ART.

The third head rejected in this Article is the Worshipping of XXII. Images. Here thofe of the Church of Rome complain much of the charge of idolatry, that our Church has laid upon them, fo fully and fo feverely in the homilies. Some among ourselves have also thought that we muft either renounce that charge, or that we must deny the poffibility of falvation in that Church, and in confequence to that conclude, that neither the baptifm nor the orders of that Church are valid: for fince idolaters are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, they argue, that if there can be no falvation where idolatry is committed by the whole body of a Church, then that can be no Church, and in it there is no falvation. But here we are to confider, before we enter upon the specialities of this matter, that Idolatry is a general word, which comprehends many feveral forts and ranks of fins under it. As lying is capable of many degrees, from an officious lye to the fwearing falfely against the life of an innocent man, in judgment: the one is the loweft, and the other is the highest act of that kind; but all are lying: and yet it would appear an unreasonable thing to urge every thing that is faid of any act in general, and which belongs to the highest acts of it, as if all the inferior degrees did neceffarily involve the guilt of the highest. There is another diftinction to be made between actions, as they fignify either of themselves, or by the publick conftructions that are put on them, by those who authorife them; and those fame actions as they may be privately intended by particular perfons. We, in our weighing of things, are only to confider what actions fignify of their own nature, or by publick authority, and according to that we must form our judgments about them, and in particular in the point of Idolatry: but as for the fecret thoughts or intentions of men, we must leave these to the judgment of God, who only knows them, and who being infinitely gracious, flow to anger, and ready to forgive, will, we do not doubt, make all the abatements in the weighing men's actions that there is reason for. But we ought not to enter into that matter; we ought neither to aggravate, nor to mollify things too much: we are to judge of things as they are in themielves, and to leave the cafe of men's intentions and fecret notions to that God who is to judge them. As for the bufinels of Images, we know that the Heathens had them of feveral forts. Some the believed were real refemblances of thofe Deities that they worshipped: thofe Divinities had been men, and the statues made for them refembled them. Other images they believed had a divine virtue affixed to them, perhaps from the ftars, which were believed to be Gods; and it was thought that the influences of their afpects and pofitions were by fecret charms called down and faftened to fome figures. Other images were confidered as emblems and reprefentations

of

t

XXII.

of their deities: fo that they only gave them occafion to repre- ART. fent them to their thoughts. These images, thus of different forts, were all worfhipped; fome more, fome lefs: they kneeled before them; they prayed to them, and made many oblations to them; they fet lights before them, and burnt incenfe to them; they fet them in their temples, market-places, and highways; and they had them in their houfes: they fet them off with much pomp, and had many proceffions to their honour. But in all this, though it is like the vulgar among them might have grofs thoughts of thofe images, yet the philofophers, not only after the Christian religion had obliged them to confider well of that matter, and to exprefs themselves cautiously about it; but even while they were in the peaceable poffeffion of the world, did believe that the Deity was not in the image, but was only represented by it: that the Deity was worshipped in the image, fo that the honour done the image did belong to the Deity itself. Here then were two falfe opinions: the one was concerning those Deities themselves; the other was concerning this way of worshipping them; and both were blamed: not only the worshipping a falfe God, but the worshipping that God by an image. If Idolatry had only confifted in the acknowledging a falfe God, and if the worshipping the true God in an image had not been Idolatry, then all the fault of the Heathenifh idolaters should have confifted in this, that they worshipped a falfe God, but their worshipping images fhould not of itself have been an additional fault. But in oppofition to this, what can we think of thofe full and copious words, in which God did not only forbid the having of falfe Gods, but the making of a graven image, or the likeness of any thing in heaven, in Deut. iv. earth, or under the earth: the bowing down to it, and the wor- 12, 15, 23. Shipping it are also forbid. Where, befides the copiousness of thefe words, we are to confider, that Mofes, in the rehearsal of that law in Deuteronomy, does over and over again add and infift on this, that they faw no manner of fimilitude, when God spoke to them, left they should corrupt themselves, and make to them a graven image; an enumeration is made of many different likeneffes; and after that comes another fpecies of Idolatry, their worshipping the host of heaven; and therefore Mofes charges them in that chapter again and again, to take heed, to take good Verfe 23. heed to themfelves, left they should forget the covenant of the Lord Deut. xii. their God, and make them a graven image: and he lays the fame 30. charge a third time upon them in the fame chapter. A fpecial law is alfo given against the moft innocent of all the images Deut. xvi. that could be made: they were required not only not to have 22. idols, nor graven images, but not to rear up a standing image or pillar; nor to fet up any image of flone, or any carved fone; fuch were the Baitulia; the leaft tempting or en

