his Image does to him which is infinitely inferiour Things therefore succeed so ill this Arithmetical way that I half phancy my Antagonist to affect the Logical though I must confess I know not which he would be at he is so off and on which made me show the unsuccesfulness of both But let the Reader judge of his words pag. 87. As the Man and the painted Man are Analogically the same so the honour done to the painted Man and the Man himself are not univoâ—ally but Analogically the same which he applies to Images and Prototypes By saying not Univocally but Analogically the same though a few lines before he expresses himself in a Geometrical way he seems to make a Man and a painted Man two species under one Genus Analogum whenas a Man and a painted Man are termes equivocal As if Thomas and Bonaventure when they declared the Worship given to the Image and the Prototype to be the same meant equivocally the same What is all this but Tergiversation and Equivocation No question thereâ—ore but Thomas and Bonaventure meant as Photius and Photius as the Nicene Council and the Nicene Council as Pope Adrian And that Religious Worship is meant to Images in their worshipping them is plain from that Clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That besides Salutation and Adoration they were to add the setting up Lights and burning of Incense in honour to them For the honour done to the Image passes to the Prototype Now as I above noted burning of Incense is a Sacrifice and setting up Lights was a piece of Religious service in the Pagan Religion to their Daemons and a kind of Oblation and it is here plainly expressed to be done in honour to the Images out of all which it is apparent that it is Religious Worship And then in that it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pass to the Prototype that is a further Confirmation thereof and intimation that it is that very Worship that is competible to the Prototype whether Christ the blessed Virgin or any other Saint to all whom Invocation is expresly competible according to the Council of Trent it self which yet is comperible to no invisible Power but the very Godâ—ead But Pope Adrian in his Letter to Irene and Constantine says expresly that Images and their Prototypes are lookt upon but as one and therefore their VVorship buâ— as one not one to the Image the other to the Prototype accordingly as Photius hath faithfully declared the sense of the Council but one Religious Worship passing through the Image to the Prototype As those that should VVorship the Moon through a glass window with the picture of the Moon in it I do not at all doubt but this was the genuine and true sense and air of that second Council of Nice And therefore my Antagonist must give me leave to give credit to Azorius who by the by does also declare that it is the sense also of the Council of Nice and of Trent when he tells us this is the constant Opinion of their Theologers especially the more ancient Schoolmen as Alexander Hales Thomas Aquinas Bonaventure c. as keeping to the right sense of Pope Adrian and this seventh general Council called on purpose to decide this matter of Images And if you have changed of late from this Rule it is but a concession how grosly you were lapsed into Idolatry before Nor are you yet a jot mended by saying it is Analogically the same VVorship it still remaining Religious VVorship terminated in the Images tâ—emselves which is a gross blot and makes the matter worse than before But to make the Worship equivocally the same is such an equivocating quibble to put on these two Saints of Rome St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure that all the honour done to their Images will not recompense this injury done to their Memorie And thus I have used my Christian liberty which my Adversary so courteously allowes me in impugning Gabriel Biel and whosoever else do corrupt the genuine sense of Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure with such pittifull glosses And whereas he says the Council of Trent never mentions any such Worship of Latria due to the Image of Christ I Answer it mentions the Council of Nice and refers to the sentence of that Council which assuredly was the same that Azorius says is the constant Tenet of Theologers And thus consequentially at least does the Council of Trent declare for Latria to the Image of Christ. Besides as I have noted Azorius is of Opinion that the Council of Trent of it self is of this judgement But of this enough Not has he any thing else on this second Paragraph which may not easily be Answered from what is said already His Answer to the third Paragraph Here is a Calumny saith he of the first Magnitude most uncharitably implying that the Roman Church prayes to Images as the Heathen did to their Idol-Gods The charge is so gross that no person but one remove from a fool can either believe the Doctor or think he believes himself The Reply Truly I think there were very few among the Pagans that were so silly and unwise as to take the very wood and stone they prayed to for a God but for the Image of that God they prayed to towards which they doing their devotions hoped to be heard There might be some so sottish amongst them as I have heard a story long since of an old woman amongst you who having done her devotions to the Image of the Virgin and being asked