Demonology and Other Remnants of Pagan Religion

The impression made on the organs of Sight, by lucide Bodies, either in one direct line, or in many lines, reflected from Opaque, or refracted in the passage through Diaphanous Bodies, produceth in living Creatures, in whom God hath placed such Organs, an Imagination of the Object, from whence the Impression proceedeth; which Imagination is called Sight; and seemeth not to bee a meer Imagination, but the Body it selfe without us; in the same manner, as when a man violently presseth his eye, there appears to him a light without, and before him, which no man perceiveth but himselfe; because there is indeed no such thing without him, but onely a motion in the interiour organs, pressing by resistance outward, that makes him think so. And the motion made by this pressure, continuing after the object which caused it is removed, is that we call Imagination, and Memory, and (in sleep, and sometimes in great distemper of the organs by Sicknesse, or Violence) a Dream: of which things I have already spoken briefly, in the second and third Chapters.

Light-emitting bodies make an impression on the organs of sight. The light travels either in a single straight line or along many paths reflected from opaque bodies. It can also be bent as it passes through transparent bodies. In living creatures whom God has given these organs, this impression produces an image of the object causing it. This image is called sight. Yet the image seems not to be merely imagined, but to be the external body itself. In the same way, when a man presses his eye hard, a light appears outside him, in front of him. No one but the man himself perceives this light, because no such light actually exists outside him. There is only motion within his organs, pushing outward against resistance and making him think he sees an external light. The motion caused by this pressure continues after the object that caused the pressure is removed. This continuing motion is what we call imagination and memory. During sleep, we call it a dream. Dreams also sometimes occur when illness or violence severely disturbs the organs. I have already discussed these matters briefly in the second and third chapters.

This nature of Sight having never been discovered by the ancient pretenders to Naturall Knowledge; much lesse by those that consider not things so remote (as that Knowledge is) from their present use; it was hard for men to conceive of those Images in the Fancy, and in the Sense, otherwise, than of things really without us: Which some (because they vanish away, they know not whither, nor how,) will have to be absolutely Incorporeall, that is to say Immateriall, of Formes without Matter; Colour and Figure, without any coloured or figured Body; and that they can put on Aiery bodies (as a garment) to make them Visible when they will to our bodily Eyes; and others say, are Bodies, and living Creatures, but made of Air, or other more subtile and aethereall Matter, which is, then, when they will be seen, condensed. But Both of them agree on one generall appellation of them, DAEMONS. As if the Dead of whom they Dreamed, were not Inhabitants of their own Brain, but of the Air, or of Heaven, or Hell; not Phantasmes, but Ghosts; with just as much reason, as if one should say, he saw his own Ghost in a Looking-Glasse, or the Ghosts of the Stars in a River; or call the ordinary apparition of the Sun, of the quantity of about a foot, the Daemon, or Ghost of that great Sun that enlighteneth the whole visible world: And by that means have feared them, as things of an unknown, that is, of an unlimited power to doe them good, or harme; and consequently, given occasion to the Governours of the Heathen Common-wealths to regulate this their fear, by establishing that DAEMONOLOGY (in which the Poets, as Principal Priests of the Heathen Religion, were specially employed, or reverenced) to the Publique Peace, and to the Obedience of Subjects necessary thereunto; and to make some of them Good Daemons, and others Evill; the one as a Spurre to the Observance, the other, as Reines to withhold them from Violation of the Laws.

The ancient claimants to knowledge of nature never discovered how sight works. Still less did people who ignored knowledge so far removed from their immediate needs. So people found it hard to understand images in imagination and sensation as anything but things really outside us. Some insist these images are entirely incorporeal, or immaterial, because the images vanish, though they know neither where nor how. They regard them as forms without matter, as colour and shape without any coloured or shaped body. They believe these forms can put on bodies of air like clothing, becoming visible to our physical eyes at will. Others say these images are bodies and living creatures made of air, or some finer, ethereal matter. They say this matter becomes denser whenever these creatures wish to be seen. But both groups agree on one general name for them: DAEMONS. They speak as if the dead they dreamed about inhabited the air, Heaven, or Hell, rather than their own brains. As if these were not imaginary images, but ghosts. They have just as much reason as someone claiming to see his own ghost in a mirror. Or someone claiming to see the ghosts of stars in a river. Or someone calling the sun’s ordinary appearance, about a foot across, the Daemon or ghost of the great sun itself. Yet that great sun lights the whole visible world. Because of this, people feared these apparitions as things with an unknown, and therefore unlimited, power to help or harm them. This fear consequently gave the rulers of pagan states an opportunity to control it by establishing DAEMONOLOGY. The poets, as the chief priests of pagan religion, were especially employed or honoured in this work. The rulers used this DAEMONOLOGY to promote public peace and the obedience of subjects necessary for that peace. They made some apparitions Good Daemons and others Evil. The good served as a spur to obey the laws, the evil as reins holding people back from breaking them.

What kind of things they were, to whom they attributed the name of Daemons, appeareth partly in the Genealogie of their Gods, written by Hesiod, one of the most ancient Poets of the Graecians; and partly in other Histories; of which I have observed some few before, in the 12. Chapter of this discourse.

The kinds of beings they called Daemons are partly described in Hesiod’s genealogy of their gods. Hesiod was one of the earliest Greek poets. Other histories also describe these beings. I have already noted a few of these accounts in Chapter 12 of this work.

The Graecians, by their Colonies and Conquests, communicated their Language and Writings into Asia, Egypt, and Italy; and therein, by necessary consequence their Daemonology, or (as St. Paul calles it) “their Doctrines of Devils;” And by that meanes, the contagion was derived also to the Jewes, both of Judaea, and Alexandria, and other parts, whereinto they were dispersed. But the name of Daemon they did not (as the Graecians) attribute to Spirits both Good, and Evill; but to the Evill onely: And to the Good Daemons they gave the name of the Spirit of God; and esteemed those into whose bodies they entred to be Prophets. In summe, all singularity if Good, they attributed to the Spirit of God; and if Evill, to some Daemon, but a kakodaimen, an Evill Daemon, that is, a Devill. And therefore, they called Daemoniaques, that is, possessed by the Devill, such as we call Madmen or Lunatiques; or such as had the Falling Sicknesse; or that spoke any thing, which they for want of understanding, thought absurd: As also of an Unclean person in a notorious degree, they used to say he had an Unclean Spirit; of a Dumbe man, that he had a Dumbe Devill; and of John Baptist (Math. 11. 18.) for the singularity of his fasting, that he had a Devill; and of our Saviour, because he said, hee that keepeth his sayings should not see Death In Aeternum, (John 8. 52.) “Now we know thou hast a Devill; Abraham is dead, and the Prophets are dead:” And again, because he said (John 7. 20.) “They went about to kill him,” the people answered, “Thou hast a Devill, who goeth about to kill thee?” Whereby it is manifest, that the Jewes had the same opinions concerning Phantasmes, namely, that they were not Phantasmes that is, Idols of the braine, but things reall, and independent on the Fancy.

Through their colonies and conquests, the Greeks spread their language and writings into Asia, Egypt, and Italy. Their demonology necessarily spread along with these, or, as St. Paul calls it, “their doctrines of devils.” Through this means, the contagion also reached the Jews in Judaea, Alexandria, and other places where they had dispersed. But unlike the Greeks, the Jews did not use the name Daemon for both good and evil spirits. They used it only for evil spirits. They called good Daemons the Spirit of God and considered people whose bodies these spirits entered to be prophets. In short, they attributed every unusual quality, if good, to the Spirit of God. If evil, they attributed it to some Daemon, specifically a kakodaimen, an evil Daemon, or devil. They therefore called certain people demoniacs, meaning people possessed by the devil. These included those we call mad or insane, those with epilepsy, and those whose words seemed absurd through their listeners’ lack of understanding. They also said that a notoriously unclean person had an unclean spirit. They said that a person unable to speak had a devil that prevented speech. They said John Baptist had a devil because of his unusual fasting (Matthew 11:18). They said the same of our Saviour because he said that anyone who kept his teachings would never see death. Their reply was, “Now we know you have a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets are dead” (John 8:52). Again, because he said, “They were trying to kill him,” the people answered, “You have a devil. Who is trying to kill you?” (John 7:20). These examples make it clear that the Jews held the same opinions about phantasms. They believed these were not phantasms, meaning images created by the brain, but real things existing independently of the imagination.

