An explication of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments, with reference to the catechism of the Church of England to which are premised by way of introduction several general discourses concerning God's both natural and positive laws / by Gabriel Towerson ...

PART III.

Of the unlawfulness of making an Image, with a design to worship it; where, moreover, is shewn out of Tertullian, the unlawfulness of ma∣king any such, to be worshipped by others. The second Part of the Negative Precept propos'd, wherein is shewn the unlawfulness of wor∣shipping an Image, whether of God, or of Christ, or of his Saints. The Allegation of the Romanists, That they worship not the Image of God, but God in and by it, shewn to be both untrue and insuffici∣ent: The former, because there are not a few who defend the Wor∣shipping of the Image it self, yea, with a Divine Worship; and be∣cause the Common sort terminate their Worship there: The latter, be∣cause, first, the Heathen themselves generally were not guilty of any other Idolatry; where another Objection of the Papists is propos'd and answered. The like evidenc'd, secondly, from the Idolatry of the Is∣raelites in Aaron's and Jeroboam's Calves; which is shewn to have been no other than the Worshipping of the True God in and by them. The Objections against the foregoing Argument, considered and An∣swered. A farther Argument against the Worshipping of God by an Image, drawn from Natures Law; where again some Objections are propos'd and answered. Of the Images of Christ, and his Saints: Whe∣ther or no, and in what cases they may be tolerated, as also what Ho∣nour may be given to them. That all Divine Adoration of them is unlawful; yea, that all such is so, which onely bordereth on it.

HAVING shewn, in the foregoing Discourse, that we are not to make an Image with a design to represent the Divine Majesty; proceed we now to shew,

2. That neither are we to make any Image at all, with a design to bow down to it, or serve it; which I have said to be the second Part of the first Prohibition in this Commandment. Now, that so we are not, is competently evident from the Commandment it self, but much more abundantly from an Explication of it in Leviticus: For, as after the Prohibition of making any graven Image, &c. it is immediately added, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them; so the Pro∣phet Moses, who was certainly the best Interpreter of his own Law, doth more plainly and expresly declare it, Lev. 26.1. For ye shall not (saith he) make you any idol, or graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God. And indeed, if the Worshipping of Images be a Sin, according as the second Prohibition imports, it will be no less to make them for that end, because in ef∣fect a Worshipping of them. Excellent to this purpose is that of Ter∣tullian, where he addresseth himself to some Christians, who thought to excuse themselves from Idolatry, in that they onely made those Images which were worshipp'd by others. 'Tis in the sixth Chapter of his Book de Idololatriâ. Imo tu colis qui facis ut coli possint. Colis autem non spiritu vilissimi nidoris alicujus, sed tuo proprio: nec animâ pecudis impensâ, sed animâ tuâ. Illis ingenium tuum immolas, illis su∣dorem

tuum libas, illis prudentiam tuam accendis. Plus es illis quam sacerdos, cùm per te habeant sacerdotem. Thou pretendest that thou dost not worship them; but thou dost worship them, who makest them that they may be worshipped: And thou worshippest them not with the breath of some most vile Steam, but with thy own; neither with a Soul of a Beast, but thine. To them thou sacrificest thy Wit and Parts; to them thou offerest up thy Sweat, as a kind of Drink-offering; to them thou lightest thy Prudence as a Taper. Thou art more to them than a Priest, because it is by thy means they have one. But because at the same time I shew it unlawful to worship an Image, I shall also shew it to be unlawful to make an Image for that end; therefore proceed we to evince,

2. The unlawfulness of worshipping any image; which is the second general Prohibition in this Commandment.

When we charge the Papists with the Breach of this Command∣ment, and particularly of that part of it we are now upon, their usu∣al defence is, That, as they worship not the Image of God, but God in and through it; so they worship not the Image of Saints with a Divine Worship, but with such as is suitable onely to the Images of glo∣rified Creatures. My Design is at present to shew both the untruth and insufficiency of each of these Answers; and first, of their alledg∣ing their not worshipping the Image of God, but, on the other side, worshipping God in and by them.

