-- The Degradation of Christ's Offices

-- The Degradation of Christ's Offices

from that which we hold in our hands and put into our mouths. But remission of sin must be sought from God for Christ's sake, especially in the use of the Lord's Supper. Thus communicants would have to say in prayer: "O heavenly Father, be merciful to me for this,

Your own Son, whom I now hold bodily in my hand and receive with my mouth."

This, indeed, is the oblation of the popish mass, wherein the priest imagines that he holds and carries Christ bodily in his hands and there offers Him to the Father to obtain pardon for his own sins and for others—for the sake of Him whom he holds. This is horrible and detestable idolatry. It were better to suffer many deaths than to partake in it even once. For the Word of God teaches us to look for our salvation from Christ, who became man and now appears at the right hand of His Father in heaven—not from one whom we pretend to hold and carry in our hands.

The Degradation of Christ's Offices The same Romish doctrine also degrades Christ in His threefold office of Priest, King, and Prophet.

(1) His Priesthood.

It diminishes His priestly work in five ways:

1. By teaching that Christ is daily offered in the mass, truly and really, for the sins of the living and the dead. This either continues His sacrifice, as if it were unfinished on the cross, or repeats it. If continued, it was not accomplished at Calvary; if repeated, it was imperfect. And if imperfect, it could not be the sacrifice of a Redeemer.

2. By the doctrine of human satisfaction—that our own sufferings can, in part, satisfy for sin's temporal punishment

along with Christ's satisfaction for its eternal guilt. But this makes His work defective, as though needing our supplement. If I pay my creditor myself, my friend does not pay for me; and insofar as I satisfy for myself, I redeem myself.

3. By the doctrine of the merit of works, which nullifies the redemption wrought by Christ. For if Christ merited by His passion that we might also merit eternal life by our deeds, then

He is not a full and perfect Savior, but merely the chief cause or instrument of God to make us our own saviors.

4. By the teaching of venial sin—that some sins are so slight that we may satisfy for them ourselves. If this were true, Christ need not have died to redeem us from all sin.

5. By the doctrine of the intercession of saints, who, according to Rome, intercede not only by entreaty but by merit—indeed, by command. Thus the Virgin Mary is said to do more than Christ

Himself can do.

(2) His Kingship.

The same religion strips Christ of His royal dignity by granting to the pope two regal powers belonging to Christ alone:

1. The authority to forgive sins fully and properly—a power that belongs to God only.

2. The authority to make laws that bind the consciences of all within the church as truly as the laws of God—though Scripture declares there is but one Lawgiver who can save and destroy the soul.

(3) His Prophetic Office.

It deprives Him of His prophetic office in two ways:

1. By giving the pope supreme and infallible authority to determine, in his consistory or in general councils, all

controversies of faith and conduct—a power inseparably tied to the person of Christ, who, in and through His written Word, determines all matters of salvation infallibly and sufficiently for the satisfaction of every humble heart and the settling of every conscience.

2. By adding to and taking from the doctrine Christ has left to His church, especially that contained in the New Testament, through a heap of human traditions—such as the law of enforced celibacy and the denial of the cup to the laity in the Lord's

Supper.

It May Be Alleged… It may perhaps be alleged that the religion which calls itself Catholic maintains, as we do, the unity of the Godhead, the Trinity of persons, the distinction of natures in Christ, the personal union, and the offices of the Mediator. I answer: in words it does so, but in practice

—and by the unavoidable consequence of its doctrines—it abolishes Christ, as I have already shown.

Papists profess Him to be our Lord, but with this reservation: that the Servant of Servants—that is, the pope—may alter and change His precepts, possessing such power that he may be judged by none, and can open or shut heaven to whom he pleases. They confess Him to be

Jesus our Savior, yet a Savior only in part, as one who gives us grace so that by our own merits we may save ourselves, borrowing further help, if need be, from martyrs and saints. They confess that He was crucified, dead, and buried for us, yet add that, though the guilt of sin be pardoned, we must still satisfy for a portion of the punishment, either in this world or in purgatory.

They confess that He sits at the right hand of God the Father to make intercession for us; and yet they teach that His mother is the Queen of Heaven, possessing authority to command her Son. What

kind of Christ is this—who must share the very acts of our redemption with others as His partners and fellows?

For this cause we reject that religion: it turns our only and perfect Redeemer into a feigned Christ of man's own devising. Some may object that false opinions about Christ do not immediately make Him an idol. But I answer with Jerome: "Even to this day an idol is set up in the house of God—or in the hearts of believers—when a new doctrine is invented." Again, he says, "A false opinion is an idol of falsehood."

2. God Worshiped Amiss The second way of erecting an idol is when God is worshiped otherwise, or by other means, than He has revealed in His Word. For when men devise their own forms of worship, they also devise a new god to suit them.

Augustine says of the Gentiles that they refused to worship the God of the Hebrews because, "if they had worshiped Him otherwise than

He commanded, they would not have worshiped Him at all, but only what they had imagined." The Samaritans worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and they expected the coming of the Messiah. Yet Christ said to them, "You worship what you do not know" (John 4:22), because they worshiped the true God by a worship of human invention.

The Lord said to the Israelites, "You shall call Me no more Baal"

(Hosea 2:16), signifying that since they had sometimes worshiped Him with the same rites, images, and names by which the heathen served Baal, they had in truth made Him as one of their idols. The next verse confirms this meaning: "For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth" (v. 17). And when the Jews in Jeremiah

2:23 denied that they worshiped Baal, their denial must have meant

only this—that they intended to worship God through the idols of Baal.

Again, Saint John writes, "If that which you have heard from the beginning abides in you, you also shall continue in the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:24). From this it follows that those who do not abide in the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, but set up another form of worship, do not continue in the Father and the Son.

God must be worshiped according to His own nature—heavenly, divine, and spiritual. All devised worship, being framed according to man's own disposition, is foolish, carnal, and vain. As Christ said, "In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9). And as the worship is, so is the god that is worshiped. Therefore, when God is worshiped not according to His own will but according to the pleasure of man, the true God is not worshiped at all; rather, a god of man's imagination is set up in His place.

One clear example will suffice: whenever God is represented or worshiped by an image of human invention, a double idol is made— the image that represents, and the supposed deity represented, who by this means is turned into an idol.

A Devised Image of God Is an Idol That any image made to resemble and represent God is an idol may be proved thus:

The image that Micah made was a plain idol, for it is called teraphim, which all translators render idols (Judges 17:5). Yet it was meant to be an image of Jehovah (v. 3). For before it was made, the silver from which it was formed had been dedicated to God; and afterward, when Micah obtained a priest to offer sacrifice before it, his mother said, "Now I know that Jehovah will be good to me" (v. 13).

Likewise, the two golden calves set up in Dan and Bethel by Jeroboam were idols in the judgment of all, yet they were nothing else than images intended to represent the true God of Israel. Their worship is even called "the fear of Jehovah" (2 Kings 17:28). Jehu never departed from the sin of Jeroboam (2 Kings 10:31) and was therefore a defender of the golden calves. Yet he did not imagine them to be other gods, but meant to worship the Lord of hosts in and through them. When he went to destroy the images and priests of Baal, he said, "Come, see my zeal for the Lord of hosts."

God Represented or Worshiped by an Image Is an Idol The graven images and likenesses forbidden in the Second

Commandment are nothing other than idols—and they include not only images of false gods but also images made to represent the true

God. Moses, expounding this commandment, said: "Take good heed to yourselves…that you do not corrupt yourselves, nor make a carved image, the likeness of any figure" (Deuteronomy 4:15–16).

His reason is given in verse 15: "You saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire," meaning, you saw no image of the true God, but only heard His voice. Therefore, you are to make no image of God to represent Him or His presence.

A notable testimony to this truth comes from the heathen writer Strabo. He records that "Moses taught that the Egyptians were wrong in representing God in the forms of beasts, and that the Libyans and Greeks erred likewise in portraying Him in human shape. For God is that being alone which contains us, the earth, and the sea—what we call heaven and the world and the nature of all things. Who, being in his right mind, would dare to fashion an image of Him like anything about us? We must banish all imagemaking, build a temple worthy of Him, and worship Him without

any form." A little later Strabo adds that "the Jews are the true worshipers of God."

Origen likewise writes against Celsus that angels are not to be adored, and that both Jews and Christians are restrained by their religion from worshiping God in temples, altars, or images, because the law says, "You shall have no other gods before Me," and again,

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image."

From all this it follows that to fashion or set up an image with intent to represent or worship God by it is to erect an idol, even if it be not further abused in open idolatry.

--Christ Worshiped in a Crucifix Is an Idol It may be objected that we may lawfully make an image of Christ and that such an image is no idol. I answer: it is not unlawful to make or to possess an image of Christ, provided two cautions are kept. First, the image must represent only His manhood. Second, it must be kept entirely outside the use of religion. For if it is made to represent the whole Christ—God and man—or if it is used as an instrument or sign by which, and before which, men worship Christ Himself, then, by the doctrine already laid down, it is plainly an idol.

Friends of images further argue in this way: "Though we may not set up whatever images we please to God, yet we may represent Him in those forms and shapes in which He has been pleased to manifest

Himself to men—as in the form of a man, or as a dove," and so on. I answer, first, that the forms in which the Son and the Holy Ghost appeared were not their images but only sensible signs and pledges of their presence—signs for the time being, not perpetually; therefore they are neither signs nor images of God's presence now. Hence when the history of Scripture is painted or pictured (as in some of

our Bibles), it does not depict images of God; it only portrays those visible appearances which at some time served as signs of His presence.

Second, God's commandment generally forbids images, without excepting even those shapes in which He formerly testified His presence. Where the prohibition of God stands against us, it is vain to devise shifts or excuses; there is no exception to God's command.

Third, it is false reasoning to suppose that whatever God does, we may lawfully imitate. We must reason cautiously from God's example when we would justify our own actions.

Fourth, God will not be adored as idols are adored: "You shall not do so to the Lord your God."

Fifth, God has power to represent Himself by what signs He wills; no creature has such power, nor has He given us authority to represent

Him in this or that form.

Sixth, when God represents Himself in visible forms, He can, at His pleasure, cut off all occasions of idolatry; men cannot do this, as common experience shows. Therefore, in so doing they tempt God and expose themselves to the danger of idolatry.

Lastly, images set up to God diminish and deface His majesty, breed absurd thoughts of Him in the minds of men, and suit His endless glory no more than the picture of an ape or a fool suits the dignity of an emperor.

"Religious Images Are Only Condemned if Taken as Gods"?

A third objection is raised: Scripture does not simply condemn religious images, but only because Jews and Gentiles held them to be

their gods; and this opinion is refuted by Paul when he says, "They are not gods which are made with hands" (Acts 19:26). I answer: it was not the opinion of the Jews, nor of the wisest Gentiles, that carved images were, in themselves, their gods; the light of nature taught them otherwise. That they distinguished between their gods and the images of those gods is evident from the very distinction of the First and Second Commandments. In the First, false or strange gods are forbidden; in the Second, images are condemned—whether images of Jehovah or of false gods. If images were forbidden only because they were reputed and worshiped as gods, then the First and Second Commandments—anciently distinguished—would become one and the same.