Which doctrine if it be not true, why (may some say) did not our Saviour contradict it, and teach the Contrary? nay why does he use on diverse occasions, such forms of speech as seem to confirm it? To this I answer, that first, where Christ saith, “A Spirit hath not flesh and bone,” though hee shew that there be Spirits, yet he denies not that they are Bodies: And where St. Paul sais, “We shall rise Spirituall Bodies,” he acknowledgeth the nature of Spirits, but that they are Bodily Spirits; which is not difficult to understand. For Air and many other things are Bodies, though not Flesh and Bone, or any other grosse body, to bee discerned by the eye. But when our Saviour speaketh to the Devill, and commandeth him to go out of a man, if by the Devill, be meant a Disease, as Phrenesy, or Lunacy, or a corporeal Spirit, is not the speech improper? can Diseases heare? or can there be a corporeall Spirit in a Body of Flesh and Bone, full already of vitall and animall Spirits? Are there not therefore Spirits, that neither have Bodies, nor are meer Imaginations? To the first I answer, that the addressing of our Saviours command to the Madnesse, or Lunacy he cureth, is no more improper, then was his rebuking of the Fever, or of the Wind, and Sea; for neither do these hear: Or than was the command of God, to the Light, to the Firmament, to the Sunne, and Starres, when he commanded them to bee; for they could not heare before they had a beeing. But those speeches are not improper, because they signifie the power of Gods Word: no more therefore is it improper, to command Madnesse, or Lunacy (under the appellation of Devils, by which they were then commonly understood,) to depart out of a mans body. To the second, concerning their being Incorporeall, I have not yet observed any place of Scripture, from whence it can be gathered, that any man was ever possessed with any other Corporeal Spirit, but that of his owne, by which his body is naturally moved.

If this doctrine is not true, some may ask, why did our Saviour not contradict it and teach the opposite? Indeed, why does he sometimes use language that seems to confirm it? My first answer concerns Christ’s statement, “A spirit does not have flesh and bones.” Although he shows that spirits exist, he does not deny that spirits are bodies. And when St. Paul says, “We shall rise as spiritual bodies,” he acknowledges the nature of spirits as bodily spirits. This is not difficult to understand. Air and many other things are bodies, though they have neither flesh and bones nor any other solid form visible to the eye. But our Saviour speaks to the Devil and commands him to leave a man. If the Devil means a disease, such as madness or lunacy, or a bodily spirit, is this language not improper? Can diseases hear? Or can a bodily spirit inhabit a body of flesh and bones already full of vital and animal spirits? Must there not therefore be spirits that neither have bodies nor are mere products of the imagination? To the first objection, I answer that our Saviour’s command to the madness or lunacy he cures is no more improper than his rebuking a fever, the wind, or the sea. None of these can hear either. Nor is his command more improper than God’s commands to light, the firmament, the Sun, and the stars to exist. They could not hear before they existed. But those commands are not improper, because they express the power of God’s word. So it is no more improper to command madness or lunacy to leave a person’s body. Such illnesses were then commonly understood as devils and called by that name. The second objection concerns spirits having no bodies. I have not yet found any passage in Scripture showing that anyone was ever possessed by a bodily spirit other than their own. A person’s own spirit is what naturally moves their body.

Our Saviour, immediately after the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a Dove, is said by St. Matthew (Chapt. 4. 1.) to have been “led up by the Spirit into the Wildernesse;” and the same is recited (Luke 4. 1.) in these words, “Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, was led in the Spirit into the Wildernesse;” Whereby it is evident, that by Spirit there, is meant the Holy Ghost. This cannot be interpreted for a Possession: For Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are but one and the same substance; which is no possession of one substance, or body, by another. And whereas in the verses following, he is said “to have been taken up by the Devill into the Holy City, and set upon a pinnacle of the Temple,” shall we conclude thence that hee was possessed of the Devill, or carryed thither by violence? And again, “carryed thence by the Devill into an exceeding high mountain, who shewed him them thence all the Kingdomes of the world:” herein, wee are not to beleeve he was either possessed, or forced by the Devill; nor that any Mountaine is high enough, (according to the literall sense,) to shew him one whole Hemisphere. What then can be the meaning of this place, other than that he went of himself into the Wildernesse; and that this carrying of him up and down, from the Wildernesse to the City, and from thence into a Mountain, was a Vision? Conformable whereunto, is also the phrase of St. Luke, that hee was led into the Wildernesse, not By, but In the Spirit: whereas concerning His being Taken up into the Mountaine, and unto the Pinnacle of the Temple, hee speaketh as St. Matthew doth. Which suiteth with the nature of a Vision.

According to St. Matthew (4:1), our Saviour was “led up by the Spirit into the wilderness.” This happened immediately after the Holy Ghost descended on him in the form of a dove. Luke (4:1) gives the same account in these words: “Jesus, being full of the Holy Ghost, was led in the Spirit into the wilderness.” Clearly, “Spirit” here means the Holy Ghost. This cannot mean possession, because Christ and the Holy Ghost are one and the same substance. It is not a case of one substance or body possessing another. The following verses say that Christ was “taken up by the Devil into the Holy City and placed on a pinnacle of the Temple.” Should we therefore conclude that the Devil possessed him or carried him there by force? Again, Christ was “carried from there by the Devil to an exceedingly high mountain, where the Devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world.” We should not believe that the Devil possessed or forced him in this case either. Nor should we believe that any mountain is literally high enough to give a view of one whole hemisphere. What else can this passage mean, then, except that Christ went into the wilderness of his own accord? And that his being carried from the wilderness to the city, and then to a mountain, was a vision? St. Luke’s wording also supports this interpretation. He says Christ was led into the wilderness, not by, but in the Spirit. Yet Luke describes Christ’s being taken up to the mountain and the pinnacle of the Temple just as St. Matthew does. This wording fits the nature of a vision.

Again, where St. Luke sayes of Judas Iscariot, that “Satan entred into him, and thereupon that he went and communed with the Chief Priests, and Captaines, how he might betray Christ unto them:” it may be answered, that by the Entring of Satan (that is the Enemy) into him, is meant, the hostile and traiterous intention of selling his Lord and Master. For as by the Holy Ghost, is frequently in Scripture understood, the Graces and good Inclinations given by the Holy Ghost; so by the Entring of Satan, may bee understood the wicked Cogitations, and Designes of the Adversaries of Christ, and his Disciples. For as it is hard to say, that the Devill was entred into Judas, before he had any such hostile designe; so it is impertinent to say, he was first Christs Enemy in his heart, and that the Devill entred into him afterwards. Therefore the Entring of Satan, and his Wicked Purpose, was one and the same thing.

Again, St. Luke says of Judas Iscariot: “Satan entered into him. Then he went and spoke with the Chief Priests and Captains about how he might betray Christ to them.” One possible answer is that Satan’s entry meant Judas’s hostile and treacherous intention to sell his Lord and Master. Satan means “the Enemy.” For Scripture often uses the Holy Ghost to mean the graces and good inclinations given by the Holy Ghost. Similarly, Satan’s entry may mean the wicked thoughts and plans of the enemies of Christ and his disciples. For it is hard to say that the Devil entered Judas before Judas had any such hostile plan. It is equally beside the point to say Judas first became Christ’s enemy in his heart, and the Devil entered afterward. Therefore, Satan’s entry and Judas’s wicked purpose were one and the same thing.

But if there be no Immateriall Spirit, nor any Possession of mens bodies by any Spirit Corporeall, it may again be asked, why our Saviour and his Apostles did not teach the People so; and in such cleer words, as they might no more doubt thereof. But such questions as these, are more curious, than necessary for a Christian mans Salvation. Men may as well aske, why Christ that could have given to all men Faith, Piety, and all manner of morall Vertues, gave it to some onely, and not to all: and why he left the search of naturall Causes, and Sciences, to the naturall Reason and Industry of men, and did not reveal it to all, or any man supernaturally; and many other such questions: Of which neverthelesse there may be alledged probable and pious reasons. For as God, when he brought the Israelites into the Land of Promise, did not secure them therein, by subduing all the Nations round about them; but left many of them, as thornes in their sides, to awaken from time to time their Piety and Industry: so our Saviour, in conducting us toward his heavenly Kingdome, did not destroy all the difficulties of Naturall Questions; but left them to exercise our Industry, and Reason; the Scope of his preaching, being onely to shew us this plain and direct way to Salvation, namely, the beleef of this Article, “that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God, sent into the world to sacrifice himselfe for our Sins, and at his comming again, gloriously to reign over his Elect, and to save them from their Enemies eternally:” To which, the opinion of Possession by Spirits, or Phantasmes, are no impediment in the way; though it be to some an occasion of going out of the way, and to follow their own Inventions. If wee require of the Scripture an account of all questions, which may be raised to trouble us in the performance of Gods commands; we may as well complaine of Moses for not having set downe the time of the creation of such Spirits, as well as of the Creation of the Earth, and Sea, and of Men, and Beasts. To conclude, I find in Scripture that there be Angels, and Spirits, good and evill; but not that they are Incorporeall, as are the Apparitions men see in the Dark, or in a Dream, or Vision; which the Latines call Spectra, and took for Daemons. And I find that there are Spirits Corporeal, (though subtile and Invisible;) but not that any mans body was possessed, or inhabited by them; And that the Bodies of the Saints shall be such, namely, Spirituall Bodies, as St. Paul calls them.