by one that stood by what Lady she prayed to to her in the Church or to her in Heaven what talk you to me says she of our Lady in Heaven I pray to this Lady before my eyes I will not deny but there may have been such sottish old wives amongst the Pagans too But assuredly for the most paâ—â— neither you nor they profess to pray to the very Image of wood or stone but to the Prototype it is consecrated to And now say whether this Calumnv of the first magnitude has not melted into a liquid Truth There is no praying to the Image terminatively but to the Prototype before the Image in either the Pagan or Pagano-Christian Religion unless by such doting old wives as that story goes on The very meanest and most ignorant of the Indians will profess they do not take their Pa-Gods or Idols to be Gods or Worship them as such but Worship God in them as I am certainly informed by a carefull inquirer into those things His Answer to the fourth Paragraph Chemnitius his word says he is no proof with us who is a known Sinon a person of that tryed integrâ—ty as that he that never trusts him shall be sure never to be deceived by him This he makes another Calumny The Reply But this I say is a kind of an equivocating form of rayling against a very eminent person for his great learning and faithfull industry in supporting the Truth But why
Gods than by giving Religious Worship to them of which erecting consecrated Images to them and bowing to them is one mode And therefore these Saints and Angels to whom Religious Worship is given by a Law do ipso facto become Gods but not true Gods but false Gods and therefore the worshipping of their Images is forbidden yea strictly forbidden even in the Moral sense of this Commandment according to the very concession of my Adversary whom no man will question in that point to have Pronounced right And lastly That there may be no Creep-hole left whereas my Adversary would weaken my Argumentations taken from the Morality of the Decalogue in general and of this Precept in particular by supposing that I will not stick to grant that one and the same Precept of the Decalogue considered under a double respect may be both Moral and Ceremonial I do absolutely deny that any Commandment in the substance thereof and I think I have sufficiently proved it in the third Section of this Chapter is Ceremonial or Temporal but of Eternal obligation to the Church of God As for Example in the fourth Commandment the substance is the keeping of every seventh day as an holy Commemoration of the Worlds Creation by God declared by himself finished in six days space himself also sanctifying the Seventh day and Hallowing it So that it seems to me that every seventh day for a memorial of the Creation and in such a way as may further our Contemplation in Divine things in reference to God our Creator and Redeemer is perpetually to be observed But to keep the self same day with the Jews is but Circumstantial or to keep it in that strict resting ab omnimodo opere seculari in such a Superstitious way as they do But now for the second Commandment if the forbidding of the use of Images by way of Religious Worship that is by way of bowing to them and worshipping them any how be not the substance of it it has no substance at all but is wholly Ceremonial Which is very gross and absurd as I have already proved in this Section So sufficiently firm is our proof from the Morality of the Decalogue for any thing my Adversary has alledged or can alledge For as for his Secondly That some both Catholick and Protestant Divines own no more than a Ceremonial Precept in this second Commandment c. I answer that I think the Jews themselves are not really concerned in the Commandment as to the meer making of Images nor is the Commandment against that but the making them in reference to Religion and the worshipping of them This is plainly the scope of the Commandment as any one that does not wilfully wink cannot but see And I am confident no Protestant Divine will ever acknowledge that the Prohibition of making Images in reference to Religion and the Worship of them to be meerly Ceremonial in this Precept He must be a Papist under a Protestants hood that can ever assert this And this shall serve by way of Reply to what ever is material in his Answer to my second Conclusion His Answer to the third Conclusion With my third Conclusion he plays at Bo-peep on this sort feigning the sense of it to be either this That we are guilty of Heathenish Idolatry if we commit Heathenish Idolatry which he wittily calls an Identick Proposition surfeiting of too much Truth or else what ever external Act of VVorship was Idolatry in the Heathen is also Idolatry in us if applied to any Being on this side God The Reply To the first I say That my Conclusion is not an Identick Proposition because that though the Acts of Idolatry be of the same Nature yet they are not from the same Party A Pagan worships a Consecrated Image A Christian worships a Consecrated Image are these two but one Identick Proposition surfeiting of too much Truth If you espy any overplus I pray you take it to your self to line your Propositions with which I usually find too lank and devoid thereof But it is no vain assertion nor so plain to every one at the first sight That acts of the same nature committed by several parties are still of the same nature For there