〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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-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-Image-worship 1. That the evil of image-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-Image-worship To worship a material Image is to give the worship of God to Creatures to Wood and Stone but image-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
it of a Papist which he always looked upon no other than of a Papist Misrepresented he falls a commending the zeal of Protestants against such Popery with great earnestness and passion and therein we agree with him as believing it to be very commendable and do not doubt as he says but those Martyrs recorded by Fox who for not embracing this Popery passed the fiery Tryal had surely a glorious Cause and that the Triumphs and Crowns of Glory which waited for them in Heaven were not inferior to what those enjoyed who suffered under Decius or Dioclesian I agree with him also that there is no need of any longer disagreement that there is no necessity of keeping up names of division that Protestant and Papist may now shake hands and by one subscription close into a Body and joyn in a fair and amicable correspondence For if as he says there is no Papist but will give his hand for the utter suppressing this kind of Popery I see no reason why they may not joyn in Communion with the Church of England which has suppressed it But I am not of his mind that all the Strife has been about a word for the Dispute has been about the Worship of Saints and Images about Transubstantiation worshipping the Host Communion in one kind Service in an unknown Tongue the authority and the use of the Holy Scriptures the Sacrament of Penance Indulgences Purgatory the Popes Supremacy and several other material differences which are something more than a meer Word will they now part with all these Doctrines and Practices since they have been informed by great and good authorities what the nature and evil tendency of these things is No! by no means they will retain all these Doctrines and Practices still but will renounce and abhor all that evil which Protestants charge them with They will pray to Saints and worship Images still but they will abhor all Heathenish Idolatry in such Worship c. but what reason is this for Protestants to joyn with them in one Communion while they retain the same Faith and Worship which at first made a separation necessary and we retain the same opinion of their Faith and Worship which ever we had If Papists be the same Protestants the same that ever they were if Separation were once necessary surely it is so still What change is there now in Papists which was not before that should now invite us to embrace their Communion Yes they abhor all that which Protestants call Popery This is good news but let us a little better understand it Do they abhor the Worship of Saints and Images and the Host Do they abhor the Doctrines of Transubstantiation Penances Indulgences Purgatory Do they renounce the Popes Supremacy c. no such matter but they abhor those Opinions which Protestants have of these things did they then ever believe that these Doctrines and Practices were so bad as Protestants always did and to this day say they are if not what change is there in them that should invite us now to a reconciliation Did Protestants separate from Papists because they believed that Papists thought Idolatry lawful If not why is their abhorring Idolatry while they do the same things that ever they did a sufficient reason for a re-union Suppose some Common-wealths-men who take up Arms against the King should tell the Royalists who fight for him that they have all this while mistaken one another that for their parts they hate Rebellion as much as they can do and have been greatly misrepresented by those who have called them Rebels the strife has been only about a word and therefore it is time for them now to joyn all together not in their duty to their Prince but in opposing him though I dare not smile at our Author for fear of his displeasure again yet I fancy a good Subject would entertain such a proposal with a very disdainful smile And therefore as for misrepresenting our Author may complain on till he is a weary but he can never prove us to be Misrepresenters while they still own that Faith and Worship which we charge them with and if he thinks we censure their Doctrine and Worship too severely let him vindicate it when he can In my Reply I considered what were the faults of his twofold Character of a Papist misrepresented and represented and shall now briefly examine what he says to it As for the Character of a Papist misrepresented I observed 1. That he put such thing 's into the Character as no Man in his wits ever charged them with As that Papists are not permitted to hear Sermons which they are able to understand or that they held it lawful to commit Idolatry or that the Papist believes the Pope to be his great God and to be far above all Angels which the Answerer calls Childish and wilful mistakes