But if no spirit exists without a body, and no bodily spirit possesses human bodies, a further question may arise. Why did our Saviour and his Apostles not teach people this, in words clear enough to remove all doubt? But such questions have more to do with curiosity than with what a Christian needs for salvation. People might just as well ask why Christ gave faith, piety, and every moral virtue to only some people. He could have given these gifts to everyone. They might also ask why he left the investigation of natural causes and the sciences to human reason and effort. Why did he not reveal this knowledge supernaturally to everyone, or to anyone? Many other questions of this kind could be asked. Nevertheless, plausible and devout reasons may be offered. When God brought the Israelites into the Land of Promise, he did not secure them by conquering all surrounding nations. Instead, he left many of those nations as thorns in their sides, to stir their piety and effort from time to time. In the same way, our Saviour did not remove every difficulty in questions about nature while guiding us toward his heavenly Kingdom. He left those difficulties for us to exercise our effort and reason. The sole aim of his preaching was to show us the plain and direct way to salvation. That way is belief in this article of faith: “that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God, sent into the world to sacrifice himself for our sins. And that, when he comes again, he will reign gloriously over his chosen people and save them from their enemies forever.” Belief in possession by spirits or phantoms does not block this path to salvation. Yet for some, that belief becomes an occasion to stray from the path and follow their own inventions. Suppose we demand that Scripture answer every question that might trouble us as we carry out God's commands. We might just as well complain that Moses did not record when such spirits were created. He recorded the creation of the Earth, the Sea, humans, and animals. To conclude, I find in Scripture that there are Angels and spirits, both good and evil. But I do not find that they lack bodies, as do apparitions seen in darkness, dreams, or visions. The Latins called these apparitions Spectra and took them for Daemons. I also find that there are spirits with bodies, though those bodies are fine and invisible. But I do not find that these spirits possessed or inhabited any human body. And I find that the bodies of the Saints will be of this kind, namely, spiritual bodies, as St. Paul calls them.

Neverthelesse, the contrary Doctrine, namely, that there be Incorporeall Spirits, hath hitherto so prevailed in the Church, that the use of Exorcisme, (that is to say, of ejection of Devills by Conjuration) is thereupon built; and (though rarely and faintly practised) is not yet totally given over. That there were many Daemoniaques in the Primitive Church, and few Mad-men, and other such singular diseases; whereas in these times we hear of, and see many Mad-men, and few Daemoniaques, proceeds not from the change of Nature; but of Names. But how it comes to passe, that whereas heretofore the Apostles, and after them for a time, the Pastors of the Church, did cure those singular Diseases, which now they are not seen to doe; as likewise, why it is not in the power of every true Beleever now, to doe all that the Faithfull did then, that is to say, as we read (Mark 16. 17.) “In Christs name to cast out Devills, to speak with new Tongues, to take up Serpents, to drink deadly Poison without harm taking, and to cure the Sick by the laying on of their hands,” and all this without other words, but “in the Name of Jesus,” is another question. And it is probable, that those extraordinary gifts were given to the Church, for no longer a time, than men trusted wholly to Christ, and looked for their felicity onely in his Kingdome to come; and consequently, that when they sought Authority, and Riches, and trusted to their own Subtilty for a Kingdome of this world, these supernaturall gifts of God were again taken from them.

Nevertheless, the opposite doctrine, that spirits exist without bodies, has so far prevailed in the Church. This doctrine provides the basis for exorcism (that is, driving out devils by ritual commands). Although exorcism is now rarely practiced, and only halfheartedly, it has not been entirely abandoned. In the early Church, many people were called demon-possessed, while few were described as mentally ill or having similar unusual diseases. Today, by contrast, we hear of and see many mentally ill people and few described as demon-possessed. This difference comes not from a change in nature, but from a change in names. But another question remains. The Apostles, and for a time the Church’s pastors after them, cured those unusual diseases. Why are they no longer seen to do so? Likewise, why can every true believer today not do all that the faithful did then? As we read in Mark 16:17, they could “cast out devils in Christ’s name, speak in new languages, handle snakes, drink deadly poison without harm, and cure the sick by laying their hands on them.” They did all this with no words other than “in the Name of Jesus.” It is probable that the Church received those extraordinary gifts only while people trusted entirely in Christ. During that time, they expected happiness only in his kingdom to come. Consequently, it is probable that God withdrew these supernatural gifts when people sought power and riches instead. They had begun trusting their own cunning to gain a kingdom in this world.

Another relique of Gentilisme, is the Worship of Images, neither instituted by Moses in the Old, nor by Christ in the New Testament; nor yet brought in from the Gentiles; but left amongst them, after they had given their names to Christ. Before our Saviour preached, it was the generall Religion of the Gentiles, to worship for Gods, those Apparences that remain in the Brain from the impression of externall Bodies upon the organs of their Senses, which are commonly called Ideas, Idols, Phantasmes, Conceits, as being Representations of those externall Bodies, which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a Dream: And this is the reason why St. Paul says, “Wee know that an Idol is Nothing:” Not that he thought that an Image of Metall, Stone, or Wood, was nothing; but that the thing which they honored, or feared in the Image, and held for a God, was a meer Figment, without place, habitation, motion, or existence, but in the motions of the Brain. And the worship of these with Divine Honour, is that which is in the Scripture called Idolatry, and Rebellion against God. For God being King of the Jews, and his Lieutenant being first Moses, and afterward the High Priest; if the people had been permitted to worship, and pray to Images, (which are Representations of their own Fancies,) they had had no farther dependence on the true God, of whom there can be no similitude; nor on his prime Ministers, Moses, and the High Priests; but every man had governed himself according to his own appetite, to the utter eversion of the Common-wealth, and their own destruction for want of Union. And therefore the first Law of God was, “They should not take for Gods, ALIENOS DEOS, that is, the Gods of other nations, but that onely true God, who vouchsafed to commune with Moses, and by him to give them laws and directions, for their peace, and for their salvation from their enemies.” And the second was, that “they should not make to themselves any Image to Worship, of their own Invention.” For it is the same deposing of a King, to submit to another King, whether he be set up by a neighbour nation, or by our selves.

Another remnant of paganism is the worship of images. Moses did not establish this worship in the Old Testament, nor did Christ in the New Testament. Nor was it later brought in from the Gentiles. Instead, it remained among them after they became Christians. Before our Saviour preached, the Gentiles generally worshipped mental images as gods. These images remain in the brain after external objects make impressions on the sense organs. They are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, or concepts, because they represent the external objects that cause them. These mental images have no more reality than the things that seem to stand before us in dreams. This is why St. Paul says, “We know that an idol is nothing.” He did not mean that an image made of metal, stone, or wood was nothing. Rather, the thing people honoured or feared in the image, and regarded as a god, was a mere fiction. It had no place, home, movement, or existence except in the motions of the brain. Giving these fictions divine honours is what Scripture calls idolatry and rebellion against God. For God was King of the Jews. His deputy was first Moses and later the High Priest. Suppose the people had been allowed to worship and pray to images, which represent their own imaginings. They would no longer have depended on the true God, whom no image can resemble. Nor would they have depended on his chief ministers, Moses and the High Priests. Instead, everyone would have governed themselves according to their own desires. This would have completely overthrown the commonwealth and brought about their own destruction through lack of unity. Therefore, God’s first law was, “They must not accept ALIENOS DEOS, meaning the gods of other nations, as gods. They must accept only the one true God, who graciously chose to speak with Moses. Through Moses, he gave them laws and guidance to secure their peace and deliver them from their enemies.” The second law was that “they must not make any image of their own invention to worship.” For submitting to another king amounts to the same overthrow of a king, whoever establishes the rival. It makes no difference whether a neighbouring nation establishes that king or we establish him ourselves.

The places of Scripture pretended to countenance the setting up of Images, to worship them; or to set them up at all in the places where God is worshipped, are First, two Examples; one of the Cherubins over the Ark of God; the other of the Brazen Serpent: Secondly, some texts whereby we are commanded to worship certain Creatures for their relation to God; as to worship his Footstool: And lastly, some other texts, by which is authorized, a religious honoring of Holy things. But before I examine the force of those places, to prove that which is pretended, I must first explain what is to be understood by Worshipping, and what by Images, and Idols.

Some passages of Scripture are claimed to support setting up images to worship them. They are also claimed to support placing images anywhere God is worshipped. First, there are two examples: the Cherubim over the Ark of God and the Brazen Serpent. Second, some passages command us to worship certain created things because of their relation to God. One example is the command to worship his footstool. Finally, some other passages authorize honoring holy things as a religious act. But before I examine whether these passages support such claims, I must explain what worship, images, and idols mean.