And first of all, though some of the Church of Rome are so wary, as not to undertake the Defence of Worshipping the Image it self, or at least not with that Worship that is proper unto God; yet there are a considerable number of them, and those too of the most eminent, who roundly assert the giving the same Honour to the Image, which is due to him it represents. Of this sort are Aquinas, Azorius, Cajetan, Lactantius, and Andradius, as Dr. Crackenthorp* 1.1 hath evidenc'd out of their own Writings. But be it, that what they suggest were really true, as to the wiser and better sort of them, and neither defended nor practis'd by them; yet (as the same Learned Man hath observ'd‖ 1.2) many of the Common sort terminate their Worship in the very Ima∣ges themselves; which whilst those in Authority go not about either to censure or remove, they must not take it ill if we charge them with the imputation of so downright and stupid an Idolatry; Men being justly chargeable with those foul Abominations which, though they see, they endeavour not to amend. But be it, thirdly, that what they alledge were true, both in the better and worser sort; and that they worship not the Images themselves, but God in and by them: yet even so they will not escape the imputation of Idolatry, accord∣ing as I come now to shew.

For the evidencing whereof, the first thing I shall alledge, is, That the Heathen were not guilty of any other Idolatry, than that of wor∣shipping their Gods in and by them. For thus Celsus (as I find him quoted by Origen, in the seventh of those Books he wrote against him.) Now they (saith he* 1.3, speaking of the Christians) do openly shew their contempt of Images: If for this reason, because a Stone, or a piece of Wood, or Brass, or Gold, which such or such a one hath fram'd, is not God, their Wisdom is ridiculous: For what

other Person, that is not perfectly a Fool, looketh upon those things as Gods, and not rather as Things dedicated to, and Images of the Gods? To the same purpose doth Maimonides discourse, in his More Nevo∣chim, chap. 36. Moreover (saith he) as to what concerns Idolaters, you know that none of them worship the Idol with this Opinion, as if they thought there were no other God but that: Nay, there never was any Man, nor will there ever be, who can fancy to himself, that the Figure which he hath made of Metals, Wood, or Stones, created the Heavens and Earth, and governs them. But they worship them, inasmuch as they look upon them as Things intermediate between them and God. And indeed, generally speaking, it is morally impossible for any but the sottish and beastly Multitude, to be guilty of such an Idolatry, as terminateth in the Image it self; an Image, in the very nature of it, referring the Party that useth it to him whom it is design'd to repre∣sent. If the Heathens, as there is no doubt they often did, worshipp'd those for Gods, in them, that were really none, that is a Crime of another nature, and subjects them not for that reason to the Crime of Idolatry, or Worshipping an Image; but of having other Gods beside the True. Forasmuch then as the Heathen were not guilty of any other Idolatry, than of worshipping God in and by an Image, either there never was any such thing as Idolatry in the World, unless amongst the very Dregs of the People; or it must be such, to worship God in and by them. There is but one thing, that I know of, which is with any shew of Reason objected, as to the difference between the Hea∣then and Christian Idolaters in this particular; and that is, That the Heathen imagin'd the Image not onely to represent, but to have the Deity inhabiting in, or rather united to it, as the Soul is united un∣to the Body. But beside that the Papists seem sometimes of the same Perswasion, witness* 1.4 their attributing to their Images the Power of Speaking, with the Working of several Miracles; a‖ 1.5 Learned Man of our own Nation hath demonstrated, That the Heathens had not that opinion of their Images, unless of some few, that were consecrated by Magick Art: So that still there will remain the same Consent be∣tween the Heathens and Idolatrous Christians, and either both be ab∣solv'd from Idolatry, or neither. It is true indeed, some Passages of the Ancient Fathers* 1.6 give occasion to think, that under those Images some Evil Spirits did sometime lurk, or at least were believ'd so to do by their Heathen Worshippers: But as it follows not from thence, That the Heathen thought their Images to be animated by them, and like Soul and Body in Man to make up one Person; so the meer lurk∣ing of Evil Spirits in the Idols they ador'd, will make no material dif∣ference between the Idolatry of the Heathen and the Christian; the Heathen, as well as the Christian Idolater, passing his Worship through the Image, to that Deity he believ'd to lurk in it.

