highest duty is to Him. The greatest sin a man can commit is to refuse to render to God the admiration and obedience which are his due, or to transfer to the creature the allegiance and ser- vice which belong to Him. Hence no sin is so frequently or so severely denounced in the Scriptures.
The most intimate relation which can subsist among men is that of marriage. No injury which can be rendered by one man against another is greater than the violation of that relation ; and no sin which a wife can commit is more heinous and degrading than infidelity to her marriage vows.
This being the case, it is natural that the relation between God and his people should be, as it is, in the Bible so often illustrated by a reference to the marriage relation. A people who refuse to recognize, or an individual man who refuses to recognize Jeho- vah as his God, who transfers the allegiance and obedience due to God alone to any other object, is compared to an unfaithful wife. And as jealousy is the strongest of human passions, the relation of God to those who thus forsake Him is illustrated by a refer- ence to the feelings of an injured and forsaken husband. It is in this way that the Scriptures teach that the severest displeasure of God, and the most dreadful manifestations of his wrath, are the certain consequences of the sin of idolatry ; that is, of the sin of having any other God than Jehovah, or of giving to images, to stocks and stones, the external homage due to Him who is a spirit, and who must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.
The Lord, therefore, in this commandment, declares Himself to be " a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation ; and showing mercy unto thousands (unto the thousandth generation) of them that love me, and keep my commandments." The evil conse- quences of apostasy from God are not confined to the original apostates. They are continued from generation to generation. They seem indeed, and, humanly speaking, in fact are remediless. The degradation and untold miseries of the whole heathen world are the natural and inevitable consequence of their forefathers' having turned the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. These natural conse- quences, however, are designed, ordained, and judicial. They are not mere calamities. They are judgments, and therefore are not to be counteracted or evaded. Consequently those who teach atheism, or who undermine religion, or who corrupt and degrade the worship of God. by associating with it the worship of creat-
296 PART HI. Ch. XIX. — THE LAW.
ures ; or who teach that we may make graven images and bow down to them and serve them, are bringing down upon them- selves and upon coming generations the most direful calamities that can degrade and afflict the children of men. Such must be the issue unless they not only can counteract the operation of nat- ural causes, but also can thwart the purpose of Jehovah.
It is a great cause for thankfulness, and adapted to fill the hearts of God's faithful people with joy and confidence, to know that He will bless their children to the thousandth generation .
The Doctrine and Usage of the Romish Church as to Images, Salvation, our Lord said, is of the Jews. The founders of the Christian Church were Jews. The religion of the Old Testament in which they had been educated forbade the use of images in divine worship. All the heathen were worshippers of idols. Idol-worship, therefore, was an abomination to the Jews. With the Old Testament authority against the use of images and with this strong national prejudice against their use, it is abso- lutely incredible that they should be admitted in the more spir- itual worship of the Christian Church. It was not until three centuries after the introduction of Christianity, that the influence of the heathen element introduced into the Church was strong enough to overcome the natural opposition to their use in the service of the sanctuary. Three parties soon developed themselves in connection with this subject. The first adhered to the teach- ings of the Old Testament and the usage of the Apostolic Churches, and repudiated the religious use of images in any form. The second allowed the use of images and pictures for the purpose of instruction, but not for worship. The common people could not read, and therefore it was argued that visible representations of Scriptural persons and incidents were allowable for their benefit. The third contended for their use not only as a means of instruc- tion, but also for worship.
As early as A. D. 305, the Council of Elvira in Spain con- demned the use of pictures in the Church.1 In the thirty-sixth Canon the Council says,2 " Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere; ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur.,' Augustine complained of the superstitious use of images ; Euse- bius of Caesarea, and Epiphanius of Salamis, protested against
1 The year 305 is usually assigned as the date of this Council, although the precise time of its session is matter of dispute.
2Binius, Concilia Generalija et Prowncaiia, Cologne, 1618, t i. vol. i p. 195, b. c