supernatural help in remembring and attesting it The first Churches received the Testimony from the first witnesses upon naturally certain and infallible evidence it being impossible that those witnesses could by combination deceive the world in such matters of fact in the very age and place when and where the things are pretended to be done and said And these Churches had the concomitance of supernatural attestation in themselves by the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost and by miracles wrought by them The Christians or Churches of the next age received the testimony from those of the first with a greater evidence of natural infallible Certainty for that the Doctrine was delivered to them in the records of sacred Scripture and both the miracles and reporters were more numerous and they were dispersed over much of the world and with these also was the supernatural evidence of miracles We of the present age receive it insallibly from the Churches of all precedent ages successively to this day by the same way with greater advantages in some respects and with lesser in others not upon the Churches bare authority but the natural Cerainty of the infallible tradition of the Holy Scriptures or records of this religion and of the perpetual exercise thereof according to those records in all essential points wherein it was naturally impossible for the precedent ages to impose falshoods upon the subsequent And this rational evidence of the Churches tradition was in conjunction with the histories of heathens and the concessions of the Churches enemies infidels and hereticks all which did acknowledg the verity of the matters of fact There is natural evidence of the impossibility that all the witnesses and reporters being so many of such condition and in such circumstances should agree to deceive and never be detected for there is no possible sufficient cause that so many thousand believers and reporters in so many several countries throughout the world should be deceived or be herein mad or sensless and that those many thousands should be able in these matters unanimously to agree to deceive more than themselves into a belief of the same untruth in the very time and place where the things were said to be done And no sufficient cause can be given but that some among so many malicious enemies should have detected the deceit especially considering the numbers of Apostates and the contentions of Heriticks Besides all this there is a succession of the same spirit of Wisdom and Goodness which was in the Apostles and their hearers continued to this day and is wrought by their Doctrine § 20. Of the infallible Knowledg of the Sense of Scripture AS we may be infallibly certain of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture so likewise of the sence of the Scripture at least in points fundamental or essential to the Christian Religion and that without an infallible Teacher We may certainly know that an interpretation of Scripture repugnant to the common reason of mankind and to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true if we can certainly know any thing is impossible to be true and consequently we may infallibly know it The sence of Scripture in many things and those most material to Christian faith and life is so evident from the plain open and ample expression thereof that he that runs may read it if his understanding be notoriously prejudiced And if we cannot know the said sense to be necessarily true we can know nothing to be so and so we are at uncertainty for every thing It will surely be granted by all that we may as certainly know the sense of Scripture in things plainy and amply expressed as the sense of any other writings as for instance of the Writings of Euclide in the definitions and axioms in which men are universally agreed If any say the words in which the said definitions and axiomes are expressed may possibly bear another sense it is answered That they may absolutely considered because words which have their sense ad placitum and from common use being absolutely considered may have a divers sense from what they have by common use but those words being respectively considered as setled by use cannot possibly bear another sense unless we imagine the greatest absurdity imaginable in the Writer Besides they that pretend the possibility of another sense I suppose do mean sense and not nonsense And how a divers sense of all those words in Euclide that is not pure nonsense should arise out of the same words and so conjoined is by me incomprehensible But if the possibility of the thing be comprehensible or so great an absurdity be imaginable in a Writer led only by a humane spirit it is not imaginable in Writers divinely inspired That the Holy Ghost should write unintelligibly and wholly diversly from the common use of words in things absolutely necessary to salvation is impossible If an infallible Teacher be necessary to give the sense of Scripture in all things and no other sense than what is so given can be safely rested in then either the right sense of that infallible Teachers words if he be at a distance cannot be known but by some other present infallible Teacher or else that pretended infallible Teacher is more able or more willing to ascertain us of his meaning than the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture To speak of seeking the meaning of Scripture from the sense that the Catholick Church hath thereof is but vain talk For first the Catholick church never yet hath and never is like to come together till the day of judgment to declare their sense of the things in