I have already shewn in the 20 Chapter of this Discourse, that to Honor, is to value highly the Power of any person: and that such value is measured, by our comparing him with others. But because there is nothing to be compared with God in Power; we Honor him not but Dishonour him by any Value lesse than Infinite. And thus Honor is properly of its own nature, secret, and internall in the heart. But the inward thoughts of men, which appeare outwardly in their words and actions, are the signes of our Honoring, and these goe by the name of WORSHIP, in Latine, CULTUS. Therefore, to Pray to, to Swear by, to Obey, to bee Diligent, and Officious in Serving: in summe, all words and actions that betoken Fear to Offend, or Desire to Please, is Worship, whether those words and actions be sincere, or feigned: and because they appear as signes of Honoring, are ordinarily also called Honor.

I have already shown in Chapter 20 of this work that to honor someone is to value their power highly. We measure that value by comparing that person with others. But because nothing compares with God in power, we dishonor him rather than honor him by valuing his power as anything less than infinite. Honor, then, is by its very nature hidden and inward, within the heart. But people’s inward thoughts show themselves outwardly in words and actions. These signs of honor are called WORSHIP, or CULTUS in Latin. So praying to someone, swearing by them, obeying them, and serving them diligently and attentively are acts of worship. In short, all words and actions showing fear of offending or a desire to please are worship, whether sincere or feigned. And because these words and actions appear as signs of honor, they are also commonly called honor.

The Worship we exhibite to those we esteem to be but men, as to Kings, and men in Authority, is Civill Worship: But the worship we exhibite to that which we think to bee God, whatsoever the words, ceremonies, gestures, or other actions be, is Divine Worship. To fall prostrate before a King, in him that thinks him but a Man, is but Civill Worship: And he that but putteth off his hat in the Church, for this cause, that he thinketh it the House of God, worshippeth with Divine Worship. They that seek the distinction of Divine and Civill Worship, not in the intention of the Worshipper, but in the Words douleia, and latreia, deceive themselves. For whereas there be two sorts of Servants; that sort, which is of those that are absolutely in the power of their Masters, as Slaves taken in war, and their Issue, whose bodies are not in their own power, (their lives depending on the Will of their Masters, in such manner as to forfeit them upon the least disobedience,) and that are bought and sold as Beasts, were called Douloi, that is properly, Slaves, and their Service, Douleia: The other, which is of those that serve (for hire, or in hope of benefit from their Masters) voluntarily; are called Thetes; that is, Domestique Servants; to whose service the Masters have no further right, than is contained in the Covenants made betwixt them. These two kinds of Servants have thus much common to them both, that their labour is appointed them by another, whether, as a Slave, or a voluntary Servant: And the word Latris, is the general name of both, signifying him that worketh for another, whether, as a Slave, or a voluntary Servant: So that Latreia signifieth generally all Service; but Douleia the service of Bondmen onely, and the condition of Slavery: And both are used in Scripture (to signifie our Service of God) promiscuously. Douleia, because we are Gods Slaves; Latreia, because wee Serve him: and in all kinds of Service is contained, not onely Obedience, but also Worship, that is, such actions, gestures, and words, as signifie Honor.

The worship we offer to those we regard as merely human, such as kings and people in authority, is civil worship. But the worship we offer to what we believe to be God is divine worship. This is true whatever words, ceremonies, gestures, or other actions we use. Bowing flat before a king is only civil worship if the worshipper regards the king as merely human. But someone who merely removes his hat in church because he believes it is God’s house offers divine worship. Those who distinguish divine from civil worship by the words douleia and latreia, rather than the worshipper’s intention, deceive themselves. There are two kinds of servants. The first kind are entirely under their masters’ power, like slaves captured in war and their descendants. These slaves have no control over their own bodies. Their lives depend on their masters’ will, and they can lose their lives for the slightest disobedience. They are bought and sold like animals. They were called Douloi, which properly means slaves, and their service was called Douleia. The other kind serve voluntarily, for wages or in the hope of receiving benefits from their masters. They are called Thetes, meaning domestic servants. Their masters have no right to their service beyond the agreements made between them. Both kinds of servants have this in common: someone else assigns their work, whether they serve as slaves or voluntarily. And Latris is the general name for both kinds. It means someone who works for another, whether as a slave or a voluntary servant. So Latreia means all service in general. But Douleia means only the service of slaves and the condition of slavery. Both words are used interchangeably in Scripture to mean our service to God. Douleia is used because we are God’s slaves, and Latreia because we serve him. And every kind of service includes not only obedience but also worship, meaning actions, gestures, and words that express honor.

An IMAGE (in the most strict signification of the word) is the Resemblance of some thing visible: In which sense the Phantasticall Formes, Apparitions, or Seemings of Visible Bodies to the Sight, are onely Images; such as are the Shew of a man, or other thing in the Water, by Reflexion, or Refraction; or of the Sun, or Stars by Direct Vision in the Air; which are nothing reall in the things seen, nor in the place where thy seem to bee; nor are their magnitudes and figures the same with that of the object; but changeable, by the variation of the organs of Sight, or by glasses; and are present oftentimes in our Imagination, and in our Dreams, when the object is absent; or changed into other colours, and shapes, as things that depend onely upon the Fancy. And these are the Images which are originally and most properly called Ideas, and IDOLS, and derived from the language of the Graecians, with whom the word Eido signifieth to See. They are also called PHANTASMES, which is in the same language, Apparitions. And from these Images it is that one of the faculties of mans Nature, is called the Imagination. And from hence it is manifest, that there neither is, nor can bee any Image made of a thing Invisible.

An IMAGE, in the strictest sense of the word, is the likeness of something visible. In this sense, images are only the forms, apparitions, or appearances of visible bodies presented to our sight. Examples include the appearance of a person or another thing in water, through reflection or refraction. They also include the appearance of the Sun or Stars seen directly through the air. These appearances are nothing real in the things seen or in the places where they seem to be. Nor are their sizes and shapes the same as those of the objects. Instead, their sizes and shapes change with changes in the organs of sight or through lenses. These appearances are often present in our imagination and dreams when the objects themselves are absent. Or the appearances take on different colours and shapes, since they depend only on the imagination. These images are what were originally and most properly called Ideas and IDOLS. These names come from the language of the Greeks, in which Eido means to see. These images are also called PHANTASMS, which means apparitions in the same language. And one of the faculties of human nature is called imagination because of these images. From this, it is clear that there is not, and cannot be, any image of an invisible thing.

It is also evident, that there can be no Image of a thing Infinite: for all the Images, and Phantasmes that are made by the Impression of things visible, are figured: but Figure is a quantity every way determined: And therefore there can bee no Image of God: nor of the Soule of Man; nor of Spirits, but onely of Bodies Visible, that is, Bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.

It is also clear that there can be no image of anything infinite. For all images and mental pictures formed by the impressions of visible things have shapes. But a shape has definite dimensions in every direction. Therefore, there can be no image of God, of the human soul, or of spirits. There can only be images of visible bodies, meaning bodies that produce their own light or are illuminated by such bodies.

And whereas a man can fancy Shapes he never saw; making up a Figure out of the parts of divers creatures; as the Poets make their Centaures, Chimaeras, and other Monsters never seen: So can he also give Matter to those Shapes, and make them in Wood, Clay or Metall. And these are also called Images, not for the resemblance of any corporeall thing, but for the resemblance of some Phantasticall Inhabitants of the Brain of the Maker. But in these Idols, as they are originally in the Brain, and as they are painted, carved, moulded, or moulten in matter, there is a similitude of the one to the other, for which the Materiall Body made by Art, may be said to be the Image of the Phantasticall Idoll made by Nature.

A person can imagine shapes he has never seen by combining parts of different creatures into a single figure. Poets do this when they invent Centaures, Chimaeras, and other monsters never seen. Just as a person can imagine these shapes, he can also give them physical form in wood, clay, or metal. These objects are also called images, not because they resemble any physical thing. Rather, they resemble imaginary beings in their maker’s brain. But these idols, as they originally exist in the brain, resemble their painted, carved, molded, or cast forms. Because of this resemblance, the physical body made by human skill may be called an image of the imaginary idol produced by nature.

But in a larger use of the word Image, is contained also, any Representation of one thing by another. So an earthly Soveraign may be called the Image of God: And an inferiour Magistrate the Image of an earthly Soveraign. And many times in the Idolatry of the Gentiles there was little regard to the similitude of their Materiall Idoll to the Idol in their fancy, and yet it was called the Image of it. For a Stone unhewn has been set up for Neptune, and divers other shapes far different from the shapes they conceived of their Gods. And at this day we see many Images of the Virgin Mary, and other Saints, unlike one another, and without correspondence to any one mans Fancy; and yet serve well enough for the purpose they were erected for; which was no more but by the Names onely, to represent the Persons mentioned in the History; to which every man applyeth a Mentall Image of his owne making, or none at all. And thus an Image in the largest sense, is either the Resemblance, or the Representation of some thing Visible; or both together, as it happeneth for the most part.