are some high-flown Illuminado's that hold that lying with another mans wife is not Adultery in them though it be so in others And I wish it were not so in the Spiritual Adultery I mean the â—dolatry of too many Christians They do not think they commit it when the same things done by Heathen they will readily acknowledge to be Idolatry But now to the second part I answer That I do not restrain Idolatry in this place to External acts of Worship onely but it comprehends any External Internal or mixt act consisting of both which are held Idolatrous in the Heathen Which quite breaks in pieces the insnaring case my Adversary offers to me of a converted Christian begging St. Pauls blessing on the knee as his father that begat him in Christ and of an Heathen of Lycaonia on his knees adoring the Apostle at the same time for the God Mercury Act. 14. For every External act of Worship is not Idolatry Nor was it Idolatry in the Lycaonian to be on his knee to Paul but the intended adoration of him for the God Mercury This mixt action of genuflexion and Internal Religious adoration together was Idolatry but the External alone had not been Idolatry And if the new Convert had given inward Religious Worship adjoyned to the External genuflection unto St. Paul then it had been Idolatry in him also as well in the Lycaonian So little hurt has this assault done my third Conclusion which is not restrained to External act of Worship but asserts onely All acts of Worship Internal External or mixt that are Idolatrous in Heathens to be so also in Christians when they commit the like Answer to the fourth Conclusion In his Answer to my fourth Conclusion he hales in Preposterously my eight Conclusion out of time and order and so confusedly speaks to them both But I am such a lover of Method that I will onely reply to what belongs to my fourth Conclusion here and defer the answering to what is mentioned under my eighth Conclusion till we come thither What thereâ—ore he Objects against my fourth Conclusion is onely this First that it is proofless and false that the Pagans worshipped the supreme God in an Image Secondly that I omitted one branch of the Pagan Idolatry the worshipping of the very Images for Gods They called them Gods sayes he they took them for Gods sacrificed to them as Gods And the same is to be said of those souls of men departed Daemons or other particular Appearances or Powers of Nature all which they took and worshipped for Gods For Gods I say which this mincing Conclusion seeks most warily to conceal This is the utmost of the force my Adversary summes up against this Conclusion The Reply To the first thing Objected
ask him Does he there establish the bounty of God on the bounty of evil men but argues à Minori if they that are less willing and able to do good notwithstanding do it much more will God who is goodness it self and infinitely able and willing to do good be sure to do good to those that call upon him And so say I If it be the right of finite Mortals that have the supreme Power to define and declare it is much more or most of all true in God Almighty who is also infinitely good and wise that he hath the right to define and declare c. So that my Antagonist without any Offence against Logick or impeachment to his Judgement might have saved himself the labour of this assault upon my first Conclusion and ingenuously confessed it as it is impregnable and inexpugnable His Answer to the second Conclusion His assault also on my second Conclusion is very oblique and elusory Now says he that the whole Decalogue is moral he makes some needless attempts to prove chiefly for the second Commandments sake All which proofs it is easy to take off by this single Answer I say then as to the second Commandment if he expound it so as onely to Prohibit the making or worshipping of Idols or Images of false Gods I shall readily grant it to be moral and strictly binding both the Jews and Christians But if he puts any other meaning on the Text he begs the Question and he must excuse me if I call for â—is further proof c. The sense of which Answer in brief is this That though he acknowledge the whole Decalogue moral Else why does he say I make needless attempts to prove it yet if I expound the Morality of the second Commandment so as that I would thereby show it unlawfull to worship any Images saving of false Gods which he calls Idols that it will not go down with him unless I more fully prove the Morality of this Commandment to extend also to the Prohibition of worshipping any Image suppose of the true God or of Saints and good Angels This is the full sense and scope of this first Answer But he comes in also with a secondly That some both Catholick and Protestant Divines own no more then a Ceremonial Precept in the second Commandment if extended to any Vniversal Prohibition of all Images and under that notion given onely to the Jews The Reply In Reply to the First I first take notice That he is fain to pass over my first ground of this second Conclusion as too hard for him to deal with namely the Spirituality of our Christian Religion Which ground being unshaken the second Conclusion remains firm from Instances of Jewish Idolatry in Scripture But now for the extent of the Moral sense of the second Commandment of the Decalogue that it should forbid the bowing to any Images whatsoever in the way