My second Argument against the Worshipping of God by an Image, shall be taken from the Crime of the Israelites in the matter of the Calves, as well that which Aaron made in the absence of Moses, as those which Jeroboam set up in Dan and Bethel. For if each of these were Idolatry, as there is no doubt they were, then is it such to wor∣ship the True God in an Image, because they worshipp'd the True God in them. That the Worship of the Calf which Aaron made was Ido∣latry, is evident both from St. Stephen, and St. Paul; the former not

onely terming it an Idol, but affirming the Jews to have sacrific'd to it, which is a known part of the Worship of the Almighty; the latter calling it Idolatry in express terms, 1 Cor. 10.7. for exhorting (as he doth) Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them, as it is written, The people sate down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play; he thereby plainly declares their feasting before the Calf (for that was it he refers to, as you may see Exod. 32.6.) to be pure and perfect Ido∣latry. Which place is so much the more to be remark'd, because it doth not onely brand the Jews for it, but caution us Christians against it, and that too under the fear of the like displeasure; lest any should say (as some have done) That this Precept concern'd the Jews onely, and thereby leave us at liberty to transgress it: For if (as St. Paul af∣terwards infers) that, and other the Crimes there remembred, were aveng'd upon the Israelites, to deter us from the like Practices, we may be sure it will be no less Sin in us, than it was in them, to com∣mit the same Practices, and particularly to pay the same Adoration to an Idol. The onely difficulty therefore remaining is, whether the Jews worship'd the true God in it; which accordingly I come now to prove. And here I shall alledge, first, that Saying of the Psalmist, Psal. 106.20. where speaking concerning this particular Calf, and their worshipping of him, he subjoyns, Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that cateth grass. For if their design in that Calf was to represent their Glory by it, that is to say, the God of Israel, then was it their design also to do honour to the God of Israel, and not either to the Image it self, or some other Deity. But let us come to the Story it self, as it is delivered in Exodus, and see whether it is possible to be any other? Where, the first thing that presents it self, is that Speech of the Israelites immediately upon the making of it; These be thy gods which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, Exod. 32.4. For as it was impossible for the Jews to think the Calf it self brought them up, which was fram'd after their deliverance out of it; so it would be equally hard to think they meant some of the Gods of Egypt, to which Place they are said in their heart to return. For how could they think the Gods of Egypt would so much favour those who had de∣spis'd them, and drown those that sacrificed to them? Besides, though it be true, that it is express'd in the Plural Number, which may some∣what favour the interpreting their Words of other Gods; yet as that is not much to be wondred at, because the Word Elohim is Plural; so, that it is to be understood of the One True God, Nehemiah shews, chap. 9. 18. where repeating that Passage concerning the Calf, he bringeth them in saying, not These be thy gods, but This is thy God that brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. As for their stiling the Calf their God or Gods, 'tis but an usual Metonymie, whereby the Name of the Thing signified is given to the Sign; as the Images of the Cherubim over the Mercy-seat, are call'd the Cherubim; and in like manner, those of the Oxen and Lions in the Temple, by theirs. The same is yet more evident from that which followeth after in the Story, when Aaron had built an Altar before the Calf: For the Text tells us, that he immediately made Proclamation, To morrow is a feast to the Lord, that is to say, to the True God of Israel; what we render Lord, being the most peculiar Name of God, and to which the Jews bear such a reverence, that they will hardly venture to pronounce it.

Neither will it suffice to object (as I find it is by some) That the Psal∣mist, where he speaks concerning this very Argument, affirms, That they forgat God their Saviour, which had done great things in Egypt, wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red∣sea. For, as that is not of sufficient force against so many Arguments for their meaning the True God, especially when the same Psalmist affirms, That they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass; so they might very well be said to forget God, without altogether casting him off, because forgetting, or at least not remem∣bring to observe that Commandment we are now upon, and to the ob∣servation of which they had so many Obligations from his Goodness. For thus, Deut. 8.11. we find God bidding them beware that they forgat not the Lord, in not keeping his commandments, and his judg∣ments, and his statutes, which he had so often enjoyn'd them to ob∣serve.