Images are indeed often called "gods" in Scripture, but for two reasons. First, because in man's intention they bear a relation to God and are set to represent Him; thus, by a figure of speech, they borrow

His name—just as a painted man is called a "man," or he who plays a king is called a "king." Second, they are called "gods" because men, though not in formal judgment, yet in practice make them their gods by giving them religious worship. For this reason Paul says, "They are not gods which are made with hands," to draw the Ephesians, by force of consequence, away from offering any worship to the image of Diana.

God Represented or Worshiped by an Image Becomes an Idol The second point to be established is that when God is represented or worshiped in, at, or before an image, He is thereby transformed— by men's abuse—into an idol. Habakkuk calls images "teachers of lies" (Habakkuk 2:18) because, as soon as God is represented by an image, His glory is obscured and He is conceived as a bodily, visible, circumscribed, finite majesty. When the Israelites intended to

worship God in the golden calf, the psalmist says they "changed their glory into the likeness of an ox that eats grass" (Psalm 106:20).

Second, we may not bind the presence of God, the working of His Spirit, or His hearing of our prayers to anything to which He has not bound Himself by commandment or promise, or both. God has nowhere bound Himself to be present at images, or to hear us when we call upon Him at them or before them. Hence, when men present themselves before images to worship God, they do not worship God but either a feigned god—who can and will be present at images—or else the images themselves. For God is worshiped by us only when

He is pleased to accept our worship; and He accepts it only when it is according to His will.

Patrons of images protest here that they do not intend to worship the images themselves, nor any false god, but only the true God, Maker of heaven and earth. I answer, first, that this was precisely the excuse of the wiser heathen (as will appear), and it did not excuse them from idolatry. Second, man's intention does not make God's worship

—God's will does. And it is not His will to accept worship offered to Him by images; therefore He is not worshiped, but something else is set in His place.

The Israelites truly intended (as has been shown) to worship the God of their fathers by the golden calf; and Jeroboam intended the same by the calves in Dan and Bethel. They did not mean to give their service to the molten images. Yet the Holy Spirit has judged that "they worshiped the molten image" (Psalm 106:19), and that "Jeroboam offered sacrifices to the calves" (1 Kings 12:32). Likewise the Gentiles are said to "sacrifice to devils" (1 Corinthians 10:20), though some of them intended to offer sacrifice to God through images. The reason is that God did not accept such service. In truth, devils were served—though the Gentiles thought otherwise; for they supposed their images to be the receptacles of celestial powers and good angels, whereas Paul declares they were demons, wicked spirits. Again, when God is adored by devised images, the worshipers

are said to "forget God" (Psalm 106:13), even while they think they remember Him; for they forget not only His commandment, but the true knowledge of God, as soon as they represent Him by an image— then they conceive Him other than He is.

A Clear View of Rome's Idolatry From what has been shown on evident grounds from God's Word, we may take a clear view of the idolatry of the so-called Catholic Church of Rome. It teaches men to worship God and Christ in and before images—especially crucifixes—which, in truth, is nothing but the idolatry already described.

Further, the Roman Church adores Christ in, at, and before a piece of bread in the Eucharist, and instructs men to do the same. But to direct our adoration to the bread, or to the place where the bread is, is nothing less than idolatry. First, it is manifest that adoration is not bound—by any commandment or promise of God—either to the bread itself, or to the form of bread, or to the place of the bread. And it is a most idolatrous practice to bind adoration to any particular thing or place: that is, to determine that God must be adored and will hear us in some set place where He has not expressly commanded us to worship Him or promised to hear us.

Again, under the New Testament, after Christ's ascension, spiritual worship alone is required, and all worship tied to any certain thing or place on earth is abolished and forbidden. Christ Himself teaches:

"The hour is coming, and now is, when you shall neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem worship the Father" (John 4:21–22). By a figure of speech (synecdoche) He removes every earthly circumstance of place to which God's worship might be tied— including bread and wine in the Supper, the altar, or the minister's hand. This is made plain by the contrast that follows: "But in spirit and truth."

If it be said, "The Jews worshiped God at and before the ark," I answer: they did so, and for that they had both commandment and promise. Therefore those who worshiped God at the ark and temple in Jerusalem were counted true worshipers. But those who worshiped the same God at Dan and Bethel before the golden calves

—or in the temple at Samaria—without any warrant from God, were regarded as idolaters (though not all in the same degree), as if they had worshiped the very gold of which the calves were made. For it is idolatry to direct the worship of God, or any part of it, to any particular place or creature without God's appointment.

Now the Church of Rome directs its worship to God in, at, and before crucifixes, and before the bread in the sacrament, having no warrant

—neither commandment nor promise—for such practice. If they have one, let them show it. If not, they must know that theirs is a devised worship, and the god they adore is a devised god: a god who will be present and will hear them especially in or at images. Their intention to worship the true Christ avails nothing unless they worship Him according to His own will.

Baal in Israel was sometimes served as the true God, if we regard the intention of the worshipers; yet for all that, Baal remained an idol— an empty name. So also here: seeing that there is no Christ who will be corporally present and lie hidden under the form of bread, it is not the true Christ—who is now corporally in heaven—that is worshiped, but a mere figment of the human mind.

Furthermore, on the former ground it follows that not only false gods but also angels and departed saints, when they are worshiped in, at, or before their images, are likewise turned into idols. For if God, when worshiped thus, is turned into an idol by men's abuse, then much more they—since we have no more warrant to worship them in this manner than to worship God Himself so.

The Third Kind: What Belongs to God Given to Creatures The third and last way by which idols are erected is when what belongs to God by right is given to His creatures. Whatever receives the glory due to God is thereby made another god. The reason is plain. When Rachel said, "Give me children, or I die," Jacob answered, "Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?" (Genesis 30:1–2). When the king of Syria wrote to the king of Israel asking that Naaman be cured of leprosy, the king tore his clothes and cried, "Am I God, to kill and to make alive?" (2

Kings 5:7). And the Lord says, "I am Jehovah; that is my name; my glory I will not give to another, nor my praise to carved images"

(Isaiah 42:8). Now, what is proper to God is given to creatures in three ways.

1) Divinity Ascribed to Creatures First, when the Godhead, divinity, or divine nature is ascribed to anything that is not by nature God, it is made a false or strange god.

Such false gods are chiefly of two sorts: the gods of the Gentiles, and the Roman "gods" of our time. To grasp something of the heathen gods, consider three points: their kinds, what was meant by them, and what images they bore.

Kinds. Heathen gods were of two ranks—superior and inferior.

Among the superior were Baal, the god of the Chaldeans and Assyrians (Numbers 22:41; Psalm 106:28; Judges 8–9); Ashtoreth, the god of the Sidonians (Judges 2:13; 1 Kings 11:7); Moloch or Milcom, the god of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5); Chemosh, the god of Moab (Numbers 21:29; 1 Kings 11:7); Rimmon, the god of Syria (2

Kings 5); Dagon, the god of the Philistines (Judges 16; 1 Samuel 5); and Remphan, mentioned by Stephen and called Chiun by Amos

(Acts 7:43; Amos 5:26). Scripture names others as well. The inferior

gods were men—living or dead—whom nations deified. The Assyrians and Romans sometimes made their kings "gods" even while they lived. King Ahasuerus exalted Haman (Esther 3:2). This exaltation was no mere civil preferment but a kind of divine state, a petty godship; for Mordecai refused to do him reverence precisely because he was a Jew and could not in conscience give such honor

(cf. the Greek additions to Esther 13:14: "I would not prefer the honor of a man above the glory of God, nor worship any but you, O

Lord"). Likewise, the heathen Conon refused to adore King Artaxerxes after the Persian fashion. And the people of Lystra, seeing

Paul and Barnabas, cried, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men," and would have offered sacrifice to them (Acts

14:11–13).

Meaning. As to what these gods signified: the principal name Baal often denotes Jupiter—the host of heaven—yet not always, for the Holy Spirit distinguishes Baal from sun, moon, stars, and the heavenly host (2 Kings 23:5; 2 Chronicles 33:3). By conjecture, Baal sometimes signifies Saturn—that is, Time—whom the heathen worshiped as a special god. Elijah's taunt, "He is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he sleeps" (1 Kings 18:27), aptly fits Saturn as he was commonly portrayed: devouring his children (all things he brings forth), with four wings—two spread and two folded—to show that though he seems to stand, he is ever in swift motion; with four eyes—two open and two shut—to indicate that he is always waking and always sleeping, even at noon. Ancient writers sometimes call

Baal (or Bel) Saturn. Moloch is often taken as Jupiter or Saturn; Remphan as Saturn or Lucifer (the morning star). The rest signify the world, nature, time, fortune, fate, the sun, moon, stars, or souls— often the souls of men departed—or some unknown deity.

Images. As for their images: Baal had many, one notably in the form of a fly—hence Beelzebub, "lord of flies," as if he were chief among them (Nazianzen says a fly was the god of Ekron). Ashtoreth, the Sidonian deity, was worshiped in the forms of sheep, as the name hints. Dagon took the form of a fish. Diana was honored by silver

shrines, stamped with the image of a temple and her figure. When the Assyrians settled in Samaria, they brought their gods with them

—Succoth-Benoth, Nergal, Ashima, Nibhaz, Tartak, Adrammelech, and Anammelech (2 Kings 17:30)—names that, in the Syrian tongue, were said to be drawn from animals: cocks, hens, kids, dogs, asses, horses, mules, peacocks, and the like.

Thus Scripture gives us a partial catalog of heathen gods. Here we should acknowledge God's mercy to us: He has not left us to our own ways as He did the Gentiles in former ages—"without God and without Christ"—but has revealed Himself and His will to us, choosing us to be His own people. For such mercy let us be thankful and show it by cleaving to Him alone with our hearts.

The Virgin Mary Made a Goddess The Roman false gods are two. The first is the Virgin Mary, whom those who call themselves Catholic in our time, of a saint make a goddess. They call her "Queen of Heaven," "Queen of the World,"

"Our Lady, the Mother of Grace and Mercy." She is esteemed a universal advocate for the whole world, with other mediators to her as to a queen. She has eight solemn feasts for her honor and invocation; besides these, scarcely a day passes without her being invoked in hymns or in the mass. They ascribe to her authority to command and control her Son in heaven, saying, "Ask the Father; command the Son—and command Him by a mother's right," and again, "Cause Him to receive our prayers." This does not merely make her a goddess; it places her above God Himself. Some say such language is metaphor or prosopopoeia. But it cannot be so, for the ground of these speeches—a mother's right—is literally ascribed to Mary; therefore the act of "commanding" is, without figure, properly ascribed to her.

