Theses Sabbaticæ, or, The doctrine of the Sabbath wherein the Sabbaths I. Morality, II. Change, III. Beginning. IV. Sanctification, are clearly discussed, which were first handled more largely in sundry sermons in Cambridge in New-England in opening of the Fourth COmmandment : in unfolding whereof many scriptures are cleared, divers cases of conscience resolved, and the morall law as a rule of life to a believer, occasionally and distinctly handled / by Thomas Shepard ...

Thesis 61.

First, Graven Images, after which the whole world almost [ 61] hath been enticed, and gone a whoring from the true wor∣ship of God; were worshipped two wayes: 1. Terminativè, i. When people terminated their worship upon the dumb Idols themselves, as if they were gods, without looking any further to any God more supreame and glorious: This is the sinne of many of the ignorant sort of Papists by Bel∣larmine's owne confession, as also many of the brutish sort of the blinde heathens: And this kinde of worship and Ido∣latry is directly forbidden, not in the second, but in the first Commandment; and that appeares upon this undenyable ground, to wit, that if the first Commandment expressely enjoynes us to have no other God but Jehovah, to trust in, pray to, love, feare no other God but Jehovah, then for any to have and worship such Images as their gods which are not Jehovah, is directly forbidden here: Hence there∣fore it undenyably follows, that by the making to our selves a graven Image, in the second Commandment, somewhat else must be understood then the worshipping of Images termi∣natively as gods. 2. Or else they were worshipped relativè, i. Relatively or in reference to the true God, as meanes and helps, In which, At which, and by which, the true God was worshipped: And thus the learned and well instructed Pa∣pists maintaine their abominable worship of Images, whether graven or painted, crosses, crucifixes, &c. to be good and lawfull; for say they, we doe not worship, nor are wee so senselesse as to honour the Image, or Crucifix it self, but

onely as helps to devotion, to carry our hearts to God and Christ, resembled by these Images: Thus also the Jewes of old, they did never worship the Images themselves, but God in them and by them: They were not growne so soon, so ex∣treamly sottish, as to thinke that the golden Calfe was the true God himself which brought them a few weeks before out of the land of Egypt, but it was a visible help to carry their hearts to God onely, and therefore the Feast was pro∣clamed to Iehovah, Exod. 32.4, 5. Micha's Idolatrous mother professeth that shee had dedicated the eleven hundred she∣kels of silver to Iehovah to make a molten Image, Iudg 17.3. she was not simple (no not in those confused and blinde times) to thinke that the Image was Iehovah, nor did her son Micah think so, and therefore he doth not say, Now I know that the Teraphim will blesse me, but that Iehovah will now blesse me, having set up an Image for his service. Nay verily, the wisest and best instructed among the Heathens did never think that the Idols and Images themselves were God, but they only worshipped God by them; which if any doubt of, let him but read Doctor Rainolds, who by preg∣nant and most evident proofs demonstrates, that neither the Iewes, nor the Heathens in their deepest apostacies, did e∣ver worship their Images any other wayes then relatively, as helps and meanes of the worship of the true God; and hereby sets forth the abominable Idolatry of the Romish Church, for such a worship of their Images, which even themselves condemne in the Idolatrous Iews and Heathens, who had as much to say for their Image worship as the Pa∣pists have: Hence therefore it followes, that if the graven Image in the second Commandment, was not worshipped as God, but onely as a means devised and invented by man to carry the heart unto God, then (by a usuall Synechdoche in every command) all humane inventions and institutions, and devised meanes of worship, or of carrying the heart better un∣to God, are forbidden in this Commandment; and if all humane institutions and devised meanes of worship, be herein directly forbidden, then certainly All divine institutions and meanes of worship, and consequently All Gods instituted wor∣ship, in Ministry, Sacraments, &c. is directly commanded in the affirmative part of this second Command; and conse∣quently not in the fourth Command: And if all Orthodox Divines condemn the Popish relative worship of Images, as directly crosse and contrary to the second Command, I then see no reason why any should question, but that all the in∣stituted

meanes of worship (Images as it were of Gods owne devising) should belong to the affirmitive part of the same Command. The second thing to be explained in this Commandment is, What is love to God and keeping of his Commandments, which we read of in the close of the Commandment? Love to God is here opposed to Hatred of God, and those that Love him, to those that Hate him: Now this Hatred is not hating of God at large (for there is a hatred of God in every sinne, Prov. 1.29. and 8.36.) but in particular, when it appeares in this particular sin of setting up of Images and mens inventions, forbidden in this Commandment, which therefore sets down the proper punishment for this sin: So by love of God, is not meant love of God at large (which is seen in keeping every Command) but in particular, when we love God in his owne Ordinances and institutions. Look therefore as hatred of God in setting up mans inventions and institutions (which superstitious persons thinke to be much love to God) is here condemned in the negative part of the Com∣mandment; so on the contrary, love to God in closing with him and seeking of him in his owne Institutions, whe∣ther Word or Sacraments, &c. is here enjoyned in the affir∣mative part of this Command, and consequently not (as Wallaeus would have it) in the affirmative part of the fourth Command, Keeping my Commandments being set downe as a fruit of this love, and both together being opposed to hatred of God: Hence by Commandments, cannot be meant in generall, all the ten Commandments (as some ima∣gine upon miserable weake grounds, which I lift not to mention) but in speciall, Gods Institutions and Ordi∣nances commanded in speciall by him, to which humane inventions and Images of mens heads and hands, are com∣monly in Scripture opposed, and are therefore condem∣ned, because not commanded, or because none of his Com∣mandments, Ier. 7.31. Deut. 12.30, 31. Matth. 15.9. If therefore (againe) Gods Institutions and Command∣ments are here enjoyned in this second Commandment, they cannot bee directly required in the fourth Com∣mand. These things being thus cleared, the objections of Wallaeus are easily answered: For first, he saith,

