Bryan Cross on Trent and 1 Clement

Bryan Cross wrote:

The Tridentine bishops were quite aware of 1 Clement, and did not consider, for example, Canon 9 or Canon 24 (of Session 6) to be contrary to St. Clement’s teaching on justification.

I have asked Bryan what his evidence of this is.  My guess is that he just made this up. After all, the council of Trent ended 1563, and the discovery of the text of 1 Clement was made in 1627, when Cyril Lucar gave Codex Alexandrinus to Charles I (see Thomas Herron's, "Clement and the Early Church of Rome," p. 4).

If Bryan provides some evidence to me, I'll happily post it up here, so that the reader can compare it to what Herron says.

I can't say what Bryan imagines in his own head, only that I'm not aware of any factual basis for his assertion.  A lot of folks in Rome's communion imagine that the Tridentine fathers were eminent scholars who were intimately familiar with the fathers and were basing their views on a comprehensive understanding and appreciation of those works.  That wasn't the case. 

-TurretinFan

 UPDATE: Bryan responded:

My mistake. I was going from memory. It was St. Hilary (along with some other Church Fathers) who was discussed during the Sixth Session. The point still stands, however, that the Tridentine bishops were well aware of Church Fathers who wrote about justification by faith.

So, the point wasn't really about the Tridentine Fathers thinking that 1 Clement was consistent with their teaching? Interesting.  But what about the new claim?


Jedin states:

The Carmelite Vincent de Leone put the Fathers on their guard against a condemnation of the sola fide formula without supplementing it with an accurate explanation of its meaning, on the ground that it is also found, though in another sense, in the writings of many Fathers, for instance in those of St. Hilary of Poitiers, and in those of some other Catholic theologians.

Hubert Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, Volume 2, p. 245.

Is that the basis for Bryan's statement: “The point still stands, however, that the Tridentine bishops were well aware of Church Fathers who wrote about justification by faith”? Or is there something that shows a greater discussion and/or awareness on the part of the Tridentine fathers than that?  I have asked Bryan.  We will have to see what he's basing his new statement on.

Aquinas on Subordinate Authority

For Aquinas, the Scriptures have a uniquely authoritative place, as we've discussed elsewhere.  However, one of the key points on authority is the question of the idea of subordinate authority.  Aquinas does seem to place limits on papal power, but does Aquinas acknowledge that a subordinate authority can be disobeyed when higher law requires?

Thomas Aquinas indicates:

Objection 5. Further, religious are bound to obey their prelates. Now a prelate sometimes commands either all in general, or someone in particular, to tell him if they know of anything that requires correction. Therefore it would seem that they are bound to tell them this, even before any secret admonition. Therefore the precept does not require secret admonition before public denunciation.

...

Reply to Objection 5. A prelate is not to be obeyed contrary to a Divine precept, according to Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey God rather then men." Therefore when a prelate commands anyone to tell him anything that he knows to need correction, the command rightly understood supports the safeguarding of the order of fraternal correction, whether the command be addressed to all in general, or to some particular individual. If, on the other hand, a prelate were to issue a command in express opposition to this order instituted by Our Lord, both would sin, the one commanding, and the one obeying him, as disobeying Our Lord's command. Consequently he ought not to be obeyed, because a prelate is not the judge of secret things, but God alone is, wherefore he has no power to command anything in respect of hidden matters, except in so far as they are made known through certain signs, as by ill-repute or suspicion; in which cases a prelate can command just as a judge, whether secular or ecclesiastical, can bind a man under oath to tell the truth.

Latin Text:

Praeterea, religiosi tenentur suis praelatis obedire. Sed quandoque praelati praecipiunt, vel communiter omnibus vel alicui specialiter, ut si quid scit corrigendum, ei dicatur. Ergo videtur quod teneantur ei dicere etiam ante secretam admonitionem. Non ergo est de necessitate praecepti ut secreta admonitio praecedat publicam denuntiationem.

...

Ad quintum dicendum quod praelato non est obediendum contra praeceptum divinum, secundum illud Act. V, obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus. Et ideo quando praelatus praecipit ut sibi dicatur quod quis sciverit corrigendum, intelligendum est praeceptum sane, salvo ordine correctionis fraternae, sive praeceptum fiat communiter ad omnes, sive ad aliquem specialiter. Sed si praelatus expresse praeciperet contra hunc ordinem a domino constitutum, et ipse peccaret praecipiens et ei obediens, quasi contra praeceptum domini agens, unde non esset ei obediendum. Quia praelatus non est iudex occultorum, sed solus Deus, unde non habet potestatem praecipiendi aliquid super occultis nisi inquantum per aliqua indicia manifestantur, puta per infamiam vel aliquas suspiciones; in quibus casibus potest praelatus praecipere eodem modo sicut et iudex saecularis vel ecclesiasticus potest exigere iuramentum de veritate dicenda.

Citation: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Section Part, Question 33, Article 7, Objection/Answer 5 (Latin text)

Notice that Thomas discusses the obedience of a religious person to their prelate. Thomas is distinguishing here between a person in their secular role - in which they owe obedience to princes - and their religious role - in which they owe obedience to prelates. Thomas indicates that the obedience to the prelate is to be subordinate to their obedience to God. While Thomas does not develop this, employing such subordinate authority requires the religious person to interpret the Word of God and to judge whether obedience to the prelate conflicts with obedience to God.

Thomas provides a similar example in the case of human laws: 

But one may not be subject to a power in two ways. One may not be subject to a power in one way because one is absolutely free from subjection to the power.  And so those belonging to one political community or kingdom are not subject to the laws of the ruler of another political community or kingdom, since such persons are not subject to that ruler's dominion.  One may not be subject to a power in a second way insofar as one is ruled by a higher law. For example, a person subject to a proconsul ought to be ruled by the proconsul's commands but not regarding matters from which the emperor exempted the person.  For regarding the latter, a person directed by a higher command is not bound by the command of an inferior power. And so those absolutely subject to the law may not be bound by the law regarding matters about which they are ruled by a higher law.

Treatise on Law (in Summa Theologica), On the Power of Human Laws (ST Q 96), Fifth Article, Answer (Richard J. Regan, translator)

And Thomas seems to draw a close parallel between secular government and church government:

Sometimes the inferior power emanates in its totality from the superior, in which case the entire potence of the former is founded upon the presence of the latter, so that obedience is due to the higher at all times and without exceptions. Such is the superiority of the Emperor's power over that of the the Proconsul [quoted from St. Augustine]; such that of the Pope over all spiritual powers in the in the Church, since the ecclesiastical hierarchies are ordained and disposed by him, and his power is in some manner the foundation of the Church as it appears from Matthew 16. Hence we are required in all these things to obey him rather than the bishop or archbishop and to him the monk owes obedience in preference to his abbot. But two powers may be such that both arise from a third and supreme authority, and their relative rank then depends upon the will of this uppermost power. When this is the case, either one of the two subordinate authorities controls the other only in those matters in which its superiority has been recognized by the uppermost power.  Of such nature is the authority exercised by rulers, by bishops, archbishops, etc., over their subjects, for all of them have received it from the Pope and with it the conditions and limitations of its use.

II Sent. 44, explanation of the text (as provided in "The Political Ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas," p. xxxv, Dino Bigongiari, ed.)

- TurretinFan

Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ and John Calvin

There is not any doubt that Calvin taught that we are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ (see Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 13, and Book 4, Chapter 14).  Moreover, in general it seems that most Reformed historians conclude with Francis Turretin that Calvin taught that specifically the active obedience of Christ, and not only his passive obedience, is imputed to believers.

Nevertheless, since the question of whether Calvin taught that the active obedience of Christ is imputed to believers, I thought I would provide a link to Cornelius Venema's careful treatment of the matter (link to pdf), in contrast to certain rash treatments of the matter that exist.

The very short answer is that the "active/passive" distinction is a later development, but Calvin's doctrine with respect to imputation is more consistent with the imputation of active obedience, because he distinguishes between imputation of righteousness and forgiveness of sins, and because he treats all of Christ's obedience as indispensable.

- TurretinFan

Steve Rays' Reasons

Steve Ray, now a Roman Catholic, formerly a Protestant congregant attempted to answer some questions about why he decided to trust the Papal see:

I explained my reasons for converting to the Catholic Church in my book Crossing the Tiber and on my Conversion CD. Here I provide a few of the quotations that had an impact on my decision. It is far from a complete list.

In fairness to Steve, this particular post is not going to deal with the particular sample quotations - and even the quotations may not have been the complete reason. The point of this point is to address some of the generalities.

As an Evangelical Protestant, echoing the words of Baptist Preacher Charles H. Spurgeon, I cared about what the Holy Spirit revealed to me, but had little regard for what he had revealed to others, especially those in the first centuries--some who knew the apostles personally.

With all due respect, now that Steve is Roman Catholic he STILL cannot have much regard for what the Holy Spirit revealed to other men: Steve is bound by dogma to accept the declarations of his church without regard to whether they were taught by the fathers. Steve has turned over his judgment to the truth, he has not gained liberty to evaluate the fathers freely.

Most curious is his "some who knew the apostles personally." There are no extant writings of Christians that are positively attributable to people who knew the apostles personally. There are the "Epistle of Barnabus" (attributed sometimes to Paul's companion) and "The Shepherd of Hermas," (attributed to a very early Christian or heretical writer) but the only accounts outside of Scripture that are remotely reliable as to the words of first century Christians who knew the apostles would come from the second hand words of 2nd century Christians.

I was convinced that the earliest Christians were basically “Protestant“ in their theology and practice and only became corrupted with “Catholic stuff“ in later centuries. I thought Protestants had the claim to authentic continuity back to the apostles.

Well, that depends what you consider "Catholic stuff." Some "Catholic stuff" entered very early, while other "Catholic stuff" like indulgences, prayers to departed believers, use of icons and idols for worship, papal infallibility, and the bodily assumption of Mary arose later - in some cases much later (try finding documentation of papal infallability more than a century before Vatican I).

But I was very mistaken and the more I studied the early Fathers of the Church, starting with Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, (disciples of Peter and Paul), Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and others, I became convinced the early Church was Catholic. Intellectual honestly and spiritual integrity forced me to become a Catholic. As the old maxim says: “The water is always cooler and cleaner as you draw closer to the source.” I had gone back to the early Church and the truth was clear and refreshing.

First, the maxim is untrustworthy: heresies sprang up immediately. The apostles, for example, had to deal with Judaizing within the first century, and possibly Gnosticism as well (John's gospel can be viewed as a direct response to the Gnostic heresies).

Second, the claim that Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome were personally familiar with the apostles is open to reasonable doubt: the historical evidence of such personal familiarity is far from persuasive. There is, however, evidence of knowledge of the writings of the apostles - evidence of knowledge of the New Testament. 

For example, when Ignatius writes to the Ephesians, he quotes from Paul's epistle to the Ephesians (see Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 1, quoting from Ephesians 5:2) and Paul's epistle to the Corinthians (Id. Ch. 2, quoting from 1 Corinthians 1:10; and Ch. 18, quoting from 1 Corinthians 1:20).  Likewise, Clement writing to the Corinthians heavily relies on Old Testament Scripture, and likewise appears to reference New Testament Scripture (See 1 Clement 23, apparently combining James 1:8 and 2 Peter 3:3-4).

What is even more key is the fact that even though Ignatius of Antioch may have been ordained by one of the apostles or by men who know the apostles, in his letter the authority to which he appeals is uniformly the authority of Scripture.  He at one point quotes a saying of Jesus, but even this saying is found in the Gospels (See 1 Clement 13, providing the words found at Matthew 6:12–15 and 7:2 and Luke 6:36–38). 

More certainly could be said about the page at the link above.  There a number of quotations provided that doubtless are troubling to certain people, some of which I've addressed before, and most of which are addressed by (a) acknowledging that we are not carbon copies of the early church fathers, (b) recognizing that the church fathers were not all carbon copies of one another, (c) reading the fathers in context (perhaps I should have placed this first), and once we have adduced the true meaning of the fathers, if it disagrees with us, placing that matter before the bar of Scripture, which is the only infallible rule of faith and life.

Don't even get me started on the quotations from Luther.  I suspect my friend James Swan has already addressed those, as he has so many other attempted reliances on Luther by Rome's apologists.

-TurretinFan

Clement of Rome and Bryan Cross - Justification by Faith Alone or Faith and Works?

I'm glad that my friend Lane Keister recently highlighted the point that 1 Clement teaches justification by faith alone. The author of 1 Clement (whether Clement is the author or the scribe is an open question) does clearly indicate that justification is by faith alone, and by faith to the exclusion of works of holiness.

The contemporary Roman response to this (and Bryan Cross's response is illustrative of this category) is the same as their response to Paul's similar clear teaching to the Romans (the ancient Romans) and the Galatians. That response is to attempt to divide justification up into parts, suggesting that initial justification could be by faith alone in some sense, while suggesting that final justification is by faith and works.

There are major and minor problems associated with this response. First, neither Paul nor the author of 1 Clement make this distinction. Second, Paul in Galatians denies this tactic: "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:3)

Next, notice that in their responses, Rome's advocates invariably go to places where the author doesn't mention justification. Bryan, to take an example, goes to Romans 5:5 and 1 Clement 12, 49, 50, 10 and 31, none of which mention justification.

The author of Clement does actually refer to the word justification in another place, and one in which he speaks about justification by works. The naive reader may be wondering whether Bryan has just overlooked this passage. No, there's a good reason that Bryan does not go there. In that place, the author is using the term justification the way James does:

Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. “For God,” saith [the Scripture], “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. For [the Scripture] saith, “He that speaketh much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who liveth but a short time: be not given to much speaking.” Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hateth those that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers. Boldness, and arrogance, and audacity belong to those that are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness to such as are blessed by Him.

(1 Clement 30)

In that place, the author of Clement is describing justification in the eyes of others. The author suggests that we should seek to be justified by our deeds as opposed to our words - much like the man in James who claims to have faith, but doesn't show it by works.

But let's turn to the passages that Bryan cites. First, let's look at Chapter 12. Bryan cites the first line, but let's look at the whole thing:

On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved. For when spies were sent by Joshua, the son of Nun, to Jericho, the king of the country ascertained that they were come to spy out their land, and sent men to seize them, in order that, when taken, they might be put to death. But the hospitable Rahab receiving them, concealed them on the roof of her house under some stalks of flax. And when the men sent by the king arrived and said “There came men unto thee who are to spy out our land; bring them forth, for so the king commands,” she answered them, “The two men whom ye seek came unto me, but quickly departed again and are gone,” thus not discovering the spies to them. Then she said to the men, “I know assuredly that the Lord your God hath given you this city, for the fear and dread of you have fallen on its inhabitants. When therefore ye shall have taken it, keep ye me and the house of my father in safety.” And they said to her, “It shall be as thou hast spoken to us. As soon, therefore, as thou knowest that we are at hand, thou shall gather all thy family under thy roof, and they shall be preserved, but all that are found outside of thy dwelling shall perish.” Moreover, they gave her a sign to this effect, that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet thread. And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God. Ye see, beloved, that there was not only faith, but prophecy, in this woman.