But in a broader sense, the word image also includes any representation of one thing by another. So an earthly sovereign may be called the image of God, and a lower magistrate the image of an earthly sovereign. And in the idolatry of the Gentiles, the physical idol often bore little resemblance to the idol they imagined. Yet the physical idol was still called an image of the imagined one. For an uncut stone has been set up to represent Neptune. Various other shapes have also been used, far different from the shapes people imagined their gods to have. And today we see many images of the Virgin Mary and other Saints that look unlike one another. These images do not match any one person's mental picture. Yet these images serve their intended purpose well enough. That purpose was simply to represent, by names alone, the people mentioned in the historical accounts. Each person supplies a mental image of those people, made in their own mind, or no mental image at all. Thus, in the broadest sense, an image either resembles or represents something visible, or does both, as is usually the case.

But the name of Idoll is extended yet further in Scripture, to signifie also the Sunne, or a Starre, or any other Creature, visible or invisible, when they are worshipped for Gods.

But Scripture uses the word idol more broadly. It also includes the sun, a star, or any other created being, visible or invisible, when worshipped as gods.

Having shewn what is Worship, and what an Image; I will now put them together, and examine what that IDOLATRY is, which is forbidden in the Second Commandement, and other places of the Scripture.

I have explained what worship is and what an image is. I will now bring the two together and examine IDOLATRY, as forbidden in the Second Commandment and elsewhere in Scripture.

To worship an Image, is voluntarily to doe those externall acts, which are signes of honoring either the matter of the Image, which is Wood, Stone, or Metall, or some other visible creature; or the Phantasme of the brain, for the resemblance, or representation whereof, the matter was formed and figured; or both together, as one animate Body, composed of the Matter and the Phantasme, as of a Body and Soule.

To worship an image is to willingly perform outward acts that show honor. Such acts may honor the image’s material, whether wood, stone, metal, or some other visible creature. Or they may honor the mental image that the material was shaped to resemble or represent. Or they may honor both together as one living body, made of material and mental image, like body and soul.

To be uncovered, before a man of Power and Authority, or before the Throne of a Prince, or in such other places as hee ordaineth to that purpose in his absence, is to Worship that man, or Prince with Civill Worship; as being a signe, not of honoring the stoole, or place, but the Person; and is not Idolatry. But if hee that doth it, should suppose the Soule of the Prince to be in the Stool, or should present a Petition to the Stool, it were Divine Worship, and Idolatry.

Removing your hat before a man of power and authority, or before a Prince’s throne, is an act of civil worship. The same applies in other places the Prince designates for that purpose in his absence. Such acts honor the man or Prince, not the seat or place, and are not idolatry. But suppose someone removing his hat believed the Prince’s soul was in the seat, or addressed a petition to the seat. That would be divine worship and idolatry.

To pray to a King for such things, as hee is able to doe for us, though we prostrate our selves before him, is but Civill Worship; because we acknowledge no other power in him, but humane: But voluntarily to pray unto him for fair weather, or for any thing which God onely can doe for us, is Divine Worship, and Idolatry. On the other side, if a King compell a man to it by the terrour of Death, or other great corporall punishment, it is not Idolatry: For the Worship which the Soveraign commandeth to bee done unto himself by the terrour of his Laws, is not a sign that he that obeyeth him, does inwardly honour him as a God, but that he is desirous to save himselfe from death, or from a miserable life; and that which is not a sign of internall honor, is no Worship; and therefore no Idolatry. Neither can it bee said, that hee that does it, scandalizeth, or layeth any stumbling block before his Brother; because how wise, or learned soever he be that worshippeth in that manner, another man cannot from thence argue, that he approveth it; but that he doth it for fear; and that it is not his act, but the act of the Soveraign.

Asking a King for things he can do for us is only civil worship, even if we bow before him. This is because we acknowledge only his human power. But voluntarily asking him for fair weather, or for anything only God can do for us, is divine worship and idolatry. On the other hand, if a King forces someone to do this by threatening death or severe physical punishment, it is not idolatry. Suppose the Sovereign uses the threat of punishment under his laws to command worship of himself. Such obedience does not show that the person inwardly honors the Sovereign as a God. Instead, the obedience shows a desire to escape death or a miserable life. An act that does not show inward honor is not worship, and therefore is not idolatry. Nor can we say that someone who obeys this command leads a fellow believer into sin or puts an obstacle in his way. However wise or learned the person performing such worship may be, no one can infer that he approves of it. Instead, the conclusion must be that he acts out of fear. The act is therefore not his own, but the Sovereign's.

To worship God, in some peculiar Place, or turning a mans face towards an Image, or determinate Place, is not to worship, or honor the Place, or Image; but to acknowledge it Holy, that is to say, to acknowledge the Image, or the Place to be set apart from common use: for that is the meaning of the word Holy; which implies no new quality in the Place, or Image; but onely a new Relation by Appropriation to God; and therefore is not Idolatry; no more than it was Idolatry to worship God before the Brazen Serpent; or for the Jews when they were out of their owne countrey, to turn their faces (when they prayed) toward the Temple of Jerusalem; or for Moses to put off his Shoes when he was before the Flaming Bush, the ground appertaining to Mount Sinai; which place God had chosen to appear in, and to give his Laws to the People of Israel, and was therefore Holy ground, not by inhaerent sanctity, but by separation to Gods use; or for Christians to worship in the Churches, which are once solemnly dedicated to God for that purpose, by the Authority of the King, or other true Representant of the Church. But to worship God, is inanimating, or inhibiting, such Image, or place; that is to say, an infinite substance in a finite place, is Idolatry: for such finite Gods, are but Idols of the brain, nothing reall; and are commonly called in the Scripture by the names of Vanity, and Lyes, and Nothing. Also to worship God, not as inanimating, or present in the place, or Image; but to the end to be put in mind of him, or of some works of his, in case the Place, or Image be dedicated, or set up by private authority, and not by the authority of them that are our Soveraign Pastors, is Idolatry. For the Commandement is, “Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven image.” God commanded Moses to set up the Brazen Serpent; hee did not make it to himselfe; it was not therefore against the Commandement. But the making of the Golden Calfe by Aaron, and the People, as being done without authority from God, was Idolatry; not onely because they held it for God, but also because they made it for a Religious use, without warrant either from God their Soveraign, or from Moses, that was his Lieutenant.

Worshiping God in a particular place, or facing an image or a specific place, does not mean honoring that place or image. It means recognizing the image or place as holy, that is, set apart from ordinary use. That is what the word holy means. It gives the place or image no new quality, only a new relationship through being dedicated to God. Such worship is therefore not idolatry, any more than worshiping God before the Brazen Serpent was idolatry. Nor was it idolatry for Jews outside their own country to face the Temple of Jerusalem when praying. Nor was it idolatry for Moses to remove his shoes before the Flaming Bush, on ground belonging to Mount Sinai. God had chosen that place to appear and give his laws to the People of Israel. The ground was therefore holy, not because holiness was built into it, but because it was set apart for God's use. Nor is it idolatry for Christians to worship in churches solemnly dedicated to God for that purpose. Such dedication must be authorized by the King or another rightful representative of the Church. But worshiping God as giving life to, or dwelling within, an image or place is idolatry. It means treating an infinite substance as contained in a finite place. Such finite Gods are merely idols of the mind, not real things. Scripture commonly calls them Vanity, Lies, and Nothing. Worship can also be idolatry even when God is not treated as giving life to, or present within, the place or image. The purpose may simply be to remind worshipers of God or some of his works. But such worship is idolatry if private authority, rather than our sovereign pastors, dedicated the place or set up the image. For the Commandment says, “You shall not make for yourself any carved image.” God commanded Moses to set up the Brazen Serpent. Moses did not make it on his own authority, so it did not violate the Commandment. But Aaron and the People made the Golden Calf without God's authority, so their act was idolatry. This was not only because they regarded the calf as God. They also made it for religious use without authorization from God, their sovereign, or from Moses, his deputy.

The Gentiles worshipped for Gods, Jupiter, and others; that living, were men perhaps that had done great and glorious Acts; and for the Children of God, divers men and women, supposing them gotten between an Immortall Deity, and a mortall man. This was Idolatry, because they made them so to themselves, having no authority from God, neither in his eternall Law of Reason, nor in his positive and revealed Will. But though our Saviour was a man, whom wee also beleeve to bee God Immortall, and the Son of God; yet this is no Idolatry; because wee build not that beleef upon our own fancy, or judgment, but upon the Word of God revealed in the Scriptures. And for the adoration of the Eucharist, if the words of Christ, “This is my Body,” signifie, “that he himselfe, and the seeming bread in his hand; and not onely so, but that all the seeming morsells of bread that have ever since been, and any time hereafter shall bee consecrated by Priests, bee so many Christs bodies, and yet all of them but one body,” then is that no Idolatry, because it is authorized by our Saviour: but if that text doe not signifie that, (for there is no other that can be alledged for it,) then, because it is a worship of humane institution, it is Idolatry. For it is not enough to say, God can transubstantiate the Bread into Christs Body: For the Gentiles also held God to be Omnipotent; and might upon that ground no lesse excuse their Idolatry, by pretending, as well as others, as transubstantiation of their Wood, and Stone into God Almighty.