U

Inaring

Levit. xxvi.

I.

Ifaiah xl.

ART. fnating of all idols: they were not to bow down before it; and XXII. the reafon given is, For I am the Lord your God. The importance of thofe laws will appear clearer, if they are compared with the practice of thofe times, and particularly in those fymbolical images, which were facred emblems and hieroglyphicks, that were not meant to be a true reprefentation of the Divine Being, but were a combination of many symbols, intended to reprefent at once to the thoughts of the worfhipper many of the perfections of God: thefe were moft particularly practifed in Egypt, and to them the copiousness of the Second Commandment feems to have a particular refpect, fuch having been the images which they had lately feen, and which feem the most excufable of all others; when, I fay, all this is laid together, with the Commandment itself, and with those other laws that accompany and explain it, nothing feems more evident, than that God intended to forbid all outward reprefentations, that should be fet up as the objects of worship. It is alfo very plain, that the prophets expoftulated with the people of Ifrael for their carved and molten images, as well as for their falfe Gods: and among the reafons given against images, one is often repeated, To whom will ye liken me? which feems to import, that by these images they represented the living God. And Ifaias often, as alío both Jeremiah and Habakkuk, when they fet forth the folly of making an image, of praying to it, and trufting in it, bring in the greatness and glory of the living God, in oppofition to thefe images. Now though it is poffible enough to apprehend, how that the Jews might make images in imitation of the Heathen, to reprefent that God whom they ferved, yet it is no way credible that they could have fallen into fuch a degree of ftupidity, as to fancy that a piece of wood, which they had carved into such a figure, was a real Deity. They might think it a God by reprefentation, as the Heathens thought their idols were; but more than this cannot be eafily apprehended. So that it is moft reafonable to think, that they knew the God they had thus made, and prayed to, was only a piece of wood; but they might well fall into that corruption of many of the Heathen, of thinking that they honoured God by ferving him in fuch an image. If the fin of the Jews was only their having other Gods; and if the worshipping an image was only evil, because a falfe Deity was honoured by it, why is image-worship condemned, with reafons that will hold full as ftrong against the images of the true God, as of falfe Gods, if it had not been intended to condemn fimply all image-worship? Certainly, if the Prophets had intended to have done it, they could not have expreffed themfelves more clearly and more fully than they did.

18 to 27. xliv. 9 to

21.

Jer. x. to
Hab. i. 18,

ver. 17.

19, 20.

Το

XXII.

Exod.xxxii.

19, 20.

end.

28, 29.