The first point to note is that the author of Clement is describing the instrument of Rahab's salvation from the destruction of Jericho. He's not saying she was justified from her sins by a combination of faith and something else. Interestingly, this would seem to be Rahab's initial act. So, if hospitality is a good work added to faith, then this would mean that her initial justification was not by faith alone. What an absurd result, even on Roman terms!

But note the spiritual lesson that the author of Clement derives. He actually states that she illustrates that redemption flows from the blood of Christ to all who "believe and hope in God." When he comes to applying her physical salvation to spiritual salvation, her works are not in the picture - just her faith and hope in God. Yes, she places the thread in the window, but that thread for Clement illustrates Christ's blood, not her deeds.

The second passage that Bryan goes to (twice, actually) is chapter 49 to which we will append chapter 50, since it was also excerpted and is a related thought:

(49)Let him who has love in Christ keep the commandments of Christ. Who can describe the [blessed] bond of the love of God? What man is able to tell the excellence of its beauty, as it ought to be told? The height to which love exalts is unspeakable. Love unites us to God. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love beareth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing base, nothing arrogant in love. Love admits of no schisms: love gives rise to no seditions: love does all things in harmony. By love have all the elect of God been made perfect; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God. In love has the Lord taken us to Himself. On account of the Love he bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.
(50) Ye see, beloved, how great and wonderful a thing is love, and that there is no declaring its perfection. Who is fit to be found in it, except such as God has vouchsafed to render so? Let us pray, therefore, and implore of His mercy, that we may live blameless in love, free from all human partialities for one above another. All the generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, “Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves.” Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us. For it is written, “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not impute to him, and in whose mouth there is no guile.” This blessedness cometh upon those who have been chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Chapter 49 is a long praise of love and an exhortation for those who have love in Christ to obey the commandments of God. It is not an admonition to them to seek justification through observation of the commandments of God. Chapter 50, by contrast, is a suggestion to beg for love from God. While we are exhorted to love "so that through love our sins may be forgiven us," notice that it does not say "through our love." Notice as well that the author does not attribute the blessedness to the man who is most careful to keep the commandments, but rather to those chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Continuing in the order that Bryan picked, let's jump back to chapter 10:

Abraham, styled “the friend,” was found faithful, inasmuch as he rendered obedience to the words of God. He, in the exercise of obedience, went out from his own country, and from his kindred, and from his father’s house, in order that, by forsaking a small territory, and a weak family, and an insignificant house, he might inherit the promises of God. For God said to him, “Get thee out from thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, into the land which I shall show thee. And I will make thee a great nation, and will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shall be blessed. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” And again, on his departing from Lot, God said to him. “Lift up thine eyes, and look from the place where thou now art, northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, [so that] if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.” And again [the Scripture] saith, “God brought forth Abram, and spake unto him, Look up now to heaven, and count the stars if thou be able to number them; so shall thy seed be. And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” On account of his faith and hospitality, a son was given him in his old age; and in the exercise of obedience, he offered him as a sacrifice to God on one of the mountains which He showed him.

Notice that the author of Clement describes here how Abraham is recognized as faithful. He is recognized as faithful by his obedience. Moreover, a reward was given him for his faith and hospitality, but that reward was not justification, not is it eternal life, but a son in his old age.

Then following Bryan's hopping and skipping through 1 Clement, we come to chapter 31:

Let us cleave then to His blessing, and consider what are the means of possessing it. Let us think over the things which have taken place from the beginning. For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice. Jacob, through reason of his brother, went forth with humility from his own land, and came to Laban and served him; and there was given to him the sceptre of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Bryan seems to suppose that Abraham's blessing referenced here is either justification or eternal life, but that's not what 1 Clement says. Indeed, the blessings mentioned by Clement are largely temporal blessings. Abraham gets a son in his old age and Jacob gets a huge family. We see that it is not justification or eternal life that is in view, but other blessings when we look at the next chapter, chapter 32, which completes the thought:

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice how this chapter coming immediately on the heels of 31 undermines Bryan's claims. Notice that even when it comes to these great gifts, the author of Clement says it was not "for their own sake, or for their own works," taking back with one hand what he seemed to Bryan to give with the other hand. Moreover, it is at this very juncture that the author indicates that our justification is by faith alone.

It is remarkable how in his post Bryan tries to suggest that the question is about whether the author of Clement is talking about dead faith or not ("The question is this: Is he talking about about living faith (i.e. faith informed by the virtue of agape), or is he talking about dead faith (i.e. faith where there is not the virtue of agape)?"). One really wonders if Bryan seriously thinks that our position is that the author of Clement is suggesting that dead faith justifies. Of course, what Bryan means by "dead faith" and what we and James mean by "dead faith" are two different things. In Bryan's attempt to re-frame the question away from justification by faith, he has simply added an additional layer of imposed meaning on the author of Clement. The author does not here distinguish between "dead" and "living" faith - and certainly does not do so in the sense that Bryan's argument requires.

Moreover Bryan's argument relies on a mis-framing of the real question. The real question is not whether the author of 1 Clement viewed love as a virtue or as good works. After all, while Trent did argue that Faith must be accompanied by both Love and Hope (Chapter VII), Trent also positively stated that men are justified through the works that they do:
Chapter X:

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity."

And this erroneous understanding of James' epistle is irreformably made part of Rome's dogma in at least two canons:
On Justification:
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

What Rome anathematizes, we embrace - for it is the apostolic teaching of justification by faith alone apart from works. That's the real question - not the question of whether love is properly a virtue.

- TurretinFan

John Calvin vs. Cardinal Sadoleto

September 1, 1539, Calvin delivered a powerful blow to Roman apologetics of his day with his letter to Cardinal Sadoleto (Tony Pietrantonio recently provided an involuntary imitation of Sadoleto). What is interesting about the Calvin vs. Sadoleto dispute is that it begins from the topic of worship. Calvin states:

Therefore, Sadolet, when you uttered this voluntary confession, you laid the foundation of my defense. For if you admit it to be a fearful destruction to the soul, when, by false opinions, divine truth is turned into a lie, it now only remains for us to inquire which of the two parties retains that worship of God which is alone legitimate.

It is with great sorrow that we see some heirs of the Reformation squandering the legacy of legitimate worship of God, replacing it with all manner of will worship. Granted that it does not yet reach the extremes of Rome with its worship of idols of Mary, Angels, and the Saints, and the worship of them and of God by idols - the worship of bread as though it were God - and many other idolatries and blasphemies of like sort. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the purity of worship is something that is sadly too often missing in churches that are aimed at marketing themselves with popular music and other entertainment.

When it comes to doctrine, Justification by Faith takes a chief place, and Calvin's argument is excellent:

You, in the first place, touch upon justification by faith, the first and keenest subject of controversy between us. Is this a knotty and useless question? Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown. That doctrine, then, though of the highest moment, we maintain that you have nefariously effaced from the memory of men. Our books are filled with convincing proofs of this fact, and the gross ignorance of this doctrine, which even still continues in all your churches, declares that our complaint is by no means ill founded. But you very maliciously stir up prejudice against us, alleging that, by attributing every thing to faith, we leave no room for works.

I will not now enter upon a full discussion, which would require a large volume; but if you would look into the Catechism which I myself drew up for the Genevans, when I held the office of Pastor among them, three words would silence you. Here, however, I will briefly explain to you how we speak on this subject.

First, We bid a man begin by examining himself, and this not in a superficial and perfunctory manner, but to sift his conscience before the tribunal of God, and when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced upon all sinners. Thus confounded and amazed at his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self-confidence, groans as if given up to final perdition. Then we show that the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete. As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by his obedience, he has wiped off our transgressions; by his sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by his blood, washed away our stains; by his cross, borne our curse; and by his death, made satisfaction for us. We maintain that in this way man is reconciled in Christ to God the Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous mercy. When we embrace Christ by faith, and come, as it were, into communion with him, this we term, after the manner of Scripture, the righteousness of faith.

What have you here, Sadolet, to bite or carp at? Is it that we leave no room for works? Assuredly we do deny that, in justifying a man, they are worth one single straw. For Scripture everywhere cries aloud, that all are lost; and every mans’s own conscience bitterly accuses him. The same Scripture teaches, that no hope is left but in the mere goodness of God, by which sin is pardoned, and righteousness imputed to us. It declares both to be gratuitous, and finally concludes that a man is justified without works, (Rom. iv. 7.) But what notion, you ask, does the very term Righteousness suggest to us, if respect is not paid to good works ? I answer, if you would attend to the true meaning of the term justifying in Scripture, you would have no difficulty. For it does not refer to a man’s own righteousness, but to the mercy of God, which, contrary to the sinner’s deserts, accepts of a righteousness for him, and that by not imputing his unrighteousness. Our righteousness, I say, is that which is described by Paul, (2 Cor. v. 19,) that God both reconciled us to himself in Jesus Christ. The mode is afterwards subjoined -- by not imputing sin. He demonstrates that it is by faith only we become partakers of that blessing, when he says that the ministry of reconciliation is contained in the gospel. But faith, you say, is a general term, and has a larger signification. I answer, that Paul, whenever he attributes to it the power of justifying, at the same time restricts it to a gratuitous promise of the divine favor, and keeps it far removed from all respect to works. Hence his familiar inference -- if by faith, then not by works. On the other hand -- if by works, then not by faith.

But, it seems, injury is done to Christ, if, under the pretence of his grace, good works are repudiated; he having come to prepare a people acceptable to God, zealous of good works, while, to the same effect, are many similar passages which prove that Christ came in order that we, doing good works, might, through him, be accepted by God. This calumny, which our opponents have ever in their mouths, viz., that we take away the desire of well-doing from the Christian life by recommending gratuitous righteousness, is too frivolous to give us much concern. We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous. For, if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and, at the same time, Christ never is where his Spirit in not, it is obvious that gratuitous righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration. Therefore, if you would duly understand how inseparable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the Apostle teaches, (1 Cor. i. 30,) has been given to us for justification and for sanctification. Wherever, therefore, that righteousness of faith, which we maintain to be gratuitous, is, there too Christ is, and where Christ is, there too is the Spirit of holiness, who regenerates the soul to newness of life. On the contrary, where zeal for integrity and holiness is not in vigour, there neither is the Spirit of Christ nor Christ himself; and wherever Christ is not, there in no righteousness, nay, there is no faith; for faith cannot apprehend Christ for righteousness without the Spirit of sanctification.

Since, therefore, according to us, Christ regenerates to a blessed life those whom he justifies, and after rescuing them from the dominion of sin, hands them over to the dominion of righteousness, transforms them into the image of God, and so trains them by his Spirit into obedience to his will, there is no ground to complain that, by our doctrine, lust is left with loosened reins. The passages which you adduce have not a meaning at variance with our doctrine. But if you will pervert them in assailing gratuitous justification, see how unskillfully you argue. Paul elsewhere says (Eph. i. 4) that we were chosen in Christ, before the creation of the world, to be holy and unblameable in the sight of God through love. Who will venture thence to infer, either that election is not gratuitous, or that our love is its cause? Nay, rather, as the end of gratuitous election, so also that of gratuitous justification is, that we may lead pure and unpolluted lives before God. For the saying of Paul is true, (1 Thess. iv. 7,) we have not been called to impurity, but to holiness. This, meanwhile, we constantly maintain, that man is not only justified freely once for all, without any merit of works, but that on this gratuitous justification the salvation of man perpetually depends. Nor is it possible that any work of man can he accepted by God unless it be gratuitously approved. Wherefore, I was amazed when I read your assertion, that love is the first and chief cause of our salvation. O, Sadolet, who could ever have expected such a saying from you? Undoubtedly the very blind, while in darkness, feel the mercy of God too surely to dare to claim for their love the first cause of their salvation, while those who have merely one spark of divine light feel that their salvation consists in nothing else than their being adopted by God. For eternal salvation is the inheritance of the heavenly Father, and has been prepared solely for his children. Moreover, who can assign any other cause of our adoption than that which is uniformly announced in Scripture, viz., that we did not first love him, but were spontaneously received by him into favor and affection?

Your ignorance of this doctrine leads you on to the error of teaching that sins are expiated by penances and satisfactions. Where, then, will be that one expiatory victim, from which, if we depart, there remains, as Scripture testifies, no more sacrifice for sin? Search through all the divine oracles which we possess; if the blood of Christ alone is uniformly act forth as purchasing satisfaction, reconciliation, and ablution, how dare you presume to transfer so great an honor to your works? Nor have you any ground for ascribing this blasphemy to the Church of God. The ancient Church, I admit, had its satisfactions, not those, however, by which sinners might atone to God and ransom themselves from guilt, but by which they might prove that the repentance which they professed was not feigned, and efface the remembrance of that scandal which their sin had occasioned. For satisfactions were not regularly prescribed to all and sundry, but to those only who had fallen into some heinous wickedness.

You can (and really should) read the whole letter here (link to letter). It is excellent.

-TurretinFan

Genetic Anomalies Due to Inbreeding?

A reader (I'll live him anonymous for now, unless he wants credit) wrote:

Reading last May's "Where is the Promise of Christ's Coming?" , the question came to me: how do we square the facts of closely-related "inbred" lines in genealogy with the Biblical fact that all of humanity descends from Adam via the eight of the Ark?

We know from the condition of the Habsburgs that such close relations lead to deformities and even mental incapacity (Charles II) over the span of less than 500 years of that family's history. Has humanity overall been preserved from this biological fact which interbreeding seems to engender over long periods of time? Was this simply a curse of God on the Habsburgs?

How do the 8 saved in the ark translate to the ~7 billion of today with such varied racial characteristics? It seems contradictory.

First, the Bible does indicate to us that human lifespan has dramatically decreased from the multiple century lifespans before the flood to the sub-century typical lifespans after the flood, and even today. Whether this is due to genetic corruption from an early period of "in-breeding" or whether it is due to changes in the Earth's protection from solar radiation associated with the Great Flood (something I've heard AiG types suggest), there has been some significant change to human life.

While I understand what you mean by "racial characteristics," it needs to be recognized that categories like "race" are largely conventional. Typically, pronounced physical differences are associated with relatively isolated groups. This isolation does tend to reinforce particular physical characteristics that are less common outside the group.

An example that most people may think of is the Pygmy people group, while the blue skinned people would be another less well known example. In God's providence, neither of those groups ever got large enough to be referred to as a "race," but the basic principle is the same.

Thus, "in-breeding" (very loosely defined) of each group may help to explain the very distinctive appearance of Europeans as compared to sub-Saharan Africans, peoples of the Indian sub-continent, and far-east Asians (to take some examples).

The Bible explains that at Babel language confusion resulted in dispersion of people from the tower. Moreover, in the days of Peleg the world was divided. This dispersion and division tended to have the result of people groups becoming more segregated and distinctive. It's not totally clear how uniform in appearance the pre-Fall humans were, but even if they were all quite similar in appearance to one another, this post-fall dispersion and segregation would be expected to produce groups with distinctive looks after a number of generations.

We all derive from one pair of adults (Adam and Eve), and also from a maximum of 8 grandparents (Noah and his wife and the in-laws of their three sons), all of which are descendants of that original pair. This led to some measure of marrying one's close relatives for a number of generations. However, over time this necessity decreased. Thus, by the time of Moses, there were prohibitions on marrying one's half sister, although only about seven generations earlier Abraham had married his own half-sister, though clearly there was already stigma associated with marrying a full-blooded sister at that time.