Having thus shewn the Calf which Aaron made to have been intend∣ed for a Representation of the True God, and consequently (because their Worship of God in it was reputed Idolatry) that therefore it is such to worship even the True God in an Image; I come now to shew the same of the Calves set up by Jeroboam; that is to say, That they worshipp'd the True God in them, and that that their Worship was Idolatry. That they worshipp'd the True God in them, is evident from the Proclamation Jeroboam made, when he set up those his Golden Calves: For, it is (saith he) too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, 1 Kings 12.28. For, as it would have been a vain attempt in Jerobo∣am, to take them off altogether from the Service of that God, to whom they had been so long devoted; so his Words shew very apparently, that his Design was rather to change the Place and Manner, than the Object of their Worship; because assigning for the Reason of his Fact, onely the tediousness of the Journey to Jerusalem, and moreover re∣presenting his Calves as the gods that brought them out of the land of Egypt, which was a known Periphrasis of the God of Israel. And ac∣cordingly, though Jehu, who was one of his Successors, departed not from the sin of Jeroboam, as the Scripture observes of him, 2 Kings 10.29. yet is his zeal in the destruction of Baal's Priests stil'd by him∣self a zeal for the Lord, ver. 16. and which is of much more conside∣ration, he himself intimated by the Scripture to have walked in the law of the Lord God of Israel, save onely in the matter of the calves, ver. 31. of the same: Which could in no wise be affirm'd, if he and those of his Sect had renounc'd the God of Israel, and worshipp'd either the Calves themselves, or some Foreign Deity in them. To all which, if we add, That Ahab is said to have offended more heinously than all that went before him, because serving Baal, and worshipping him, 1 Kings 16.31. so we shall not in the least doubt, but that the setting up of the Calf was intended onely to worship the True God in it. For wherein had the great aggravation of Ahab's sin been, if they that were before him had worshipp'd either the Calf it self, or some of the Hea∣then Gods in it? The onely thing remaining to be shewn, is, That their Worship of the Calves was Idolatry; which will be no very hard Task to evince. For though their Worship is no where expresly stil'd so, yet are they call'd Idols, which is enough to make the Worship

of them Idolatry. But so that they are, that of Hosea is an abundant Testimony, chap. 13.4. For having premis'd the Israelites making them molten images of their silver, and idols according to their own under∣standing, all of them the work of the craftsmen, to let us know what Idols he means, he subjoyns, They say of them, Let the men that sa∣crifice kiss the calves. Forasmuch therefore as the Calves were no other than Idols; forasmuch as one Egg cannot be more like unto another, than the Calves of Jeroboam were to that of Aaron; it must needs be, because they were such, and the Worshipping that of Aaron reputed Idolatry, that that of Jeroboam's was so also; and consequent∣ly, that it is Idolatry to worship even the True God in an Image.

Two things there are which are commonly alledg'd against the fore∣going Arguments, to prove the Idolatry of the Israelites not to have had the True God for its Object. 1. That what they sacrific'd to their Idols, they are said to sacrifice to devils, and not to God: And, 2. That the Prophets are frequent in inculcating, That the Gods they worshipp'd were gold and silver, that they could neither see, nor hear, nor understand; which may seem to import their looking upon the Images themselves as Gods. And indeed, if onely one of these things had been objected, possibly it might have serv'd in some measure to shroud an evil Cause; but urging them both, they do but help to de∣stroy it: because urging such things as, taken in the strictness of the Letter, are inconsistent with each other. For if the Israelites wor∣shipp'd Evil Spirits in all their Images then did they not worship the Images themselves; and if they held the Images themselves for Gods, then did they not worship Evil Spirits in them. The onely thing re∣maining to be said, is, That some Images they look'd upon as Gods themselves, and others as Representations of Evil Spirits; both of which being granted, will contribute little to the proving any thing against us. For, nothing hinders all this while, but they might look upon some Images, and particularly upon the Calves, as Representa∣tions of the God of Israel. But let us a little more particularly con∣sider both the one and the other Allegation, and see how little force there is in either. It is alledg'd out of Deuteronomy, chap. 32.17. That they sacrific'd unto devils, and not to God: But, doth it follow from thence, that they did so in sacrificing to Aaron's Calf? when there is not onely no particular mention of it, but it is also sufficient∣ly known, that they worshipp'd many of the Heathen Deities besides. But be it, that the Calf of Aaron were there included, as well as their other Idols: Yet, will it follow from thence, that they directly and intentionally worshipp'd an Evil Spirit in them? For may not a Man serve the Devil, unless, after the Custom of the Indians, he fall down and worship him? But how then could the Widows that forsook the Faith, be said to be turned after Satan, for onely breaking that Faith they had plighted unto God? Beside, when the Devil is consessedly the Author and Promoter of all false Worship, what impropriety is there in affirming those who comply with his Suggestions in it, to sa∣crifice rather to him, than to God, whom they design to honour? Otherwise, what shall we say to reconcile what the Scripture in seve∣ral places affirmeth concerning the Idols of the Heathen, to wit, That what the Gentiles sacrifice to Idols, they sacrifice to Devils, and not to God (for so St. Paul tells us); and again, That the gods of the heathen