To this it is to be added, that it seems very clear from the ART. hiftory of the golden calf, that the Ifraelites did not intend, by fetting it up, to caft off the true Jehovah, that had brought them out of Egypt. They plainly faid the contrary, and ap- 1, 4, 5. pointed a feaft to Jehovah. It is probable they thought Mofes was either burnt or ftarved on Mount Sinai, fo they defired fome visible representations of the Deity to go before them; they intended ftill to ferve him; but fince they thought they had loft their prophet and guide, they hoped that this fhould have been perhaps as a teraphim to them; yet for all this, the calf is Acts vii. 41. called an Idol; and they are faid to have changed their glory into Pfal. cvi. the fimilitude of an ox that eateth grafs. So that here an emblem of the Deity is called an Idol. They could take the calf for no other, but as a vifible fign or fymbol in which they intended to worship their God or Elohim, and the Lord or Jehovah. Such very probably were alfo the calves of Dan and 1 Kings xii. Bethel, fet up by Jeroboam, who feemed to have no defign to 27 to the change the object of their worship, or the nature of their religion; but only to divert them from going up to Jerufalem, and to 1 Kings xvi. furnish them with conveniencies to worship the living God 31 2 Kings x. nearer home. His defign was only to establish the kingdom to himself; and in order to that, we must think that he would venture on no more than was neceffary for his purpofe. Besides, we do clearly fee an oppofition made between the calves fet up by Jeroboam, and the worship of Baal brought from Tyrus by. Ahab. Those who hated that idolatry, fuch as Jehu and his family, yet continued in the fin of Jeroboam; and they are reprefented as zealous for Jehovah, though they worshipped the calves at Dan and Bethel. Thefe are called Idols by Hofea. From all Hofea viii. which it seems to be very evident that the ten tribes still feared 4, 5. and worshipped the true Jehovah. This appears yet more clear from the fequel of their hiftory, when they were carried away by the kings of Affyria; and new inhabitants were sent to people the country, who brought their idols along with them, and did not acknowledge Jehovah the true God; but upon their being plagued with lions, to prevent this, the king of Affyria 2 Kings fent one of the priests, that had been carried out of the coun- xvii. 28, try, who taught them how they fhould fear the Lord: out of 32, 41. which that mixture arofe, that they feared the Lord, and Jerved their own images. This proves, beyond all contradiction, that the ten tribes did ftill worthip Jehovah in those calves that they had at Dan and Bethel: and thus it appears very clear, that, through the whole Old Teftament, the ufe of all images in worship was exprefsly forbid; and that the worshipping them, even when the true God was worshipped by them, was called Idolatry. The words in which this matter is exprefied are copious and full, and the reafons given for the precept, are U 2 taken

1

XXII.

ART. taken from the nature of God, who could be likened to nothing, and who had fhewed no fimilitude of himself when he appeared to their fathers, and delivered the law to them.

Acts xvii.

16, 25 to 29.

The New Difpenfation does in all refpects carry the ideas of God and of true religion much higher, and raises them much above those compliances that were in the Old, to men's fenfes, and to fenfitive natures; and it would feem to contradict the whole design of it, if we could imagine that fuch things were allowed in it, which were fo expressly forbid in the Old. Upon this occafion it is remarkable, that the two fulleft paffages in the New Teftament concerning images, are written upon the occafion of the most refined idolatry that was then in the world, which was at Athens. When St. Paul was there, his spirit was moved within him, when he faw that city full of idols: he upon that charges them for thinking that the Godhead was like unto gold or filver, or ftone graven by art or man's device: he argues from the majefty of God, who made the world and all things therein, and was the Lord of heaven and earth, and therefore was not to be worshipped by men's hands (that is, images made by them), who needed nothing, fince he gives us life, breath (or the continuance of life), and all things. He therefore condemns that way of worship as an effect of ignorance, and tells them of a day in which God will judge the world. It is certain that the Athenians at that time did not think their Cic. de Nat. images were the proper refemblances of the Divinity. Tully, who knew their theology well, gives us a very different account of the notion that they had of their images: Some images were of no figure at all, but were only ftones and pillars that had no particular fhape; others were hieroglyphicks made up of many feveral emblems, of which fome fignified one perfection of the Deity, and fome another; and others were indeed the figures of men and women; but even in these the wiser among them faid, they worshipped One Eternal Mind, and under him fome inferior beings, demons, and men; who they believed were fubordinate to God, and governed this world. So it could not be faid of fuch worshippers, that they thought that the Godhead was like unto their images; fince the best writers among them tell us plainly that they thought no fuch thing. St. Paul therefore only argues in this againft image-worship in itself, which does naturally lead men to these low thoughts of God; and which is a very unreasonable thing in all thofe who do not think fo of him. It is contrary to the nature and perfections of God: few men can think God is like to those images, therefore that is a very good argument against all worshipping of them. And we may upon very fure grounds fay, that the Athenians had fuch elevated notions both of God and of their images, that whatsoever was a good argument against

Deor. l. i. cap. 27.