We are indebted to Tursellinus the Jesuit for his five books on Our Lady of Loreto; from these two things are evident. First, she is made a goddess, being worshiped with the same worship given to God. In

dangers and extremities, men straightway offer prayers and vows to her. Second, on pilgrimages, when they come near Loreto and behold the place of her image from afar, they fall down and worship; some go bareheaded even in the depth of winter until they reach her temple, at whose doors they fall down again. When they stand before her image, all—yes, the greatest persons—humble themselves in the lowliest manner, kneeling upon the bare ground among the common crowd. She has a choir of boys to sing her praises. She is honored with two feasts—her conception and her nativity—one in spring and one in autumn; the solemnity of each lasts three months, and at every feast some two hundred thousand people resort to her. She is worshiped with temple, altar, and lavish offerings; few come emptyhanded. The furnishings for her image are gold, silver, pearls, precious stones, silk—everything rare and costly.

The second point is this: what is worshiped under the name of Our Lady of Loreto is neither God nor saint, but the devil himself. First, her covetousness appears insatiable; she sets no measure to the taking of gifts, whereas God and His true servants do the contrary

(Exodus 36:5). Second, her miracles are as many as those recorded of Christ and His apostles, yet of a kind that may be achieved by satanic operation. The devil knows the secrets of nature beyond all men and thus can perform things that seem miraculous—though they are not.

He is the most subtle "physician," able to cure diseases that appear incurable to men; yet he cannot give sight to those born blind nor raise the dead. Accordingly, among all her miracles, none such are found. Third, her apparitions and wonders serve to erect, establish, and maintain worship of herself, whereas the true saints of God seek not their own honor but God's (Revelation 19:10). Fourth, when absolute forms of prayer are made to the Virgin for temporal help or deliverance, there is neither commandment nor promise for such petitions—yet these prayers are often "answered." Fifth, our Savior, the King of heaven and earth, never intermeddled with the execution of civil justice in private cases; yet this Lady of Loreto is reported to break the halter at executions and preserve the lives of the hanged

until they are taken down. She is said to hear the prayers of infidels: the Turkish pasha, for instance, was cured of an abscess in his breast.

The Pope Made a God The second false god is the bishop of Rome who, though he is not commonly called a god, is nevertheless made one. First, he assumes to himself the titles of God and allows himself to be called god in his own law, where the tenor of a certain canon is to this effect: "He who is God may be judged by none." The syllogism then runs: The pope is

God—for so, they say, Emperor Constantine called him—therefore he may be judged by none. And note: these words are found not only in the old copies of canon law, but also in the corrected edition of Gregory XIII. Again, he suffers himself to be styled the doctor and pastor of the catholic church and the spouse of the church; indeed, he expressly calls the catholic church his own spouse—an honor proper to Christ, for it would have sufficed him to be a friend of the Bridegroom. Bernard even says of him that he is "by anointing,

Christ."

Second, the pope claims for himself infinite power, applying to his office the words of Matthew, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." Thus the book of pontifical ceremonies says: "This pontifical sword figures that supreme pontifical power, given by Christ to His vicar on earth, the bishop of Rome, according to, 'All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.'" And again: "He shall rule from sea to sea and from the rivers to the ends of the earth," which, they say, is signified by the velvet cap the popes wear on the night of our Lord's nativity. This appears further in that he usurps power over all creatures—even over kings and princes—and will be the deputy of Christ for governing the universal church.

Third, he assumes sovereign judgment over all persons and causes, so that—even if he should carry innumerable souls to hell with him— no man may judge him.

Lastly, he takes to himself the fullness of power to dispense with the laws of God. His law says that men should reverence the apostolic see so highly that they prefer to learn the ancient institution of the Christian religion from the pope's mouth rather than from Holy

Scripture; that they should inquire only what his pleasure is and order their life accordingly. Hence, in the Council of Trent, he presumed—on pain of anathema—to forbid more degrees of consanguinity than God has forbidden. What is this but to verify the apostle's saying, that he "exalts himself above all that is called God or is worshiped" (2 Thessalonians 2:4)?

When the Properties of God Are Given to Creatures The second way in which what is God's is given to creatures is when properties or proper actions of the Godhead are ascribed to them.

Thus creatures are made gods in part—and consequently idols.

Formerly it was held a kind of idolatry to appoint constellations and make them signs to reveal secret truths, because what is proper to God is thereby transferred to them. The Church of Rome at this day provides four notable examples.

1) Saints Made Idols First, it turns the saints in heaven into idols. It teaches men to kneel to them and to pray to them—though they are as far from us as heaven is from earth. By praying to them, men implicitly acknowledge that the saints have power to hear and help in all places and at all times, and that they know the secret minds and hearts of men. But to hear prayer in that manner, and to discern the heart, is a

property of the Godhead. Solomon prays, "Hear in heaven Your dwelling place…for You alone know the hearts of all the children of men" (1 Kings 8:39). Paul likewise assumes it as granted that there is

One who searches the hearts and knows the mind of the Spirit, and that no man knows what is in a man but the spirit—or conscience—of that man (Romans 8:27; 1 Corinthians 2:11).

They reply: God hears and knows hearts of Himself, by His nature; the saints do so only by communication or revelation. I answer: God sometimes reveals to His servants particular words or deeds, as to Elisha and to Peter (2 Kings 5:26; 2 Kings 4:27; Acts 5:4)—this we do not deny. But that God reveals all the thoughts and desires of all who pray, at all times and in all places, so that the saints know everything by continual revelation—this we deny. That would communicate the glory of God to the creature and, in effect, make the creature God— not by nature, but by participation. Such were most of the heathen

"gods": men, made gods by participation and in no other way.

2) Sacraments Made Idols Second, Rome turns the sacraments into idols by teaching that they confer grace ex opere operato—by the very work done; that is, that the outward elements or the duly pronounced words, or both together in the administration, are like physical causes that "effectively, actively, and immediately" produce in the heart the grace of regeneration and justification. Hence the priest prays that "the nature of the waters may receive the virtue of sanctification; that God would make the water fruitful by the secret admixture of His

Godhead; that, having conceived sanctification, a new creature may spring from the immaculate womb of the divine fountain; that it may be living water, effectual to purify our minds; that the Holy Ghost would descend into the fullness of the font; that He would make the whole substance of the water fruitful for the effecting of regeneration."

But the work of regeneration is a proper and immediate work of the Godhead. To create is God's proper and immediate work; to regenerate is to create anew. Therefore, to regenerate is the proper and immediate work of God; nothing can actively regenerate but God. Sacraments "regenerate" only as moral instruments: when rightly used, God Himself confers grace. If, however, they effectively and actively regenerate and justify, then they are not only moral instruments; they are more than physical instruments—they are, in this respect, as God Himself. Paul says that in planting and watering he is nothing. We receive new spiritual life from the Son by means of His flesh apprehended by faith; yet the power that quickens does not reside in His flesh as its proper subject, but in the Godhead. God will not give His glory to men or angels—nor even to the flesh and manhood of the Son of God, much less to lifeless creatures.

Therefore, not to the sacraments.

3) Works Made Idols Third, Rome makes idols of works by ascribing to them the merit of justification and salvation. None can merit with God but He who is

God. The creature can do nothing to benefit God; therefore God is not bound by the bond of human desert to reward man for anything he does. If He is "bound," it is because He binds Himself by His own promise—and He is moved to promise not by the worth of any human work, but solely by His own goodness.

If it be said, "Christ merits, and yet He Himself can do nothing to benefit God," I answer: Christ merits properly on account of the dignity of His person. Since God incarnate—the God-man—suffered and fulfilled the law for us, divine justice requires that what He deserved by suffering and obeying be given to Him. This ground is found in no mere man or angel. God, as the chief Good, magnifies

Himself and maintains His own honor according to the order of divine justice. He is not bound to His creatures, but of His free and mere goodness He bestows every blessing He gives.

4) The Bread in the Eucharist Made an Idol Fourth, the Roman Church makes the bread in the Eucharist to be what it is not—and so makes an idol. Their chief teachers say that after consecration the bread, without being annihilated, is changed by conversion into the very body of Christ; thus bread is exalted above men and angels and is received into the unity of the second

Person. If they reply that the bread is no idol because they believe this conversion, I answer: sacraments, outside their use, once the administration is ended, cease to be sacraments, and bread ceases to be the body of Christ. Therefore the host—the bread kept in the box, carried in procession, and worshiped—is nothing but a wheaten god, a bread-god, an idol no better than Aaron's calf, or Jeroboam's calves, or the Nehushtan which Hezekiah broke in pieces—indeed, as vile and detestable as any idol among the heathen.

When God's Worship Is Given to Creatures The third way in which what belongs to God is given to His creatures is when His worship is offered to them. In this way they are transformed into idols. For divine worship is proper to God alone, as our Savior says, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve" (Matthew 4:10). When divine worship is directed to any creature, that creature is made a god—or, at the least, is made equal to God—and therefore becomes an idol.

Now, creatures are made idols by the misdirecting of God's worship in three ways.

1) When the Heart's Chief Affection Is Given to the Creature

First, creatures become idols when men give their hearts to them and fix their chief affections upon them. Scripture commands that our hearts and all their affections, together with the obedience of both inward and outward man, be devoted to God alone. "We must obey

God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). "Fear not them which kill the body" (Matthew 10:28). "Sanctify the Lord in your hearts" (1 Peter

3:14). "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man"

(Psalm 118:8). "Cursed is the man that trusts in man" (Jeremiah 17:5). "He that loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me" (Matthew 10:37). And again, "Fear not idols, for they can do neither good nor evil. There is none like You, O King" (Jeremiah

10:5–6).

These commands are given so that, by them, we might acknowledge God as our God. But when any creature is placed above God—or even matched with Him—in matters of obedience, fear, love, or confidence, it is made another god to us. Then the first commandment is broken, for we cannot serve two masters (Matthew

6:24).

Satan is called "the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4) because men obey his suggestions rather than God's commandments.

Likewise, Antichrist is called God because he binds men to obey his traditions more strictly than the Word of God. Paul calls covetousness "idolatry" (Colossians 3:5), because the covetous man puts his confidence in riches for the preservation of life. Again, he says that some "make their belly their god" (Philippians 3:19; cf. 2

Timothy 3:4), because they mind nothing but earthly things and love their pleasures more than God.

A learned divine calls this "idolatry of manners," writing, "An idolater is one who gives to the creature the worship due to the Creator. There are two kinds of idolaters: some are idolaters in opinion, who ascribe divinity to the sun, moon, or any creature; others are idolaters in practice, who prefer the creature

before the Creator. For that which a man loves most, he makes his god. He who prefers the pampering of his belly before God makes it his god; he who prefers wine before God makes

Bacchus his god; he who prefers lust before God makes lust his god. Of this kind (I speak it with grief) are many today, serving their vices and sins rather than God; for though they say with their mouths that they believe in God, yet by their deeds they deny Him."

So the Church of Rome makes idols even of good works, for it teaches men to place their confidence in them for salvation—though they be done with sobriety and outward religion. This is to deify them and put them in God's place. Jerome rightly says, "If we must put our confidence in any, let it be in God alone." And Basil adds,

"As it is fitting to worship none but God, so must our hope be fixed in Him alone."

2) When Angels and Saints Are Given Divine Honor Again, angels and departed saints are made idols—by the Church of Rome—in four ways.