are silver and gold, the work of mens hands, as the Psalmist? It be∣ing impossible that both should be true in the Letter, and therefore a Qualification to be admitted. The onely thing therefore to be ac∣counted for, is, the Scriptures so often inculcating, That their Idols were but Silver and Gold; that they could not either see, or hear, or un∣derstand: which may seem to import that the Hebrews look'd upon the Images themselves as Gods. But neither will this serve their turn, or enervate the Conclusion before laid down: because it is certain, 1. They worshipp'd the Host of Heaven, and erected Images to them. It is no less certain, 2. That the Heathen, who are in like manner charg'd with the same sottish Worship, look'd upon, not their Images, but several Dead Men, as Gods, whom they represented by them. From both which put together, it is manifest, That when we find both the one and the other faulted for making Gold and Silver their Gods; as those Gold and Silver Gods again decry'd, for not being able to see, or hear, or understand: we are to understand thereby, that they dealt foolishly, not in looking upon their Images as Gods (for this few or none were so sottish as to believe) but for thinking such Representations as those to be either proper Representations of the Divine Nature, or fit Passports of his Worship, which could nei∣ther see, nor hear, nor understand. What remains then, especially since God hath both licenc'd and commanded us so to do, but that we go immediately to himself, but that we fall down and kneel, not before his Image, but before the Lord our Maker? or, if we will needs worship him in an Image, but that we worship him in his Son, who is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person? So doing, we shall be so far from dishonouring the Great God of Hea∣ven, that we shall, on the other side, do him actual Honour in it; because he is not onely the perfect Image of the Father, but of the same Divine Nature with himself.

Having thus shewn, from the Scriptures, the unlawfulness of wor∣shipping the True God by an Image; and that too, as well from those of the New Testament, as of the Old: I should now, according as the Superstitions of the Church of Rome lead me, proceed to consider the Worship of the Images of Christ, as also of the Images of his Saints. Onely to shew the Worship of God by an Image, to be as much a breach of the Law of Nature, as of that of Scripture, and the better to plain my way to that which follows, I shall subjoyn a Reason drawn from Natures Law, concerning the Worship of God by an Image.

It is commonly suggested by the Papists, when they know not what else to say, That though they pass their Worship through the Image, yet they terminate it not there; and do what they do to the Image, not for it self, but in Honour of him whose Image it is. I will not now say, because I have said it often enough already, That such Ima∣ges of God are unlawful in themselves, and a dishonour to the Divine Majesty, which they are intended to represent: From whence it will follow, not onely that they ought not to have any Respect whatso∣ever, for his sake whom they represent; but that, for his sake, they ought to be rejected and condemn'd. That which I shall insist upon, is, That* 1.7 the Worship which is given to the Image, is either different from, and so less than it; or the same numerical Worship with that of him it re∣presents. If the Worshipper gives a different, and consequently a less