The Gentiles worshipped Jupiter and others as Gods. During their lives, these Gods were perhaps men who had done great and glorious deeds. The Gentiles also regarded various men and women as Children of God. They supposed these children were born from an immortal deity and a mortal human. This worship was idolatry because the Gentiles made these beings Gods on their own authority. They had no authority from God, either in his eternal law of reason or in his explicit, revealed will. But although our Saviour was a man, we also believe him to be the immortal God and the Son of God. Yet this belief is not idolatry. For we base our belief not on our own imagination or judgment, but on God's Word revealed in the Scriptures. As for worshipping the Eucharist, consider whether Christ's words, “This is my Body,” mean the following: “he himself and the apparent bread in his hand are his body. And not only that, but all the apparent pieces of bread ever consecrated by Priests since then are Christ's bodies. So are all the pieces that Priests will consecrate in the future. Yet all these bodies are only one body.” If Christ's words mean this, then worshipping the Eucharist is not idolatry, because our Saviour authorizes that worship. But if the passage does not mean this, then worshipping the Eucharist is idolatry, because humans established that worship. No other passage can be cited to support the practice. For it is not enough to say that God can change the Bread into Christ's Body through transubstantiation. The Gentiles also believed God to be almighty. On that basis, they could just as well excuse their idolatry. Like others, they could claim that their Wood and Stone had been changed into God Almighty through transubstantiation.

Whereas there be, that pretend Divine Inspiration, to be a supernaturall entring of the Holy Ghost into a man, and not an acquisition of Gods grace, by doctrine, and study; I think they are in a very dangerous Dilemma. For if they worship not the men whom they beleeve to be so inspired, they fall into Impiety; as not adoring Gods supernaturall Presence. And again, if they worship them, they commit Idolatry; for the Apostles would never permit themselves to be so worshipped. Therefore the safest way is to beleeve, that by the Descending of the Dove upon the Apostles; and by Christs Breathing on them, when hee gave them the Holy Ghost; and by the giving of it by Imposition of Hands, are understood the signes which God hath been pleased to use, or ordain to be used, of his promise to assist those persons in their study to Preach his Kingdome, and in their Conversation, that it might not be Scandalous, but Edifying to others.

Some people claim that Divine Inspiration is the Holy Ghost entering a person supernaturally. They deny that it means gaining God’s grace through teaching and study. I think these people face a very dangerous dilemma. If they do not worship those they believe are inspired, they are guilty of impiety. For they fail to worship God’s supernatural presence. But if they do worship those people, they commit idolatry. For the Apostles would never allow themselves to be worshipped in this way. The safest belief, therefore, is that these events should be understood as signs: the Dove descending upon the Apostles, Christ breathing on them when he gave them the Holy Ghost, and the giving of the Holy Ghost by laying on hands. These are signs that God has chosen to use, or commanded others to use, of his promise to help those people. He promises to help them in their study so they can preach his Kingdom. He also promises to help them in their conduct, so their lives build others up rather than cause scandal.

Besides the Idolatrous Worship of Images, there is also a Scandalous Worship of them; which is also a sin; but not Idolatry. For Idolatry is to worship by signes of an internall, and reall honour: but Scandalous Worship, is but Seeming Worship; and may sometimes bee joined with an inward, and hearty detestation, both of the Image, and of the Phantasticall Daemon, or Idol, to which it is dedicated; and proceed onely from the fear of death, or other grievous punishment; and is neverthelesse a sin in them that so worship, in case they be men whose actions are looked at by others, as lights to guide them by; because following their ways, they cannot but stumble, and fall in the way of Religion: Whereas the example of those we regard not, works not on us at all, but leaves us to our own diligence and caution; and consequently are no causes of our falling.

Besides idolatrous worship of images, there is also worship that leads others astray. This too is a sin, but not idolatry. For idolatry means worship through outward signs of genuine inward honor. But worship that leads others astray is only an appearance of worship. Such worship may sometimes accompany deep, heartfelt hatred of both the image and the imaginary spirit, or idol, it represents. It may arise only from fear of death or some other severe punishment. Nevertheless, those who worship this way sin if others look to their actions as a guiding light. For those who follow their example cannot help stumbling and falling in matters of religion. By contrast, the example of people we pay no attention to has no effect on us at all. Their example leaves us to our own care and caution. Consequently, those people do not cause us to fall.

If therefore a Pastor lawfully called to teach and direct others, or any other, of whose knowledge there is a great opinion, doe externall honor to an Idol for fear; unlesse he make his feare, and unwillingnesse to it, as evident as the worship; he Scandalizeth his Brother, by seeming to approve Idolatry. For his Brother, arguing from the action of his teacher, or of him whose knowledge he esteemeth great, concludes it to bee lawfull in it selfe. And this Scandall, is Sin, and a Scandall given. But if one being no Pastor, nor of eminent reputation for knowledge in Christian Doctrine, doe the same, and another follow him; this is no Scandall given; for he had no cause to follow such example: but is a pretence of Scandall which hee taketh of himselfe for an excuse before men: For an unlearned man, that is in the power of an idolatrous King, or State, if commanded on pain of death to worship before an Idoll, hee detesteth the Idoll in his heart, hee doth well; though if he had the fortitude to suffer death, rather than worship it, he should doe better. But if a Pastor, who as Christs Messenger, has undertaken to teach Christs Doctrine to all nations, should doe the same, it were not onely a sinfull Scandall, in respect of other Christian mens consciences, but a perfidious forsaking of his charge.

Suppose, then, that a pastor lawfully appointed to teach and guide others outwardly honors an idol out of fear. Or suppose someone widely respected for his knowledge does so. Unless he makes his fear and reluctance as clear as his worship, he misleads his fellow Christian by seeming to approve of idolatry. For his fellow Christian reasons from the actions of his teacher, or someone whose knowledge he greatly respects. He concludes that worshiping idols is lawful in itself. Leading another into sin in this way is itself a sin, and the worshiper is responsible. But suppose someone who is neither a pastor nor widely respected for his knowledge of Christian doctrine does the same. If another person follows his example, the worshiper is not responsible for leading that person into sin. For the follower had no reason to follow such an example. Instead, the follower claims to have been misled, using that claim to excuse himself before others. For consider an uneducated man under the power of an idolatrous king or state. Suppose he is ordered, on pain of death, to worship before an idol, but inwardly detests the idol. He does well to comply. Though if he had the courage to suffer death rather than worship the idol, he would do better. But suppose a pastor did the same. As Christ's messenger, he has undertaken to teach Christ's doctrine to all nations. His action would not only sinfully mislead other Christians in matters of conscience. His action would also be a treacherous abandonment of his duty.

The summe of that which I have said hitherto, concerning the Worship of Images, is that, that he that worshippeth in an Image, or any Creature, either the Matter thereof, or any Fancy of his own, which he thinketh to dwell in it; or both together; or beleeveth that such things hear his Prayers, or see his Devotions, without Ears, or Eyes, committeth Idolatry: and he that counterfeiteth such Worship for fear of punishment, if he bee a man whose example hath power amongst his Brethren, committeth a sin: But he that worshippeth the Creator of the world before such an Image, or in such a place as he hath not made, or chosen of himselfe, but taken from the commandement of Gods Word, as the Jewes did in worshipping God before the Cherubins, and before the Brazen Serpent for a time, and in, or towards the Temple of Jerusalem, which was also but for a time, committeth not Idolatry.

Here is the summary of what I have said so far about the worship of images. Anyone who worships the material of an image or any created being commits idolatry. So does anyone who worships something imagined to live within that image or being, or worships both together. Anyone who believes such things hear prayers without ears, or see acts of devotion without eyes, also commits idolatry. Anyone who pretends to offer such worship for fear of punishment sins if his example influences his fellow believers. But someone who worships the Creator of the world before an image or in a particular place does not commit idolatry, under this condition: he must not have made or chosen the image or place on his own authority, but followed God's Word. The Jews did this when they worshipped God before the Cherubins and, for a time, before the Brazen Serpent. They also worshipped in or towards the Temple of Jerusalem, though this too was only for a time.

Now for the Worship of Saints, and Images, and Reliques, and other things at this day practised in the Church of Rome, I say they are not allowed by the Word of God, not brought into the Church of Rome, from the Doctrine there taught; but partly left in it at the first conversion of the Gentiles; and afterwards countenanced, and confirmed, and augmented by the Bishops of Rome.

Now consider the worship of Saints, images, relics, and other things practiced today in the Church of Rome. I say these practices are not permitted by the Word of God. Nor were they introduced into the Church of Rome through the doctrine taught there. Rather, some remained from the time when the Gentiles first converted. The Bishops of Rome later supported, confirmed, and expanded these practices.

