A key to the key of Scripture: or An exposition with notes, vpon the Epistle to the Romanes; the three first chapters begun at Walsall in Staffordshire, continued at Pitmister in Somerset. By William Sclater Batchelar in Diuinitie, and minister of the Word of God at Pitmister in Somerset.

Verse 23. For they turned the glory of the incor∣ruptible God to the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and foure-footed beasts, and of creeping things.

NOw followeth the euidence of their idolatrous folly: they turned the glo∣rie of the incorruptible God, &c. The Apostle seemes to allude to that place of the Psal. 105.20. The glory of God, vnderstand the glorious maiestie of God himselfe: which they are said to turne or change, not that they were able to bring any alteration into the Deitie; but this is spoken, as Chrysostome saith, eyther according to their intendment, and nature of the fact, as much as in them lay: or in respect of the euent, quoad populum, whom by this meanes they occasioned to thinke GOD to be like vnto those things, in whose image they did represent him. [Obser.]

Where first obserue: that the Gentiles themselues intended their images most of them to represent the true God, creatour and gouernour of the world. And howsoeuer they erred in hypothesi imagining that to be this true God, which was not; yet in thesi they erred not in respect of their intention. Sundry testimonies might be produced to this purpose out of Diuines, and heathens. [Ʋse.]

And the rather obserue I this, because Papists to defend their image resemblances, and worship, often insist on this; that the images condemned in Scrip∣ture, were such onely as were made to represent false Gods, and things that were not: whereas a man that 〈…〉〈…〉

hath eyes to see, may easily perceiue, that the Lord forbids not onely images of false Gods, but images of himselfe also, the true Iehouah. Compare these places. Deu. 4.15. Exod. 32.4.5. Iudg. 17.5.13. Psal. 40.18. &c.

Now that wherein their folly chiefely appeared, was the disproportion of the image to the thing there∣by resembled, GOD incorruptible, man corruptible; what possibilitie of resemblance? [Obser.]

Whence may be gathered a reason vnanswerable a∣gainst representations of Gods maiestie, by any image of creatures whatsoeuer: because none of them can re∣present God so as he is in his nature or properties. And it is vsed often by the Prophets and other Diuines. Isay 40.18. The Lord thus reasons against the Images of the people. I am omnipotent, infinite in essence, power, maiestie, &c. to whom then will you liken me? Lactantius de orig. erroris, lib. 2. cap. 2. The Image of God that liues for euer, must be like him, liuing and sensible; and if simulachrum hath his name from likenes, how can these images be thought like vnto God, seeing they haue neither sense nor motion?

Now if this be thought a good reason against ima∣ges of the heathen, (viz.) the desparitie, and dispropor∣tion that must needs be betwixt God and all images of creatures made to represent him, why holds it not a∣gainst images of Papists, made to represent the Trinitie, though not as liuely representations of Diuine essence, yet as anologicall shadowes as it were of his properties, and actions?

They teach indeed, that there can be no image deui∣sed by man liuely to represent God as he is; yet some analogicall resemblances there may be to help vs in conceiuing the properties and actions of the Trinitie. But how vainely? for first, what is Gods essence but his properties? what his properties, but his essence? second∣ly,

marke the reason of the Spirit of God here, and Isay 40. and you shall see the ground of it is this: what i∣mage soeuer doth not liuely represent the nature of GOD: that may be made to represent GOD, but no image doth set forth GOD as hee is: there∣fore may none be made to resemble him. And where as they say, that Angels though inuisible may be resem∣bled by an image: therefore God also though inuisible. Ans. First, with M. Zanchius in praecept. secund. that I like not the libertie Painters take to themselues herein. Secondly, that there is manifest disparitie betwixt the two: Angels▪ being, though inuisible, yet finite; GOD not inuisible onely, but also infinite, and vnmeasurable, as Damascene himselfe speakes, de orthodoxa fide, lib. 4. Cap. 13. But more of this by and by.

[Obser.] In the meane time, marke the madnesse of vaine man, when hee once begins to corrupt himselfe in this kinde; not contented to resemble the incorruptible God in the image of a corruptible man, which was di∣shonour enough to the Deitie, but proceedes to foules, and beasts, yea, to serpents and creeping things. The truth whereof appeares in the histories of the heathen themselues. The Egyptians especially were mad in this kinde, erecting images of oxen, dogs, cats, rats, ser∣pents, &c. as representations of God, vpon this ground as the learned haue thought, because that in respect of some benefits they receiued by these creatures, they apprehended them as instruments of Gods goodnesse towards them. [Ʋse.] See Plutarch, de Isid. & Osir.

And let it teach vs to magnifie the name of God for his mercy, in that he hath hitherto preserued vs from that extreamitie of spirituall blindnes; and specially be our caueat, how we begin to corrupt our selues, either in the apprehension, or worship of GOD: there is a steepe downefall in such corruptions. See Ier. 10.14.