highly significant word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay what is more strange How comes not only he in his Protreptick but Origen in his fourth Book against Celsus and Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew utterly to omit the word in their Citations of this Law using only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of so little peculiar importance did they think it and yet am I apt to believe they understood the Sense of the Command and the Signification of Words in their own Language as well as the nicest Critick now a days without any offence to them Nay so far is this word from only denoting the Representation of a false God that on the contrary there 's nothing more certain than that any Image or Figure design'd to worship the true God by actually does and properly may come under the same Denomination Thus St. Stephen calls the Golden Calf an Idol Acts 7. 41. and yet it was only a Symbolical Representation of the Great God Jehovah as we shall see hereafter Thus again their own celebrated vulgar Version unluckily stiles the Image that Micah's Mother made Idolum and yet this was wholly dedicated unto the Lord says the Text Judges 17. 3. And what in fine is more evident than that the Fathers who branded the Carpocratian Hereticks with the Imputation of Idolatry for worshipping the Images of Christ and the Arrians likewise for worshipping Christ himself whilest they thought him but a Creature stiling even our blessed Lord an Idol to them who Worship'd him under that Notion What I say is more evident than that they look'd on every thing as an Idol that was worshipped besides the only true God and such Worshippers Idolaters and consequently must have understood the word Idol to have imported a great deal more than the Representation of a false or fictitious God. But should we let all this go for nothing as perhaps it would be thought hard to differ for a Word yet cannot any reasonable Man imagine why the other word Temunah mention'd in the Law a word most amply expressive of any manner of Similitude whatsoever and by which the Divine Wisdom seems most industriously to have provided against all possible Evasions Why this I say should be either supinely flur'd over or most boldly and unwarrantably consined to the narrow and that falsely suppos'd Signification of the former word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to say no more is it not more faitable to the received Notions of Mankind in this particular to interpret a precedent by a subsequent word rather than a subsequent word by a precedent a subsequent word especially of a most comprehensive Signification by a precedent of a very narrow and confined one As I would only desire to know of these Persons that if the Head of their Church should publish a Bull prohibiting Papal Honours such as being plac'd upon the Altar after Election to be given to false Popes as we know there have been several Pretenders to the infallible Chair at the same time and not only to them but to any Person else whatsoever I would only know I say whether or no he who should explain the subsequent Terms of any Person whatsoever by the precedent the Pseudo-Pretenders to the Popedom and say that the one meant no more than the other would not be thought guilty of a very sawcy and wilful Misconstruction of his Holiness's pleasure in the matter and if he would I desire them to make the Application And thus I have shown That they have no reasonable Colour for restraining the Images and Similitudes mention'd in this Commandment to the Representations of false Gods. I proceed in the second Place to shew That neither did the old Idolaters ever worship such Representations for Gods and that consequently the Prohibition of such Worship could never be the Intention of this Commandment This indeed is an Interpretation one might possibly have expected from the Pen of a Jesuit or other private everlasting Caviller of that Church but it is a shame methinks to find such wretched Stuff in so authentick a Record as the Catechism ad Paroch For first all false Objects of Worship and such must be all Images worshipped for Gods are manifestly prohibited in the first Commandment or if they will have it so in the first Part or Clause of it Thou shalt have no other Gods but me i. e. thou shalt worship nothing but me and therefore cannot be suppos'd to be again prohibited under that Notion in the second Commandment or but Appendix to the first unless they will suppose the infinite Wisdom guilty of Impertinence rather than themselves And indeed would not any indifferent Man be apt to think them hard put to 't for a Salvo to their own Practice when they are forc'd to suppose the All-wise Lawgiver to have spent so many Words in a short Comprehension of Laws upon the Prohibition of that which 't is next to Impossible in the very nature of the thing any Man in his Wits should ever be guilty of For is it indeed as much as fairly supposeable that any thing in the shape of a reasonable Creature should take the Image i. e. the Likeness or