question nor have they written it in any book or number of books 2. Never did any true Representative of the Catholick Church or any thing like it as yet come together or any way declare what is their sense of the Scripture and the things in question nor is ever like to do 3. Tho it be granted that the Catholick Church cannot err in the essentials of Christian Religion as indeed no true member thereof can for it would involve a contradiction yet there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that a great if not the greater part of the Catholick Church may err in the integrals much more in the accidentals of Religion yea there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that the whole Catholick Church may err at least per vices in the several parts thereof some in one thing some in another And all this is testified by experience in the great diversities of opinions about these things in the several parts of the Catholick Church yea and by the difference of judgment and practise of the larger parts thereof even from those among us who hold this principle of the necessity of standing to their judgment Wherefore shall we think that God puts men upon such dissiculties yea impossibilities of finding out the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures at least in the main points of
to the Protestants Doctrine is the giving of Divine Honour to a morsel of Bread and therefore a most stupid and stupendious kind of Idolatry Some of the Protestant Profession have gone about to Extenuate the same saying That it is material but not formal Idolatry in the Papists For that the Consecrated Bread is taken to be very Christ who is very God and therefore though the thing Worshipped be not God yet it is Believed to be the True God by those Worshippers and Worshipped as such Nevertheless it hath been granted by some of the Popish Writers That if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be an Error they are guilty of the most abominable Idolatry in the Adoration of the Host and they could not find out the aforesaid extenuation of it in case of such Error by distinguishing between Material and Formal Idolatry And some Romanists do say That these words This is my body may bear a Figurative sence as those Words That Christ was a Rock and that if there were no other Evidence for Transubstantiation but what the Scripture gives there were no reason to make it an Article of Faith Bellarmine saith These words necessarily infer either a real Mutation in the Bread as the Catholicks hold or a Metaphorical as the Calvinists hold but by no means admit the Lutheran sence And he concludes That though there be some obscurity and ambiguity in the Words yet it is taken away by Councils and Fathers The Persians in old Gentilism Worshipped the Sun for the Supreme God and their Idolatry was not the less abominable for their Error about that Object of Worship And surely it was Formal Idolatry that is There was in it the formalis ratio or true nature and reason of that Sin Nay I think it more Sacrilegious and Blasphemous against the True God to take any Creature to be he and to worship it accordingly than to give Divine Worship to a Creature not imagined to be the Supreme God but some inferior deity St. Austin speaks in his Preface to his Sermon on Psal 93. of certain Hereticks that honoured the Sun and said That it was Jesus Christ Now divine honour given to the Sun under such a mistake is horrid Idolatry and why not also divine honour given to a morsel of Bread by the same mistake The Lutherans Doctrine of Consubstantiation doth not infer that the Eucharist is to be adored They believe indeed That Jesus Christ is really present in the Sacrament but they do not believe That the Sacrament is really Jesus Christ nor adore it as such But that the Papists condition in respect of this sottish Superstition of Bread-worship being so bad may not be made worse than it is it may be considered That they do not take the Bread to be the Deity nor to be he that is God save onely according to his Human Body into which they believe the Bread is changed and so worship it as our Lords Body or to express it in the most favourable sence they worship him as there present in his proper Body and withal worship the bread supposed to be that Body §. 6. Of the Popish Invocation of Angels and Saints departed THis Invocation is without Precept or Precedent in Holy Scripture Invocation on God alone is according to Scripture Christ teacheth to pray Our Father in his great Rule and Standard of Prayer We are taught to Invocate him on whom we believe Rom. 10.14 which is God alone As Incense the Type so Prayer the thing typified is to be offered to God alone Prayer is an Act of such Worship as Papists call latria It supposeth the Being to whom it is directed to be the Author and Fountain of the good we pray for And so they that are prayed to are invocated in Gods stead And whereas some say That the Saints are to be invocated not as Authors of Divine benefits it is apparent that Papists invocate them as Authors directly and without ambages praying to them for health and deliverance from danger yea for the highest benefits as to St. Peter to open Heaven Gates to them They direct their prayers to them as to those that can dispence the Grace of God to men at their pleasure Also prayer implies a prostration of the whole Soul and Spirit and Body to the person that is invocated by Acts of Subjection Devotion Dependence Reverence and all higest Observance Experience shews the fond ravishments of Soul in the superstitions towards those to whom more especially they are devoted