First, in that she gives them religious worship or adoration—that is, the bowing of the knee or the prostration of the body. The devil desired no more of Christ than this token of reverence, saying that by God's permission he was the disposer of the kingdoms of the world.

But Christ answered, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve" (Matthew 4:10).

When the apostle John fell down to worship the angel (Revelation 19:10), he did not intend to worship him as God—for he well knew the difference between the Creator and the creature—but to honor him as a glorious and divine creature, with a measure of reverence approaching divine honor. Yet even this the angel forbade, saying,

"See that you do it not, for I am your fellow servant; worship God."

From this we may reason: those who are our fellow servants are not

to be worshiped with divine honor. Angels and saints are our fellow servants; therefore, they are not to be worshiped with divine adoration.

It may be objected that we adore kings, princes, and even persons of lower estate. I answer: there are two kinds of adoration—divine and civil. The outward gesture may be the same in both, but the cause makes the difference. Divine adoration is when the body is bowed on a divine ground—that is, for reasons proper only to God—as when we kneel to Him in token of our subjection because He is Lord of all, because He knows the heart, because He is everywhere present, and because He alone is able to hear and help all who call upon Him throughout the world. For these reasons, and for these alone, is God to be adored.

Civil adoration, by contrast, arises from civil causes—as when we bow to men who are set in authority, or who are endowed with eminent gifts of God. This civil honor varies according to the degree of men's dignity or excellence.

On this ground I answer: kings and princes are worshiped only with civil adoration, not divine. But angels and saints are worshiped in the Roman Church with divine adoration. For we have no earthly or political fellowship with them; therefore, any worship rendered to them cannot be civil—it must be on some higher, spiritual ground.

Indeed, the very reason they are worshiped is properly divine: because it is believed that they possess the power to hear and help all who pray to them, in any place and at any time, even though they are absent from the places where they are adored. Such worship ascribes to them the knowledge and vision of our hearts, presence in all places, and infinite power to assist all who call upon them.

Those who worship saints and angels therefore suppose that, being in heaven, they can at all times and in all places hear and help their petitioners. Hence, it is vain for papists to say that they give worship

to God only, and offer the saints but a "lesser" kind of service, when in truth they give to them that which is proper to God alone.

When certain devout women, in ancient times, offered not candles or prayers to the Virgin Mary, nor even called her "Queen of Heaven,"

"Advocate of Sinners," "Our Hope," "Gate of Heaven," or "Mediatrix," but merely offered a cake in her honor, Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, condemned the act and said, "It is honor beyond measure"—that is, adoration—"which belongs to God alone, and not to angels, much less to the Virgin Mary."

The Invocation of Angels and Saints Again, angels and saints are made idols when prayer or invocation is directed to them, for prayer is a proper part of God's worship. The commandment of God is plain: "Call upon Me in the day of trouble"

(Psalm 50:15). The word Me must be understood exclusively—call upon Me alone. This is gathered by proportion. Moses says, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him you shall serve"

(Deuteronomy 6:13; 10:20). Christ, quoting and expounding this text, adds the word alone: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve" (Matthew 4:10). Thus, all commandments concerning the worship of God carry the force of that word alone, though it be not always expressed.

The reason for the commandment confirms this: "I will deliver you."

It may be framed thus: "You must pray to Him who can deliver you. I alone deliver you; therefore, call upon Me alone."

Secondly, the one to whom we pray must be such that we may believe in Him; for the apostle says, "How shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed?" (Romans 10:14). We must not believe in angels or saints, but only in God. The ancient and apostolic faith is

this: to believe in God, and to believe the Church. As Augustine rightly says, "We believe the apostle; we do not believe in the apostle." And again, "We must believe the Church, but not in the Church."

Thirdly, sacrifice is proper to God alone. In the New Testament, prayer takes the place of sacrifice. For whereas Malachi prophesied that "in every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a pure offering" (Malachi 1:11), Paul explains its meaning when he says, "I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands" (1 Timothy 2:8). Thus, prayer is a spiritual sacrifice, called in Scripture "the calves of our lips" (Hebrews 13:15).

The ancient Church held that the Holy Spirit is God because He is invoked. For the heretics objected: "Only God may be invoked. The Holy Spirit is not invoked. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not God." The Church answered by denying the second statement, declaring that the Holy Spirit is invoked. Origen says, "All vows, petitions, supplications, and thanksgivings must be addressed to God, the Lord of all things. It is not fitting to invoke angels, unless we could truly know them." Athanasius writes that "the saints—that is, believers— seek no aid from anything created; therefore, Jesus Christ, to whom men pray for help, is God."

Defenders of the invocation of saints allege that they pray not to them as to God, since they do not make them the authors or givers of blessings, but only helpers by their prayers. I answer that this is false, for they make them helpers not only by their prayers but also by their merits—and this is to make them redeemers. The very form of their prayers, as found in their breviaries and missals, proves this:

"Have mercy on us; grant us this or that; deliver us from this or that evil." Such language belongs to God alone. Their excuse is like that of an adulteress who says, "I lie with this man as with my lover and friend. I know he is not my husband, nor do I treat him as such."

The act remains adultery, though she denies it.

They further argue that if the living may ask one another's prayers, the living may likewise ask help from the dead. But the reasoning fails, for four great differences make the cases unlike.

First, we have a commandment and examples in Scripture to request the prayers of the living for one another, but no commandment at all to pray to the dead.

Second, we are present with those from whom we request prayer; we are not present with the saints in heaven. Indeed, if a man among us were to kneel down here and direct his petition to a man in London,

Rome, or Jerusalem, he would commit idolatry. How much more, then, when men on earth kneel and pray to saints in heaven?

It is alleged that the saints are present by hearing our prayers, since they are with God and see Him who sees all things, and therefore in Him they see all things. I answer, this is false. The angels see the wisdom of God and the mystery of redemption not in God—with whom they are present—but in the Church, as it is made known through the ministry of the apostles (Ephesians 3:10). The souls of the martyrs cry, "How long, O Lord, holy and true?" (Revelation

6:10), showing they do not know the time of their deliverance. Christ Himself said, "The Father has kept the times and seasons in His own power" (Acts 1:7), and that not even the angels know the hour of His coming (Matthew 24:36). The prophet says, "Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledges us not" (Isaiah 63:16), which Augustine also cites to this end.

The third difference: one living man may seek the prayers of another by word or letter, thus openly declaring his needs. But in prayer we reveal our wants not by speech or writing, but by the secret groanings and desires of our hearts. We lift up our souls to Him to whom we pray, making Him our refuge by faith. For true prayer is not in the tongue, but in the heart's desire and faith.

Lastly, when one believer requests another's prayer, both stand as fellow members of one body, directing one common supplication to God in the name of one Mediator, Christ. But when we pray to the dead, the case is wholly different, for then they are made mediators of intercession between us and God—thus usurping the place of Christ.

Temples, Altars, and Holy Days Dedicated to Saints Thirdly, saints and angels are made idols when temples, altars, and holy days are consecrated in their honor. All these belong properly to the worship of God. Temples—for only God can bind His presence and hearing to any place. Altars—for they are for sacrifices and oblations, which are due to God alone. Holy days—for God is the only Lord of time, and days may be dedicated only to His glory.

Though the Church of England retains the names of saints' days, yet we are altogether free from this idolatry, for we dedicate the days themselves to the honor of God.

Swearing and Vowing to Saints They are also made idols when men swear by them or make vows to them. "Your children have forsaken Me and sworn by them that are no gods" (Jeremiah 5:7). And God threatens to destroy those who "swear by the Lord and by Malcham"—that is, Moloch, their king

(Zephaniah 1:5). The same judgment applies to those who swear "by God and by Mary," "by the mass," and the like. One has rightly said,

"Whoever swears by anything other than God deifies that thing and thereby makes himself an idolater." Concerning vows, Isaiah says,

"In that day men shall vow vows unto the Lord, and perform them"

(Isaiah 19:21), showing that vows are a proper part of divine worship.

Origen likewise affirms that all vows must be made to God alone.

Images and Relics Made Idols Finally, images themselves—together with relics of Christ and the saints, and other so-called "holy things" such as temples, altars, and the like—are made idols in two ways.

First, when they are adored and worshiped with religious veneration, or when the living image of God—that is, man—bows down before a dead image. Then indeed they become false gods. The second commandment forbids this plainly: "You shall not bow down to them nor serve them" (Exodus 20:4–5)—that is, to images of the true

God or of anything else. The reason follows: "For I the Lord your God am a jealous God." Hence, when images are worshiped, they are turned into false gods and idols, for God's jealousy arises because those who are espoused to Him set up another "husband" in His place or alongside Him. When we bow to them, it is more than civil reverence; it is divine honor, which God will share with none.

Man himself is the living image of God, made by His own hand, and therefore infinitely more excellent than all images made by human hands. If any mere man is worshiped with more than civil honor, he is thereby made more than a man—an idol. If no more than civil honor is due even to man, who is the image of God, then certainly no religious honor may be given to images fashioned by man.

When Cornelius fell down before Peter, meaning not to honor him as God but only to show reverence, Peter reproved him, saying, "Stand up; I myself also am a man" (Acts 10:25–26). If such a gesture toward an apostle was rebuked, what reproof is due to those who bow religiously before images?

Those who worshiped the sun, moon, and stars were condemned as idolaters (Deuteronomy 4:19; 2 Kings 23:5). How much more those who worship images and relics—for the heavenly bodies are God's handiwork, whereas images are but man's. It was idolatry to kiss the golden calves of Jeroboam (Hosea 13:2). Augustine says that those

who "are worshipers of pictures lack the power of Christianity."

Again, he numbers the worship of images among heresies, noting that Marcellina, companion of Carpocrates, "worshiped the images of Jesus, Paul, Homer, and Pythagoras with incense and adoration." He adds, "In the second commandment we are forbidden to worship any likeness of God made by man's device, for no image of God may be worshiped but that which is the same with Himself." Ambrose likewise says, "It is a heathenish error to worship the cross on which Christ died." Holcot remarks that the Spirit of God condemns those "who honor and serve images and artificial figures."

Catherinus, a leading voice at the Council of Trent, confessed: "There is debate among Catholics whether images may be made for the very purpose of being adored, and whether worship may rightly be given to them. Many utterly deny it and cry out against it as idolatry. Nor are they moved by light reasons, nor without the authority of Scripture and the Fathers. For indeed, Scripture condemns the idols and images of the pagans not only because they represented false gods, but also because they were works of men's hands and without sense, and therefore undeserving of worship. This opinion some of the ancient doctors appear to approve, if we weigh what they have written."

Durandus says, "We do not adore images, nor call them gods, nor put our trust in them, for this would be idolatry." He distinguishes two uses of images: one moderate, when they serve for remembrance and representation; the other excessive, when they are worshiped.

And he adds, "By this excess the simple and weak are easily drawn into idolatry."

It is objected that men may bow to the chair of state or to a prince's letter without idolatry—and therefore, much more, to images of God,

Christ, and the saints. I answer: the conclusion does not follow.