Representation of a thing for the thing it self take it for a Representation and not for a Representation at the same time I know not I confess what they may think credible who can roundly take a Sign for the thing signified but other People who are not so much us'd to Contradictions will not perhaps so easily digest the belief of it If then they cannot reasonably be presum'd to have taken the Likeness of a God for the very God himself whose it was they could not worship it for such and consequently God could not here prohibit the worship of Images for Gods which was the Point to be prov'd And of which incidentally more hereafter Having thus clear'd the way by a short removal of the chief part of that Dirt and Rubbish which obstructed our Passage we may now go a little more cleanly and directly on to the true Sense and Import of this Commandment which we assert to be this That we are hereby forbid to worship the true God by all corporeal Figures and Representations For as in the first Commandement God has determin'd himself to be the only proper Object of Worship in Opposition to all false Objects of it which the grosser Heathens might Figure to themselves so here in the Law before us he prohibits that corrupt way or manner whereby the more intelligent Heathens at least and amongst the rest the Egyptians whose Rites and Customs his own People might now be apt to retain did actually worship him declaring it altogether not only repugnant to his Will the sole Rule and Standard but likewise incongruous to his Nature the Ground and Reason of his Worship of both which they being to have more ample Discoveries than the Nations had from amongst whom he had brought
to give that and not rather the great Object design'd to be worshipped by 't the incommunicable Name of Jehovah as he does in the Proclamation of the Feast upon this occasion Or did they take the Man Moses for their God For for ought I see they only desired one in his Capacity upon the occasion of his Absence Vp make us gods or as Nehemiah has it a God which shall go before us for as for this Moses who went before us out of the land of Egypt we wot not what is become of him So that they either before took Moses that living Symbol of the Divine Presence amongst them for a God or did not now take the Calf for one but only for a Symbolical Representation and Presence of him agreeable to the Worship of Egypt Or must we lastly to shew that these Jews were worse than other People suppose them indeed so compleatly Sottish as to have really taken the Calf for the God that brought them out of the Land of Egypt even before it was made whilest the divine stupid thing lay yet scatter'd in the Ear-rings of its future Votaries If from this Calf in the Wilderness we pass on to those at Dan and Bethel we find them likewise design'd for no other end than visible Symbols of the true God of Israel Jeroboam who set them up never pretending an alteration in the Object but only in the place of the Peoples worship as is evident from hence that the Sin of Ahab who actually introduc'd the worship of a false God is loaded with much greater Aggravations than this of Jeroboam that the Worshippers of Ahab's God Baal are mention'd in Contradistinction to those who worship'd the Lord 1 Kings 18. 21. The generality whereof did at that time worship him by Jeroboam's Calves That Jehu stiles his Zeal against the Worshippers of Baal a zeal for the Lord i. e. the establish'd Worship of the Kingdom at Dan and Bethel by the two Calves to which he adhered 2 Kings 10. 16. And indeed Jeroboam must have been as much out of his Policticks of which he was perfectly Master as some Men are out of their Divinity had he gone about to have secured the Revolt made to him the only end he design'd in the Change made of their Worship by the Introduction of strange Gods into it that being the very cause for which as Ahijah had but just lately told him the Divine Vengeance rent the Kingdom from Solomon and gave it to him his Servant 1 Kings 11. 11 31 33. and yet for all Jeroboam's good Intentions of directing his Worship to a right ultimate Object the God of Israel by the Calves we know what that God thought of him for it Thus lastly were the Graven and the Molten Images of Micha in the 17th of Judges dedicated unto the Lord says the Text to the worship of the only true God. As is farther evident from the Opinion he had that the Lord would do him good for what he had done especially since he had got a Levite to Officiate in his little private Oratory which he had little reason to expect if he worshipp'd them either beside or in Opposition to that Lord from whom he expected the Blessing I should now come to make out the same Sense of this Commandment from the third Medium I propos'd The Sentiments of the Church in its purest Ages showing that the Fathers utterly condemn'd all manner of Images set up for Religious Worship such as respected God particularly and not meerly those of the Heathen World on considerations peculiar to them and this upon the strength of the Prohibition in the Text or