of Religion or Devotion the words aptly spreading to that latitude In the first place I say My Adversary should bring reason to the contrary For we are with fear and reverence to receive the Laws of God in such an extent or latitude of sense as it being natural will be most effectual to keep us from sinning against them Otherwise if my Adversary would be still more humoursom and would say That stealing from a man of another Religion killing of him or covering his goods were Lawfull and I should produce those Commandments against him Thou shalt not steal Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not covet c. He might roundly reply after his Fashion that if I understand them of stealing from killing or coveting any ones goods but theirs of our own Religion I beg the Question Which consideration alone methinks should make any one senside of the great absurdity of his Answer to the present case of worshipping of Images But yet again in the second place I say it is necessary and inevitable to understand the second Commandment in that extent of sense that I suppose it to have For it is manifest that the second Commandment as well as the first treats of Religion and our Worship of God The first is Thou shalt have no other Gods but me that is to say We shall exhibit Religious Worship to no other Beings besides himself and so make as if they were Gods For the all-wise God knows there is really no other Gods besides himself nor any can really make them so But men may make as if there were by giving Religious Worship to them though they be no Gods So that here all false Deities whether Angels Daemons or separate souls of men or what ever Powers of nature are plainly forbid to be worshipped or made Gods of or acknowledged to be Gods by any Religious Worship Which therefore à fortiori takes away all erecting Images to be bowed to or worshipped in reference to them In so much that the second Commandment seems Tautological or at least superfluous if it be meerly to forbid the making of Images of Worship for those Gods whose at all having or any way worshipping is already so plainly forbid Whence it necessarily follows that at least chiefly though not onely the making and worshipping of Images in reference to the true God is forbid by the second Commandment Whom the Commandment strictly forbids to be worshipped in any Image whatsoever that represents any thing in the whole Universe Heaven Earth or Sea c. This I say is plainly the principally intended sense according to free and unprejudiced Reason But yet the Precept is so penned that in a secondary scope it forbids the Religious bowing to or worshipping all Images whatsoever Thus plain is it that the worshipping any Images of the true God is here strictly forbidden contrary to what our Adversary pretends Which Interpretation the Law-giver himself who best knows the meaning of his own Laws do's plainly ratify Exod. 32. where Israel worshipping God himself in a visible Image the Golden Calf provoked Gods wrath so as tâ—ere fell thirty Thousand of them by the Sword for so hainous a crime of Idolatry So that the true Exposition of this Law as Draco's Law was said of old to have been was written in blood So solid and authentick is this sense thereof namely That as he will have nothing else besides himself worshipped with Religious Worship so himself will not be worshipped in an Image or Similitude of any thing in Heaven Earth or Sea that is in the whole Universe But then thirdly out of my Adversaries own Concession As it is already manifest that the erection of an Image to the true God is forbidden by this Commandment so is the worshipping of Images in reference to Saints and Angels here also forbidden For my Adversary do's readily grant that the Precept is Moral and strictly binding as to the Prohibition of the Worship of the Images of false Gods Now I say There is no more than one God and the rest no otherwise made
called one Commandment or Decree touching our duty towards God yet my charge against the Church of Rome for leaving out so great and so material a part of this Decree or of the first Commandment if you will would not be a jot mitigated thereby the understanding being the same as my Antagonist himself confesses whether it be held one Commandment or two For if it be held one Commandment yet it is plainly divisible into these two parts which we call the first and second Commandments And this that we call the second Commandment and you the second part of the first Commandment being really one and the same and you acknowledging you leave out that part of the Commandment where then is the Calumny any more then if one should accuse another that he took away two shillings six pence and he should Reply it is an unworthy slander it was onely half a crown that he took away would not this to any indifferent judge seem a very pleasant Apology to clear one of the Theft But now in the second place Though St. Austin and St. Hierome â—eter Lombard says it is Origen and Austin may differ in their Opinion about the first and second Commandment whether they be one or two Commandments yet I presume the more ancient and the more general sense of the Church is that they are two And it is well known that Origen flourished long before Austin But it is acknowledged of all hands out of the word of God that there are just ten Commandments