When we bow to the chair of state or to the royal seal, it is only civil honor, done for a public end—to pay homage and signify our loyalty

and subjection to our lawful prince. Bowing to images, however, is done on a religious ground.

Second, the chair of state is a sign of the prince's presence, and his letters are signs of his will—by the prince's own appointment. Images are not, by God's appointment, signs or pledges of His presence or pleasure; He will not be worshiped in them, by them, or at them, nor has He bound His presence or His hearing to them.

Third, men do not bow to the chair of state when the prince himself is present; yet those who worship images bow to them though God is always present. I turn the argument upon them thus: he who sets up a chair and calls it "the presence," or sends a letter in the prince's name and seals it with a counterfeit seal, is guilty of treason. So they who of their own heads set up images as signs and pledges of God's presence do, in effect, commit treason against God.

When Nadab and Abihu offered sacrifices which God had appointed with fire of their own devising, they were struck dead (Leviticus

10:1). When the Jews worshiped the true God with His own worship, yet in places of their own choice, the Spirit says they corrupted themselves and did not prepare their hearts to the Lord (2 Chronicles

27:2; cf. 2 Kings 15:34–35; 2 Chronicles 20:33). What impiety, then, is it to worship God in images without His command?

When the Jews set their thresholds by God's thresholds and their posts by His posts—that is, when they joined their traditions to God's commandments—they set a wall between themselves and God and defiled His holy name with their abominations (Ezekiel 43:8). Even an oath must not be taken by creatures, though they be considered as signs of God's presence and power, and though the worship in the oath be ultimately directed to God. Scripture allows only a simple, straightforward oath—without fraud or obliquity—lest God's authority be diminished, our neighbor deceived (against the order of human society), or the religion of an oath fall into contempt, as commonly happens when men swear by creatures. Therefore Christ

said, "Swear not at all—neither by heaven," etc. (Matthew 5:34). As one part of God's worship must be direct and not oblique, so must all the rest. Therefore we may not worship God in, at, or before images

—even if we ourselves treat them as signs or pledges of His presence and intend to worship God in them.

Again, it is alleged: "The wooden cross of Christ was an instrument of our redemption; therefore it is to be worshiped." I answer: first, it was an instrument of Christ's death, but not the cause or instrument of man's redemption, which came by His death. Second, by the same reasoning Judas, the Jews, the spears, and the thorns should be worshiped, for they too were instruments of His death—indeed, even the spittle and clay Christ once used in working a miracle (John 9:6).

Third, they urge the words spoken to Moses and Joshua: "Put off your shoes, for the place where you stand is holy" (Exodus 3:5;

Joshua 5:15). I answer: Moses and Joshua put off their shoes not to the place, but to God, whose presence made the place holy. Further, the place was holy only for the time in which God manifested His presence; whereas images and relics are claimed to be holy at all times and in all places.

Moreover, images and relics are made idols when incense is burned before them, when candles are lighted to them, when altars are built and gifts offered to them, when pilgrimages are made to them. All these are parts of religious worship; and when such acts are directed to images and relics, it betrays a hidden persuasion that some divine power, presence, or operation dwells in or about them. The bronze serpent was God's ordinance, a figure of Christ (John 3:14), and a memorial of deliverance from the fiery serpents in the wilderness; yet when incense—a part of God's worship (Exodus 30:8; Leviticus

2:1)—was offered to it, it became an idol and was destroyed by Hezekiah, whose deed Scripture commends (2 Kings 18:4).

The Idolatry of Rome in Crucifixes. From all this, we must take notice of the open idolatry of the Roman Church, whose chief

teachers hold and defend that crucifixes and other images of God are to be worshiped with the very same worship given to Christ Himself

—the same kind of worship, the same affection, the same devotion.

What is this but to make gods of crucifixes? The excuse that crucifixes are worshiped only with respect to Christ, and that the worship "passes by the image to Him," will not avail; for the image is still honored with religious honor, which may not be given to any creature.

Nestorius imagined Christ's manhood to be a person distinct from the eternal Word, and devised a co-adoration whereby the manhood was to be worshiped together with the Word. The Council of Ephesus condemned this co-adoration. How much more would it have condemned a co-adoration of the crucifix with Christ!

It is said: "Adoration is given to God properly and directly, and to the image only improperly and indirectly." I reply: even so, more is given to the image than may be given; indeed, far more than mere coadoration. For five things are ascribed to images:

1. A union of relation with God, whereby seeing the image brings the thing signified to mind.

2. A relative presence, so that God and Christ are, in their images—and their images with them—one and the same object.

3. Signification, by which the image, as image, signifies God and Christ.

4. Representation, whereby the image stands in the stead and room of God—not only as an ambassador, but as a viceroy or deputy stands in the place of a prince—so that whatever would be done about God or Christ, if He manifested His presence, is now to be done about the image. This is, undeniably, a portion of divine honor; for the image is set to receive honor for God, and God is said to receive honor by it.

5. Communication of religious worship between God and the image. This is twofold: first, when worship is offered before the image to God directly and then, by consequence, returns to the image indirectly—as when one kneels before an image and prays; the worship is God's properly, but pertains to the image by consequent. Second, when worship is given directly to the image and only then referred to God by consequence—as when one salutes the image in passing or adorns it with garments and jewels.

Upon this communication follows a communion of worship, whereby God is made to share in the worship of the image, and the image to share in the worship of God. Such communion in religious worship lowers the honor of God and exalts the image into a divine estate above men and angels. If a king should appoint one of his subjects to be his image and deputy for worship—so that ordinarily the king's homage is rendered before the deputy—then, whatever intentions lie in the subjects' minds to honor the king and not the deputy, in reality the deputy becomes king and the other bears only the name. So too with images: being not merely images of God but His deputies for worship, they receive in truth the honor of God.

Again, when latria—divine honor—is given to God in His image, it terminates upon the image; the worship is first directed to God and then, in the same motion, extended by consequence to the image. But that religious worship whose termination rests in the creature is, by common consent, idolatry.

The Preservation of Ourselves from Idols in Four Respects Thus far I have shown what an idol is, the kinds of idols, and the ways by which they are erected. I now proceed to a second point—

how we are to keep ourselves from idols. And that we may preserve ourselves thoroughly from their contagion, four duties are required: we must avoid the making of them, the having of them, the using of them, and the company of those who use them.

From the Making of Them The making of idols must be avoided by the express commandment of God: "You shall not make for yourself any graven image, or the likeness of anything" (Exodus 20:4). In these words, all kinds of images are forbidden—whether carved or painted—and images of all things in heaven, on earth, or under the earth; therefore, even of God, whose dwelling is in heaven. Tertullian remarks, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols"—not merely from idolatry (that is, the service of idols), but from the idols themselves, that is, from the images.

Yet the making of images is not absolutely forbidden in every respect, for there is a lawful use of them, both holy and common.

The holy use of images is when they serve to signify the holy things of God. Such images are properly signs or types, and exist only by God's appointment. Thus, the cherubim upon the mercy seat were figures of God's presence; the bronze serpent was a figure of Christ crucified; and the outward elements in the sacraments of the New

Testament are signs and seals of the body and blood of Christ, together with the benefits of His death.

The common use of images is threefold.

First, a symbolic or political use, when they serve for civil distinction, as in coins. Thus the Jews, though forbidden to make images for religious use, were permitted to use them on their coins.

Christ Himself, when shown the coin bearing Caesar's image and inscription, said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's"

(Matthew 22:21).

Second, a historical use, when images serve to record human or divine history. Yet even here, the painting of biblical history—though lawful in itself—is not expedient in churches, because of the danger of idolatry that may arise from it. Therefore, the practice of the Church of England is commendable, which forbids, in places set apart for worship, images either painted or carved, even when representing biblical scenes. The case differs with illustrated Bibles, since such images do not provoke the same danger of idolatry.

Third, images may be used for ornament, when they serve only to beautify public or private houses for civil gatherings. For the scope of the divine commandment is not to forbid all making of images, but only their making for divine or religious use—that is, to represent

God in His nature, attributes, or presence.

Someone may object: "When we think of God, we conceive an internal image or form of Him in our minds; and what we conceive internally, we may also express outwardly by painting or carving. If the internal form of God may be lawfully conceived, why may not the external be made?"

I answer: the right way to conceive of God is not to imagine a form, but to contemplate His attributes and works. As soon as the mind forms a visible shape of God—as when He is superstitiously imagined as an old man seated in heaven upon a throne with a scepter in His hand—an idol is set up in the heart. Moreover, these internal conceptions are not worshiped, as carved or painted images are.

Finally, God, who allows inward apprehensions of His glory, strictly forbids external representations of Him in the use of religion.

From the Having or Keeping of Them The second thing to be avoided is the keeping or having of idols— that is, of images that have been abused to idolatry and are likely to be abused again, especially if they stand in public places. God's

commandment is plain: destroy the idols of the heathen, their altars, and their high places. Accordingly, Moses destroyed the golden calf, and Hezekiah broke in pieces the bronze serpent (Exodus 34:13;

Deuteronomy 7:25; Exodus 32:20; 2 Kings 18:4).

There are several weighty reasons for this commandment.

First, preserved idols are enduring monuments of devil worship and of contempt for the true God. Their preservation keeps alive the memory of that which dishonors God and of things abominable to Him (Deuteronomy 7:25). A loyal subject would not treasure the spoils of an enemy's conquest, for by doing so he shows disloyalty to his prince.

Second, we are called not only to confess our faith in words but also to bear witness in our deeds that we are the people of God who worship no idols. This confession is contradicted if we keep such images. Hence the Lord commands, "You shall destroy them, because you are a holy people to the Lord" (Deuteronomy 7:5–6).

Third, the keeping of idols is a stumbling block to those who are inclined toward idolatry, for it fosters in them the belief that these images deserve some reverence.

Fourth, we are bound to remove all occasions of idolatry. This duty is neglected when idols are preserved, for such preservation gives opportunity and temptation to the superstitious to worship them.

Fifth, the keeping of idols gives occasion to the simple and unlearned to misuse them. When the idols of the nations remained among the Israelites, they became a snare to them (Judges 2:3).

Lastly, idols are called by the Holy Spirit vanities—not as other things, which may have some proper and good use, but as things utterly unprofitable (Isaiah 44:10). Therefore, their preservation can serve no good purpose. Among the people of God, all things must tend, in their kind, to His glory—either directly or indirectly.

If it is said, "They are the layman's books, and therefore may be kept," I answer, they are not books for laymen, for the Lord has pronounced them mere vanities. Augustine says rightly, "They are worthy to be deceived who seek Christ and His apostles not in the Scriptures, but upon painted walls."

From the Religious Use of Them The third thing to be avoided is the religious use of idols. This use— namely, worship—is utterly condemned in the second part of the Second Commandment: "You shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Exodus 20:5). In these words, the Lord identifies two parts of idol-worship: honor and service.

Honor is either inward or outward. Inward honor lies in the affection of reverence. Outward honor consists of bodily gestures that signify reverence: removing the hat, lifting up hands and eyes, bending the knees, prostrating the body, and the like.