ordinarily making no inferior Expressions of their Devotion towards them than toward God and Christ Yea they are so intercepted and taken up by this Dotage as to forget God If Saints are invocated as Mediators they are invocated in Christs stead Christ is our Intercessor in Heaven as our Redeemer 1 John 2.1 And therefore they that are not our Redeemers cannot be our intercessors in Heaven Moreover we cannot rationally commend our prayers to any but such as we know both can and will represent them to God The Popish Invocation of Saints and Angels is an ascribing to them the incommunicable Excellencies of God as to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 searchers of hearts and perceptive of all the cases and concernments of those that invocate them and an Omniscience and Omnipresence if not absolute yet at least reâ—â—â—ctive to this lower World the Habitation of us Mortals is ascribed to them thereby To excuse this Sacriledg and Idolatry that incredible conceit of the Saints beholding all things in speculo Trinitatis is but a sorry shift Such Omniscience the Manhood of Christ hypostatically united to the Godhead did not pretend unto And the devising of it is a transcendent presumption of mans wit for the invading of Gods right The truth is the Worship of Saints and Angels maintained in the Roman Church in parity of reason answers the Pagans Worshipping of Daemons being either Souls of Men departed or other Invisible Powers whom they imagined to be Inferior Deities subordinate and ministring to the Supreme God And after the manner of the Heathens the Papists have appointed among the Saints certain particular Patrons of Provinces Cities Artificers living Creatures c. When we desire holy persons on Earth to pray for us we feek not to them as Patrons or Intercessors in the vertue of their Merits but as Brethren at the same distance from God with us And the help is mutual according to the Communion of Saints and for which we have Promise Precept and Example § 7. Of Erecting Altars and bringing Oblations to any besides God THose external Acts that by Nature or Custome or Divine Institution are or were appropriated Expressions of that internal honour or observance that is due to God alone are Divine Worship And such are the Acts of Erecting Altars and bringing Oblations and burning Incense and making Vows and dedicating Temples and ordaining Festivals The Erecting of Altars either for Sacrifice or other Oblations to any being imports either an
it doth not hence follow that Peter was a fixed Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles no more were any of the Apostles fixed Bishops in those places where they were more especially imployed and we know that they made frequent removes §. 10. Of the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus THE Name of Bishop is not given either to Timothy or Titus except in the Postscripts of the Epistles But those Postscripts are taken for no part of Canonical Scripture For if they were free from the objected Errors about the places from which the Epistles were written they cannot in reason be supposed to be Pauls own words and written by him when the Epistles were written Moreover the travels of Timothy and Titus do evidently shew that they were not diocesan bishops nor the setled Overseers of particular churches And those passages 1 Tim. 1.3 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus and Tit. 1.5 For this cause I left thee in Crete shew an occasional and temporary employment And whatsoever stress may be laid upon these texts to prove they were bishops of those places yet they do not sound like the fixing of them each in their proper diocess The name of an Evangelist is expresly given to one of them 2 Tim. 4.5 and the work enjoined both of them and accordingly performed by them being throughout of the same kind there is all reason to believe that they had the same kind of office Now by several texts of Scripture compared together we find the work of Evangelists to be partly such as belonged to the Apostles whose Agents or Adjuncts they were and partly such as was common to Pastors and Teachers whose office was included in theirs Their work in common with the Apostles was the planting and setling of churches by travelling from place to place and in this regard they have been well called Apostles of the Apostles And in doing this Vice-apostolick service they did also that which was common to pastors and teachers in teaching and ruling but with this difference that the ordinary pastors did it statedly in those churches where they were fixed but these transiently in several churches which they were sent to erect or establish or to set things in order therein as the Apostles saw need Or if Timothy and Titus were not in an office essentially divers from the ordinary pastors and teachers yet they were in extraordinary service as being the Apostles Agents and being in that capacity might have their intrinsick spiritual power enlarged to a greater extent and higher pitch of exercise than the ordinary Ministers Howbeit I rather judg that they had an office specifically different from that of the ordinary pastors because in the enumeration of the several sacred offices Paul mentions the office of an Evangelist as a distinct kind from the rest But if it can be proved that the Superiority of Timothy and Titus over bishops or elders of particular churches was not as they were the Apostles assistants or as extraordinary and temporary officers but as ordinary superiors it will indeed follow that Archbishops or bishops of bishops are of divine Right Nevertheless the Episcopal