And yet says the Protester p. 19. those very things almost in express terms and others far more absurd we see charged on them as is shewed above that is in the Quotations out of the Archbishop and others But I can see no such thing unless the Supremum numen in terris as Stapleton calls Greg. 13. signifie that the Pope is their great God and then I must beg his pardon that I did not think any Man in his wits so silly as it seems some of their own great Divines have been for this is not a Protestant but a Popish representation of them 2. I found fault That the Opinions of Protestants concerning Popish Doctrines and Practices and those ill consequents which are charged and justly charged upon them are put into the Character of a Papist misrepresented as if they were his avowed Doctrine and Belief For whosoever gives a Character of a Papist ought only to represent what his Faith and Practice is not what Opinion he who gives the Character has of his Faith and Practice for this does not belong to the Character of a Papist but only signifies his own private Judgment who gives the Character while we charge Papists only with matter of Fact what they believe and what they practise this is a true Character and no Misrepresenting but if we put our own Opinions of his Faith and Practice into his Character this is Misrepresenting because a Papist has not the same Opinion of these things which we have and this makes it a false Character To this the Protester answers p. 20. This is a pretty speculative quarrel I confess and might deservedly find room here were it our business to consider the due method of misrepresentation in the abstract But as our present concern stands here 's a quaint conceit lost for coming in a wrong place For what had the Author of the Misrepresentation to do with these Rules He did not intend to misrepresent any Body This is very pleasant a Man who undertakes to make Characters is not bound to consider what a Character is nor what belongs to
of personal A which is the same thing that C does but is a more uncouth and absurd way of speaking Thus to proceed When C worships A as B's Proxy in his name and stead does he worship A or B he worships A indeed but considered as B and therefore the Worship given to A in the name of B is not the Worship of A but of B And will any Man say that A and B are two Objects of Worship when in this sense A is B and is considered only as B that is as B's Proxy and therefore A considered as A in his own personal Capacity is not worshipped at all neither absolutely nor relatively per se nor per accidens but if A be worshipped only as B to say that A is worshipped relatively or per accidens is to say that B who is worshipped in A is worshipped both absolutely and relatively properly and improperly per se and per accidens which are some of the Objections which Catharinus and others use against Thomas Much at the same rate others compare Thomas his Doctrine of worshipping the Image with the Worship of the Prototype as represented by it with worshipping a Sign and the Thing signified or worshipping the King and his Robes which are very remote from the Business and perplex and confound a Doctrine which is very easy to be understood and easily rescued from those Scholastick Absurdities which are charged on it if that were its only fault For the true Representation of it is by considering the Nature of a Proxy and legal Representative which acts in another's name and stead Having thus considered what is the Notion of Image-Worship according to Thomas and Durandus and Monsieur de Meaux that it is a worshipping the Image in the name and stead of the Prototype as its Proxy and Representative worshipping the Image as representing Christ as Thomas speaks or worshipping Christ before his Image as represented by it as Durandus and M. de Meaux speak We have now some Foundation to build on and I think they have no reason to complain that I have stated it in this manner which grants them all they can desire or ask for viz. That they do not worship Images as an Image signifies a Figure of Wood or Stone but they worship the Image as representing Christ or if they like that better Christ as represented in his Image That when they honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr they do not so much intend to honour the Image as the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image Let us then consider whether this will justify them and if this will not I doubt their Cause is desperate And in order to this I shall do these three things 1. Show you that this is the only intelligible Notion of worshipping God or Christ or the Saints by Images that Images are a kind of legal Proxies and Representatives to receive our Worship in the name and stead of Christ or the Saints 2. That this is the Scripture Notion of image-Image-Worship and that in this sense it is the Scripture condemns the worship of Images as practised by the Heathens 3. I shall show wherein the Evil of worshipping Images according to this Notion consists 1. That this is the only intelligible Notion of