Service is likewise either inward or outward. Inward service lies in the devotion of the mind—confidence, hope, invocation, vows, and the like. Outward service consists of all other acts beyond gesture: sacrifices, offerings, lighting tapers, burning incense, erecting altars and temples, making pilgrimages, and so forth. All these, and everything of like kind, are utterly forbidden.

Furthermore, to leave no place for idols among the people of God, He has strictly barred us by law from using even those things that are proper memorials and monuments of idols: "You shall make no mention of the name of other gods; it shall not be heard upon your lips" (Exodus 23:13). Indeed, everything that pertains in any way to idol-worship must be avoided. On this ground Paul argues at length that the Corinthians must not be present at feasts held in honor of

heathen gods, even if they abstain from the worship itself (1 Corinthians 10). As Tertullian notes, it was a common fault to say mehercule or medius fidius—oaths that arose from ignorance, not realizing they invoked Hercules—yet even he grants that ordinary conversation may compel us to mention the names of false gods, while the former law forbids honoring them.

From the Users of Them In the fourth and final place, we must avoid the users of idols, and that for two reasons: first, because of their deceptive excuses; second, because of fellowship with them. Concerning the deceits with which the idolaters of this last age paint over their idolatry and blind the world, we have a special warning from the Holy Spirit: "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition" (Colossians 2:8). To help us avoid them, I note five principal excuses.

1) "We worship images, not idols."

First, they say, "We do not worship idols but the images of God, the saints, and angels." A poor and shallow shift. The golden calf,

Jeroboam's calves at Dan and Bethel, and Micah's teraphim were images of God—as has been shown—and yet all agree they were idols.

Moreover, an image of a feigned god is plainly an idol; and the image set up to honor the true God is likewise an image of a feigned god.

For God will not be honored by any image of man's devising, however much one's mind intends the honor to be His. Therefore the object actually honored is a god of man's own making—one who will hear, be present, and bless in, at, and before images. Thus the image supposed to be of God is in truth the image of an idol; and the image of an idol is itself an idol.

They say there is a difference between heathen and Christian images.

Let them consider Psalm 115 and show that their images can hear,

smell, speak, or walk better than those of the heathen—and we will grant a difference; otherwise not. Many heathen images were meant for the true God, as well as theirs. Irenaeus reproves the Gnostics not only for making images of Pythagoras and Aristotle, but also for making images of Christ and Paul and worshiping them. Ambrose writes, "The Gentiles adore wood because they think it the image of God."

They also define idol falsely, as if it were only a false image representing what is not; but it is also a false image representing what is, yet as it is not. Thus Roman teachers write, and Catherinus explicitly says: "The adoration of saints used in the Church of Rome is terminated in God, who is adored not absolutely, but as He is laudable in this or that man reckoned a saint. If he be not a saint, the worship is false, and the 'God' so worshiped is indeed a false god, for He is adored as existing in one in whom He is not. The same holds with an unconsecrated host: God and Christ are not adored simply, but as present under the species of bread and wine; if He be not there, then a creature is found in Christ's stead to whom divine honor is given, and here is idolatry also." Thus even when men intend to worship the one true God, if they adore Him where He is not, they fall into idolatry.

2) "We do not worship images, but God in them."

Second, they plead: "We do not worship images properly or principally, but Christ, angels, and saints in them and at them." So said the heathen. Lactantius reports them: "We fear not the images, but those in whose likeness they are fashioned and to whose names they are dedicated." Augustine records the same excuse: "I worship neither the statue nor the devil; in a bodily figure I behold the sign of what I ought to adore." Again: "I do not worship the stone; I adore what I see and serve Him whom I see not—the invisible divine power presiding over the image." Chrysostom likewise: "When charged with worshiping an image, they reply, 'Not the image, but

Venus and Mars.' And when asked, 'What is Venus?' the graver sort answer, 'Pleasure'; and 'What is Mars?' 'A manly courage.'" Yet these excuses could not acquit them of idolatry.

Moreover, only that worship pleases God which He has prescribed in His Word. "In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9). Of worshiping God by images there is no word; indeed, Scripture says the contrary: "You shall not do so to the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 12:4)—that is, as the heathen do to their gods. That Christ is not to be worshiped in a crucifix is plain; for when He is worshiped, the Godhead is worshiped, and so the Persons therein. The Trinity is to be worshiped in unity, and the unity in Trinity. Since the Godhead is immaterial and invisible, it is not to be worshiped in any sensible thing, as even Damascene (otherwise friendly to images) acknowledges.

3) "We give worship to God and only service to saints."

Third, they say, "We give worship to God alone, but we honor angels, saints, and images with service." I answer, religious adoration, invocation, vows, and the like are parts of God's service and may not be given to any creature, by whatever terms they are called. Whether you name them worship or service, they remain proper to God, who is not mocked by words. It is absurd to imagine that a change of terms can change God's worship into the creature's due.

The devil asked no more of Christ than service (dulia). He did not demand divine honor, but to be acknowledged as a minister to whom

(as he falsely claimed) the rule of the kingdoms of the world was committed (Luke 4:6). Yet Christ refused, saying, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve" (Matthew 4:10).

Therefore not only religious worship but religious service belongs to God.

To arm ourselves against this empty distinction, note that worship is twofold: worship of religion and worship of society. Worship of religion is what the creature gives the Creator because He is the Author and Giver of all good; its parts and manner are prescribed in the First Table of the Law. Worship of society is what one creature gives another as an instrument of good under God; it belongs to the Second Table and is commanded in "Honor your father and your mother" (Exodus 20:12). Here belongs whatever honor is due to saints and angels: were they to appear, we would pay them civil respect as we do to princes—not a different kind of honor, only a different degree. We must not give even the least part of religious worship to the highest of creatures. Augustine says, "Religion is not the worship of anything, but of God." Hence neither religious worship nor religious service may be given to saints or angels.

Further, the worship of society is grounded in neighborhood—visible presence and outward fellowship. Where there is no mutual conversation nor sensible presence, there is no place for such honor.

Therefore we may not give even civil worship to saints or angels, with whom we have no outward fellowship.

Finally, not worship only, but service belongs to God: "You shall not bow down to them nor serve them" (Exodus 20:5). And with good reason: service is more than worship; worship may be rendered between equals, but service properly belongs from inferior to superior.

4) "Our worship is confirmed by revelations and miracles."

Fourth, they claim that prayers to saints and the worship of images and relics are confirmed by revelations and miracles. I answer: revelations are not now the rule of faith—the written Word is. "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them" (Luke 16:29). "To the law and to the testimony" (Isaiah 8:20). Miracles by themselves do not prove doctrine, for false prophets may work wonders to test men (Deuteronomy 13:1). Scripture plainly says that Antichrist—

who, in all likelihood, is the bishop of Rome—comes "with all power and signs and lying wonders" (2 Thessalonians 2:9; cf. Revelation

16:14). Therefore the Roman claims of revelations and miracles are justly suspect. The speaking, weeping, and bleeding of images, and the bleeding of the Eucharist—what are these but satanic delusions?

5) "Scripture condemns only the worship of heathen gods."

Fifth and last, they protest that Scripture condemns the worship of heathen gods, whereas they honor saints and Christian images. I answer: the worship of heathen idols and the worship of God, angels, saints, and images in the Roman Church are, in substance, the same.

The folly is alike in making their gods. The heathen plants a tree, cuts it down; with one part he warms himself, with another he cooks his food; with the third he makes a god (Isaiah 44:15–16). So Rome sows, reaps, threshes, grinds, and bakes—feeding the household with part, and of another part making Christ, their breaden god.

The Gentiles built houses and temples to their gods; so do papists to saints and angels (2 Kings 5:18; Baruch 6:16). They consecrated altars; so do papists. They used holy water at the temple entry; so do papists. They served their gods with shaven priests; so do papists.

They censed their images and lit tapers before them; so do papists.

They kept fasts and holy days to their gods—Livy says the Romans fasted to Ceres; Sozomen records they offered select meats and abstained from profane foods. Likewise the papists keep festivals to saints. Of old in England, the third day was dedicated to Woden and the fifth to Frigg—hence Wednesday and Friday; so Rome dedicates days to saints.

Nor did the wiser Gentiles think their idols were gods. They professed to worship God in them. The Recognitions (under Clement's name) records their plea: "As there is one Caesar with many judges, tribunes, and inferior powers, so there is one great

God with other gods under Him to govern the world." Again: "Apis,

Ibis, serpents, goats, and the like were figures and allegories of virtues by which mankind is governed." And again: "We worship visible images to honor the invisible God." Eusebius likewise testifies that the Gentiles adored images as representations of excellent benefactors. Yet, for all this, they are condemned as idolaters. Celsus, in Origen, says that none but a fool thinks wood, stone, brass, or gold to be gods; they are "services or representations" of gods. Still, idolatry.

So too the Israelites said to a tree, "You are my father," and to a stone, "You have begotten me" (Jeremiah 2:27). Likewise, papist preachers say to the crucifix, "You have redeemed us; You have reconciled us to the Father." They answer: "We say this not to the wood, but to Christ, in whose stead the image stands." I reply: so did the Israelites.

The Gentiles said images were letters by which to learn God; papists say images are the layman's books. The wisest Gentiles used images and rites to procure the presence of angels and celestial powers, that through them they might know God; so papists with images of angels and saints. The Gentiles assigned gods over lands, cities, families, houses, persons, estates, arts, and diseases. So popish superstition assigns patron saints to nations—Martin for Germany, James for Spain, Michael for France, Peter and Paul for Italy, George for England—and guardians for beasts: Gallus over geese, Wendelin over sheep, Fulogius over horses, Pelagius over oxen, Antony over swine.

Against the plague they pray to Sebastian and Roch; against ague, to Petronilla; for toothache, to Apollonia; for stone, to Libarius; for "holy fire," to Antony, and so on. The Gentiles, in plague and tempest, bore their idols in procession; so Rome carries the host and crucifixes in procession and worships them.

The learned among the heathen knew there was one chief and true God—the Maker and Governor of heaven and earth and all things in them—and that their other "gods" were creatures, men who excelled in gifts and were, as they thought, translated to heaven. Aristotle

says, "This world and the order of all things are preserved by God.

What is highest in the world is God's seat. Nothing in the world is sufficient to preserve itself or can be without His help." In the Roman laws of the Twelve Tables it is written, "Let men approach their gods with purity, and let all pomp be removed. If they do otherwise, God will avenge." Lactantius reports of Cicero that, in the book where he comforted himself after his daughter's death, he plainly says, "The gods publicly worshiped are men." And the same is evident in his surviving works, where he states that "Hercules,

Castor, Pollux, Aesculapius, Liber," and the like, were men who after death, by common report, were translated into heaven—indeed he thinks the same concerning the chief gods called Dii maiorum gentium. Trismegistus likewise says of the heathen deities, "We call them gods not by nature, but by honor." Augustine records the pagans saying, "Are we to think our ancestors so foolish as to suppose that felicity, love, and such like were gods? No; they believed there is one God whose gifts and functions these are."

Further, though the heathen worshiped false gods, they also acknowledged and in some measure worshiped the true God.