authority of bishops or presbyters of particular churches such as the Scripture-bishops were remains unshaken § 11. Of the Angels of the Churches ANother allegation for the divine right of bishops of an higher order than presbyters is from the Angels of the seven Churches Apoc. 1. and 2. To which many things are said by those of the other persuasion As that those Angels are not called Bishops nor any where implied to be bishops in the present Vulgar sense of the word That the denomination of Angels and Stars in the judgment of ancient and modern Writers do belong to the Ministers of the Word in general That in mysterious or prophetick Writings and Visional Representations a number of things or persons is usually expressed by singulars and that it is very probable that the term Angel is explained under that plurality you distinguished from the rest Apoc. 2.24 but to you and the rest in Thyatira c. and to be a collective name expressing all the Elders of that church Also some observe that it might be expressed in the same manner as Gods providence in the administration of the World by Angels is expressed wherein one being set as chief over such a countrey the things which are done by many are attributed to one Angel president It is further to be considered that in the church of Ephesus one of the seven the Scripture makes mention of many bishops who were no other than presbyters Acts 20.28 Against this some say That the Elders there mentioned were not the presbyters of the church of Ephesus but the bishops of Asia then gathered together at Ephesus and sent for by Paul to Miletum But 1. This is affirmed altogether without proof 2. The text saith Paul sent from Miletum to Ephesus to call the elders of the church which in rational interpretation must be the Elders of the church to which he sent 3. If the bishops of all Asia had been meant it would have been said the Elders of the churches For in Scripture tho we find the Christians of one city called a church yet the Christians of a Region did ever make a plurality of churches as the churches of Judea the churches of Galatia and the churches of Asia 4. There is not the least hint given of the meeting of the bishops of Asia at Ephesus when Paul sent for the elders of the Church 5. The asserters of prelacy hold that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus now Paul did not send for him for he was already present with him and accompanied him in his travels Nor did he commit the charge of the church to him but to the Elders that were sent for 6. It could not be the sence of the church of England that those Elders who are declared to be bishops were bishops in the Vulgar meaning of the word when she appointed that portion of Scripture to be read at the ordination of Presbyters to instruct them in the nature and work of their Office Some say That by the Angel of the church is meant the Moderator or President of the Presbytery who might be either for a time or always the same person and the Epistle might be directed to him in the same manner as when the King sends a Message to the Parliament he directs it to the Speaker Now such a Moderator or President makes nothing for bishops of a higher order than Presbyters § 12. A further Consideration of the Office of an EVANGELIST and of a general Minister COncerning the Office of Evangelists such as Timothy and Titus the query is Whether it was temporary or perpetual An eminent Hierarchical Divine saith That Evangelists were Presbyters of principal sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs wherâ—ver they saw need Now this description doth not make them of a specifically
Christianity Surely God requires of us no more than he hath given and that is to make use of the faculties wherewith he hath indued us How can we apprehend any doctrine or the sense of any written word but by our faculty of understanding And how can we make judgment thereof I mean a judgment of discretion but by making use of our own reason This is not to subject matters of Religion to a private Spirit but to refer them to the Divine Authority of Scripture to be apprehended in the right and due use of reason which is a publick and evident thing and lies open to the trial and judgment of all men § 21. What Certainty is necessary to the being of saving Faith THUS upon the grounds before laid we may have a natural infallible Certainty of the verity of the Christian Religion and the divine authority of the Scripture and of the sense of Scripture It remains to be considered Whether the having of this Certainty both of the Christian Religion and of the Scripture be necessary to the being of saving Faith Here let it be noted That a person may have some doubting of a matter whereof he sees no just cause of doubting And howsoever men may possibly argue against this assertion yet experience makes it good And there is sufficient reason for it in the infirmity of our minds contracted by the fall whereby oft-times we are confident of the things which we see we have just cause to doubt of or disbelieve and whereby we doubt of the things that we see we have just cause most firmly to believe I take this to be evident in that saying I believe Lord help my unbelief And against this it cannot be said here is an effect without a sufficient cause for tho there be no sufficient ground or reason of the doubt yet for it being a defect there is a sufficient cause namely the infirmity of the mind He that said to our Saviour I believe Lord help mine unbelief had saying faith And his faith that he professed and his unbelief that he complained of appears by the context not to relate