That from the negative part of this second Commandment cannot be gathered such an affirmative part as this is,

viz. That God will be worshipped by the Word and Sacra∣ments. But that this assertion thus barely propounded,

but not proved, is false, appeares from what hath been said concerning the true meaning of the negative part of this Command: For if humane inventions, under the name of graven Image bee forbidden, then Divine Institutions, such as Word and Sacraments bee, are here commanded, and from that negative any ordinary capacity may readi∣ly see what the affirmative is. Hee saith again second∣ly,

That if instituted worship was contained under the affirmative part of the second Commandment, then this Commandment is mutable, because God was thus worshipped one way before Christ, and another way since Christ; but (saith he) the second Commandment is morall, and therefore immutable, and therefore such mutable worship cannot be enjoyned herein.

But we have formerly shewne that although this Commandment be morall and immutable in respect of it selfe, yet in re∣spect of the application of it to this or that object or thing commanded, it may be in that respect mutable: For it is an immutable law that God must be worshipped with his owne worship, such as hee shall institute (and this is the summe of the second Commandment it selfe) yet the things instituted (wherein there is onely an applicati∣on of the command) may be mutable: the second Com∣mandment doth not immutably binde to the observance of this or that particular instituted worship onely: But to observe Gods instituted worship, and to attend his appoint∣ments, which is the onely morall law and rule in the af∣firmative part of this Command. Hee thirdly objects,

That the worshipping of God in Word and Sacraments, &c. is never opposed in all the Scripture to the worship∣ping of Images.

But this is false; for Gods Institutions (of which Word and Sacraments are a part) are fre∣quently opposed to humane inventions, the worship ap∣pointed by God to the worship devised by man: Images of Gods devising, are oft opposed to Images of mens owne inventing; the voice of God which was onely heard with the eare, is opposed to an Image or similitude which might bee seen, Deut. 4.12. A graven Image, a tea∣cher of lies, is opposed to the Lords teaching of truth, and also to his presence in his Temple, which was the seat of instituted worship, Habak. 2.18, 19, 20. The worship of Images which God would have abolished, is opposed to the worship of God by Sacrifices and Ceremo∣nies, in the place which God should chuse, Deuter. 12.1.

to 20. but yet he tels us, That to worship God in Images, and to worship him in Spirit and Truth (which is inward worship) are opposite: as also the lifting up of pure hands in every place, John 4.28. 1 Tim. 2.8. Hee tels us also that ac∣knowledging of God in his Immensity and Infinite Majesty, are opposed to Image-worship, Rom. 1.20, 21, 22. Isa. 40.22. Bee it so: But will it therefore follow, that to worship God according to his own Institutions▪ is not to worship him in Spi∣rit and in Truth? Is it rather a carnall than a spirituall wor∣ship, to attend on God in Word and Sacraments? May we not lift up pure hands in the use of Gods own institutions? Is not Gods Immensity and Majesty acknowledged and seen in the use of his owne Ordinances, as well as crea∣tures and providences? I confesse the blinder sort of Hea∣thens might worship stocks and stones and Images of cree∣ping things, and four-footed Beasts, in the place of God himselfe terminatively, and God might account of all their Image-worship as such, though used relatively, and hence the opposition may well bee made between worshipping them as God, and an infinite God; and this worship (as was said) fals then under the first Commandment: but as∣suredly this Image-worship which the Apostle condemnes, Rom. 1.21, 23. in debasing the infinite Majesty, and limiting it to this and that Image wherein they did worship it, is forbidden (being only relative worship) in the second Com∣mand: For I think the Apostle in Rom. 1. hath an eye prin∣cipally at the most lascivious Idolaters in the world, viz. the Egyptians, among whom principally we read of those Images of creeping things and foure-footed beasts, in their Hier••∣gliphicks: and yet we know that all that base worship did set out something or other of the Deity, which therein (and so relatively) they did worship. But I must not enter into the Discourse of these things here: sufficient is said to cleare up this point, viz. That Gods instituted worship fals directly under the second, not fourth Com∣mand.

Notes

• Vid Rain. de Eccles. Rom. Idol. l. 2. c. 3.
• Object. 1.
• Object. 2.
• Vid. Thes. 34
• Object. 3.