neither more nor less Now the Church of Rome that would have the first Table consist but of three Commandments is constrained to divide the last Commandment into two which is against the Antiquity of the distinction of the Greek and Hebrew Text into verses For it is observable that both in the Greek and Hebrew Text though the length of some of the Commandments has occasioned them to be divided into more verses than one yet they no where have crouded two Commandments into one verse in so much that they make Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not steal three distinct verses Whence it is plain that that which we call the tenth Commandment is really but one Commandment as being contained in one verse and that Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife is not a whole Commandment distinct from the rest contained in that verse Besides which is hugely remarkable if Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife be one intire Commandment viz. the ninth part of the tenth Commandment viz. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house is set before it which is not a thing credible But there is no absurdity nor inconvenience supposing it but one Commandment that Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house is set first in Exodus and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife is placed first in Deuteronomy This methinks should be enough to the impartial to demonstrate that that which we usually call the tenth Commandment is not to be divided into two but is all one entire Commandment and that therefore the first and second Commandments ordinarily so called cannot be one Commandment but two that there may be ten To all which you may add that but even a moderate smattering in Logick may easily discover the tenth Commandment usually so called to be but one and the first and second Commandments so called to be really two namely from the consideration of their Objects Now the Object in the tenth Commandment is but one in General viz. the keeping our desires from other mens goods of what nature soever Thou shalt not covet any thing that is his That is the general of the whole Commandment plainly And House Wife Servant Oxe Asse are but particulars belonging to this general and by the same reason that you make an intire Commandment of any one of these Particulars you may of every one of them and so divide the last Commandment at least into five which is very absurd But as the Object of the tenth Commandment shows it can be but one so the Objects of the first and second plainly show they must be two Commandments because their Objects are distinctly two The first having for its Object the onely one true God whom alone to retain we are plainly taught or commanded by that Precept the second having for its Object Graven Images or whatsoever similitudes of things which we are strictly forbid any way to worâ—hip So plain every way is it That that which we call the second Commandment is the second Commandment and that there is not the least show of calumny in saying They have left out the second Commandment in their Catechisms But yet it is further observable that if the first and second Commandments were to be held but one Commandment there can be no so rational ground as this That the second has a close subserviency to the first and that it is added that we may keep the first more intirely and have no more Gods in any sense than one Which implies therefore that worshipping of Images Gods does interpret as the making more Gods to our selves then one or that it is a necessary Concomitant of making to our selves more Gods then one as is too too apparent in the Religion of the Gentiles nor can be enough lamented in degenerated Christendom Which eagerness after Idol-Gods the true God most severely prohibits and show's himself so much the more solicitous and zealous here against worshipping of Images by reason of the great Proclivity of mankind to that more than to Polytheisme or the not believing that there is onely one supreme God the Creatour and Governour of all things But the great danger is that acknowledging this yet they may either defile his Worship with Images and make those Images Gods by worshipping them or Worship Doemonâ— and Saints in Images and Pictures and so accordding to the custom of the Heathens make more Gods than one though but one supreme and others inferiour to him There is such a pruriency and precipitant inclination in humane nature to these superstitions that to put a stop to it God addes such a rousing Comminaâ—ion at the latter end of this second Commandment or the second part of the first as my Adversary would have it For I am a jealous God that visits the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children to the third and fourth Generation of them that hate me As if he declared them more particularly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haters of God as well as hatefull to him who will presume so hainously to affront him as to make Images to Worship them or any Object by them Which second Commandment therefore with this direfull Commination added to it being so effectual a bar and so point blank against the Idolatry practised in the Roman Church my Adversary must give me leave to suspect that it is not as he says left out to ease the memory of the Vulgar of so long a