but only Representations of God One Argument is because they saw no similitude of God when he spoke to them in Horeb out of the midst of the Fire another that they can make no likeness of Him To whom then will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare to Him To whom then will ye liken Me or shall I be equal saith the Holy One Thus St. Paul argues with the Philosophers at Athens For as much then as we are the Off-spring of God we ought not to think the Godhead to be like to Gold and Silver and Stone graven by Art and Man's Device Now what do all these Arguments signify against making a God for if they can make a God what matter is it who their God be like so he be a God It is a good Argument against making any Image and Representation of God that it is impossible to make any thing like him but it is enough for a God to be like it self In what sense then you 'l say does the Scripture call Images Gods there is but one possible sense that I know of and that is that they are vicarious and substituted Gods that they are set up in God's place to represent his Person and to receive our Worship in his name and stead and so are Gods by Office tho not by Nature They are visible Representations of the Invisible God they bear his Name and receive his Worship as the Golden Calf was called Jehovah and the Worship of the Calf was called a Feast unto the Lord And this is some reason for their being called Gods as the Proxy and Substitute acts in the name of the Person he represents Which proves that this is the Scripture notion of Image-worship that the Image is worshipped in God's name and stead And to this purpose I observe That tho' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or an Idol signifies a false god yet it signifies such a false god as is only the image and figure of another god for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fignifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a likeness or similitude Thus Tertullian tells us eorum imagines Idola imaginum consecratio Idolatria That their Images are Idols and the Consecration of them is Idolatry Thus the Author of the Book of Wisdom attributes the original of Idolatry to Fathers making images for their children who were dead and appointing solemnities to be kept before them as if they were gods and thus 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 Which shews what he means by Idols Images consecrated for the worship of God And therefore he distinguishes the worship of Idols from the worship of the Elements and heavenly bodies when this was done without an Image And therefore no God is in Scripture called an Idol but with respect to its Image Thus Idols and Molten Gods are join'd together as expounding each other And the Psalmist tells us The Idols of the Heathens are Silver and Gold the work of mens hands So that an Idol is a false God as it signifies a material Image made to represent some God as a visible object of worship to receive the worship of that God whose name it bears in his place and stead To the same purpose the Scripture charges these Image-worshippers with changing the Glory of God into the likeness and similitude of those creatures whereby they represented him The Israelites made the Image of a Golden Calf as the symbolical representation and presence of the Lord Jehovah and the Psalmist tells us that by so doing they changed their glory i. e. the Lord Jehovah who was the glory of Israel into the similitude of an Ox which eateth grass Which necessarily supposes that they intended to represent the Lord Jehovah in the image of the Calf not that they thought their God to be like the Calf but as they made a vicarious and visible God of it and worshipped it in the name of the Lord Jehovah Thus St. Paul describes the Idolatry of the Heathens That they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and four footed beasts and creeping things But of this more presently this is sufficient to show what the Scripture notion of Image-worship is and in what sense it condemns it 3dly Let us now consider wherein the evil of this Image-worship consists which will greatly contribute to the right understanding of this whole dispute Now the account of it in general is very short and plain That the evil of Image-worship when we worship the true God by an Image does not so much consist in the kinds or degrees or object of worship as in representation and if this prove the true account of it as I believe it will appear to be to all considering men before I have done it will quite alter the state of this controversie and put M. de Meaux and the Representer to find out some new Expositions and Representations of their Image-worship 1. That the evil of Image-worship when men worship the true God by an Image does not principally consist in the kinds or degrees or object of worship Such men indeed are said in Scripture to worship Images and Idols and Molten Gods and that their Idols are silver and gold wood and stone for when they worship God by an Image they must worship the Image or else they cannot worship God in it tho' they worship the Image not for it self but for the Prototype as the Council of Trent determines which is more properly worshipping God or Christ in or before his Image as M. de Meaux expounds it than worshipping the Image and they are said to worship Images rather with respect to the manner than to the object of worship as you shall hear more presently The Church of Rome indeed as her doctrine and practice is expounded by her most famed Divines may justly be charged with worshipping Images in the grossest sense as that signifies giving Religious worship to the material image of wood and stone which is strictly to worship stocks and stones as Gods This charge may be easily made good against all those who teach that the Image is to be properly worshipped and that either a relative latria or some proper inferâ—â—r worship is to be terminated on the Image as its material object and yet most of the Roman Doctors atttibute one or t'other to the Image as distinct from that worship they give to the Prototype and dispute very learnedly that this is the Doctrine both of the second Council of Nice and of the Council of Trent That a proper worship must be given to the Image distinct from that worship which is given to the Prototype but they cannot yet agree whether it be a relative improper analogical latria which must be given to the Image of Christ or only dulia or an inferiour degree of Religious worship This has hitherto been the chief seat of the Controversy between Protestants and Papists about Image-worship and M. de Meaux seems very sensible That attributing a proper worship to Images so as to terminate it on them gives too just occasion for the charge of Idolatry and puts them to hard shifts to vindicate themselves from it and therefore he owns no worship due to the Image for it self but only as it represents the Prototype which therefore is not so properly the worship of the Image as of the Prototype by the Image and here I perfectly agree with him That the true notion of Image-worship is not to worship the Image at all considered in it self as a material figure of Wood and Stone but only to worship God or Christ in the Image And therefore I shall set aside this dispute in what sense or how far a Papist may be charged with worshipping the material Image which has occasioned eternal wranglings and yet does not properly belong to the controversie of Image-worship To worship a material Image is to give the worship of God to Creatures to Wood and Stone but Image-worship is in its strict notion not giving Divine worship to Images but worshipping God in and by the Image which represents him which in Scripture is called worshipping Images And therefore tho we should grant that M. de Meaux his exposition avoids the first charge of giving Religious worship to Wood and Stone because he denies that they properly worship the Image but only the Prototype in the Image yet the whole guilt of Image-worship as that signifies the worship of God by Images not the worship of the material Image is chargeable upon him still that is the worship of the Prototype by the Image which is all that is forbid in the second Commandment This it may be will be thought a giving up the Cause to grant that the Church of Rome may worship God or Christ by Images and yet not be chargeable with worshipping the Images themselves or