worshipping God or Christ or the Saints by Images that Images are a kind of legal Proxies and Representatives to receive our Worship in the name and stead of the Prototype or the Being represented by them The Reason of worshipping Images is to do Honour to some Divine Being represented by these Images for the true occasion of Image-Worship is that fondness Men have for a visible Object of Worship and because they cannot see the Gods they worship therefore they set up Images as visible and representative Deities to receive their Worship in the name and stead of their Gods Now if we grant that Men intend to worship their Gods in that Worship they pay to or before their Images we must grant that these Images are instead of visible Gods to them or supply the place of their Gods and receive Worship in their Names For to worship God or any Divine Being by an Image can signify neither more nor less than to worship God or Christ or the Saints in that Worship which we give to their Images for God cannot be worshipped in an Image any otherwise than as the Worship which is given to the Image is his Worship and given in his Name for B can be worshipped in A only as A is B's Representative and is worshipped in his name and stead To worship any Being is to worship his Person and therefore we must either worship him in his own natural Person or in his Representative who is his legal Person As to shew you this particularly If any Men were ever so sottish as to believe their Images themselves that is the visible Figures of Wood or Stone or Brass to be Gods and to worship them as Gods such Men cannot be said to worship God by an Image but to worship an Image-God for the Image it self is their God and the Worship terminates on the Image as God They may be said to worship false Gods Gods in a strict and proper sense of Wood and Stone but to worship God by an Image and to worship the Image it self for a God are very distinct things and if the Scripture forbids the Worship of God by an Image it will not justify Image-Worship to say that some Heathens were such Sots as to believe their Images themselves to be Gods for Men who are not such Sots may Worship their Gods by Images as all those Heathens did who acknowledged their Images to be only Symbols and Representations of their Gods and therefore not to be Gods themselves for the same thing cannot be a Symbol and Representation of it self which is as good sense as to say that a Sign and the thing signified by it is the same To give a proper though inferiour degree of worship to Images themselves is not to worship God or Christ by his Image because in this case the Worship they give to the Image of Christ is not such a Worship as is proper for Christ and is terminated not on Christ but on his Image No Worship is proper to be given to Christ but the Worship of Latria or supream and soveraign Worship but the Roman Doctors who embrace this Opinion deny with the second Council of Nice that Latria may be given to Images and in general reject the Doctrine of Thomas that the Image is to be worshipped with the Worship due to the Prototype And how then can Christ be worshipped in his Image if no Worship is given to the Image which is fit for Christ to receive when the Image has no Worship given it but such as is proper to its self considered as Christ's Image will they call this the Worship of Christ especially since this Worship which is given to the
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
and they have then good reason as they do to put up more frequent Prayers to her than to God or Christ himself And whether they do not believe this and that at this very day let any one judge from these passages in the Contemplations of the Life and Glory of the Holy Mary which is lately published in English Permissu Superiorum There p. 7. he tell us that God hath by a Solemn Covenant pronounced Mary to be the Treasury of Wisdom Grace and Sanctity under Jesus So that whatever Gifts are bestowed upon us by Jesus we receive them by the Mediation of Mary No one being gracious to Jesus who is not devoted to Mary nor hath any one been specially confident of the Patronage of Mary who hath not through her received a special Blessing from Jesus Whence it is one great mark of the Predestination of the Elect to be singularly Devoted to Mary since she hath a full Power as a Mother to obtain of Jesus whatever he can ask of God the Father and is comprehended within the Sphere of man's Predestination to Glory Redemption from Sin and Regeneration by Grace Neither hath any one petitioned Mary who was refused by Jesus nor trusted in Mary and was abandoned by Jesus A little after he directs the Devotes of the Virgin to have a firm and unshaken confidence in her Patronage amidst the greatest of our inward Conflicts with Sensuality and outward Tribulations from the adverse Casualties of this Life through a strong Judgment of her eminent Power within the Empire of Jesus grounded upon the singular Prerogative of her Divine Maternity for by vertue thereof no State of man can be so unhappy through the malice