Worship, he doth not worship God in the Image; but his Worship, such as it is, is terminated in the Image, and then cometh not into this Inquiry, as being no more than loving a Picture for Lesbia's sake, or valuing a Pendant for her sake that gave it me; and must be estimated accord∣ing to its excess, or temper, and according to the Will of the Person it relates to. For, as if the Person I respect, should signifie her dislike of that which I set a value upon, and particularly of some Picture, wherein it may be she hath little right done her; as, I say, in that case I should shew but little respect to her, by prizing that which she pro∣fesseth to dislike; so must they be thought to shew little regard of God, who set any value upon his Image, both because all Images do but dishonour his most excellent Nature, and because he hath declar'd his own detestation of them. But, if by the Image a Man means to worship God, as the Papists both profess and practise, and pass his Worship through that, to what it represents; then he gives to both the same Worship, and consequently is guilty of Idolatry, because giving that Worship to an Image of God, which is truly and properly Divine. Neither will it suffice to say (as I find it is by the Papists) That what is done to the Image, is for the sake of him it represents, and conse∣quently doth still set God above them, according to that known Ma∣xim in Logick, Propter quod unumquod{que} est tale, illud est magis tale. For, first of all, still it will remain for certain, that Divine Worship is given to the Image; which is downright Idolatry, and expresly for∣bidden by the Almighty, where he saith, That he will not give his ho∣nour to another, neither his praise to graven images. I say, secondly, That though, by giving worship to the Image for the sake of him it represents, they may seem to set him above the Image; yet they do he challengeth to himself alone, to that which is confessedly but an Image of him. I say, thirdly, That when it is affirm'd Propter quod unumquod{que} est tale, illud est magis tale, it is to be suppos'd to hold onely where there is a magis & minus, which is not in the present Case; the Divine Nature, and consequently the Divine Worship, which is but a just esteem of it, and expression of that esteem, admit∣ting of no Degrees: for, if it be less than the Highest, it is not Di∣vine. Either therefore let them say, or rather shew by their Practice, that they give not Divine Honour to an Image; or let them confess withal, that they are guilty of downright Idolatry, which is that we are endeavouring to prove. For, as for their assigning their doing of it to be for the sake of him it represents, it makes nothing at all for the clearing of them. For, as he who thus answers, confesseth he gives Divine Honour to an Image, and onely tells us in what manner he doth it: so either that Manner doth destroy the Thing, and then it is not Divine Worship that is given; or it doth not destroy the Thing, and then, for all the distinctions, it is idolatry. Lastly, If (as they say) there be but one Motion of the Soul to the Image, and that of which it is one; it must consequently be granted, That more cannot be given to the one than the other by it, because one Act cannot be susceptible of both; and therefore also, either that God must have less Honour than he should, or the Image have the same Divine Honour with the Al∣mighty. But concerning this matter, as I think I shall not need to add more, to prove the Worshipping of God by an Image to be Ido∣latry;

so, if any desire further satisfaction, I shall refer them to Dr. Tay∣lor's Cases of Conscience, where this Question is so fully and accu∣rately handled, that no Man unprejudic'd can go away in the least unsatisfied.

To go on now, according to our proposed Method, to entreat of the Worship of other Images; and, first of all, (because he stands be∣tween both, or rather is both God and Man) of the Images of Christ. Concerning which, I shall no way doubt to affirm,

• 1. That such Images may be lawfully enough made, because he as∣sum'd a Nature into the Unity of the Divine Person, which is capable of being depicted or engrav'd.
• 2. I shall not stick to grant, secondly, That an Image of Christ, especially as hanging upon the Cross, may serve to excite in us a just apprehension of his bitter Sufferings, and, by that means, of his immense Love, who stoop'd so low as to undergo them: Nor yet,
• 3. But that they may be so far regarded for his sake whom they re∣present, as not onely not to be defac'd, where they are not abus'd by Idolatry; but have a place, where they are admitted, among our choicest things of that nature. All these things, I say, no sober Man ever did, or can deny to be free from offending against this Law of God, or any other. The onely Question is,
• 4. In what Place, or at what Times, they may be expedient, or inexpedient; which must be left to Prudence and Authority to determine: consideration being had of the Persons to whom they are permitted, or of those with whom they converse. For thus, if Men be inclinable to Idolatry (as they were extremely in the be∣ginning of Christianity) or are mix'd among those that are; in such Cases there is no doubt it would be but necessary either to restrain, or remove such and other Images, especially from the Places of our Assemblies. Whence it was, that when Adrian the Emperour sought to set up Temples for Christ, he dedicated them without Images: And the Council of Eliberis, in regard of the multitude of Idolaters with whom they convers'd, decreed, That no Pictures should be had in theirs, lest that which is worshipp'd should be painted upon the Walls. But as, I say, setting aside where there may be a just fear of falling into Idolatry, there can be no doubt in the least of the making, or having such and other Images, which pretend not to represent the Divine Nature. So the main Question between us and the Papists is,
• 5. Concerning the Worshipping of them; which accordingly I come now to assoil. For the doing whereof, I will proceed in this method.
  • 1. I shall shew, That all Divine Adoration of them is unlaw∣ful: And,
  • 2. That all Adoration is unlawful, that onely borders upon it.