Why then are we not all then deformed? First, as the relationships become more distant, inbreeding does not invariably produce and emphasize harmful, recessive mutations. Second, the "survival of the fittest" principle applied to a large extent in pre-socialistic societies. Those with physical and/or mental defects would tend to remove themselves from the gene pool in a variety of ways. Thirdly, it is entirely possible that human genetics were not as prone to mutation before the fall, and that they only gradually became prone to mutation after the fall. For example, if the mechanism that produces a short life is also the mechanism that leads to harmful mutations, and if that mechanism is solar radiation, then it seems possible that there was no significant genetic risk to mutation before the fall.

A lot of this is, of course, speculation. God does not necessarily give us the answers to all these questions. We have no way of knowing whether the Hapsburg family was specially cursed by God, or whether their condition had some other purpose in God's plan. Whatever the answer to that question, since the history of man before and after the flood does not require men to marry their first cousins or full blooded sisters for many successive generations, the risks associated with in-breeding today among a population of 7 billion derived from an original pair is small.

-TurretinFan

Bayseian Probabilities Misused ... Exemplified

In this amusing post, Glenn Peoples (Update: Technically, the creative work is Tim McGrew's) lampoons Richard Carrier's misuse of Bayseian Probability by turning his methods on - the existence of Richard Carrier (link to example). This misuse of "probability" is not confined to anti-supernaturalists like Carrier. We also see it among supernaturalists, from time to time.

-TurretinFan

H.T. Victor Reppert

Ehrman Spin Kicks Carrier in the Jaw

It seems safe to say that the Ehrman-Carrier fight is over. Ehrman very effectively demolished Carrier's attempt to criticize his work. There are a number of interesting things that Ehrman has to say, but most of all this is the water in which Ehrman can safely swim. Carrier plays directly into Ehrman's strengths, and Ehrman takes full advantage of Carrier's weakness.

Key points that Ehrman addresses:

1) Was Pilate a procurator (as referred to in the NT) or a prefect (as referred to in Tacitus)? Answer: both titles referred to the same position - in Judea, that post was referred to as prefect at the time Pilate held it, but within the apostolic era began to be referred to as procurator.
2) Did Tacitus refer to Jesus? Answer: Yes. Even the relative minority of Scholarship that questions this either (a) suggests that the passage is an interpolation from another (now lost) work of Tacitus, or (b) thinks that Tacitus himself was making a mistake.
3) Was Osiris a dying and rising god? Answer: No. While in some Osiris myth Osiris comes back, he comes back from Hades. This is not a bodily resurrection.
4) Did Paul think that Jesus was a person who lived just before Paul's conversion? Yes, and all the relevant sources support that. Ehrman has an amusing paragraph on this point:

Maybe I could have made this a bit more clear by saying that the view I was referring to could be found in “all our sources from Paul’s time and in the decades that followed, not sources written 300 years later that have no bearing on Paul’s thinking.” But frankly, I didn’t think it was necessary since I went on to enumerate the sources that I was referring to. What I meant, of course, was that all of the relevant sources have this view.

I should add that Paul's reference at Galatians 1:19 to "James, the Lord's brother," as being someone he met, strongly suggests that Paul thought Jesus was a contemporary (as Albert McIlhenny recently pointed out).
5) Did the Romans keep scrupulous records of everything, such as births and deaths, in Judea? Answer: No. While there are some detailed records of this kind from Egypt, they were made by the indigenous population.

There was one embarrassing point for Ehrman. He remarks:

Carrier finds fault with my claim, about Earl Doherty, that he “quotes professional scholars at length when their view prove useful for developing aspects of his argument, but he fails to point out that not a single one of these scholars agrees with his overarching thesis” (p. 252). He points out that Doherty does in fact indicate, in various places throughout his book, that the argument he is advancing at that point is not accepted by other scholars. As a result, Carrier states, my claim is nothing but “falsified propaganda.”
I am afraid that in this case Carrier misses my point. It is true that Doherty acknowledges that scholars disagree with him on this, that, or the other thing. But the way he builds his arguments typically makes it appear that he is writing as a scholar among scholars, and that all of these scholars (with him in the mix) have disagreements on various issues (disagreements with him, with one another). One is left with the impression that like these other scholars, Doherty is building a tenable case that some points of which would be granted by some scholars but not others, and that the entire overall thesis, therefore, would also be acceptable to at least some of the scholars he engages with.

But this is a criticism that could similarly be leveled at Ehrman's own works, especially "Misquoting Jesus." Now, granted, it's probably not the case that Ehrman's work falls prey to this: "The reality, however, is that every single scholar of early Christianity that Doherty appeals to fundamentally disagrees with his major thesis (Jesus did not exist)." So, he's not fully in the same boat with Doherty, and it is only fair to point that out. He didn't quote exclusively from scholars who reject his major thesis.

I say that the Ehrman-Carrier fight is over. I stand by that. That doesn't mean that Carrier or his crew know that. As Ehrman predicts, they may continue to launch web based attacks. Truly, though, the battle is over. The knock-out kick has been delivered, and any ref would be pulling Ehrman off of Carrier in mercy.

-TurretinFan

Rhology Islamic Dialog / Debate

My friend Rhology engaged in a three part dialog with an imam, which is recorded. Interestingly, the imam suggested that Islam does not permit "debate," as such (mentioned near the beginning of the first part). I thought Rhology did a good job of highlighting some of the important issues. It was relatively low key and calm.

Part 1/3 - http://soundcloud.com/rhology/respect-dialogue-1-3
Part 2/3 - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26153629/Respect%20Dialogue%202%20of%203.mp3 (if you have a Mac: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26153629/Respect%20Dialogue%202%20of%203.aif )
Part 3/3 - http://soundcloud.com/rhology/respect-dialogue-q-a-3-3

-TurretinFan

Response to Bryan Cross on Penal Substitution

Bryan Cross has provided a significant number of posts in a comment box at the GreenBaggins blog, suggesting that somehow the doctrine of penal substitution is inconsistent with orthodox Trinitarian theology and/or orthodox Christology.

Bryan's argument was provided a variety of different ways with many different tangents, but Bryan's premises can be reduced to this:

1. Penal substitution requires Christ being punished by God.
2. Punishment requires a loss of communion between God and Jesus.
3. A loss of communion between God and Jesus means either that Jesus is two persons (one person who is God and one person who is man), that Jesus is not God, or that there are more gods than one. (Respectively, those positions would be identified as Nestorianism, Arianism, or Polytheism.)

Penal substitution requires Christ being punished by God.

We don't object to Bryan's first premise. Isaiah 53 teaches this. That chapter states:

Isaiah 53:3-12

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Christ was treated as though he was a sinner ("numbered with the transgressors") and specifically received this treatment from God ("it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief") and particularly as a result of attributing our sins to him ("the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all").

So, we agree with Bryan's first premise, namely that penal substitution requires Christ being punished by God. Moreover, we affirm that Scripture teaches this, something that Bryan (in this argument) does not dispute. One supposes that Bryan would dispute this point, but at least in the context of this argument he has not presented any exegetical reasons for doing so.

Instead, Bryan has attempted to argue that the conclusion conflicts with orthodox Christology and/or orthodox Trinitarian theology.  He argues this by first asserting:

Punishment requires a loss of communion between God and Jesus?

Bryan's second premise is ambiguous.  The term "loss of communion" can refer to a variety of different things.  Bryan was asked a number of times to clarify what he meant by "communion" a number of times, but he declined to provide any clarification.  We could reject Bryan's second premise on this ground alone.  We don't need to accept premises that have undefined and ambiguous terms, particularly because such terms can lead to equivocation when it comes time to draw conclusions from them.

Nevertheless, we can answer this premise by distinguishing.

Punishment of Jesus by God does not require a loss of communion in the sense of God and Jesus being actually at odds.  Jesus underwent the punishment of humiliation, including suffering and death, willingly.  It is written: "Saying, 'Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.'" (Luke 22:42) And again: "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." (Hebrews 7:27)  Had Christ been an unwilling victim, we might have said that the will of Christ and the will of God were at odds, but Christ submitted himself according to his human will to the will of God.

Thus, at a minimum, this premise is not true in every sense of the term "communion."

Bryan argued that punishment involves loss of communion in some sense, and that it is this loss of communion that primarily distinguishes punishment from discipline.  Bryan is wrong.  The primary distinction between punishment and discipline is the intent of the one inflicting the punishment or discipline.

In the case of punishment, the primary intent is to restore justice.  In the case of discipline, the primary intent is to improve the disciplined person.  It is worth noting that substitutionary punishment makes sense, while substitionary discipline largely does not.  One is reminded of the prince's "whipping boy" in The Prince and the Pauper.  While justice may be served by a man being flogged for a crime committed that merits flogging, in general the ill-behaving does not learn his lesson by another being flogged.

It is true that in the usual case, without substitution, there is typically an accompanying attitude of fundamental displeasure with the person being punished and an accompanying attitude of fundamental pleasure with the person being disciplined.  Thus, a father beats a son whom he loves, although of course the father does not love the son's behavior that led to the need for the beating.  If you are a modernist who thinks that beating children is immoral, read the Bible - but for the sake of this illustration just substitute "time out" for beating.

Hebrews 12:5-11

And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

Moreover, one can take the case of restitution as an example of retributive justice.  Justice can be served by the victim of theft receiving treble restitution for his losses, but that justice is served regardless of the source of the funds.  If those funds come from the criminal, they may have a disciplinary effect on the criminal, but even if they come from a substitute, they still make the injured person whole again.

Nevertheless, there is a sense in which communion, in the sense of felt favor of God, may have been lost.  While we need not be dogmatic about it, it is possible for Christ, on the cross, to have lost a sense or awareness of the presence and favor of God.  Christ was unaware, according to his humanity, of the day and the hour of the second coming.  Likewise, it was possible for him to be unaware, according to his humanity, of the pleasure and favor of God toward him for a time on the cross.

Such an absence of awareness of God's presence and favor is one of the penalties that produce suffering for those in hell.  Christ could undergo that same punishment in terms of suffering without actually losing God's presence or favor.   Therefore, if this falls within the ambit of "communion" in the sense that Bryan means, Christ may have undergone it on the cross.


Loss of Communion with God Implies Some Heresy or Other?

Bryan's third premise depends heavily on the sense in which he means "communion," a sense he's seemingly unwilling to disclose.  If Bryan is suggesting that punishment requires God the Father to stop loving the Son in every sense, then we simply disagree with Bryan's assertion.  Suggesting that God the Father stopped loving the Son in every sense is clearly wrong.

Likewise, it is wrong to state that the Trinity was somehow severed by the cross.  The intra-trinitarian communion was not damaged by the cross.  Indeed, Christ was unified in will with the Father and the Spirit in the purpose of the crucifixion.  If Christ and the Father were actually at odds, this would imply a serious error.

Furthermore, it is wrong to state that one person (Christ the God) was actually at odds with another person (Christ the Man).  Christ is one person in two distinct natures.  That means that Christ has two wills, but as one person Christ is unable to "commune" with himself, much less "lose" or "break" communion with himself.

On the other hand, Christ merely ceasing to be aware of God's presence or favor for a time on the cross according to his humanity does not imply any sort of heresy.  So, much hinges on what Bryan means by "communion."  Therefore, we cannot grant his third premise outright, just as we cannot grant his second premise outright.  Instead, we need to distinguish in each case.

- TurretinFan

Update: In the comment box, Bryan Cross denies that he holds to the second premise.  I've provided some documentation that seems to suggest he once advocated that premise.  Nevertheless, he recently continued the argument in the comment box by alleging that the essence of hell punishment in particular is loss of communion with God.   Even with this modification, the response above largely maintains.  A few parts may not be relevant, but the rest is.

Why Men Shouldn't Be Ordained?

I understand the purpose of the top-ten list at this link, identifying supposed reasons that no men should be ordained.  That is, the purpose is to take some of the arguments against women's ordination and try to turn them on their head.  Ultimately, the list ends up refocusing us on the real issue why men are to be ordained and women are not: Scripture teaches it.

So, while I doubt the post at "Christian Feminism" (think "Hindu Cannibalism" or "Muslim Alcoholism") was intended for the purpose of recentering the debate on women's ordination, it does serve that purpose.

While a lot of the mocked statements may be real reasons why it is imprudent for women to serve as elders, they are not ultimately the real reason: the real reason is that God has decided.

-TurretinFan

Benedict XVI and the Word of God

On April 20, 2012, Vatican Information Services reported a message from Benedict XVI to Cardinal Levada (the head of the CDF). Among the points found in the message were the following (as reported by VIS):

"Thanks to the charisma of inspiration", the Benedict XVI goes on, "the books of Sacred Scripture have a direct and tangible appeal. Yet the Word of God is not confined to writing, for although the Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, the revealed Word has continued to be announced and interpreted by the living Tradition of the Church. Thus the Word of God, fixed in the holy texts, is not an inert matter at the heart of the Church but the supreme rule of her faith and her life force. The Tradition she draws from the Apostles advances with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and grows through reflection and study on the part of believers, through the individual experience of spiritual life and the preaching of bishops".

Hence the need for deeper study on the theme of inspiration and truth in the Bible, because it is "fundamental for the life and mission of the Church that Sacred Scripture be interpreted according to its nature; and inspiration and truth are constituent characteristics of that nature".

First, note the denial that the Word of God has been confined to writing while acknowledging that Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Hopefully you've seen this Roman claim elsewhere. But where else is the Word of God to be found?

Benedict XVI refers to the "Tradition she draws from the Apostles," but the only tradition that is traceable to the apostles is Scripture. There is not a body of extra-scriptural tradition that can be reliably alleged to be apostolic. I do not mean to suggest that only us Christians lack that tradition. Even within the Vatican there is no access to earlier tradition. The Vatican Secret Archives don't contain notes from the Apostle Paul that are not in Scripture. The cardinals don't get together every year and hand on oral tradition from mouth to ear to the next generation of cardinals. In general, they have what we have.

Benedict XVI went on to claim that the apostolic tradition, "advances with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and grows through reflection and study on the part of believers, through the individual experience of spiritual life and the preaching of bishops." This is clearly wrong. What the Holy Spirit does is to preserve Revelation and to open the eyes of men to it. The Revelation is itself a fixed quantum. It does not grow, even if believers' understanding of it grows. The Holy Spirit has given believers great understanding over the ages, but that understanding is not itself Revelation, or a growth or advancement of the Revelation.

It is interesting to see Benedict XVI claim that "the Word of God, fixed in the holy texts, is not an inert matter at the heart of the Church but the supreme rule of her faith and her life force." That is true of Christians, where "the Word of God" refers to the Scriptures. It's not really true that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith for those in the Roman communion, however.

For those in the Roman communion, the magisterium's dogmatic proclamations are the supreme rule of faith. If one finds any discrepancy between the dogmatic proclamations of Rome and the Scriptures, one is to simply accept what Rome has dogmatically proclaimed. But Rome's dogmatic proclamations are not the Word of God. Therefore, it follows that Rome's supreme rule of faith is not the Word of God, but the word of the magisterium.

Benedict XVI goes on to say that it is "fundamental for the life and mission of the Church that Sacred Scripture be interpreted according to its nature ... ." But isn't it remarkable that Rome has found so few occasions for exercising its alleged gift of infallible interpretation of Scripture. How many verses have been infallibly interpreted? People have attempted to make lists, but the lists all tend to show the same result: not many. No whole chapters, and obviously no whole books.