of Satan the heats of our Passions or the Enormity of Sin which exceeds her Love towards the Disciples of Jesus or the efficacy of her Mediation for us unto Jesus So that though the condition of some great Sinners may be so deplorable that all the limited Excellency Merits and Power of all the Saints and Angels cannot effectually bend the Mercies of Jesus to receive them yet such is the acceptableness of the Mother of Jesus to Jesus that whoever is under the Verge of her Protection may confide in her Intercessions to Jesus He denying no Favour to her whereby the Wonders of man's Predestination and Redemption through Jesus may be magnified and promoted So that the Blessed Virgin is more Powerful than all the Saints and Angels in Heaven she has all the Power of Christ all his Grace and Mercy in her hands and can dispense it to such Sinners whom Christ would not pity and relieve without her and therefore is a more powerful Patroness of Sinners than Christ himself is And therefore he might well add in the next place that all these Blessings flow from Jesus to all through Mary and may therefore justly refer them all to her as to the most effectual Instrument Channel and Conveyance of all Now if this be true Representing it is no Mis-representation to say that a Papist believes the Virgin Mary to be much more Powerful in Heaven than Christ not that she has any Power of her own but that she can more powerfully and effectually bend the Mercies of Jesus to relieve Sinners than the mercies of Jesus can bend themselves without her SECT V. IMAGES THAT the Worship of Images as it was practised by the Heathens is Idolatry Monsieur de Meaux and the Representer suppose and therefore their Business is to give such an account of the Worship of Images as practised in the Church of Rome as to distinguish themselves from Heathen Idolaters To this purpose the Bishop tells us The Council of Trent forbids us expresly to believe any Divinity or Virtue in them for which they ought to be reverenced to demand any favour of them or to put any trust in them and ordains That all the Honour which is given to them should be referred to the Saints themselves which are represented by them That the Honour we render Images is grounded upon their exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent That by humbling our selves before the Image of Christ crucified we show what is our submission to our Saviour So that to speak precisely and according to the Ecclesiastical Stile when we honour the Image of an Apostle or Martyr our intention is not so much to honour the Image as to honour the Apostle or Martyr in the presence of the Image Thus the Pontifical tells us and the Council of Trent expresses the same thing when it says The Honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent that by the means of those Images which we kiss and before which we kneel we adore Jesus Christ and honour the Saints whose Types they are To the same purpose the Representer speaks and almost in the same words So that the Sum of their Apology is this That they do not believe Images to have any Divinity in them or to be Gods and therefore do not pray to nor put their trust in the Image nor so much honour the Image in those external Expressions of Reverence they pay to it by kissing it and kneeling before it as Christ or the Saint whom the Image represents and the usefulness of Images to excite in us the remembrance of those whom we love and honour is a justifiable Reason of that Honour we pay to them This is a Matter of very great consequence and deserves to be carefully stated and therefore I shall strictly examine Whether this Exposition will justify the worship of Images and sufficiently distinguish the Worship of the Ch. of Rome from that Worship which the Heathens gave to their Images Monsieur de Meaux pretends by his Exposition of the Doctrines of the Church of Rome to cut off Objections and Disputes that is so to state the Matter that there may be no place for those Objections which Protestants commonly urge against worshipping Images But I do not see that he has made any Essay of this Nature in the Point of Image-Worship but has left both all the Disputes among themselves and with Protestants untouched The Objections which Protestants urge against the Worship of Images as taught and practised in the Church of Rome are principally these four 1. That it is expresly forbid by the second Commandment without any limitation or exception 2. That the Heathens are in Scripture charged with Idolatry in the Worship of Images 3. That it is a violation of the Divine Majesty crimen lesse Majestatis to represent God by a material and sensless Image or Picture 4. That a visible Object of Worship though considered only as a Representation is expresly contrary to the Law of Moses and especially to the spiritual Nature of the Christian Worship Now I do not see how the Bishop's Exposition takes off any of these Objections which after all that he hath said are in full force still as I shall particularly
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