ART. are to confider, before we enter upon the fpecialities of XXII. 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 lie 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 higheft. There is another diftinction to be made between actions, as they fignify either of themselves, or by the public conftructions that are put on them, by those who authorise them, and those same 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 public 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 reafon 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 themfelves, and to leave the cafe of men's intentions and fecret notions to that God who is to judge them. As for the bufinefs of Images, we know that the Heathens had them of feveral forts. Some they believed were real resemblances of those Deities that they worfhipped thofe Divinities had been men, and the statues made for them resembled 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 their Deities: fo that they only gave them occafion to represent them to their thoughts. Thefe images, thus of different forts, were all worshipped; 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 houses: they fet them off with much XXII. much pomp, and had many proceffions to their honour. ART. 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 Chriftian 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 reprefented 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 thofe 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 fhould 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 earth, or under the earth: the bowing down to it, and the worshipping it, are alfo forbid. Where, befides the copiousness of these 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 Deut. iv. Jaw no manner of fimilitude, when God fpoke to them, left 12, 15, 16. they bould 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 boft of heaven; and therefore Mofes charges them in that chapter again and again, to take beed, Verse 23. to take good beed to themselves, left they should forget the Deut. xii. covenant of the Lord their God, and make them a graven Levit. xxvi. image: and he lays the fame charge a third time upon 1. them in the fame chapter. A fpecial law is alfo given Deut. xvi. against the most innocent of all the images that could be made they were required not only not to have 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 flone; fuch were the Baitulia; the leaft tempting or enfnaring of all idols: they were not to bow down before it; and the reafon given is, For I am the Lord your God. The importance of thofe laws will appear clearer, if they are compared with 30. 22. ART. the practice of thofe times, and particularly in those XXII. fymbolical images, which were facred enblems and hiero Ifaiah xl. 18 to 27. xliv. 9 to 21. Jer. x. to ver. 17. 19, 20. glyphics, that were not meant to be a true representation of the Divine Being, but were a combination of many fymbols, intended to reprefent at once to the thoughts of the worshipper many of the perfections of God: these were moft particularly practifed in Egypt, and to them the copioufnefs 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 itfelf, and with thofe 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 thefe images they reprefented the living God. And Ifaiah often, as alfo both Jeremiah and Habakkuk, when they fet forth the folly of making an image, of praying to it, and trusting in Hab. ii. 18, it, bring in the greatnefs 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 fuch a figure, was a real Deity. They might think it a God by representation, as the Heathens thought their idols were; but more than this cannot be easily 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 worfhipping an image was only evil, because a falfe Deity was honoured by it, why is image-worthip condemned, with reasons that will hold full as ftrong againft 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. To XXII. 1, 4, 5. Pfal. cvi. end. To this it is to be added, that it seems very clear from ART. the hiftory of the golden calf, that the Ifraelites did not intend, by fetting it up, to caft off the true Jehovah, that bad brought them out of Egypt. They plainly faid the Ex. xxxii. contrary, and appointed a feaft to Jehovah. It is probable they thought Mofes was either burnt or starved on Mount Sinai, fo they defired fome vifible representation 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 called an Idol; A&ts vii. 41. and they are faid to have changed their glory into the fimilitude of an ox that eateth grafs. So that here an emblem of the 19, 20. Deity is called an Idol. They could take the calf for no other, but as a visible 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 27 to the to change the object of their worship, or the nature of their Kingsxvi. religion; but only to divert them from going up to Jerufa- 31. lem, and to furnish them with conveniencies to worship the 2 Kings . living God nearer home. His defign was only to establish 28, 29. the kingdom to himself; and in order to that, we must think that he would venture on no more than was neceffary for his purpose. Befides, 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. Hofea viii. From all which it feems to be very evident that the ten 4, 5. tribes ftill feared 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 fent 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 fent one of Kings the priests, that had been carried out of the country, who taught them how they fhould fear the Lord: out of which that mixture arofe, that they feared the Lord, and ferved their own images. This proves, beyond all contradiction, that the ten tribes did ftill worship 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 worthip was exprefsly forbid; and that the worshipping x 4 2 xvii. 28, 32, 41. XXII. ART. worshipping them, even when the true God was worshipped by them, was called Idolatry. The words in which this matter is expreffed are copious and full, and the reafons given for the precept are 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 their law to them. Acts xvii. 16, 24 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 thofe compliances that were in the Old, to men's fenfes, and to fenfitive natures; and it would feem to contradict the whole defign of it, if we could imagine that fuch things were allowed in it, which were fo exprefsly 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 fpirit 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 flone 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 bands, (that is, images made by them,) who needed nothing, fince be 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 images were the proper refemblances of the Divinity. Cic. de Nat. Tully, who knew their theology well, gives us a very difDeor. I. i. ferent 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 hieroglyphics 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 wifer 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 beft writers among them tell us plainly that they thought no fuch thing. St. Paul therefore only argues in this against image-worship in itself, which does naturally cap. 27. |