Moreover, the few verses that have been interpreted in connection with allegedly infallible papal decrees have been wrongly interpreted (Genesis 3:15 is the most obvious example), so that defenders of papal infallibility have been forced to qualify the alleged gift to simply limit it to the definition of dogma itself, without regard to the interpretation on which it was actually founded.

-TurretinFan

Steve Hays vs. Peter Sean Bradley on Oral Tradition

My good friend Steve Hays has posted an interesting item in response to Peter Sean Bradley. The post emphasizes the interesting point that John records the fact that one of Jesus' sayings was either misreported or misinterpreted in the apostolic era among Jesus' own disciples.

The specific passage is

John 21:22-23
Jesus saith unto him, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, "He shall not die;" but, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

This underscores the vital importance of inspired Scripture. John's gospel has a credibility, because it is inspired Scripture, that we cannot give even to reports of people who were contemporaneous with Jesus and among the brethren. We see in this instance in John that even at this early period oral tradition was failing to provide reliable tradition.

That should be something of a problem for those who try to suggest that doctrine should be arranged like a stool sitting on the three legs of Scripture, Oral Tradition, and the Magisterium. The legs are not equal. Indeed, neither the magisterium nor oral tradition is reliable. Sitting on the stool proposed by Rome would be the calamity of anyone who sat on it, for two of the legs would break, and because the seat is not squarely centered on the leg of Scripture, the occupant of the seat would be unceremoniously deposited on the floor. Better to have a stool with a single leg, but which is inspired by God and able to thoroughly furnish the man of God. Better to rely only on the Word of God than to rely on the teachings and traditions of men.

-TurretinFan

Minority of IUers Make the Rest Look Bad

It's interesting watching hopelessly clueless college student "activists" trying to bully Doug Wilson at IU.

He does a great job of responding to them. *** Warning, Atheist Speech in the Video ***

-TurretinFan

A Curious Dilemma

A lot of American Presbyterians don't believe that the papacy is the Antichrist. In fact, the American revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith allow for both views (he is, and he is not). Confessional Lutherans, like Presbyterians who hold to the original WCF, consider the papacy/pope to be the Antichrist.

One might think that on some semantic level this would qualify as "anti-Catholic," not in the usual sense of the term which implies some sort of hatred, hostility, or bigotry, but in the sense of being opposed to the Roman religion.

There's one blogger out there who has attempted to use a different meaning for "anti-Catholic," namely referring to someone who does not think that those in the Roman communion are necessarily Christians.

On the other hand, I've come across a Lutheran blogger (link) who has pointed out that in Lutheran theology (allegedly) the view is that Rome is a true church. I'm not sure whether the blogger goes so far as to say that all Roman Catholics are necessarily "Christians," but he seems to be saying "yes."

What an interesting dilemma! If you think that a Roman catholic actually needs saving faith in Christ in order to be a true Christian, you might be an "anti-Catholic" but you can hold that the pope is antichrist, and that many Roman Catholics are going to hell, but if you simply label them as "Christians," you would not be anti-Catholic.

Perhaps the real key here is that "anti-Catholic" has become largely a tool for describing hatred, hostility, or bigotry, rather than some kind of nuanced word.

-TurretinFan

Is Long Hair Shameful?

Steve Hays took issue with my objection that the Shroud depicts a man with long hair, which is consistent with medieval iconography but inconsistent with Paul's teaching regarding hair length.

1 Corinthians 11:14-15
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Steve asserts "i) It’s ironic that TFan contradicts Calvin's interpretation of 1 Cor 11:14:"  but then Steve provides a selection from Calvin that in no way contradicts my position that Paul taught that nature itself teaches that it is a shame to a man to have long hair.

Steven next argues, with support from a recent commentary, that "On that interpretation, Paul is simply referring to the social customs or social mores of that time and place, not what's intrinsically right or wrong. A matter of social decorum."  Again, even if this is fully correct, it merely limits Paul's claim to the 1st century era, which is the same era when Christ walked the earth, died, was buried, and rose again.

Indeed, ancient descriptions of the Jews describe them as having short hair styles:

For in his enumeration of all those nations, he last of all inserts ours among the rest, when he says, "At the last there passed over a people, wonderful to be beheld; for they spake the Phoenician tongue with their mouths; they dwelt in the Solymean mountains, near a broad lake: their heads were sooty; they had round rasures on them; their heads and faces were like nasty horse-heads also, that had been hardened in the smoke.

 (Josephus, Against Apion, Book I, Section 22)

This same account quoted as a description of the Jews in Eusebius' Gospel Preparations, Book 9, Chapter 9:

"Next passed a nation wondrous to behold,
Whose lips pronounced the strange Phoenician tongue;
Upon the hills of Solyma they dwelt
By the broad inland sea. Rough and unkempt
Their close-cropped hair, and on their heads they wore
The smoke-dried skin flayed from a horse's face."

Moreover, one way that the Romans distinguished themselves from the barbarians (the Greeks were not viewed as barbarians, I should point out) was by having closely cut hair:

In general, Greeks and Romans considered long hair to be typical of barbarians; thus, the new Gallic provinces subdued by Julius Caesar came to be called Gallia comata. Romans, on the other hand, were supposed to cut their hair short.

From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms (ed. Thomas F.X. Noble), "Telling the Difference: Signs of Ethnic Identity," by Walter Pohl, p. 117.

But after the introduction of barbers into Italy about B.C. 300 it became the practice to wear their hair short.

Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Sir William Smith, under coma p. 330.

The social decorum issue alluded to by Steve's source is one of looking like a homosexual. 

While there are statues from Corinth with males wearing long hair, Gill points out that these are usually male deities. It should also be noted that the only others depicted wearing long curly hair were from the Facade of the Captives in the forum in Roman Corinth. To portray these men wearing their hair thus was the way the Roman conquerors indicated that all the men in the facade were 'weak', i.e., captives of the mighty Roman army. It implies that they were 'soft' or 'effeminate'.

After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change, by Bruce W. Winter, p. 132.

In other words, long hair suggested passive homosexuality in the cultural milieu. That was a shameful thing as taught by "nature itself," whether Paul is equating traditional custom with "nature" here is not really the issue.

Steve goes on: "I think it highly unlikely that Paul would make Roman hair style an absolute standard for Jews. After all, Romans were pagans who subjugated the Jews. They were the enemy. The oppressor. The idolater. Hardly a model of morality or piety."

Steve is working from the assumption that short hair was only a Roman custom.  The evidence from Josephus suggests it was also a pre-Roman Jewish custom.  Moreover, the customs of Corinth were Roman-influenced, no doubt, but the people of Corinth were Greeks.

It's not totally surprising the Paul might think that Roman customs represented the outworking of natural law.  After all, Paul was a Roman citizen.  Paul does not treat Rome as the enemy, the oppressor, or inherently as idolatrous.

Moreover, short hair in the Roman world could only very loosely be associated with idolatry (some sources refer to a practice of cutting off a teens pigtail/ponytail and offering it as a sacrifice to a river god upon coming of age).

Instead, short hair is sexual identifier - something highly consistent with God's law, which requires sexual distinction in appearance:

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

So, it is fully consistent that Paul would admonish the Corinthians not to have men with women's hair length.

Steve continues: "iii) A more serious problem with TFan's position is that if men with long hair is inherently shameful, then that contradicts the Nazirite vocation in Num 6:5:"

Steve's argument conflates the issue of absolute moral impropriety and shamefulness.  For example, Adam and Eve were naked in the garden and were not ashamed.  Moreover, we have the example of prophets who prophesied in the nude:

1 Samuel 19:24
And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?

None of this suggests that nakedness is or should be normal behavior.  Likewise, nothing suggests that a perpetual Nazirite vow is or should be normal behavior.

Steve doesn't suggest that Jesus had a Nazirite vow, but considering that he took the cup at the Last Supper, and Nazarites did not drink from the fruit of the vine, we can be sure Jesus was not under a Nazarite vow.

Steve continued: "Moreover, TFan implicitly makes Paul a hypocrite, for Paul himself took a Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18). In that event, his statement in 1 Cor 11:14 is self-incriminating–if we accept TFan's interpretation."

Actually, Acts 18:18 does not say that Paul had a Nazirite vow, just that Paul had a vow.  Moreover, it does not say that Paul let his hair grow excessively long, but rather that he shaved his head.  One might conclude that Paul's hair had become long by reason of the vow, but the text does not actually say that.

Moreover, the length of hair after taking a vow does show a measure of shame on the person who is slow in performing his vow.  In other words, if one vows to do "X" and promises not to shave his head until it is performed, then one's hair length begins to be a testimony against one.

We likewise have no reason to suppose that Jesus was under any particular vow that would have dictated that he wear his hair long in view of non-performance of the vow to date.

Steve concludes: "At this rate, TFan may need several gallons of turpentine to escape from the corner he's painted himself into (vis-à-vis long hair)." But actually, it seems that the only problems arose from Steve interpreting Paul's rule regarding hair as an absolute moral imperative, as opposed to what Paul actually said, which was that long hair on men is shameful, according to nature itself.

-TurretinFan

Two Examples of the Guilt by Association Fallacy

The first comes from Mark Shea (trying to defend Cardinal Pell), who tries to associate a literal understanding of Scripture with Atheistic and Fundamentalist advocates (and them with each other).  The second comes from my dear friend Steve Hays (trying to respond to something I wrote) who tries to associate a particular argument with naturalism in the form of the non-overlapping magesteria of Stephen Jay Gould and philsophical naturalism with the example of Bart Ehrman. Ultimately, both posts serve a similar rhetorical purpose.  "You say X, but that sounds just like the bad guys."

The exceptionally bright reader has already noticed that this post does the same thing, by associating Steve Hays with Mark Shea (or vice versa, if you are in a mirror universe where Mark Shea is a good guy).  Of course, I'm employing that device while calling attention to it, for the deliberate purpose of making the point that this sort of rhetoric is really a fallacious appeal.


As for Steve's points, Steve states:

I’m not clear on what TFan means by this. On the face of it, it bears a startling similarity to methodological naturalism or Gould’s nonoverlapping magisteria. Unbelievers frequently tell us that “by definition,” supernatural events can’t be historically or scientifically confirmed.

It's surprising that Steve does not know what I mean by what I wrote (in this earlier post).  I mean just what I said.  I didn't say that by definition supernatural events cannot be historically or scientifically confirmed.  I said that "The shroud could be the artifact of a supernatural process, and there is no way that this hypothesis could be completely ruled out, because it is not as though supernatural activity would leave any tell-tale marks."

Steve then states:

Moreover, it’s common for Christian philosophers to infer supernatural causes from natural effects. Consider the many versions of the cosmological and teleological arguments. Or the argument from religious experience. Or intelligent design theory. Or the argument from miracles. Or the argument from prophecy.

Is it TFan’s position that we can never infer supernatural agency from experience? What about answers to prayer? Can we never infer that God answered our prayer?

It seems that Steve's questions are mostly about positions I haven't taken.  For example, my post does not take a position regarding whether we can ever infer supernatural agency from experience - my post does not deal with answers to prayers, or whether we can infer that God answered our prayer (whether by supernatural or natural agency).

Likewise, my post does not deal with the cosmological or telelogical arguments or the argument from religious experience, or intelligent design theory, or the argument from miracles or the argument from prophecy.

In fact, my post doesn't address those things at all.  I may have opinions about all those things, but I don't express my opinion about them in the post.

In short, there is little relationship between Steve's comments and what I actually wrote.  This is explained by Steve's point that he did not understand what I meant.  Nevertheless, it does not lead to me providing much by way of rebuttal, except to say that no - I don't agree with Bart Ehrman, even though I would agree with some of his criticisms (the good, valid ones - even rascals can make good criticisms sometimes) of Craig's evidentialism.

But to clarify, since I should do my best to help my good friend Steve understand what I wrote, methodological naturalism has limits as to what it can establish.  Methodological naturalism, also referred to as science, can only provide or eliminate natural explanations of phenomena.  Methodological naturalism can (and did) prove that Jesus was dead, and it can (and did) prove that Jesus was alive at a later time.   It cannot explain the resurrection itself - the way Jesus got alive, because the resurrection was supernatural.  Thus, methodological naturalism could (and does) provide premises that lead one to infer a supernatural resurrection.

If the Shroud had existed in the 1st century (which it definitely didn't), if it had been used to cover Jesus' body (which it definitely wasn't), and if the resurrection had produced the image (which we can be sure it did not) it would have been hypothetically possible for an observer to use methodological naturalism to examine an ordinary shroud beforehand and a shroud with an image on it afterwards.  These premises might lead to an inference that the resurrection produced the image.  But methodological naturalism cannot explain how such an image was produced, if it was not produced naturally.

Likewise, methodological naturalism could have demonstrated that the linen of the shroud was very ancient linen (in fact, it demonstrated that it was medieval linen), but it could not have demonstrated that the image on the shroud was supernaturally produced.  Such would simply have been an inference that people might draw.

All that scientific investigation of the shroud can do is tell us what the shroud is, and how it became what it is through natural processes, if it came to be through natural processes.   Much like science could only determine that the risen Jesus was first really dead and then really alive and well, not that he was supernaturally resurrected.

What's missing from Shroud advocates is a credible inferential argument from historical or scientific evidence.  The death and resurrection of Christ has multiple contemporary eyewitnesses.  There was scientific examination of the body after death (spear to the side) and after resurrection (demonstration of food consumption).  The shroud doesn't have any eyewitnesses.  No one can testify who made it or when it was made.


-TurretinFan

Mark Driscoll and Liberty University

Apparently Mark Driscoll is a commencement speaker for Liberty University (see the discussion here).  Some people are making a big deal about this.  Where were those same people when Liberty University had Mormon Glenn Beck speak at commencement two years ago (link to video and discussion)? Complaining about Driscoll and not Beck is truly straining at gnats and swallowing camels, whatever Driscoll's ministerial or theological shortcomings may be - even if they are numerous (which I doubt).

Thomas Becon on the Second Commandment

The Catechism of Thomas Becon (Section on the Second Commandment) (Anglican, 1511 - 1567)

Father. Rehearse the second commandment.

Son. "Thou shalt make thee no graven or carved image, nor likeness at all of any thing that is in heaven above, or in earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not bow before them, nor worship them. For I the Lord thy God am a strong and jealous God, punishing the wickedness of the parents in the children until the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shew mercy until thousands unto those that love me, and keep my commandments."

Father. There are some writers, yea, and those of no obscure fame, (as I may speak nothing of the long custom used in the church, which hath utterly left out this commandment, and to supply the number hath divided the tenth commandment into two, that is, into the ninth and tenth, contrary to tho mind of the lawgiver, whose words, and the order also of the same, ought by no means either to be corrupted, altered, or changed,) which thrust out of the Decalogue or ten commandments this second commandment, as a ceremonial law, serving for the time, but now of none effect concerning us Christians, to whom it is, say they, lawful to have the images of Christ and of saints in churches, private houses, or elsewhere, without any offense or breach of God's commandment; and therefore, to supply the number of the ten commandments, they also divide, as I said before, the tenth commandment into the ninth and tenth, making of one two, according to the custom used in the pope's church.