to his interest in Christ but to Christ himself as able to help him And so from this instance it is evident that the not having of an infallible certainty of the object denies not the being of saving faith at least where a man is so far clear as to see no just cause of doubt tho he do somewhat doubt A man that sees not a sufficient evidence to be infallibly assured touching the firmness of the grounds for the receiving of the Christian Doctrine and yet sees no sufficient evidence for the rejecting of that doctrine may from the consideration of the importance of the things therein treated of and the probability of the truth of those things be induced intirely and heartily to imbrace that doctrine with purpose to live accordingly and to perform that purpose That this may be is evident for humane prudence doth strongly oblige a man in that case to make such a choice for himself and if he doth not make such choice he doth not act with the understanding of a man But if it be said that the corruption of humane nature would be too hard for humane prudence in the case I answer That God can give that assistance of his Grace whereby a mans will shall be inabled to make its choice according to prudence against its naturally corrupt inclination And God can give this assistance very congruously or agreeably to his holy Wisdom Whosoever in the case aforesaid doth make such a choice and live accordingly hath saving faith For his so doing doth imply an unfeigned love to and preferring of God and Christ and Holiness above all that is in the world and so must needs suppose faith unfeigned and God proceeding according to his Grace in Christ will not impute unto condemnation such a ones culpable defect of Certainty in the matters of Faith which doth not hinder his sincere trust in God through Christ and his intire and hearty love to him § 22. Of our Certainty of being in the State of Grace IT may lastly be inquired What Certainty one may have of his being in the state of grace As for the Certainty of Salvation that is a different inquiry and depends on another question touching the Certainty of perseverance in a justified state which is not here to be medled with and we inquire not whether one may be certain of his being in the state of Grace by special revelation but in an ordinary way That any one ordinarily should have certain knowledg of his being in the state of Grace supposeth his certain knowledg of these two things 1. That God hath declared in his word that they which have such and such qualifications are in the state of Grace 2. That he himself is so qualified For it is the conclusion of these two premises the one whereof is the object of divine faith and the other of a clear and right self-knowledg The Certainty of the former viz. That God hath declared persons so qualified to be in the state of Grace none deny that acknowledg the Certainty of Christs Gospel The Certainty of the latter is the matter of debate whether it be possible and whether it ought to be had It is not inquired Whether the Certainty of the latter viz. Whether the person himself be so qualified be a Certainty of divine faith For the object of such Certainty is only what God hath revealed that this or that man hath faith and repentance but this is only a point of self-knowledg Here interpose we something of the doctrine of Protestants and Papists about the Certainty of this matter The Protestants in asserting that the Certainty of being in the state of Grace is a Certainty of divine faith do mean no more but that one of the propositions viz. Whosoever unfeignedly believes is justified rests solely on the Word of God and the other viz. I unfeignedly believe is known by internal sence and experience But whether the conclusion Therefore I am justified or in the state of Grace be rightly called a conclusion of divine faith I leave to others to judg not caring to strive about words when the thing it self is agreed upon And doubtless no sober Protestant will assert that the Certainty which we have of this conclusion is a Certainty of the same reason with that which we have of an article of faith either so firmness or necessity The Papists in denying the Certainty of Justification to be a Certainty of Divine Faith do not deny all Certainty thereof but mean that it is not of the same reason with the Certainty which we have of an Article of Faith Because tho one of the premises on which it is founded be an Article of Faith yet the other is known but by internal sence and the testimony of conscience As to the later of the premises which is known but by internal sence and
terminating object thereof and consequently a meer material image cannot be rationally intended for such an object of worship But if the image be taken for an animate body or an incorporated Deity then it is an absolutely terminating object of the worship performed to it Worshipping towards a Symbolical presence is not a worshipping of the symbol as the bowing to the throne of a Prince is not a worshipping of the throne And so the bowing towards the Mercy-seat in the most holy place was not a worshipping thereof It was medium cultus but not medium cultum The idolatry of image-worship is most frequently spoken of in Scripture because it was most ordinary and it is the concomitant of almost all other kinds of idolatry For both the true and false gods are by idolaters commonly worshipped in images I shall consider this kind of idolatry first as it is used in the worship of false gods and then as it is used in the worship of the true God § 15. Of the worshipping of false Gods in Images AMong the Heathens the images