As for the proofs alledged out of Scripture, namely, those examples of Images appointed by God to bee set up; They were not set up for the people, or any man to worship; but that they should worship God himselfe before them: as before the Cherubins over the Ark, and the Brazen Serpent. For we read not, that the Priest, or any other did worship the Cherubins; but contrarily wee read (2 Kings 18.4.) that Hezekiah brake in pieces the Brazen Serpent which Moses had set up, because the People burnt incense to it. Besides, those examples are not put for our Imitation, that we also should set up Images, under pretence of worshipping God before them; because the words of the second Commandement, “Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven Image, &c.” distinguish between the Images that God commanded to be set up, and those which wee set up to our selves. And therefore from the Cherubins, or Brazen Serpent, to the Images of mans devising; and from the Worship commanded by God, to the Will-Worship of men, the argument is not good. This also is to bee considered, that as Hezekiah brake in pieces the Brazen Serpent, because the Jews did worship it, to the end they should doe so no more; so also Christian Soveraigns ought to break down the Images which their Subjects have been accustomed to worship; that there be no more occasion of such Idolatry. For at this day, the ignorant People, where Images are worshipped, doe really beleeve there is a Divine Power in the Images; and are told by their Pastors, that some of them have spoken; and have bled; and that miracles have been done by them; which they apprehend as done by the Saint, which they think either is the Image it self, or in it. The Israelites, when they worshipped the Calfe, did think they worshipped the God that brought them out of Egypt; and yet it was Idolatry, because they thought the Calfe either was that God, or had him in his belly. And though some man may think it impossible for people to be so stupid, as to think the Image to be God, or a Saint; or to worship it in that notion; yet it is manifest in Scripture to the contrary; where when the Golden Calfe was made, the people said, (Exod. 32. 2.) “These are thy Gods O Israel;” and where the Images of Laban (Gen. 31.30.) are called his Gods. And wee see daily by experience in all sorts of People, that such men as study nothing but their food and ease, are content to beleeve any absurdity, rather than to trouble themselves to examine it; holding their faith as it were by entaile unalienable, except by an expresse and new Law.

As for the evidence cited from Scripture, consider the images God ordered to be set up. These were not set up for the people, or anyone else, to worship. Instead, people were to worship God himself before these images, such as the Cherubim over the Ark and the Brazen Serpent. For we do not read that the priest or anyone else worshipped the Cherubim. On the contrary, we read (2 Kings 18.4.) that Hezekiah broke the Brazen Serpent Moses had set up into pieces. He did so because the people burned incense to it. Besides, these examples are not given for us to imitate. They do not authorize us to set up images on the pretext of worshipping God before them. For the second Commandment says, “You shall not make for yourself any carved image, etc.” These words distinguish between images God ordered to be set up and images we set up for ourselves. So the argument from the Cherubim or the Brazen Serpent to images of human design is invalid. So is the argument from worship commanded by God to worship devised by people. We must also consider another point. Hezekiah broke the Brazen Serpent into pieces because the Jews worshipped it, so that they would stop. In the same way, Christian sovereigns ought to destroy images their subjects have become accustomed to worshipping. This would remove any further occasion for such idolatry. For today, ignorant people in places where images are worshipped really believe the images contain divine power. Their pastors tell them that some images have spoken and bled, and that miracles have been performed by them. These people understand such acts as the work of the Saint. They think the Saint either is the image itself or is inside it. When the Israelites worshipped the Calf, they thought they were worshipping the God who brought them out of Egypt. Yet their worship was idolatry, because they thought the Calf either was that God or contained him in its belly. Some may think people cannot possibly be so stupid as to believe an image is God or a Saint. They may also think people cannot possibly worship an image as God or a Saint. Yet Scripture clearly shows otherwise. When the Golden Calf was made, the people said (Exod. 32. 2.), “These are your Gods, O Israel.” And Laban’s images (Gen. 31.30.) are called his Gods. We also see daily, among all sorts of people, that those concerned only with food and comfort will believe any absurdity. They would rather believe it than trouble themselves to examine it. They treat their faith like an inherited estate that cannot be transferred away, except by an explicit new law.

But they inferre from some other places, that it is lawfull to paint Angels, and also God himselfe: as from Gods walking in the Garden; from Jacobs seeing God at the top of the ladder; and from other Visions, and Dreams. But Visions, and Dreams whether naturall, or supernaturall, are but Phantasmes: and he that painteth an Image of any of them, maketh not an Image of God, but of his own Phantasm, which is, making of an Idol. I say not, that to draw a Picture after a fancy, is a Sin; but when it is drawn, to hold it for a Representation of God, is against the second Commandement; and can be of no use, but to worship. And the same may be said of the Images of Angels, and of men dead; unlesse as Monuments of friends, or of men worthy remembrance: For such use of an Image, is not Worship of the Image; but a civill honoring of the Person, not that is, but that was: But when it is done to the Image which we make of a Saint, for no other reason, but that we think he heareth our prayers, and is pleased with the honour wee doe him, when dead, and without sense, wee attribute to him more than humane power; and therefore it is Idolatry.

But they infer from some other passages that painting Angels, and even God himself, is lawful. They cite God walking in the Garden, Jacob seeing God at the top of the ladder, and other visions and dreams. But visions and dreams, whether natural or supernatural, are only mental images. Anyone who paints one of these makes an image not of God, but of their own mental image. This amounts to making an idol. I do not say that drawing a picture from imagination is a sin. But once the picture is drawn, treating it as a representation of God goes against the second Commandment. Such a representation can serve no purpose except worship. The same can be said of images of Angels and dead people, unless they commemorate friends or people worth remembering. Using an image to commemorate someone is not worship of the image. It is a way of honoring, outside religious worship, a person who once lived but lives no longer. But suppose we honor an image we make of a Saint for no other reason than this: We think the Saint hears our prayers and is pleased by the honor we give him. We then attribute more than human power to someone who is dead and has no senses. Therefore, this is idolatry.

Seeing therefore there is no authority, neither in the Law of Moses, nor in the Gospel, for the religious Worship of Images, or other Representations of God, which men set up to themselves; or for the Worship of the Image of any Creature in Heaven, or Earth, or under the Earth: And whereas Christian Kings, who are living Representants of God, are not to be worshipped by their Subjects, by any act, that signifieth a greater esteem of his power, than the nature of mortall man is capable of; It cannot be imagined, that the Religious Worship now in use, was brought into the Church, by misunderstanding of the Scripture. It resteth therefore, that it was left in it, by not destroying the Images themselves, in the conversion of the Gentiles that worshipped them.

Neither the Law of Moses nor the Gospel authorizes religious worship of images or other representations of God that people create for themselves. Nor does either authorize worship of an image of any creature in Heaven, on Earth, or under the Earth. And Christian Kings are living representatives of God. Yet their subjects must not worship them through any act suggesting that their power exceeds what mortal humans can possess. So we cannot suppose that the religious worship now practiced entered the Church through a misunderstanding of Scripture. The remaining explanation is that such worship survived because the images themselves were not destroyed when the Gentiles who worshipped them were converted.

The cause whereof, was the immoderate esteem, and prices set upon the workmanship of them, which made the owners (though converted, from worshipping them as they had done Religiously for Daemons) to retain them still in their houses, upon pretence of doing it in the honor of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of the Apostles, and other the Pastors of the Primitive Church; as being easie, by giving them new names, to make that an Image of the Virgin Mary, and of her Sonne our Saviour, which before perhaps was called the Image of Venus, and Cupid; and so of a Jupiter to make a Barnabas, and of Mercury a Paul, and the like. And as worldly ambition creeping by degrees into the Pastors, drew them to an endeavour of pleasing the new made Christians; and also to a liking of this kind of honour, which they also might hope for after their decease, as well as those that had already gained it: so the worshipping of the Images of Christ and his Apostles, grow more and more Idolatrous; save that somewhat after the time of Constantine, divers Emperors, and Bishops, and generall Councells observed, and opposed the unlawfulnesse thereof; but too late, or too weakly.

The cause was the excessive value and high prices placed on the craftsmanship of these images. This led their owners to keep them in their houses, even after conversion from religiously worshipping them as Daemons. The owners claimed to keep the images to honor Christ, the Virgin Mary, the Apostles, and other early Church pastors. It was easy to give the images new names. An image perhaps previously called Venus and Cupid could become the Virgin Mary and her Son, our Saviour. Likewise, Jupiter could become Barnabas, Mercury could become Paul, and so on. As worldly ambition gradually crept into the pastors, it led them to try to please the newly converted Christians. It also led the pastors to welcome this kind of honor. They could hope to receive the same honor after death as those who had already gained it. So the worship of images of Christ and his Apostles became increasingly idolatrous. Yet, some time after Constantine, various Emperors, Bishops, and general Councils recognized that this worship was unlawful and opposed it. But they acted too late or too weakly.