Son. As touching the custom of reciting the ten commandments according to the appointment of the bishop of Rome, in the which is utterly omitted this second commandment concerning the forbidding either of making or worshipping of images, it cannot be denied but it is wicked and ungodly, and left out of the pope and of his adherents of a set purpose for the maintenance of images in churches, brought in by the devil and antichrist contrary to tho word of God; and therefore ought this custom utterly to be broken, and every commandment to be restored to his proper place, and so to be recited of the Christians, as it is now used in the best reformed churches.

And as for the judgments, or rather opinions and fancies, of certain learned men in this our age, which in this behalf remain still infected with the dirty dregs of that whore of Babylon, I can by no means approve and allow them. For whereas they say, that the second commandment concerning images is ceremonial, and only served for the people of Israel, and not for us, so that it is lawful for us to have images in our temples, chapels, houses, &c. notwithstanding this commandment; I utterly deny this their doctrine, and affirm it to be most wicked and utterly estranged from the truth of God's word. For if this law be ceremonial, and we set without the limits thereof, then followeth it, that as it is lawful for us to have images in our churches, so is it lawful also to reverence, worship, or honour them: which is so great an absurdity, that I think they themselves will not allow it, except they be sworn chaplains to pope Gregory III., which made a law, that images should not only be had in churches, as laymen's books, according to the doctrine of pope Gregory I., but that they also should be worshiped and had in greater reverence than ever they were before, and that whosoever were of a contrary opinion, he should be excommunicate and condemned for an heretic [FN1 In a council held at Rome, A.D. 732.  See Concil. Stud. Labbei. Lut. Par. 1671--2. Tom. VI. cols. 1463, 4, 85.]. For throughout the whole course of God's law there is not one commandment so fortressed and confirmed with the testimonies of the holy scripture, and so urged to be observed and kept of God's people, as this is, concerning the not having or worshiping of images. Therefore as the first, so likewise the second commandment abideth moral, and requireth like obedience. And whereas they exclude it from the number of the ten commandments, and rack that one tenth commandment into two for to supply the number, they do most unjustly, and contrary to the doctrine of the ancient fathers and old catholic doctors of Christ's church.

For as our catechist declared unto us, Athanasius, Origenes, Chrysostomus, Gregorius Nazianzenus, Hieronymus, Ambrosius, with divers other, both of the ancient and late writers, number this precept among the ten commandments; and hold that it is a moral law, no less appertaining unto us Christians now, than it did in times past unto the Jews. He said, moreover, unto us, that in the church of God among the Jews, in the old law, there was no image suffered neither of God nor of any saint; although who knoweth not, what a great number of godly persons there lived before the coming of Christ, both patriarchs, judges, kings, priests, Levites, prophets, matrons, virgins, &c.? He added furthermore, that, almost five hundred years after Christ's ascension, images could not be suffered to have any place in the temples of the Christians. He told us also an history of a certain holy bishop named Epiphanius, which, coming into a church to pray, saw a veil there hanging, wherein was painted the image of Christ, or of some saint. So soon as he saw it, being greatly offended thereat, he cut the image away, and said, that "it is contrary to the authority of the holy scriptures to have the image of any man in the church of Christ [FN2 ... Epiphan. Op. Par. 1622. Epist. ad Joan. Episc. Hieros. Hieron. Interp. Tom. II. p. 317.]." He told us moreover of one Serenus, bishop of Massilia [FN3 ... Gregor. Magni Papae I. Op. Par. 1705. Lib. IX. Indict. ii. Epist. cv. Ad Serernum Massiliens. Episc. Tom. II. col. 1006.], which did not only take away images out of the churches throughout all his diocese, but he also brake them on pieces, and brent them. He brought forth also unto us certain laws and decrees of most noble andvirtuous emperors [FN4 See below ...]; again, certain councils [FN5 See below ...], in the which it was decreed and enacted, that all images should be taken out of the churches and burnt openly; and that from henceforth no man should presume to make an image either of Christ or of any saint, nor cause it to be painted on the walls of the church where christian men come together for to pray. He alleged unto us the sentence of the great and ancient clerk Lactantius, which saith, that "God cannot be truly worshipped in that place where an image is [FN6 Quare non est dubium, quin religio nulla sit, ubicumque simulacrum est. -- Lactant. Op. Lut. Par. 1748. Divin. Instit. Lib. II. De Orig. Error. cap. xix. Tom. I. p. 185.]." Again: "If your saints (saith he), if the holy mother of Christ be in heaven, why do ye not lift up your eyes unto heaven? Why do ye rather look unto walls and unto stocks, than unto that place where ye believe that they are? What mean the temples, the tabernacles, yea, and (to be short) what mean those images[FN7 Nempe ideo timetis, quad eos esse in caelo arbitramini: neque enim, si dii sunt, aliter fieri potest. Cur igitur oculos in caelum non tollitis? et advocatis eorum nominibus, in aperto sacrificia celebratis? Cur ad parietes, et ligna, et lapides potissimum, quam illo spectatis, ubi eos esse creditis? Quid sibi templa, quid arae volunt? quid denique ipsa simulacra? -- Id. ibid. cap. ii. p. 116]?" In fine, he said, that the use of images came from the heathen unto us, and alleged Eusebius [FN8 ... Hist. Eccles. Script. Amst. 1695-1700. Euseb. Pamph. Lib. VII. cap. xvii. p. 216.] with certain other for his authors; and that therefore they ought by no means to be placed in the temples, chapels, oratories, or houses of the Christians.

Father. I can none otherwise but praise thee for thy good remembrance concerning the doctrine of your catechist, a man both godly and learned. But the imagemongers object and say, that they are laymen's calendars, and are the very same to the lewd, simple, and ignorant people, that books are to the wise, discreet, and learned men.

Son. What wisdom, knowledge, or learning can a man get of that thing which is a very block or stone, and utterly without sense? Can the dumb teach to speak? the blind to see? the deaf to hear? tho lame to go? the dead to live? Can that which hath no understanding, no wisdom, no learning, teach us to understand, to be wise and learned? O unprofitable schoolmasters! O rude teachers! O too much beast-like instructors! "They have mouths," as the psalmograph saith, "and speak not: eyes have they, but they see not. They have ears, and hear not: noses have they, but they smell not. They have hands, and handle not: feet have they, but they cannot go; neither can they speak through their throat." (Psal. cxv.) They are not able to wipe away the dust from their faces. They have sceptres and swords in their hands, but they are not able to defend themselves. They have candles brenning before them, but they see none of them, neither take they any pleasure of the light. If the house bren over their heads, they are not able to flee that they may escape the danger of brenning. If they fall down to the ground, they cannot rise up again. If any man striketh them, they cannot revenge their quarrel. If the worms eat them, they feel it not. If the owls, sparrows, doves, or any other fowls or beasts file [FN1 File: defile] upon their heads, they perceive it not, neither are they angry at the matter. In fine, they be utterly unprofitable both to themself and to all other; so far is it off, that such idle idols and mumming mawmets can teach us any good thing. By the lessest creature that ever God made may we learn better to know God than by these dumb images, seem they never so glorious in the eyes of the foolish.

"The heavens," saith David, "shew forth the glory of God; and the very firmament declareth his handy-works." (Psal. xix.) Hereto appertaineth the saying of St Paul: "That which may be known of God is made open to men. For God hath shewed it unto them, that the invisible things of God (that is, his everlasting power and Godhead) might be seen, while they are considered by the works from the creation of the world; so that they are without excuse, inasmuch as they knew that there is a God, and have not praised him as God, nor thanked him, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was blinded. When they counted themselves wise, they became fools, and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man," (Rom. i.) &c.

How unmeet a schoolmaster a blind idol, a dumb mawmet, a popish puppet, a dead image is to teach us any good thing, these words of the prophet declare manifestly: "What profiteth a graven image which the workman hath fashioned? a vain cast idol, and false lying image? Because the workman hath put his trust in it, therefore maketh he dumb images. But we be unto him which saith to a block, Awake; and to a dumb stone, Arise! Can such one teach, or give any good instructions? Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath in it. But the Lord in his holy temple is he whom all the world should fear." (Hab. ii.) The prophet Esay also saith, that "images are profitable for nothing;" (Isai. xliv.) and addeth moreover, that the labour in making them is utterly lost. How then can they be profitable to teach? How can they then be the books of the lewd people? "The seeking out of images," saith the wise man, "is the beginning of whoredom; and the bringing up of them is the destruction of life. But they were not from the beginning, neither shall they continue for ever. The wealthy idleness of men hath found them out upon earth: therefore shall they come shortly to an end." (Wisd. xiv.) If the seeking out of images be the beginning of whoredom, that is to say, idolatry, which in the scripture is called whoredom, how can we be taught and brought unto God by them? If the bringing up of them be the destruction of life, how can they then bring us unto everlasting salvation? and how can they edify us and teach us the way of truth? Vain and unprofitable schoolmasters are these blind and dumb images.

When God determined to erect and set up the commonweal of the Israelites, he gave them not his image to look upon, that by the sight thereof they might learn to know him and to do his will (no, he only spake to them, any similitude of him they saw not, lest by this means they should have gone about to make his image, and have committed idolatry or spiritual whoredom with the same); but he gave them his holy word, charging and commanding them to hear and read that diligently, and to write it upon the gates and posts of their houses, that it might be always before their eyes, that they might the better frame their fives according to the same, and do that which is pleasant in the sight of God.

The prophet Esay sendeth not them that want the knowledge of God and of his holy word unto idols, images, and mawmets; but he commandeth them to make haste unto the holy scriptures, saying: "To the law and witness; if they speak not according unto this, they shall not have the morning light." (Isaiah 8) The psalmograph calleth not them blessed, which stand all the whole day gazing and looking on images, to see what they can pick out and learn of them; but he calleth them blessed and happy, which "delight in the law of the Lord, and exercise themselves in the studying, reading, and hearing of that day and night." (Psalm 1) Again, he calleth not them blessed, which hunt and seek after images, but them which "search the testimonies of the Lord, and seek him with their whole heart." (Psalm 119)

Furthermore, Christ, our Lord and Saviour, commandeth all those that will come unto the true knowledge of him, not to behold images, but to search the scriptures, saying: "Search the scriptures; for they are those that testify of me." (John 6) He saith also: "My sheep hear my voice." (John 10) He saith not, My sheep look upon my image. Again: "He that is of God heareth the word of God." (John 8) He saith not, He that is of God beholdeth the image of the Trinity, or of the crucifix.

Moreover, when the wisdom of God was determined to call all nations of the earth unto the knowledge of the way of salvation, Christ commanded not painters and carvers to be set a work in making images throughout the world, that the people by beholding them may turn from their idolatry unto the worshiping of the true God; but he sent forth his apostles to preach the gospel to every creature, that they believing might be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (Matthew 28 and Mark 16) and so obtain everlasting salvation. For, as St Paul saith: "Faith cometh by hearing; but hearing cometh by the word of God." (Romans 10) We are made faithful by hearing and believing the word of God, and not by looking and tooting ("tooting" = praying, peeping.) upon images; which rather draw men from the true faith of God than allure them unto it; so far is it off, that they be meet schoolmasters to lead us unto God.

If the blessed apostle St John had thought images to be profitable books to bring men unto the knowledge either of God or of themselves, he would never have commanded us to "beware and to keep ourselves from images." (1 John 5) But he knew right well, that nothing doth so much pluck away the minds of men from the honour of the true and living God (as daily experience teacheth, and as we have manifestly seen under the kingdom of the pope in the time of darkness, when the people went on pilgrimage unto images, sought their salvation of them, gilded them, costly arrayed them, gave gifts unto them, set up brenning candles before them, kneeled before them, made vows unto them, prayed unto them, asked all good things of them necessary either for the body or for the soul, gave thanks unto them, censed them, imputed working of miracles unto them, yea, and honoured them as gods, rather going for help unto them with the feet of the body, than repairing unto the alone true helping God with the feet of the mind), as these dumb and deaf idols; and therefore he chargeth us above all things to avoid images, and by no means to have any thing to do with them, but to flee from them as from the plague and pestilence, yea, as from the devil and from everlasting damnation.

"Let them all therefore," as the psalmograph saith, "be confounded, and be brought unto utter confusion and shame, that worship carved idols, and glory in their images." (Psalm 97) And let us that fear God cast away all such fond fancies and doting dreams, and give diligent attendance to the hearing, reading, and preaching of God's word, and of that learn to know the way of salvation: so shall we be blessed, and come to the true knowledge of that alone true God and of his Son Jesus Christ; which thing bringeth unto us everlasting life, as the Lord himself saith: "This is everlasting life, even to know thee the alone true God, and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ." (John 17)

Father. Thou hast right well answered to the first and principal objection which the image-mongers make for the defense of their vain images, which doctrine they learned of pope Gregory I. as we have tofore heard (a reference to earlier in this same dialog). But they say moreover, that images are not only profitable books for the lewd people, but that they also move the beholders of them marvelously unto devotion and true godliness.

Son. This is so vain, as nothing is more vain; so false, as that which is most false; so foolish, as it may worthily be counted the self foolishness. Can that move unto devotion, which itself is without all motion and devotion? Can the dead corpse of a captain encourage the soldiers unto battle? Can a featherless eagle teach other birds to fly? Can a waterless whale teach other fishes to swim upon the dry land? No more ean these blockish idols, which are utterly without all senses, affects, and motions, move us unto devotion and unto the true worshipping of God, they themselves also being utterly godless, and most estranged from all that is godly. The holy apostle saith: "Neither he that planteth, nor yet he that watereth, is any thing worth; but the Lord God is altogether, which giveth the increase." (1 Corinthians 3) If neither the planter nor the waterer (whereby are understand the preachers of God's word) profit nothing, except God giveth the increase, that is to say, worketh with their preaching through the influence of his holy Spirit (which thing to be true, divers places of the holy scripture declare manifestly); what are images then able to do, which have mouths, and speak not; eyes, and see not; noses, and smell not; hands, and feel not; feet, and go not?

Father. But God is able, say they, to work no less with the beholding of images in the hearts of men, than with the preaching of his word. Son. What God is able to do, we will not dispute now; although I know this to be an old refuge of the papists, and a sanctuary unto the which they flee in all their straits.

But let them shew by the word of God, that the beholding of images is no less an ordinary way appointed of God to bring men unto the knowledge of God and unto everlasting salvation, than the preaching of the word is, whereof St Paul speaketh on this manner: "Faith cometh by hearing; but hearing cometh by the word of God." (Romans 10) The prophet David saith also: "I will teach the wicked thy ways; and the ungodly shall turn unto thee." (Psalm 51) Again: "The people, whom I knew not, have served me: through the hearing of the ear they were obedient unto me." (Psalm 18) And God himself saith by the prophet: "Like as the rain and snow cometh down from heaven, and returneth not thither again, but watereth the earth, maketh it fruitful and green, that it may give corn and bread unto the sower; so the word also, that cometh out of my mouth, shall not tum again void unto me, but shall accomplish my will, and prosper in the thing whereto I send it." (Isaiah 55) Again: "I will watch diligently upon my word, to perform it." (Jeremiah 1) Moreover, St Paul calleth "the gospel of Christ the power of God unto salvation for all that believe it." (James 1) And St James saith, that the word of God is of such efficacy,strength, virtue, might, and power, that "it is able to save the souls" (James 1) of so many as receive it with meekness. Saith not also the Lord Jesus on this manner, "Now are ye clean, because of the word which I have spoken unto you" (John 15)? Let the image-mongers prove by the holy scriptures, that the beholding of images worketh this conversion, this repentance, this faith, this newness of life, this salvation, &c, in the gazers of them, that the word of God doth in the faithful believers; and we will admit them, their doctrine, and images, and suffer them to have place in our churches. But this can they not do: therefore vain are they, vain is their doctrine, and vain are their images, yea, stumbling-blocks are they, thorns and pricks in the eyes of the simple, provoking rather unto abomination than unto devotion, unto wickedness than unto godliness, unto superstition than unto true religion, unto hypocrisy and idolatry than unto pure worshipping and serving of God, as experience hath heretofore taught us.