1. That our Saviour is to be worshipp'd with Divine Adoration, we, as well as the Papists, hold; because we do equally hold him to be God: But, that Divine Honour ought to be done to his Image, we do constantly deny; because his Image is not his Person. If it be said (as it may) That their intention is not to do Honour to his Image, but to Christ, as God, in it; they who remember the precedent

Discourse, will soon discern the insufficiency of that Answer, as to the freeing the Worshippers thereof from Idolatry; because I have before shewn it to be such, from the example of the Israelites, to worship the True God in an Image. The onely Question therefore that can be made, is,

2. Whether it be lawful to fall down or kneel before them (which borders upon Divine Adoration) which therefore I come now to re∣solve. In order whereunto, the first thing I shall observe is, That whereas the Reason of forbidding the having of any other Gods be∣fore the True, is, because he is the Lord our God;* 1.8 when he comes to forbid the Worshipping of Images, he subjoyns another Reason, to wit, because he is a jealous God. Of which procedure, what other account can be given, but that his intention was to cut off not onely the giving of Divine Honours to them, but of any thing that might be thought to be like them? For, if the former onely had been his intention, it would have been sufficiently forestall'd by his declaring himself to be the Lord our God: That, without any other Reason, being a sufficient Argument, not to pay Divine Honour to another. The same is no less evident, secondly, from the nature of jealousie, upon which Quality of his, God grounds his Prohibition of Image-Worship. For, would it satisfie any jealous Person, think you, to tell him, that she of whom he is jealous did not go so far as to commit Adul∣tery with her Paramour; or, if she did, that she did it onely for his sake, and because of his likeness to him? Nay, doth not jealousie na∣turally arise from an over-familiarity with other Men, and the making frequent use even of the usual Testimonies of Civility and Friendli∣ness? But how then (especially when God is pleas'd to assume the Per∣son of one) can we make any other Interpretation of his being jealous concerning those Persons whom he hath espous'd, yea married to him∣self? For be it, that they keep their Hearts from wandring after other Deities; that they do not entertain the same respectful Thoughts of, nor have the same inward Love and Affection for them: Yet if (as the Prophet speaks) their eyes are after their Idols; if they bow down to them upon every approach to the Place of God's Worship; if they kiss the calves, as often almost as they do behold them; who can think a jealous God will brook such Testimonies of Kindness and Respect, any more than a jealous Man would such a deportment in his Wife?

The same is much more true, concerning the Images of God's Crea∣tures, and our Fellow-servants, the Saints and Angels, together with all other things any way relating to them; as the Reliques of the one, or those things which are dedicated to Gods Service. For when such things as these have (not as with us the Bible, in the Administration of an Oath before a Magistrate, but) upon every occasion that is of∣fer'd, our Kisses and our Cringes; when Temples are dedicated, and Altars erected to Saints and Angels; when we bow before them, as of∣ten, if not oftner, than before God and Christ; when we do it in the Places and upon the Times appointed for Divine Worship; what Dei∣ty, that were in the least jealous of his own Honour, and of the Affe∣ctions of his Servants, would not be impatient of such Affronts, and revenge them upon the Heads of the Authors of them?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Defens. Eccl. Anglic. contra Archiep. Spa∣lat. cap. 63.
• ‖ 1.2

  Ibid.
• * 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;
• * 1.4

  Vid. Crack. Def. Ecclesiae Angl. contr. Ar∣chiep. Spalat. cap. 66.
• ‖ 1.5

  Reinold. de Rom. Eccles. Idololatr. l. 2. c. 3. par. 77.
• * 1.6

  Vid. Grot. Ex∣plic. Dec. Praec. 2.
• * 1.7

  See Dr. Tay∣lor's Ductor Dubit. ubi supra.
• * 1.8

  Dr. Taylor's Ductor Dubit. ubi supra.