The Canonizing of Saints, is another Relique of Gentilisme: It is neither a misunderstanding of Scripture, nor a new invention of the Roman Church, but a custome as ancient as the Common-wealth of Rome it self. The first that ever was canonized at Rome, was Romulus, and that upon the narration of Julius Proculus, that swore before the Senate, he spake with him after his death, and was assured by him, he dwelt in Heaven, and was there called Quirinius, and would be propitious to the State of their new City: And thereupon the Senate gave Publique Testimony of his Sanctity. Julius Caesar, and other Emperors after him, had the like Testimony; that is, were Canonized for Saints; now defined; and is the same with the Apotheosis of the Heathen.

The canonization of saints is another relic of paganism. The practice comes neither from a misunderstanding of Scripture nor from a new invention of the Roman Church. Instead, the custom is as old as the Commonwealth of Rome itself. The first person ever canonized at Rome was Romulus, on the strength of Julius Proculus’s account. Proculus swore before the Senate that he had spoken with Romulus after Romulus’s death. Romulus had assured Proculus that he lived in Heaven, where he was called Quirinius. Romulus also promised to favor the state of their new city. The Senate therefore publicly declared Romulus holy. Julius Caesar and other Emperors after him received the same public recognition. In other words, they were canonized as saints, as saints are now defined. This canonization is the same as the pagan practice of apotheosis, or declaring someone a god.

It is also from the Roman Heathen, that the Popes have received the name, and power of PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. This was the name of him that in the ancient Common-wealth of Rome, had the Supreme Authority under the Senate and People, of regulating all Ceremonies, and Doctrines concerning their Religion: And when Augustus Caesar changed the State into a Monarchy, he took to himselfe no more but this office, and that of Tribune of the People, (than is to say, the Supreme Power both in State, and Religion;) and the succeeding Emperors enjoyed the same. But when the Emperour Constantine lived, who was the first that professed and authorized Christian Religion, it was consonant to his profession, to cause Religion to be regulated (under his authority) by the Bishop of Rome: Though it doe not appear they had so soon the name of Pontifex; but rather, that the succeeding Bishops took it of themselves, to countenance the power they exercised over the Bishops of the Roman Provinces. For it is not any Priviledge of St. Peter, but the Priviledge of the City of Rome, which the Emperors were alwaies willing to uphold; that gave them such authority over other Bishops; as may be evidently seen by that, that the Bishop of Constantinople, when the Emperour made that City the Seat of the Empire, pretended to bee equall to the Bishop of Rome; though at last, not without contention, the Pope carryed it, and became the Pontifex Maximus; but in right onely of the Emperour; and not without the bounds of the Empire; nor any where, after the Emperour had lost his power in Rome; though it were the Pope himself that took his power from him. From whence wee may by the way observe, that there is no place for the superiority of the Pope over other Bishops, except in the territories whereof he is himself the Civill Soveraign; and where the Emperour having Soveraign Power Civill, hath expressely chosen the Pope for the chief Pastor under himselfe, of his Christian Subjects.

The Popes also received the title and power of PONTIFEX MAXIMUS from the pagan Romans. In the ancient Roman republic, this title belonged to the official with supreme authority under the Senate and People. He regulated all ceremonies and doctrines concerning their religion. When Augustus Caesar turned the state into a monarchy, he took only this office and that of Tribune of the People. These offices gave him supreme power in both government and religion. The succeeding Emperors held the same offices. But Constantine was the first Emperor to profess and officially authorize the Christian religion. In keeping with his faith, he had the Bishop of Rome regulate religion under his authority. Yet it does not appear that the Bishops of Rome received the title of Pontifex so early. Rather, later Bishops seem to have adopted the title themselves to lend legitimacy to their power over Bishops in the Roman Provinces. Their authority over other Bishops came not from any privilege of St. Peter, but from the privilege of Rome itself. The Emperors were always willing to uphold that city's privilege. The Bishop of Constantinople's claim makes this clear. When the Emperor made Constantinople the seat of the Empire, its Bishop claimed equality with the Bishop of Rome. In the end, however, the Pope prevailed, though not without a struggle, and became Pontifex Maximus. But his authority came only from the Emperor and did not extend beyond the Empire's boundaries. Nor did it apply anywhere after the Emperor lost his power in Rome. This remained true even though the Pope himself had taken that power from the Emperor. We may observe in passing that the Pope has no superiority over other Bishops except in two circumstances. One is in territories where the Pope himself is the civil sovereign. The other is where the Emperor holds sovereign civil power and has expressly chosen the Pope as chief pastor. There, the Pope serves under the Emperor as chief pastor of the Emperor's Christian subjects.

The carrying about of Images in Procession, is another Relique of the Religion of the Greeks, and Romans: For they also carried their Idols from place to place, in a kind of Chariot, which was peculiarly dedicated to that use, which the Latines called Thensa, and Vehiculum Deorum; and the Image was placed in a frame, or Shrine, which they called Ferculum: And that which they called Pompa, is the same that now is named Procession: According whereunto, amongst the Divine Honors which were given to Julius Caesar by the Senate, this was one, that in the Pompe (or Procession) at the Circaean games, he should have Thensam & Ferculum, a sacred Chariot, and a Shrine; which was as much, as to be carried up and down as a God: Just as at this day the Popes are carried by Switzers under a Canopie.

Carrying images in procession is another remnant of the religion of the Greeks and Romans. For they too carried their idols from place to place in a kind of chariot reserved for that purpose. The Latins called this chariot Thensa and Vehiculum Deorum. The image stood in a frame or shrine called a Ferculum. What they called Pompa is what we now call a procession. Accordingly, among the divine honors the Senate granted Julius Caesar was one concerning the procession at the Circaean games. Caesar was to have Thensam & Ferculum, a sacred chariot and a shrine. This amounted to being carried around as a god, just as today the Popes are carried by Swiss guards under a canopy.

To these Processions also belonged the bearing of burning Torches, and Candles, before the Images of the Gods, both amongst the Greeks, and Romans. For afterwards the Emperors of Rome received the same honor; as we read of Caligula, that at his reception to the Empire, he was carried from Misenum to Rome, in the midst of a throng of People, the wayes beset with Altars, and Beasts for Sacrifice, and burning Torches: And of Caracalla that was received into Alexandria with Incense, and with casting of Flowers, and Dadouchiais, that is, with Torches; for Dadochoi were they that amongst the Greeks carried Torches lighted in the Processions of their Gods: And in processe of time, the devout, but ignorant People, did many times honor their Bishops with the like pompe of Wax Candles, and the Images of our Saviour, and the Saints, constantly, in the Church it self. And thus came in the use of Wax Candles; and was also established by some of the ancient Councells.

These processions also included carrying burning torches and candles before images of the gods, among both Greeks and Romans. Later, the Emperors of Rome received the same honor. We read that Caligula, when he became Emperor, was carried from Misenum to Rome amid a crowd of people. The roads were lined with altars, animals for sacrifice, and burning torches. We also read that Caracalla was welcomed into Alexandria with incense, scattered flowers, and Dadouchiais, meaning torches. Among the Greeks, the Dadochoi were those who carried lighted torches in processions honoring their gods. Over time, devout but ignorant people often honored their Bishops with a similar display of wax candles. They regularly honored images of our Saviour and the Saints in the same way, inside the church itself. This is how the use of wax candles began, and some of the ancient Councils also established the practice.

The Heathens had also their Aqua Lustralis, that is to say, Holy Water. The Church of Rome imitates them also in their Holy Dayes. They had their Bacchanalia; and we have our Wakes, answering to them: They their Saturnalia, and we our Carnevalls, and Shrove-tuesdays liberty of Servants: They their Procession of Priapus; wee our fetching in, erection, and dancing about May-poles; and Dancing is one kind of Worship: They had their Procession called Ambarvalia; and we our Procession about the fields in the Rogation Week. Nor do I think that these are all the Ceremonies that have been left in the Church, from the first conversion of the Gentiles: but they are all that I can for the present call to mind; and if a man would wel observe that which is delivered in the Histories, concerning the Religious Rites of the Greeks and Romanes, I doubt not but he might find many more of these old empty Bottles of Gentilisme, which the Doctors of the Romane Church, either by Negligence, or Ambition, have filled up again with the new Wine of Christianity, that will not faile in time to break them.

The pagans also had their Aqua Lustralis, or holy water. The Church of Rome also imitates the pagans in its holy days. They had their Bacchanalia, and we have our corresponding festivals called Wakes. They had their Saturnalia, and we have our Carnevalls and the freedom given to servants on Shrove Tuesday. They had their procession of Priapus. We bring in May-poles, set them up, and dance around them. And dancing is one kind of worship. They had their procession called Ambarvalia, and we have our procession around the fields during Rogation Week. Nor do I think these are all the ceremonies left in the Church from the first conversion of the Gentiles. But these are all I can recall at present. Someone might carefully examine historical accounts of the religious rites of the Greeks and Romans. If so, I have no doubt that person could find many more of these old, empty bottles of paganism. Through either negligence or ambition, the teachers of the Roman Church have refilled these bottles with Christianity’s new wine. In time, that wine will surely break the bottles.