Again, our Saviour Christ saith: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14) If no man cometh unto the Father but by Christ, what help then images in this behalf? What make they unto the furtherance of true godliness and true religion? How move they unto devotion? Again, he saith: "No man can come unto me, except my Father draw him." (John 6) If no man can come unto Christ, except the heavenly Father draweth him by his holy Spirit, what profiteth then in this behalf the beholding of images? Are they of such inward working in the hearts of men, that they are able to convert them unto God, and to bring them unto Christ? Yea, they lead away men from Christ unto vain spectacles, from the living God unto dumb idols, from true religion unto wicked superstition; so far is it off, that they move any man unto godly devotion or devout godliness. It is the office of the Holy Ghost to bring us unto Christ, and not the part of dumb idols. The Holy Ghost is appointed of God to be our schoolmaster for to lead us into all truth, and not idle images and monstrous mawniets. To place images therefore in the temples of the Christians to this end, that they should be the books of the lewd people, or that they should move us unto devotion, is nothing else than to make the Holy Ghost, as they use to say, Jack out of office, and to place a rabblement of vile and abominable idols in the stead of God's Spirit to be the teachers and schoolmasters of the faithful. Perish mought all those vain mawmets from the face of the earth, with all such as glory and rejoice in them, that all the honour may be given to our Lord, that living God alone, whose name be praised for ever!

Father. Amen. But these image-mongers have yet another defense for their idols, and say, that images are to be placed in churches, if for nothing else, yet for the adorning, decking, trimming, beautifying, and garnishing of the temples: which temples otherwise, say they, are more like barns than churches.

Son. I answer with St Paul: "How agreeth the temple of God with images?" (2 Corinthians 6) What concord is there between God's service and idol-service? Can God be worthily called upon in that place where so many mawmets stand, contrary to the commandment of God? Can God be worshipped there in spirit and truth, where so many idols are seen, which have neither spirit nor truth? What garnishing of the church is this, to see a sort of puppets standing in every comer of the church, some holding in their hands a sword, some a scepter, some a spit, some a butcher's knife, some a gridiron, some a pair of pinsons (i.e. pincers), some a spear, some an anchor of a ship, some a shoemaker's cutting-knife, some a shepherd's hook, some a cross, some a cup, some a boot, some a book, some a key, some a lamb, some an ox, some a pig, some a dog, some a basket of flowers, some a crosier-staff, some a triple cross, some an arrow, some an horn, some an hawk, &c.; some bearded, some unbearded, some capped, some uncapped, some weeping, some laughing, some gilded, some painted, some housed, some unhoused (i.e. with or without housings, a ckind of stocking or boot), some rotten, some worm-eaten, some coated, some cloaked, some gowned, some naked, some censed, some perfumed, some with holy water sprinkled, some with flowers and garlands garnished, &c.?

But why do I tarry in reciting these vain trifles and trifling vanities, wherewith the churches of the papists are stuffed? I think verily, that in the temples of the old pagans there was never found so much vanity and so many childish sights, as there be at this present day in those churches which are under the yoke and tyranny of that bloody bishop of Rome. These vain idols therefore do not adorn, but deform; not polite, but pollute; not deck, but infect, the temples of the Christians, and make them of the churches of God the synagogues of Satan; of houses of prayer, the vile cages of all filthy and unclean birds. For, as we heard before, Lactantius, that ancient and noble clerk, affirmeth plainly, that "God cannot be truly worshipped in that place where an image is." (see reference given above)

The primitive church knew no such kind of beautifying and garnishing their temples: all things were then simple, plain, and homely, and altogether without such vain sights, which rather pluck away men's minds from God, than allure them unto the true worshipping of him. For as "God is a spirit, so will he be worshipped in spirit and in truth." (John 4) The more simply all things are done in the church of Christ, the better is God served: "for that which before men seemeth to be of great estimation is before God great abomination." (Luke 16) The temples of the Christians are then best garnished, when the people that are in them be gathered together in the unity of the Holy Ghost, with strong faith toward God, and with fervent love one toward another, to hear the word of God, to call on the name of the Lord, to thank him for his benefits, to eat the supper of the Lord, to make collections for the poor, and to exercise themselves in such works as are pleasant to God and profitable to the brethren. All other superfluous deckings and trimmings, as they be the daughters of foolish fancy, so likewise serve they rather the fond desires of carnal and superstitious people, than make any thing at all unto the true honour of the Lord our God, to whom alone be all glory for ever.

Father. Amen. Let these things suffice for this present concerning the objections of the image-mongers for the maintenance of their idols in churches, and to declare that this precept of not making nor worshipping images appertaineth no less now unto us Christians than it did in times past unto the Jews. But come off, tell me, what is the good pleasure of God in the second commandment?

Son. God, which is the searcher of the heart, and knoweth the corrupt, froward, and wicked nature of man, and how even from his cradle he is prone, bent, and wholly given unto all that is ungodly, and specially unto new, strange, and counterfeit worshipping of God, invented of his own idle brain, blind zeal, good intent, corrupt judgment, contrary to God's holy ordinance and appointment, (Deuteronomy 12) which willeth none otherwise to be served, honoured, and worshipped, than he himself hath prescribed in his blessed law; to bridle this evil and corrupt affection of man, and to keep him within the limits of his godly commandments, that he run not a whore-hunting after strange idols, but worship him according to his own appointment, and none otherwise, first of all in this his second commandment—forasmuch as nothing doth so alienate, estrange, and pluck away the heart of man from God and from all godliness, as idols, mawmets, images, and puppets, which be made and set forth before the eyes of the simple and unlearned people, to preach and represent unto them the majesty of God, which by no means can be counterfeit, seeing itself is both infinite and incomprehensible, and cannot be feigned nor set forth, no, not so much as shadowed by the art of man, although never so cunning either of graving or painting, in any corporal substance—chargeth and straitly commandeth his people, even so many as take him for their Lord and God, that they make no graven or carved image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, as the sun, moon, stars, &c.; or in earth beneath, as men, beasts, birds, worms, &c.; or in the waters under the earth, as fishes, and whatsoever liveth in the waters; lest by the making of such things they should go about after the manner of the heathen to counterfeit the majesty of God, and so, by beholding the same, at the last conceive an opinion on godhead and divine power to be in those images, and so fall to the worshipping of them, (as we read of divers nations both in God's and man's histories,) and by this means provoke God unto anger, which is both "a jealous God, and a consuming fire." (Deuteronomy 4)

Father. Is it not then lawful to make an image of God?

Son. By no means: for it is plainly forbidden of God in this second commandment.

Father. Are there no more scriptures in the holy bible, which bear witness of this thing?

Son. Yes, forsooth, very many.

Father. Recite part of them.

Son. Moses, that most excellent prophet of God, saith (Deuteronomy 4): "The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire. The voice of his words ye heard; nevertheless ye saw no image, but heard the voice only. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to do, namely, the ten verses, and wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at the same time to teach you his ordinances and laws, that ye might do thereafter in the land into the which ye go to possess it. Keep well your souls therefore, (for ye saw no manner of image in the day when the Lord spake unto you out of the fire upon mount Horeb,) that ye destroy not yourselves, and make you any image that is like a man, or woman, or beast upon earth, or feathered fowl under the heaven, or worm upon the ground, or fish in the water under the earth; that thou lift not up thine eyes toward heaven, and see the sun, and the moon, and the stare, and the whole host of heaven, and be deceived, and worship and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath created to serve all nations under the whole heaven."

Again: "Take heed unto yourselves, that ye forget not the covenant of the Lord your God, and that ye make no images of any manner of fashion, as the Lord thy God hath commanded. For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire and a jealous God. If when ye have begotten children, and childer's children, and have dwelt in the land, ye mar yourselves, and make you images of any manner of fashion, and do evil in the sight of the Lord your God to provoke him, I call heaven and earth to record over you this day, that ye shall shortly perish from the land into the which ye go over Jordan to possess it. Ye shall not dwell long therein, but shall utterly be destroyed."

Also in another place: "Ye shall not turn yourselves unto images, and ye shall make you no gods of metal; for I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 19) Item: "Thus shall ye do with those nations unto whom the Lord your God shall send you: ye shall overthrow their altars, break down their pillars, cut down their groves, and burn their images with fire. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thee hath the Lord thy God chosen, that thou shouldest be his own peculiar people from among all nations that are upon earth." (Deuteronomy 7) Again: "These are the ordinances and laws which ye shall keep, that ye do thereafter in the land which the Lord God of thy fathers hath given thee to possess, as long as ye live upon earth. Destroy all the places wherein the heathen, whom ye shall conquer, have served their gods, whether it be upon high mountains, upon hills, or among green trees. And overthrow their altars, and break down their pillars, and burn their groves with fire, and hew down the images of their gods, and bring the names of them to nought out of the same place." (Deuteronomy 12) Once again he saith: "Cursed be he that maketh any carved image, or molten idol (an abomination unto the Lord, a work of the hands of the craftsman), and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen." (Deuteronomy 27)

The prophet Esay also saith: "To whom will ye liken God? or what similitude will ye set up unto him? Shall the carver make him a carved image? and shall the goldsmith cover him with gold, or cast him into a form of silver plates? &c. Know ye not this? heard ye never of it? hath it not been preached unto you since the beginning? have ye not been informed of this since the foundation of the earth was laid, that he (God) sitteth upon the circle of the world, and all the inhabiters of the world are, in comparison of him, but as grasshoppers," &c.? (Isaiah 40)

God himself saith by the aforesaid prophet: "To whom now will ye liken me? and whom shall I be like, saith the Holy One?" Again: "Whom will ye make me like in fashion or image, that I may be like him? which take out silver and gold out of your purses and weigh it, and hire a goldsmith to make a god of it, that men may kneel down and worship it. Yet must he be taken on men's shoulders, and borne, and set in his place, that he may stand and not move. Alas, that men should cry onto him which giveth no answer, and delivereth not the man that calleth upon him from his trouble! Consider this well, and be ashamed. Go into your own selves, O ye runagates; remember the things which are past since the beginning of the world, that I am God, and that there is else no God, yea, and that there is nothing like unto me." (Isaiah 46)

The prophet Esay saith once again: "All carvers of images are but vain, and their labour lost. They must bear record themselves that, seeing they can neither see nor understand, they shall be confounded. Who should now make a god, or fashion an idol that is profitable for nothing? Behold, all the fellowship of them must be brought to confusion. Let all the work-masters come and stand together from among men: they must be abashed and confounded one with another. The smith taketh iron, and tempereth it with hot coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and maketh it with all the strength of his arms: yea, sometime he is faint for very hunger, and so thirsty that he hath no more power. The carpenter (or image-carver) taketh the timber and spreadeth forth his line: he maketh it with some colour: he planeth it: he ruleth it, and squareth it, and maketh it after the image of a man, and according to the beauty of a man, that it may stand in a temple. Moreover, he goeth out to hew down cedar-trees: he bringeth home elms and oaks and other timber of the wood, or else the fir-trees which he planted himself, and such as the rain hath swelled, which wood serveth for men to burn. Of this he taketh and warmeth himself withal: he maketh a fire of it to bake bread, and afterward maketh a god thereof to honour it, and an idol to kneel before it. One piece he burneth in the fire: with another he roasteth flesh, that he may eat roast his bellyful: with the third he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha! I am well warmed, I have been at the fire. And of the residue he maketh him a god, and an idol for himself. He kneeleth before it, he worshippeth it, he prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me, for thou art my God. Yet men neither consider nor understand, because their eyes are stopped that they cannot see, and their hearts that they cannot perceive. They ponder not in their minds (for they have neither knowledge nor understanding) to think thus: I have brent one piece in the fire; I have baked bread with the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh withal, and eaten it: shall I now of the residue make an abominable idol, and fall down before a rotten piece of wood? Thus he doth but lose his labour, and his heart, which is deceived, doth turn him aside, so that none of them can have a free conscience to think: May not I err? Consider this, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have made thee, that thou mightest serve me. O Israel, forget me not. As for thine offences, I drive them away like the clouds, and thy sins as the mist. Tum thee again unto me; and I will deliver thee." (Isaiah 44)

The prophet Jeremy saith also (Jeremiah 10): "They hew down a tree in the wood with the hands of the workman, and fashion it with the axe: they cover it over with gold or silver: they fasten it with nails and hammers, that it move not. It standeth as stiff as the palm-tree: it can neither speak nor go, but must be borne. Be not ye afraid of such; for they can do neither good nor evil. But there is none like unto thee, O Lord: thou art great; and great is the name of thy power."

God him[self] saith by the prophet Osee (Hosea 13): "Of their silver they make them molten images, like the idols of the heathen; and yet all is nothing but the work of the craftsman, &c. Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud, and as the dew that early passeth away, and like as dust that the wind taketh away from the floor, and as smoke that goeth out of the chimney. I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, that thou shouldest know no God but me only, and that thou shouldest have no Saviour but only me."

As I may at the last cease to gather the testimonies of the old testament, which both forbid and condemn the making of such images, as pluck the minds of men from the living God unto dumb mawmets, I would wish all men diligently to read and remember the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth chapters of the book of Wisdom, and the sixth chapter of the prophet Baruch; which lively paint and set forth in their true colours these images, idols, and mawmets, which many have in so great admiration, with all the vanities and abominations of them.

Father. Doth not also the new testament judge of images even as the old?

Son. Yes, verily. The Holy Ghost varieth not in his doctrine. Paul and Barnabas said unto the people: "We preach unto you, that ye should turn from these vanities (they speak of images and of image-service) unto the living God, which made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein." (Acts 14) St Peter [sic presumably for St. James] likewise said to the congregation of God: "My judgment is, that we trouble not them which from among the gentiles are turned to God, but that we write unto them, that they abstain themselves from the filthiness of images." (Acts 15) St John saith: "Babes, keep yourselves from images." (1 John 5)

Father. But come off, my dear child, tell me, Is it not lawful for the Christians in no condition to have images?

Son. There be some that so think, of whose judgment I am not. All such may worthily be resembled to the Turks, which, as they say, take this commandment of God so straitly, that they can by no means suffer any image to be made, no, not in profane and civil things.

Father. Is it then lawful in politic, civil, and worldly matters to have images?