Athanasius writes that they worshiped one unbegotten God and many made gods. Tertullian notes that, even while enslaved to idols, they were accustomed to speak of "God," saying, "God will give this or that," "God sees," "I commend it to God," "God will repay," and when they uttered such words they lifted their eyes, not to Rome's

Capitol, but to heaven. Lactantius adds that when they swore, wished, or gave thanks, they named not Jupiter or the other gods but "God," especially in time of war and danger; yet when the peril had passed, they returned to their temples again. Nevertheless, because they gave divine honor to their supposed gods in prayer and supplication, they stand condemned of idolatry and are said by Paul to have passed by God and to have worshiped the creature (Romans

1:25). As Lactantius rightly says, "It cannot be that the true God be worshiped and other gods also; for if His honor is given to others, He is not worshiped at all, seeing His religion is to believe that He alone is the true God." So too the Church of Rome truly forsakes God—

whatever it pretends—and cannot be free from idolatry, for it does the very same when it canonizes saints and gives them divine or religious honor.

One defender of that Church argues that heathen idolatry has five degrees: first, worship of stocks and stones; second, of the sun, moon, and stars; third, of dead men; fourth, of the world; fifth, of good angels or devils. He further claims that in all these the honor given by the heathen "begins in the mind and ends not in God but in the creature, whereas the worship maintained by the Church of Rome begins in the mind and ends in God." I answer: this is false.

Paulus Orosius says of the pagans of his day that they confessed they did not follow many gods as such, but "worshiped under one great

God many inferior gods as His ministers." Augustine likewise records their speech: that they worshiped not wicked spirits but angels—"the virtue of the great God and the ministers of the great God." It follows that they worshiped departed men and angels for God's sake, and worshiped God in them, since they honored them as instruments and ministers of the Most High. Thus those among the heathen who had more understanding worshiped the true God in those whom they called inferior gods—just as papists worship God in images. Nor was it their intent to bestow the highest adoration on these "gods," but to afford them a lower honor as beings beneath the supreme God.

Horace, the heathen poet, speaks of the highest God: "He governs the affairs of men and gods; He rules sea and land and the whole world with changing seasons; nothing greater than He is brought forth, nor is there any like Him or second to Him. Yet Pallas receives the next honor to Him." The papists say the very same today of God and "our

Lady." It is plain, then, that the Gentiles, having many gods, worshiped one as chief—Jupiter—and honored the inferior gods as papists honor saints.

From all this it appears that heathen idolatry and the worship of images and saints in the Roman Church are, in substance, the same.

Yet I grant a difference. The wisest among the heathen perceived the vanity of their own religion. Seneca, in effect, says, "We will perform

the rites—but remembering that this worship is more for fashion than for anything else." Lactantius addresses Cicero to this purpose:

"I see you worship these earthly, man-made things. You know they are vain, and yet you do the same as those whom you confess to be the greatest fools." But the papists will not acknowledge the vanity of images and their worship, nor can they bear to hear of it.

Second, With Respect to Their Fellowship As we must beware the empty deceits of today's idolaters—who merely varnish the old pagan service with new names—so we must also avoid their fellowship. For Paul says we may not "be unequally yoked with unbelievers," nor can there be "agreement between the temple of God and idols" (2 Corinthians 6:14–16). Fellowship with them is either in religion or in the affairs of this life. Fellowship in religion is of two kinds: first, when we are content to hold the same faith with them; second, when we join with them in the exercises of their religion.

No Fellowship in the Exercises of Religion First, we may not share one and the same faith with them in the doctrine of God's worship, for their religion overturns the foundation of our salvation. Paul says, "Those who worship angels do not hold fast the Head—Christ" (Colossians 2:18–19). The worshipers of angels thought they could not approach God without angelic mediation and therefore prayed to angels to intercede for them.

Theodoret testifies, "This error concerning the worship of angels long remained in Phrygia and Pisidia; a synod at Laodicea, the mother city of Phrygia, by decree forbade men to pray to angels. To this day one can see in those parts chapels of Saint Michael. They advised this out of a feigned humility, saying that the God of all cannot be seen or comprehended, and that men cannot come to Him but must win His

favor by angels. This is what Paul means by 'humility and the worship of angels.'" Again, Theodoret says, "Paul commands that thanks be given to God the Father through Christ, not through angels; and the Council of Laodicea, following this rule and wishing to cure that old disease, provided that men should not pray to angels and forsake Christ." From his words it further appears that the council judged angels, when invoked, to be idols, and the invocation of them abominable idolatry.

Papists reply that the council condemns only those who denied Christ and put angels in His place. Chrysostom indeed speaks so; yet I answer two things. First, Theodoret does not speak of men who rejected Christ altogether and fled to angels; he says they mixed law and gospel—something that cannot stand unless Christ be at least confessed in words. Second, whatever the precise error was in Phrygia and Pisidia, Theodoret says the act of invocation itself, when directed to angels, was condemned. His very words import so much.

Again, idolatry is spiritual adultery. It breaks the bond of the covenant between God and His people, makes a people of God to be no people, and utterly excludes them from His covenant. Hence we have, on good ground, departed from the Church of Rome, and we may not so much as dream of any union or reconciliation of the two religions. It is not true, as many suppose, that we differ only in matters of circumstance. Idolatry is a principal cause for our renouncing the Roman religion.

Furthermore, it is altogether unlawful to join with idolaters in their exercises of religion. Paul exhorts the Corinthians, "Flee from idolatry" (1 Corinthians 10:14)—that is, avoid all feasts and meetings that uphold the honor of idols. He presses his exhortation with several reasons.

1. Communion in rite brings communion with its object.

Those who share in one and the same sacred service have fellowship with the one to whom that service belongs (v. 16). He

proves this by two examples:

– In the Lord's Supper, those who partake of the bread and the cup are made partakers of Christ's body and blood.

– In the Jewish sacrifices, those who ate of them shared in Israel's worship.

Therefore, those who participate in idol-feasts share in idol worship and so have fellowship with the idols themselves (v. 18).

2. Communion at idol-feasts is fellowship with demons.

"The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God" (v. 20). But you may not have fellowship with devils; therefore you may not partake of things offered to idols.

3. The Lord's Table excludes the tables of devils. Those who partake of the Lord's Table may not partake of the tables of devils (v. 21).

Against this, the Corinthians might have said that they did not attend idol-feasts with an evil intention, as if approving idols, but went with family or friends to preserve affection and, if possible, to gain them to Christ. Paul answers, "Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?" (v. 22), showing that however they colored their attendance, they incurred God's wrath. He further teaches that it is unlawful to eat things offered to idols even at private meals, if by so doing one's example would offend weak brethren and draw them to act against their conscience (v. 28). From Paul's doctrine it follows that it is wickedness—indeed, outright idolatry—to be present at the mass, though one keep his heart and faith ever so firmly for God.

Objections Answered 1) Naaman in the house of Rimmon (2 Kings 5:18). Some say Elisha gave Naaman leave to bow in Rimmon's temple when he said,

"Go in peace." Two answers:

– First, Naaman knelt only in a civil respect, that the king might lean on his arm; and he publicly professed that he would worship no god

but the God of Israel.

– Second (and more likely), Naaman's words show two things.

Confession: he admits it would be sin to enter Rimmon's temple and bow before idols—hence his repeated plea, "The Lord be merciful to your servant in this thing." His purpose was not to bow, but to worship the God who had healed him; therefore he asked for two mule-loads of earth from the prophet's land, to build an altar as a memorial of his healing and a place for spiritual sacrifice in prayer and thanksgiving (v. 17). Petition: he asks the prophet's prayers that he might be constant; and that if, against his purpose and through human frailty, he should be drawn to bow with his king, God would pardon the sin of infirmity. Elisha's "Go in peace" signifies his prayer for Naaman's perseverance and pardon if he should fall through weakness—not a license to join idol assemblies. The text therefore grants no warrant to join idolatrous worship; it teaches the contrary.

2) Daniel and the image of Nebuchadnezzar. It is said that only the three youths refused to worship; therefore Daniel must have bowed. Scripture does not record an accusation against Daniel— perhaps none was made, or complaints were not received because he had favor with prince and people. That he did not worship appears from his steadfast godliness and his refusal in lesser matters, such as eating the king's meat (Daniel 1:8).

3) "There is great difference between pagan feasts and the popish mass." They say the heathen rites were invented by the devil, whereas the mass was first instituted by Christ and later corrupted. I answer: the mass is a compendium of superstition and idolatry. It directs adoration to bread—or the "forms" of bread; it offers Christ's body as a propitiatory sacrifice really and repeatedly, though it was offered once for all with shed blood; it includes adoration of images, invocation of the dead, masses said to the honor of saints and angels, the worship of relics, and the like abominations.

4) "The godly went to the temple in Christ's day, though abuses abounded." True; but, first, they were bound by God's

command to offer sacrifices and perform other parts of worship at Jerusalem, and nowhere else (Deuteronomy 16:16). Second, the outward worship in sacrifices and sacraments was not corrupt in substance; errors lay chiefly in doctrine, with which the godly did not communicate. But in the Church of Rome both doctrine and sacraments are corrupted in substance and overrun with idolatrous abominations; and their outward worship has more kin to paganism than to the Lord's first institution.

5) "If we do not attend mass, men count us heretics and take offense; and offense must be avoided." Offense is either active (given) or passive (taken). Active offense must always be avoided; passive offense cannot wholly be prevented. We must do our duty though men be offended, remembering Christ's rule concerning such: "Let them alone; they are blind leaders of the blind" (Matthew 15:14). Moreover, attendance at mass discourages the weak and confirms the obstinate in their idolatry; thus, those who fear lest offense be taken actually give offense.

May Christians Enter Idol Temples?

It may be asked whether Christians may lawfully enter the temples of idols. I answer: they may, where they have a calling to do so, provided they do not share in superstitions or give any honor to idols, but rather openly profess—by word, deed, or both—their detestation of idols and their service. So Elijah was present with the priests of Baal; so the three youths stood present when the golden image was worshiped; so God's prophet stood by the altar of Bethel when Jeroboam stretched out his hand to offer incense (1 Kings 13); so Paul was present in Athens and, in the very place of idolatry, observed their devotions (Acts 17:23). At the coronation of Maximilian in Frankfurt, the Protestant princes brought the emperor to the church and to his seat, then withdrew without doing any reverence—thereby professing their dislike of popish idols and their worship.

It is objected that the prophet prayed in the very place where idolatry was practiced, since he prayed at Bethel for the king's arm to be restored (1 Kings 13:6). He did not sin; for to the clean, things indifferent are clean. The place—though polluted by others—was clean to the clean prophet. The Jews, living among idolaters, were commanded to worship God facing the temple at Jerusalem (1 Kings

8:48; Daniel 6:10). God heard the prophet's prayer—restoring the king's arm by miracle—and thereby approved it. A prayer offered in an idolatrous place is no approval of idolatry, if there is open profession against it and the prayer is required by some necessity—as in the prophet's case, to convince the king of his impiety (v. 8).