other Places of the same import with it But what I have said being sufficient to give light to the true meaning of the Law and the evincing of this Truth consequent upon it That in the Scripture-notion a man may be guilty of Idolatry who Worships a right ultimate Object by an Image I must be content to dismiss this last Argument because it would require so just a Discourse of it self that it cannot possibly be comprised within the limits allotted to this I proceed to the second thing I propos'd The consideration of the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome in relation to the Worship here prohibited and because an Image being made a Medium of Worship becomes likewise an intermediate Object of it the Original being worshipped in and by that Worship which is relatively given to the Images and because this will appear in the Sequel of this Discourse to be the true intent and meaning of the Church I shall consider their Doctrine and Practice under the term of Image-worship But cannot but justly complain before I go any further of the great insincerity that has of late been us'd in representing their Doctrines to the World. If we 'l believe the modern Palliators and Expositors we have been upon a false Scent all this while our Forefathers poor Men either fondly or wilfully pursued the mistaken Ideas of their own Imagination instead of attending to the Intention of the Church and there needs now no more than an innocent turn to the State of any Controversy betwixt us finally to decide it So that in truth we have more ado now to know what their Doctrines are than to refute them as if they too as well as their secret Disciples were for a time to go in disguise amongst us Now of all the Points in dispute betwixt us and them there has certainly none been more artificially dress'd up than this concerning the Worship of Babies as if Paint and Varnish were as requisite to the Doctrine as the Subject of it Our Eyes every day inform us if indeed we may trust the Testimony of our Eyes that they solemnly consecrate them carry them in Pomp and Procession set them up in their Churches over their very Altars places most proper for Religious Worship kiss them prostrate themselves to 'em burn Lights and Incense to their Honour and yet they worship them no not they honest Men God forbid They are only Incentives to their Devotion Remembrancers of their great Prototypes and serve to fix their otherwise distracted Thoughts upon their right Objects So that to speak precisely and according to the Ecclesiastical Stile when they honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr their intention is not so much to honour the Image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in presence of or before the Image says the Bishop of Meaux in his Palliation of the Doctrine of Image-worship and from him the Representer To wipe of which Fucus I shall prove in the first place That that which is given before or in the presence of Images call it here what you will has relation or is given to Images not only before them And secondly because the same Learned Prelate and his unhappy Imitator the Representer would again qualify the matter by the softer terms of Honour Reverence Respect such a decent Regard as
measures and by different methods But now the proper Reason of Religious Worship being the Supreme Soveraignty and Power of Almighty God and that being utterly incommunicable to a Creature which is infinitely distant in its whole nature and kind how excellent soever it be neither can any part or parcel of Divine Worship which is founded thereupon in any respect whatsoever be given to any thing besides himself and therefore tho I may for instance give inferior degrees of civil respect to a Subject without intrenching upon the Honour due to a King because they are both of the same kind of Beings to which civil respects belong differing not specifically in their Natures but politick Capacities only yet cannot I therefore give an inferior degree of Religious Worship to a Creature much less to its Image or any Image of God which is a Creature still because it is different in the whole kind from him as different only as Finite is from Infinite and does not in the least partake of the reason of such worship And therefore again tho I may Honour my Prince as the Representer argues by relatively honouring his Image for his sake because my Prince has not forbid it and is a Being of such a Nature as to admit of a Representation and of Honour by it yet cannot I therefore worship God by an Image not only by reason of the natural incapacity of the object as before but because he has expresly prohibited such Worship and as a Reason thereof has been pleas'd to acquaint us that He 's a Being of such a Glorious and Infinite Nature as neither can be represented nor receive any honour by Graven Images Agreeable to what has been said we may observe that the Law now before us prohibits the lowest sort of worship that we can possibly bestow on them the external acts of bowing down to them and the like as the Text words it