Son. It is not forbidden, which thing we may right well be learned in that gospel (Matthew 22), where we read, that certain men came unto Christ, demanding of him, whether it were lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar, or not. Christ, willing them to shew him a piece of the money, asked, whose image and superscription that was which was graven on the coin? And when they said, "The emperor's," he answered, "Give unto the emperor that which is the emperor's, and give unto God that which is God's." We read not here that Christ did condemn the image that was graven in the coin, neither that he said, Cast away this money for the image sake; for it is unlawful even in civil and profane things to have images: but, to declare that the use of images in profane and worldly matters is not unlawful, ho approved the money, notwithstanding the image. And it is not to be doubted, but that money also, which he commanded Peter to take out of the fish's mouth, and to give it for tribute unto the emperor's officers, was also such money as was then customably paid to the emperor for tribute, having the emperor's image upon it. Again, the money, which the disciples of Christ carried about with them for their relief and for the comfort of the poor which followed Christ, was also without all doubt of that money which was coined with the image and superscription of the emperor. All these things declare manifestly that in politic, civil, profane, and worldly things the use of images is not unlawful.

Father. If in politic and worldly matters, why not also in divine and holy things?

Son. In the one is no peril; in the other, great danger, as we have learned too much by experience.

Father. Did not God command Moses, after that he had given this law concerning images, to make the brasen serpent, and to set it up in the wilderness for the people of Israel to behold? (Numbers 21)

Son. I grant. Notwithstanding, that was but a figurative image, serving for the time, prefiguring Christ, as we may see in the gospel (John 3), and therefore is now utterly abolished: as all figures, clouds, and shadows of the old testament vanished, when Christ, which is the very truth and light, came. Yea, long before the coming of Christ, that noble and godly king Ezechias (2 Kings 18), when he saw the people abuse this image, kneel unto it, honour it, and burn incense unto it, he threw it down and utterly destroyed it, although set up at the commandment of God: which thing he would never have done, if he had known that commandment of setting up the brasen serpent to be moral (for every moral law is the certain, undoubted, unchangeable, and everlasting will of God); but being well assured that it was but a ceremonial law, serving for the time, and a figure or shadow of a better thing to come, when he saw it abused, so that by that means the glory of God was obscured, yea, and that honour given to an image which alone is due to the living God, he plucked it down, burnt it, and utterly destroyed it. For this is diligently to be noted, that no particular commandment taketh away the virtue of a general or universal law, as this law of images is in the book of God.

Father. Thou holdest then, that although it be tolerable, yea, and lawful in politic and worldly things, to have images, yet in matters appertaining unto godliness and religion it is neither tolerable nor lawful.

Son. Not only I, but the holy fathers also of the primitive church were of that opinion, as we have tofore heard: "God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth." (John 4) Now, saith Lactantius, "God is never truly worshipped in that place where an image is" [see citation above]: which thing made that holy bishop St Epiphanius, when he saw an image in the church, to take it away, and to cut it in pieces, affirming, that it is contrary to the authority of God's word to have images in the church of Christ [see citation above]: which tiling also made many noble princes and holy bishops to give commandment, that all images of God, of Christ, of angels, and of saints, should be taken out of churches, and burnt openly, and from henceforth that no images should be made and brought into such places as christian men use to resort unto for to pray unto their Lord God: if any did presume to do the contrary, he should suffer such punishments as was appointed by the law for such and so grievous offenders [more discussion and source for this found below].

Father. If it be not lawful to make images for religion sake, then is it not lawful it is neither for us to honour and worship them, as the custom was, and yet is, in the pope's church.

Son. No, verily. For as God in this commandment saith, "Thou shalt make thee no graven image," &c.; so likewise saith he, "Neither shalt thou bow down before them, them nor worship them." (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5)

Father. Here then are we forbidden in the way of religion not only to make images, but also to worship them.

Son. Truth it is.

Father. Declare unto me by other scriptures also, that it is not lawful to worship images.

Son. God saith by his servant Moses: "I am the Lord your God: ye shall make you no idols, nor image in your land, to bow yourselves thereto. For I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 26) Moses also saith: "Beware, that thou make no covenant with the indwellers of the land, that thou comest into, lest they be the cause of thy ruin in the midst of it; but their altars shalt thou overthrow, and break down their gods, and root out their groves. For thou shalt have none other God, (for the Lord is called Jealous, because he is a jealous God ;) lest, if thou make any agreement with the indwellers of the land, when they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, they call thee, and thou eat of their sacrifice, and lest thou take their daughters unto thy sons to wives, and the same go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons to go a whoring after their gods also." (Exodus 34) Again: "Beware, that your heart be not deceived, that ye go aside and servo other gods, and worship them; and then the wrath of the Lord wax hot upon you, and he shut up the heaven that there come no rain, and the earth give not her increase, and ye perish shortly from the good land which the Lord hath given you." (Deuteronomy 11) Item: "If there rise up a prophet or dreamer among you, and give thee a token or wonder, and that token or wonder, which he spake of, come to pass, and then say, Let us go after other gods (whom thou knowest not), and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of such a prophet or dreamer. For the Lord your God proveth you, to wete, whether ye love him with all your heart and with all your soul. For ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and hearken unto his voice, and serve him, and cleave unto him. As for that prophet or dreamer, he shall die; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 13)

The psalmograph also saith (Psalm 97) : "Confounded be all they that worship carved images, and they that delight in vain gods." The wise man saith (Wisdom 14): "The honouring of abominable images is the cause, the beginning, and the end of all evil." God himself saith by the prophet Esay (Isaiah 42): "I am the Lord, this is my name. I will give my glory to none other, nor my honour to graven images." Hereto pertaineth the saying of St Paul: "Be not worshippers of images." (1 Corinthians 10) "For no worshippers of images shall inherit the kingdom of God:" (1 Corinthians 6) yea, as St John saith: "They shall have their part in that lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Revelation 21)

Besides these sentences of the holy scripture, which utterly condemn the honouring and worshipping of images, we have manifest examples in tho word of God of certain holy men, which did rather choose to suffer death, than they would serve, honour, or worship images. What a number of prophets and godly men did that most wicked woman, queen Jesebel, kill and murder, because they would not bow their knee to that foul idol, Baal! Read we not also in the book of Daniel the prophet (Daniel 3), that three young men did rather choose to be put into a fiery furnace, and there to be burnt unto ashes, than they would once fall down before the golden image at the commandment of king Nabuchodonosor? Was not this their answer to the king, "0 Nabuchodonosor, we ought not to consent unto thee in this matter. For why? our God whom we serve is able to keep us from the hot burning oven, O king, and can right well deliver us out of thy hands. And though he will not, yet shalt thou know, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor do reverence to the image which thou hast set up." Read we not again that B. & Dr. Daniel was commanded of the king to worship a certain image at Babylon called Bel I But Daniel answered and said, "I may not worship things that are made with hands, but the living God, which made heaven and earth, and hath power upon all flesh."

What shall I speak of all the holy martyrs which were in the primitive church, and many years after, that suffered most bitter torments, yea, and very death, because they would not bow down before images, and honour them?

Image-service is such and so great abomination not only before God, but also in the sight of all good men, that we read of certain noble princes, which could by no means abide such wickedness to be used in their kingdoms, and therefore utterly destroyed all those idols, images, puppets, and mawmets, that plucked away the people's hearts from the honour of the living God unto image-service. Read we not (2 Kings 18), that king Ezechias put away the high places, and brake down the pillars, and rooted out the groves, and brake the brasen serpent, which Moses had made? "For unto that time had the children of Israel burnt incense unto it." Read we not also (2 Kings 23), that king Josias destroyed and utterly took away the images and idols, and all the abominations which were seen in the land of Juda and at Jerusalem; and that he commanded all the vessels to be taken out of the temple, which were made for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven, and that he burnt them without Jerusalem in the valley of Cedron, and caused the dust of them to be carried unto Bethel? Again, that he did break down the altars which Manasses had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, and caused the dust of them to be cast into the brook of Cedron; and the altar at Bethel, and the high place that Jeroboam made, which both he destroyed and made them unto dust, and burnt up the grove, &c.?

Read we not, moreover (2 Chronicles 33), that the wicked king Manasses, because that he walked after the abominations of the heathen, builded the high places, which his father Ezechias had broken down, set up altars, made grevous [sic for groves], worshipped all the host of heaven, caused carved images and idols to be made and set up in the house of the Lord, shed much innocent blood, and did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, was taken of the host of the king of the Assirians, bound with chains, and so led away prisoner unto Babylon? Which Manasses being in trouble, after that he had humbled himself and prayed unto the Lord his God, his prayer was heard, and the Lord "brought him again to Jerusalem, even to his kingdom; so that Manasses knew that the Lord is God. Afterward put he away the strange gods and idols out of the house of the Lord, and all the altars which he had builded upon the mount of the house of the Lord, and in Jerusalem, and cast them out of the city, &c."

What shall I speak of Constantine the Great, of Leo III., of Valens and Theodoras, of Philip, of Constantine, &c, most noble and worthy emperors, and of Sabanus, king of the Bulgarians

[The following authorities may be adduced in regard to the princes above named:

Ἐπιτεινας ὁ ἔτι μᾶλλον ὁ Βασιλεὺς τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὁσίαν, διδασκαλίαν κατὰ τῆς εὶδωλολατρίας πλάνης τῶν πρὸ αὺτοῦ κεκρατηκότων τοϊς κατὰ πᾶν ἔθνος ἐπαρχεώταις κατέπεμπε. - Hist. Eccles. Script. Graec. Amst. 1695-1700. Euseb. Pamph. de Vit. Constant. Lib. II. cap. xlvii. p. 383.

Relatum est in veterum annalibus de Leonis Augusti imperio, et ejus moribus; quodque is Theodosio Imper. defuncto in Byzantio urbe, qua: Constantinopolis dicitur, factus imperator, edicto cavit, at omnes quidem sanctorum imagines, qua; in Christianorum fanis ac templis forent, abolerentur .... Sed libitum est verba ex libris Augustalibus referre, quo id totum melius innotescat; quoniam et Valens et Tbeodosius Augusti Imp. prafecto praetorio ad hunc modum scripserunt: Cum sit nobis cura diligens in rebus omnibus superni numinis religionem tueri, signum salvatoris Christi nemini quidem conredimus, coloribus, lapide, aliave materia fingere, insculpere, aut pingere. Sed quodcunque reperitur tolls jubemus, gravissima poena eos mulctando, qui cootrarium decrelis nostris et imperio quicquam tentaverint.—Petr. Crinit. De Honest. Discip. Lugd. 1585. Lib. ix. cap. ix. pp. 278, 9.

At Constantinus [Papa] habita synodo non modo Philippici et Joannis monachi opiniones improbat, rerum etiam decernit, ut sanctorum patrum imagines, qui sex conciliis ab omnibus probatis interfuerant, in porticu beati Petri depingerentur, cum intellexisset eas a Philippico e parietibus sanctae Sophiae ignominae: causa abrasas fuisse.—Plat. De Vit. Pont. Rom. Col. 1566. Constantinus I. p. 107. See also Cent. Eccles. Hist. Magd. Basil. 1560—74. Cent, IIII. cap. iii. col. 31.

Nam Leo anno imperii aui nono, consilio cujusdam nomine Beser, et episcopi Nacoliae, decretum promulgavit, ne in ulla ecclesia cujuslibet sancti, aut martyris, aut angeli imago habeatur.—Cent. Magd. ibid. col. 33.

Imperator [ConstantinusCopronymus] ergo edicta proponit quibus imagines adorari vetat: et synodi decreta suscipi jubet, et reliquias sanctorum igni tradit. —Id. ibid. col. 37.

Bulgares contra Sabinum regem suum arma capiunt, propter imaginum adorationem defendendam; quam ille, a Constantino imperatore et a recte sentientibus doctoribus persuasus, damnabat, et abolere nitebatur.—Id. ibid. col. 39. See also Paul. Diac. Hist. Miscell. Lib. xxi. capp. xvii. xviii. Lib. xxii. capp. xxiv. xxxix. Lib. xxiii. cap. vii.]

, with divers other godly princes, which all banished idols, images, or mawmets out of their dominions, and would by no means suffer them to be remaining in those places, where christian men resort and come together to pray; lest the people should fall from the honour of the one and alone true living God, and be allured unto tho vain worshipping of most vain images, and so heap the wrath and vengeance of God upon thorn, which as all sins, so likewise the sin and abomination of image-service, most highly doth detest and abhor? What shall I here rehearse the most godly and virtuous acts of the reverend and holy bishops, Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus [discussed above], and Sirenus, bishop of Massilia [also discussed above], and such like, which by no means could abide either images or image-service in their diocese? I pass over the most holy and christian councils, Agathense, Tolitane, Elibertine

[Placuit, pictures in ecclesia esse non debere; ne quod colitur.etadoratur, in parietibus depingatur. —Concil. Eliberit. in Concil. Stud. Labbei. Lut. Par. 1671-2. can. xxxvi. Tom. I. col. 974.

The 11th canon of the 12th council of Toledo is probably that intended by the author, in which we find: Cultores idolorum, veneratores lapidum, accensores facularum, et excolentes sacra fontium vel arborum admonemus.—Id. Tom. VI. col. 1234. See also the 2nd canon of the 16th council of Toledo —Id. ibid. col. 1337.

As respects the council of Agde, the canons, as printed by Labbe, do not seem to contain any thing to the point. Durandus, however, says: Concilium Agathen. de consec. distin. 3. cap. placuit, inhibet picturas in ecclesiis fieri, et quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingi.—Gul. Durand. Rat Div. Offic. Venet. 1609. Lib. i. cap. iii. 4. fol. 9. 2. But as these words are almost identical with the canon of Elvira, quoted above, Durandus was perhaps in error.]

, &c, which decreed that all pictures or images should be had out of the churches, and that nothing that is honoured or worshipped should be painted on the church-walls.

All these things heretofore rehearsed do evidently declare, what is to be thought both of images made for religion sake, and also of the worshipping and honouring of the same.

Father. Now, my good child, forasmuch as in this second commandment of God we are not only forbidden to make images, but also to bow down to them, and to worship them; tell me what is meant or understand by the bowing down unto an image.

Son. To bow down to, or before an image, which in Greek is προσκυνεῖν, and in the Latin adorare, is reverently with the body to fall down before it, to kneel unto it, to set it in a place where we use to worship God, to garnish it with costly array and precious jewels, to kiss it, to put off our cap unto it, and to shew any gesture of reverence outwardly unto it. All these things doth God forbid to be given to images in this his second commandment.

Father. Yet all these things are done to images in the pope's churches.

Son. Truth it is. For in divers popish books we read on this manner: "To all them that say this prayer following before the image of the crucifix, pitifully beholding the same, and devoutly kneeling upon their knees, are granted as many days of pardon, by divers popes of Rome, as be gravel stones in the sea, or grasses on the earth." [Bishop Burnet, in the Collection of Records appended to his History of the Reformation, has printed, Vol. II. Book i. No. 26, several extracts exhibiting the chief indulgences in the English offices. Among them are some which resemble that in the text, though not couched in precisely the same words.] Moreover, who knoweth not this to be a custom in the synagogues of the pope both on Good Friday, as they call it, and on Easter-day in the morning, to creep unto the cross, to kneel unto it, to kiss it, to offer gifts unto it, &c., while the priests and the clerks sing on this manner, Crucem tuam adoramus, Domine, &c. [The hymn thus commencing may be found repeatedly used in the Romish services. See Missale ad Us. et Consuetud. Sarum. Par. 1527. In die Parasc. fol. 89. 2. Also, In Invent. Sanct. Cruc. iii. Maii.; and In Exalt. Sanct. Cruc. xiv. Sept. See also Portifor. seu Breviar. ad Us. Eccles. Sarisbur. Par. 1510. In Exalt. Sanct. Cruc. &c. It is common in modern books of Romish worship.] "We worship thy cross, O Lord;" which is plain and manifest idolatry, and a work directly against the commandment of God?

