THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES. 451
unto his institution, miglit set up any other images for the same end and purpose, no more than they might set up otlier altars for sacri- fice besides that appointed by him, when he had commanded that they sliould not do so. Supposing, then, that wliich is not true, and which you can give no colour of proof to, namely, that the " cheru- bims were images properly so called," and set up by God's command to be adored, yet they were no less still under the force of his prohi- bition against the making of images, than if he had never appointed any to be made at all. It was no more free for them to do so than it is for you now, under the New Testament, to make five sacraments more, of your own heads, because he hath appointed tiuo. So un- happy are you in the confu'mation of your own supposition, which yet, as I have showed you, is by no means to be granted. And this is the substance of your plea for this practice and usage of your church; which, whether it will justify you in your open transgression of so many express commands that lie against you in this matter, the day that shall discover all things will manifest.
You proceed to the vindication of another passage in your " Fiat," from the animadversions upon it, with as little success as the fonner you have attempted. " ' Fiat Lux ' says, ' God forbade foreign images, such as Moloch, Dagon, and Ashtaroth, but he commanded his own'" (sir, Moloch and Ashtaroth were not images properly so called, whatever may be said of Dagon, — the one was the sun, the other the host of heaven, or the moon and stars) ; " but the ' Animadversions' say, ' that God forbade any likeness of himself to be made.' " They do so, and what say you to the contrary ? Why, " Yoa may know and consider that the statues and graven images of the; heathen, towards whose land Israel, then in the wilderness, was jouxn eying, were ever made by the Pagans to represent God, and not any devils, although they were deluded in it." But, — 1. Your good friends will give you little thanks for this concession, whose strongest plea to vindicate themselves and you from idolatry in your image -wor.ship is, that the images of the heathen were not made to represent God, but that an idol was really and absolutely nothing. 2. God did not forbid the people in particular the making images unto Moloch, Dagon, or Ash- taroth, but prohibits the worshipping of the idols themselves in any way ; but he forbids the making of any images and similitudes of him- self in the fii'st place, and of all other things, to worship them. But what of all this ? "Why then," say you, " there was good reason that the Hebrews, who should be cautioned from such snares, should be forbidden to make to themselves any similitude or likeness of God." Well, then, they were so forbidden ; this is that which the " Animad- versions" affirmed before, and " Fiat Lux" denied, affirming that they were the "ugly faces of Moloch" that were forbidden. " Moses,"
452 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
say you, p. 294, " forbade profane and foreign images, but he com- manded his own;'' but here you grant that God forbade the making of any simihtude or hkeness of himself, — the reason of it we shall not much dispute whilst the thing is confessed, though I must inform you that himself insists upon another, and not that which you sug- gest, which you will find if you will but peruse the places I formerly directed you unto. But say you, " What figure or similitude the true God hath allowed his people, that let them hold and use until the fulness of time should come, when the figure of his substance, the splendour of his glory, and only image of his nature, should appear; and now, since God hath been pleased to show us his face, pray give Christians leave to keep and honour it." I presume you know not that your discourse is sophistical and atheological, and I shall there- fore give you a little light into your mistakes: — 1. What do you mean by " figure or similitude" that the true God had allowed his people? Was it any figure or similitude of himself, not of Moloch, which you were speaking of immediately before, and which your following words interpret your meaning of, where you affirm that in the " fulness of time" he hath given us the " image of himself?" have you not denied it in the words last mentioned ? Have you no regard how you jumble contradictions together, so you may make a show of saying some- thing? Do you intend any other likeness or similitude? why then do you deal sophistically in using the same expression to denote diverse things ? 2. It is atheological, that you affirm Christ to be the " image of the nature of God." He is, and is said to be, the " image of his Father's person," Heb. i. 3. And when he is said to be the " image of the invisible God," the term God is to be taken vToaranxZg for the person of the Father, and not olaiudug for the nature, or sub- stance, or essence of God. 3. Christ is the essential image of the Father in his divine nature, inasmuch as he is partaker with him of all the same divine properties and excellencies, and morally in his whole person God and man, as mediator, in that the love, grace, will, and wisdom of the Father are in him fully represented unto us, and not in the outward lineaments of his human nature, Isa. lii. liii. And what is all this to your images that give us the shape and form of a man, and of what individual person neither you nor we know?