It is further objected that since the prophet refused to eat there, he should also have refused to pray there. Not so. God appointed abstinence from meat as the sign of detesting Bethel's idolatry—not abstinence from prayer. Nor does this example warrant attendance at idolatrous services in order there to worship the true God; for the prophet did not dissemble, but openly professed the truth against idolaters.

On the contrary, if people are not resolved to profess their detestation of idolatrous worship—whether by word, gesture, or some other open way—but only, out of curiosity, desire to see "new fashions," and on that account enter the temples of idols, they ought not to do so. By such behavior they tempt God; they offend weak believers and, by their example, draw them to do the same; and, lastly, by their very presence they confirm obstinate idolaters in their superstition. The same must be said of those who, without any calling, leave the bounds of the church and travel into idolatrous lands merely to see and to be seen.

Concerning civil society with such persons, two points must be handled: what fellowship may be used with them, and what may not.

First, we may use their society when necessity requires, for that cannot be avoided unless we would utterly refuse the fellowship of mankind. Paul, who forbids the Corinthians to keep company with a

"brother" who is an idolater, nevertheless gives them liberty to converse with the idolaters of the world (1 Corinthians 5:10–11). This may seem strange, but the reason is that the number of believers then was small, while the rest of the world was given to idolatry; it was therefore impossible to avoid their society unless one meant to go out of the world. On this necessity Paul permits the Church in his day to use the fellowship of idolaters. For the same reason he says,

"If any of them that believe not bids you to a feast, go if you will" (1 Corinthians 10:27).

Second, believers may lawfully join with idolaters in the society of concord. By the general calling of Christianity we are bound to pursue peace with all. On this ground the Church may make covenants of peace with idolaters upon even and just conditions:

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness" (Hebrews 12:14); "If it be possible, as much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men"

(Romans 12:18). Thus Abraham made a league of peace with Aner and Eschol, kings among the Amorites, and with Abimelech; Isaac with Abimelech; Jacob with Laban; and Heber the Kenite with Jabin, a foreign king (Genesis 14; 21; 26; 31; Judges 4:17). These examples have sufficient warrant; for what we may lawfully do, we may lawfully bind ourselves to do.

Third, we may engage in any fellowship with them that arises from our particular callings. Thus Christ, the Savior of the world, conversed with publicans and sinners. Thus Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, entered Athens and observed their devotions (Acts 17). It is

God's command that a believing wife is not to forsake her unbelieving husband, if he is willing to dwell with her (1 Corinthians

7:13). If it be alleged that Ezra compelled Israel to put away their Ammonite, Moabite, and other heathen wives (Ezra 10:3), I answer that those unions were no marriages. First, because those nations were, by God's law, civilly dead—God had commanded their destruction unless they accepted peace when offered (Deuteronomy

20:10). Second, because they were not only idolaters but enticers to idolatry, God expressly forbade the Jews to marry them unless they

repented and changed their religion. In view of that absolute prohibition, those unions were nullities, as incestuous unions are no marriages.

As for fellowship that is forbidden us with idolaters, it is the society of amity—that is, intimacy and special love. Two examples appear in Scripture. One is marriage contracts with idolaters, which Scripture expressly condemns as "an abomination in Israel" and a profanation of God's name, "when Judah marries the daughter of a strange god"

(Malachi 2:11). Boaz indeed married Ruth the Moabitess, but she had already been received into Israel by a former marriage, and she believed in Israel's God: "Your people shall be my people, and your

God my God" (Ruth 1:16). Samson also married a Philistine woman, but that was by divine instigation and, consequently, by special appointment of God (Judges 14:4). Again, it is urged that God expressly allowed Israel to marry heathen women taken captive in war (Deuteronomy 21:10–11). I answer: that law is one of toleration, not approbation—God, for the hardness of their hearts, permitted an evil that could not be wholly removed by policy. This appears in two particulars. Before marriage, the woman must be "deformed," as it were, by shaving her head, allowing her nails to grow, laying aside the garments of her captivity, and mourning a full month for father and mother. The end was either to breed dislike in the Israelite of his intended marriage, or at least to signify a change of religion, in appearance if not in reality, in the espoused party.

The second example is that of leagues for mutual aid and protection, which may not be contracted between believers and idolaters.

Jehoshaphat, for making such a league with Ahab, was reproved:

"Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?

Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord" (2 Chronicles 19:2). What we may not do, we may not covenant to do; and we may not mutually give and receive aid and protection from idolaters. This tends to God's dishonor, causing idolaters to boast that the people of God cannot stand without their help. It also occasions idolatry and often entangles God's people in the same

judgments that befall idolaters. The decline of Greece and Hungary has been hastened by leagues of amity with the Turks. It is objected that Abraham made such a covenant with the Amorites—Aner,

Eschol, and Mamre—and they aided him in rescuing Lot and in defeating the kings (Genesis 14:13). I answer: first, they may well have been believers embracing Abraham's faith; nothing proves the contrary. Second, if they were unbelievers, the covenant was one of peace only, and they aided Abraham not at his request but by a special and secret motion of God. Third, the Fathers sometimes acted according to prevailing customs which God later corrected by law; their examples are not a rule in all things. Lastly, I suppose Abraham joined them against a common enemy; the protection they afforded him was as necessary for themselves as for him and his household.

One exception must not be omitted. Suppose the husband is an idolater and is content to dwell with his believing wife. She is then to live with him not only in the society of peace but also of amity, performing all duties of love that belong to a wife, so far as conscience allows. Paul's precept is that marriage—and the duties of marriage—are to be maintained by the believing party with an unbeliever, provided the unbeliever is content (1 Corinthians 7:13–

14). It may be objected that by this means the believer exposes himself or herself to the danger of idolatry. Not so: God protects those who call upon Him, who do not thrust themselves into danger but bear the hardship into which their calling has brought them.

Again, if the unbelieving party entices the other and uses every means, fair or foul, to draw him or her to idolatry, the believer may withdraw for a time and omit certain marital duties; for this is as if the unbelieving party had departed. In truth, the party is said to depart in whom the cause of departing lies; so in the Church, the schismatic is the one who causes the schism, not necessarily the one who separates.

It is further objected: "A Christian may not become a member of a harlot; much less should one be made one flesh with an idolater, since idolatry is a great sin." The cases are not alike. The fornicator

consents to fornication; the believing spouse, in rendering the duties of marriage, does not thereby consent to the idolatry of the unbelieving spouse. The fornicator willingly joins himself to a harlot; the believer would rather be yoked with a believer and not with an infidel.

Lastly, it is asked: "If divorce is lawful for adultery, why not for idolatry, which is spiritual adultery?" I answer: no sin, considered simply as sin and not breaking the marriage covenant, is of itself a proper cause of divorce. It is not every kind of idolatry, but the sin of adultery, that breaks the marriage bond.

How Many Ways the Word "Son" or "Child" Is Used in Scripture Thus far I have explained the meaning of the commandment, "Keep yourselves from idols." I now turn to the reason for the commandment, found in the term babes or little children. In Scripture, the word child is applied to those who are in some manner inferior to others, and it is used in ten distinct senses.

First, those who descend from others by blood or natural generation are called children—a matter so plain as to need no proof.

Second, those in the direct line of descent are termed children. Christ said to the Jews, "Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness" (John

6:49), though that event occurred fifteen hundred years earlier.

Likewise, He said, "You build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed" (Luke 11:47), though those murders had taken place five hundred years before. Thus a widow is as a parent to her nephew

(1 Timothy 5:4), and even those who descend by a collateral line may be reckoned as children.

Third, subjects are called children. David addresses Saul as "my father, O king" (1 Samuel 24:11). In like manner, Abimelech is called

both father and king.

Fourth, successors in right of inheritance are named children.

Jeconiah, though childless, is said to have begotten Salathiel, because Salathiel, as the next heir of David's line, succeeded

Jeconiah in the kingdom of Judah (Jeremiah 22:30; Matthew 1:12).

Fifth, those guided by the counsel of others are called children, as when Joseph said, "God has made me a father to Pharaoh" (Genesis

45:8).

Sixth, servants are sometimes termed children, as Naaman's servants said to him, "My father, if the prophet had commanded you a great thing, would you not have done it?" (2 Kings 5:13).

Seventh, younger men and women, in respect to their elders, are regarded as children. Paul instructs, "Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a father" (1 Timothy 5:1).

Eighth, those under the care or guardianship of others are called children. Thus, when Christ commended His mother to John, He said, "Behold your mother," and to her, "Behold your son" (John

19:26). Job likewise declares, "I was a father to the poor" (Job 29:16).

Ninth, those who learn from others are termed children. Jubal is called "the father of all who play the harp and organ" (Genesis 4:21).

Tenth, scholars and disciples are called the sons of their teachers.

Elisha cried, "My father, my father!" to Elijah (2 Kings 2:12).

Similarly, King Joash addressed Elisha with the same words (2 Kings 13:14). Paul says to the Corinthians, "You have many instructors, but not many fathers" (1 Corinthians 4:15), and to the Galatians, "My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you" (Galatians 4:19).

In this same sense, John calls all true believers my little children, signifying his tender affection and fatherly care for the universal

Church and for each believer individually. By this affectionate title, he seeks to press more deeply upon their hearts the commandment concerning idolatry, that it may be more diligently remembered and obeyed.

Having thus explained the reason for the command, I now earnestly exhort all who desire their own salvation to take it to heart and to persevere in obedience to the end. To this end, let them first consider the gravity of the sin forbidden. The prophet declares, "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry"

(1 Samuel 15:23). The greatness of this sin appears in two chief respects.

First, to erect any image of God is to abolish His majesty and glory.

Paul says, "The Gentiles changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things" (Romans 1:23). To attempt to represent the presence or majesty of a great monarch by the image of a beast—an ape wearing a crown and holding a scepter—would be an intolerable insult. How much greater, then, is the dishonor done to the infinite Majesty of heaven when men presume to portray Him under the likeness of any created thing.

Second, the worship of idols is in truth the worship of the devil, for it is instituted by him, according to his pleasure, in direct opposition to the will of God. Moreover, we must consider the vile attendants and consequences that accompany idolatry—namely, impurity and fornication. In divine judgment, those who give themselves to spiritual fornication are often abandoned to bodily fornication. Paul says that because the Gentiles dishonored God by idolatry, "He gave them up to uncleanness, to the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves" (Romans 1:24). When the Israelites turned from God to idols, they frequently fell also into unnatural sins. In Italy, for their idolatries, men are left to themselves—to tolerate brothels and abound in whoredom and impurity.

Third, those who worship idols cut themselves off from God and Christ, as has already been shown.

Lastly, the punishment of idolatry is double. For the soul, there is "its part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone" (Revelation

21:8); for the body, captivity or destruction. The Lord says, "Because they have provoked Me to jealousy with that which is not God, I will provoke them to jealousy with those who are not a people"

(Deuteronomy 32:21). Thus, in the latter days, the horsemen from the river Euphrates—that is, the Saracens or Turks—shall destroy

"those who worship idols of gold, and silver, and brass" (Revelation 9:20), namely, the idolaters of the Roman Church.

↑ Back to top