and that in a relative sense too it being the scope and intent of the Commandment to prohibit the Worship of God by them as we have before evinc'd Thus likewise the worship which the Devil requir'd of our blessed Lord was no more than the bare exterior act of falling down not only to but before Him as we have before already observ'd out of St. Luke which yet our Saviour denied him and that not upon considerations peculiar to that infernal Spirit but for such a Reason as will hold against any other Creature and much more its Image because God the Great God was the only true and adequate Object of what he requir'd Accordingly we find the Fathers frequently insisting upon these two places now alledged as utterly irreconcileable with all use of Images in the business of Divine Worship and indeed had they once broke in upon these comprehensive Precepts as comprehensive as words can make them by Salvo's and Distinctions the trash and refuse of School-Divinity it cannot well be imagined how they could have oppugn'd the Heathen Philosophers in this particular who generally acknowledging one supreme God gave only a relative and inferior worship to all created Beings and images of them as they themselves abundantly testify or how they could have escaped the same condemnation with the Heathen world in general who owning several inferior Deities could consequently give them and their images or rather them by their images no more than an inferior worship How could they if the business of relative Worship had then been thought sufficient to excuse from Idolatry even where the ultimate Object is right have condemn'd the Gnostics of it who terminated the worship they gave to Images of Christ upon Christ himself as is on all hands confessed How could they again admitting this distinction so unanimously have pronounc'd the Arrians Idolaters for worshipping Christ under the notion of a Creature notwithstanding those Hereticks alledg'd they worshiped Him only as the Image of God the Father upon whom they ultimately terminated the the worship which they relatively gave to him So repugnant are their distinctions with the comprehensive Precepts of God in relation to his Worship and the sense of the purest Antiquity the best Rules we have to walk by I might farther in the last place evidently display the utter inconsistency of one distinction and of one Doctor 's Opinion with another in this matter but that the time will not give me leave and therefore I shall content my self to shut up this Argument with this brief Reflection That the repugnancies amongst them and the almost unintelligible subtilties they are driven to in desence of their respective Doctrines upon this subject are upon the whole to any unprejudic'd person a strong indication of a desperate cause And now is it not an amazing consideration to find the worship of those things grown up into an Article of our Christian Faith and a condition of Salvation it self which some of the ablest Writers of the purest Ages of the Church such as Clemens of Alexandria Origen and Tertullian thought it unlawful for a Christian even to make which the Fathers of those and after-times generall thought improper at least for the Churches of God which were afterwards introduc'd into those sacred places upon the unhappy supposition they would prove proper motives to draw the Gentile world who had been us'd to them to their Assemblies and the Christian Profession and were of no other than ornamental and historical use there which when began first to be worship'd had no other Votaries than the ignorant and superstitious and which no part of the whole Christian Church ever made any object of Religious adoration for Seven hundred eighty seven years together a Doctrine nourish'd in its growth by notorious Treason and Rebellion advanc'd and confirm'd by trifling Reasonings frivolous or false Quotations fabulous Stories lying Miracles and all that idle trash extant God be thank'd at this day in that glorious Council of Nice which first establish'd Baby-worship by a Law a Doctrine and Practice that originally deriv'd from Gentile superstition remains an everlasting obstruction to the Conversion of the Jew is without the least countenance from the written VVord of God in the confession of our Adversaries themselves the very Council of Nice the great Aquinas Suarez and others founding it only upon that hopeful Basis of I know not what Tradition A Practice lastly not only besides the Rule of our Religion but particularly repugnant to the Nature and Genius of the worship if requires a worship in Spirit and Truth that would be perform'd with as deep an abstraction from sense as the complex'd condition of humanity will admit a worship that ought to ascend to its great object above in steddy and direct rays of fervour and devotion without the least refraction from sensible intermediate Objects which clog retard and frequently cut short its flight in any ones experience who attends to the Actions of his own mind in this particular And therefore are Images so far from being any assistance