of their gods were called gods not properly but tropically as the Picture of a man is called a Man for humane understanding cannot take a meer statue or a picture for a god Therefore as to this point the heathens were as justifiable as the Papists The Heathens thought that the special residences of their gods were in the images and that their power was exerted by them So do the Papists take their Sacred images for the special residences as of God and of Christ so of the Saints and Angels which they also worship with the worship due to God only and so make them idols The Devil by Gods permission was wont to dwell and operate in certain images by which means they came to be famous and more adored than others So the Papists think a divine or supernatural efficacy to be tyed to one image more than to another The Vulgar Heathens being infatuated by Satanical illusions might without much difficulty be brought in part to terminate their worship in the images themselves being set forth and adorned as they were to astonish the beholders and raise fear in them that they might apprehend them the very gods which they worshipped but not the whole of them but only as it were the bodies where with the invisible Deities did incorporate And multitudes of ignorant vulgar Papists mâ—y be supposed to be under the same gross inâ—atuation Upon the Reasons aforegoing it might be that the Prophets laboured so much to prove that images were not gods As the more intelligent Papists look upon the images no otherwise than as Symbols and Representations of those beings to which they give divine worship so the more intelligent Heathens did no otherwise As the wiser Heathens extremely differed in their opinions about the gods from the Vulgar yet concurred with them in all external rites of worship so do the more learned Papists concur with the ignorant vulgar among them in all external practises of their idolatry To worship a false God in an image is double idolatry because here two things that are not God are worshipped with divine worship viz. the ultimate object absolutely and the Medium or mediate object to wit the image relatively §. 16. Of making images of the true God AN image to represent the true God is an idol as the golden Calf in the Wilderness and the Calves of Dan and Bethel To make an image of God is to blaspheme him An infinite Nature cannot be represented but it must be an infinite disparagement to it It may be asked May not God be represented by such corporeal forms as sometimes he appeared in Ans In the burning bush and in the glory on Mount Sinai God appeared not as in an image or representation of himself but as in symboâ—s of his presence Whether it were God or Angels only that appeared to Abraham and Jacob in humane shape is controvertible or it might be God the Son as a preludium to his incarnation Besides God did not take those humane shapes as images or representations of himself but as signs of his presence The soul of man is Gods image but in an equivocal improper metaphorical sense And such an image of God as it is it cannot be pictured and an image of mans body is not so much as the image of Gods image No made image can be the image of that Excellency in respect whereof God differs from the creature The virtues of the mind are more capable of being pictured than God is God forbad the Israelites to make an image of him and adds this reason That in Mount Sinai they saw no similitude Exod. 20.4 Deut. 4.5 It is folly to say Only such images are forbidden as are intended to express the perfect likeness of God and that he hath allowed an image for analogical resemblance of him For none is so mad as to think any image doth express the perfect likeness of God The Heathens that acknowledged the Eternal God did not think that any of their images did express the perfect likeness thereof And did God make a Law to forbid that which is impossible in the nature of the thing and allow all possible Representations of him The Cherubims were no Representation of God they were only Hieroglyphical signs of Gods own appointment To make an image of Fire or Light to signifie the inaccessible light which God dwells in or to picture rays of light with the Name of God is not to make an image or representation of him it is no other than Hieroglyphical writing Moses saw that which the Scripture calls Gods back parts to wit a created glory There is a great deal of difference between imperfect conceptions of God in our minds and unworthy representations of him to our senses And I know no other conception of God than of a Being infinitely perfect and this is an intellectual apprehension and not a material imagination of him § 17. Of worshipping the True God in Images TO worship God in images is not to glorifie him as God but to extenuate his glory by a false Representation of him To worship God in an image is in the sense of image-worshippers to worship the Image it self with divine honour relative And so to worship an image is to make it false God or idol and to communicate Gods worship to the creature The golden Calf is in Scripture called an idol To worship God as animating an image is idolatry To make an image to be medium cultum or the thing which we worship mediately on pretence of its representing God and that we worship him in it ultimately is the thing directly forbidden in the Second Commandment I think it is also thereby forbidden to make an image or representation of God to be medium cultus tho it should not be medium cultum because it seems to me that God in the Second Commandment forbids such resemblances and representations of himself not only to