St Ambrose writeth on this manner: "Helene found a title or superscription, but she worshipped the king, and not the tree; for this is an heathenish error, and the vanity of the ungodly; but she worshipped him that did hang on the tree, written in the title, &c." [Invenit ergo titulum, regem adoravit, non lignum utique; quia hic gentilis est error, et vanitas impiorum: sed adoravit ilium, qui pependit in ligno, scriptus in titulo.—Ambros. Op. Par. 1686—90. De Obit. Theodos. Orat. 46. Tom. II. col. 1311.] With what conscience then can the papists compel, as they do, the simple Christians to worship the cross, contrary to the doctrine both of the holy scriptures and of the ancient godly writers? This kind of worshipping required the devil at Christ's hand; but he answered (Matthew 4): "Avoid, Satan. For it is written (Deuteronomy 6), Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him alone shalt thou serve." This worship refused Simon Peter to be given unto him of Cornelius the centurion. (Acts 10) "Stand up," saith he, "I am a man also." This worship also refused the angel, when John fell down at his feet, and said unto John: "See that thou do it not. For I am thy fellow-servant, and one of thy brethren, and of them that have the testimony of Jesus. Worship thou God." (Revelation 19; 21) If the apostle of Christ and the angel of God refused to be worshipped with falling down before them, and with kneeling unto them, is it reason that this worship, I mean, kneeling and bowing of the body, should be given to dumb idols and vain images? "Confounded and put to utter confusion and shame mought all they be," saith the psalmograph (Psalm 96), "which worship," that is to say, kneel down before, "graven images," or do any outward reverence unto them.

Father. We are not only commanded of God in this his second commandment, that we should not bow down before any image, but also that we should not worship nor honour them. What is meant by worshipping or honouring of images?

Son. As by bowing down before an image is understand all outward reverence, which with our body we give unto it, whether it be by setting it in that place where we come together to honour God, as in churches, chapels, oratories, &c, or by kneeling unto it, or putting off our cap unto it, or garnishing it, or kissing it, &c.; so likewise by worshipping an image is meant to pray unto it, to offer gifts and sacrifices unto it, to go on pilgrimage unto it, to seek health, help, and salvation at it, to flee unto it in our necessities, to put our faith, hope, and confidence in it, and to make it, as I may so speak, a very God; which is plain idolatry and image-service.

Father. These things also are done at this present day in the kingdom of the pope.

Son. It is the more to be lamented. All good and godly men ought to study, unto the uttermost of their power, to banish these so great and grievous pestilences from the bounds of Christendom, that all the worship, honour, glory, and praise may be given to God alone, as he himself saith by the prophet: "I am the Lord: this is my name. I will give my glory to none other, nor my honour to graven images." (Isaiah 42) In the Acts of the Acts Apostles we read (Acts 14), that when the men of Lystra, with Jupiter's priest, brought oxen and garlands, and would have done sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas, because of the miracle that Paul wrought among them, in healing a man which was impotent of his feet, and a cripple even from his mother's womb, and cried out with a loud voice, saying, "The gods are become like unto men, and are come down unto us; calling Barnabas Jupiter, and Paul Mercurius, because he was the preacher;" the apostles rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying and saying: "Ye men, why do ye this? We are mortal men also like unto you, and preach unto you the gospel, that ye should turn from these vain things unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that therein is." If the apostles of Christ refused to be honoured, to have gifts and sacrifices offered unto them, &c, is it then seemly that such honour should be given to dumb images, idols, and mawmets? Neither outward worship nor inward honour ought to be given unto such vanities. "Blessed is that man," saith the psalmograph (Psalm 40), "whose hope, affiance, and trust is in the name of the Lord, and that hath not regarded these vanities and foolish fond fantasies." These image-mongers may justly be resembled to the priests of Baal, which called on the name of Baal from the morning unto the noon-day, and yet were not heard. (1 Kings 18) So likewise these new Baalites and idolaters, though they cry never so much upon these idols and images, yet shall they never be heard. "For they have ears and hear not, &c. They that make them are like unto them, and so are all such as put their trust in them. But let Israel trust in the Lord; for he is their succour and defence." (Psalm 115)

Father. Hitherto have we heard what the good will and pleasure of God is in this his second commandment, concerning images. Go forth now, and declare unto me that which followeth in this precept.

Son. The words that follow are these:

"For I the Lord thy God am a strong and a jealous God, punishing the wickedness of the parents in the children, until the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shew mercy until thousands, unto those that love me and keep my commandments."

Father. Why doth the Lord our God call himself "a strong God"?

Son. To declare that his divine majesty is so great, infinite, unmeasurable, and incomprehensible, so excellent and far passing the reach and compass of man's wit or reason, that it can by no means be expressed or set forth by any similitude, likeness, or image, that man can devise. For seeing that heaven and earth, and all that ever is contained in them, cannot represent God, much less are vile and vain images able to do this, which are made with man's hand, and have neither life nor moving, nor any thing at all that is like our most strong and mighty God, as both Esay and Baruch do right well testify (Isaiah 44; Baruch 6). He is also called a strong God, to declare that he is of sufficient might and power to help and to defend all those that put their trust in him, with whatsoever kind of adversity they be assailed; and that, as he is able, so likewise he will alway be present with his saving health unto all such as unfeignedly cleave unto him, refusing utterly all false gods, idols, images, mawmets, puppets, &c, and seeking their health and salvation both of body and of soul at his merciful hand only and alone.

Father. But why doth he call himself "a jealous God"?

Son. To declare that be by no means can abide that that glory which is due from us to him alone should be given to any creature, although never so excellent, either in heaven or in earth, much less to vain images, dumb idols, monstrous mawmets, and popish puppets; no, nor any part of that glory; as he saith by the prophet: "I am the Lord: this is my name: I will give my glory to none other, nor my honour to graven images." (Isaiah 43) As of God we receive all good things appertaining either unto the body or unto the soul, so likewise owe we unto God alone all our faith, love, fear, service, honour, glory, praise, &c, as Moses saith: "Thou shalt honour the Lord thy God, and serve him alone." (Deuteronomy 6; Matthew 4) And as a true wedded husband, that loveth his wife dearly, tendereth her above all creatures, resteth in her love only, rejoiceth and delighteth in her alone, cherisheth her, and maketh sufficient provision for her in all things, so that at his hand she hath abundantly all good things, yea, and that without any lack, cannot abide that his wife should give her love, or any part of her love to any other man, but to him alone; so in like manner cannot God suffer, which hath taken us to his spouse (Ephesians 5; Hosea 2), and married us unto him in faith, that we should set our love upon any other but upon him alone, of whom we receive all good things necessary both for body and soul (1 Corinthians 4; James 1), or that we should give the glory and praise of our salvation to any but to him alone. Therefore to declare how impatient he is of any rival or paramour, and how vehement his love is toward us, and how fervently again he requireth of us to be loved, he compareth himself to a jealous lover or husband, and us to a wife; signifying by this comparison how pure, chaste, and unspotted, yea, and utterly estranged from all other creatures, our love toward God ought to be. This perceived the psalmograph right well, when he said (Psalm 73): "Thou destroyest all them that run a whore-hunting from thee. But it is good for me to cleave hard to God, and to put my trust in the Lord God."

Father. What is it to run a whore-hunting from God?

Son. To forsake the Lord our God, and to follow creatures; to pluck our faith and love from God, and to give it unto strange gods; to seek health and salvation, remission of sins and everlasting life, at the hand of any, either in heaven or in earth, saving only at the hand of the Lord our God, which alone is the author, beginner, and finisher of our salvation. And to pluck us away from this whore-hunting and spiritual whoredom, which is nothing else than idolatry or image-service, he doth not only call himself a jealous God, but he also addeth, that he will punish the wickedness of the parents "in the children, until the third and fourth generation of them that hate him."

Father. What wickedness is that which God will so extremely punish?

Son. Every sin is wickedness. God will by no means suffer the transgression and breaking of his holy commandments unpunished: as it is written (Isaiah 5): "Wo be unto them that sin, and keep not my commandments, saith the Lord; for I will not spare them." Again (Deuteronomy 27; Galatians 3): "Cursed is every one which abideth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, that he may do them." And albeit all kind of sins do greatly offend the majesty of God, so that he will leave none of them unpunished; yet this sin of idolatry or image-service do most highly displease him: neither will ho by any means suffer the transgression and breaking of this second commandment, which forbiddeth idolatry and image-service, to escape without punishment, as divers histories of the holy scripture do manifestly declare. And therefore it is here to be noted by the way, that God calleth the idolaters, image-servants, or worshippers of strange gods, his enemies and such as hate him. Is it to be thought that such can escape unpunished? It is not therefore without a cause, that God, tendering our health and salvation, in this his second commandment forbiddeth both the making and worshipping of images. If we will avoid the worshipping of images, let us cease to make them, and place them in our temples, chapels, oratories, &c.; and so shall we easily escape from the danger of idolatry or image-service, which is so grievous an offence, and so wicked and abominable sin before the Lord our God, that he threateneth to punish it in the children of the idolatrous fathers, until the third and fourth generation.

Father. This seemeth to me very lamentable, that God should punish the wickedness of the parents in their children's children.

Son. This on this wise is to be understand. If the children of the parents, which were wicked idolaters, commit that same idolatry which their fathers have committed, and continue in the same wickedness wherein their forefathers have lived, then will God not only punish the parents which have so offended, but also their children, yea, and their children's children, which commit the like offence, yea, and that so much the more grievously, because they be the idolatrous children of idolatrous fathers, and have more pleasure to walk in the wicked steps of their most wicked fathers, than to give ear to the righteous laws of the most righteous God.

Father. But what if the parents he wicked and the children godly, as it sometime chanceth, and as we also find in the holy scriptures, shall the children notwithstanding be plagued and punished for their fathers' offences?

Son. God forbid. For it is written (Ezekiel 18): "The soul that sinneth shall die. If a man be godly, and do the thing that is equal and right (he eateth not upon the hills: he lifteth not his eyes up to the idols of Israel: he defileth not his neighbour's wife: he meddleth with no menstruous woman: he grieveth nobody: he giveth his debtor his pledge again: he taketh none other man's good by violence: he parteth his meat with the hungry: he clotheth the naked: he lendeth nothing upon usury: he taketh nothing over: he writhed with [writhed with = turned away] his hand from doing wrong: he handleth faithfully betwixt man and man: he walketh in my commandments, and keepeth my laws, and performeth them faithfully); this is a righteous man: he shall surely live, saith the Lord God. If he now beget a son that is a murderer and a shedder of blood; if he do one of these things (though he do not all); he eateth upon the hills; he defileth his neighbour's wife; he grieveth the poor and needy; he robbeth and spoileth; he giveth not the debtor his pledge again; he lifteth up his eyes unto idols, and meddleth with abominable things; he lendeth upon usury, and taketh moreover; shall this man live? he shall not live. Seeing he hath done all these abominations, he shall die: his blood shall be upon him. Now if this man beget a son also, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and feareth, neither doth such like; namely, he eateth not upon the mountains; he lifteth not his eyes up to the idols of Israel; he defileth not his neighbour's wife; he vexeth no man; he keepeth no man's pledge; he neither spoileth nor robbeth any man; he dealeth his meat with the hungry; he clotheth the naked; he oppresseth not the poor; he receiveth no usury, nor any thing over; he keepeth my laws, and walketh in my commandments; this man shall not die in his father's sin, but shall live without fail. As for his father, because he oppressed and spoiled his brother, and did wickedly among his people, he is dead in his own sin. And yet say ye: Wherefore then should not this son bear his father's sin? Therefore, because the son hath done equity and right, hath kept all my commandments and done them; therefore shall he live in deed. The soul that sinneth shall die. The son shall not bear the father's offences, neither shall the father bear the son's offence. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself; and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself also."

Of these words, which I have borrowed out of the prophet Ezechiel, is it plain and evident, that, although the parents be wicked and idolatrous, yet if their children be not polluted and defiled with the same wickedness and idolatry, but lovers of God, studious of his holy word, and diligent walkers in his laws and commandments; they shall be free from those plagues and punishments which their wicked and ungodly fathers have most justly deserved, and be no partakers of God's displeasure, indignation, and vengeance in this behalf. Therefore, where it is said that God will punish the wickedness of parents "in the children, until the third and fourth generation," it is to be understand of those children which, having wicked fathers, follow the steps of their fathers, committing the same wickedness which they tofore have committed, without repentance or amendment of life. The other, which are free from the wickedness of their parents, are also free from the curses and plagues of God, and be in the number of those which are mentioned in the end of this second commandment.

Father. What is that?

Son. "And shew mercy until thousands, unto those that love me and keep my commandments."

Father. What learnest thou of these words?

Son. Verily, that as God is righteous and severe in punishing the wicked doers, which transgress his commandments, so likewise is he merciful, gentle, and liberal to all such as love him, and study to frame their lives according to his holy word; as the apostle saith (Romans 2): "Unto them that are contentious, and not obedient to the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall come indignation and wrath, trouble and anguish, upon all the souls of men that do evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. But unto all them that do good (shall come) praise and honour and peace, unto the Jew first, and also the Greek. For there is no respect of persons before God."

Father. What is meant by this, that God, in plaguing the wickedness of the parents in the children, will only extend his punishment until the third and fourth generation, yea, and that none otherwise, except they follow the wickedness of their fathers, as we heard tofore; but in shewing mercy unto those that love him and keep his commandments, he saith, that he will extend and stretch forth his merciful kindness and The mercy of kind mercy until thousands, that is to say, infinite generations?

Son. This declareth unto us, that the mercy of God is greater than his anger, and that he is more bent to loving-kindness than to severe justice. And with this agreeth the saying of that blessed virgin Mary (Luke 1): "His mercy," saith she, "endureth throughout all generations upon them that fear him." The psalmograph also saith (Psalm 103): "The Lord is full of compassion and mercy, long-suffering, and of great goodness. He will not alway be chiding, neither will he keep his anger for ever. He will not deal with us after our sins, nor reward us according to our wickedness. For look how high the heaven is in comparison of the earth; so great is his mercy also toward them that fear him. Look how wide the east is from the west; so far will he set our sins from us. Yea, like as a father piticth his own children, even so is the Lord merciful unto them that fear him, &c. The merciful goodness of the Lord endureth for ever and ever upon them that fear him, and his righteousness upon their childer's children; even such as keep his covenant, and think upon his commandments to do them."

Father. We have largely talked of all things concerning this second commandment of God; whereof we have learned, that we ought to make no image of God, nor of any other thing for religion sake, nor yet give any adoration or worship to them, but serve the Lord our God "in spirit and truth;" (John 4) forasmuch as he is a spirit, and is chiefly delighted with spiritual things.