Chapter 12.
12. GOD DISTINGUISHED FROM IDOLS, THAT HE MAY BE THE EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF WORSHIP.
Sections.
- Scripture, in teaching that there is but one God, does not make a
dispute about words, but attributes all honour and religious
worship to him alone. This proved, 1st, By the etymology of the
term. 2d, By the testimony of God himself, when he declares
that he is a jealous God, and will not allow himself to be
confounded with any fictitious Deity.
- The Papists in opposing this pure doctrine, gain nothing by their
distinction of dulia and latria.
- Passages of Scripture subversive of the Papistical distinction,
and proving that religious worship is due to God alone.
Perversions of Divine worship.
1. True religion binds us to God as the one and only God
We said at the commencement of our work, (chap. 2,) that the
knowledge of God consists not in frigid speculation, but carries
worship along with it; and we touched by the way (chap. 5 s. 6, 9,
10) on what will be more copiously treated in other places, (Book 2,
chap. 8,) viz., how God is duly worshipped. Now I only briefly
repeat, that whenever Scripture asserts the unity of God, it does
not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that nothing which
belongs to Divinity be applied to any other; thus making it obvious
in what respect pure religion differs from superstition. The Greek
word "eusebeia" means "right worship;" for the Greeks, though
groping in darkness, were always aware that a certain rule was to be
observed, in order that God might not be worshipped absurdly. Cicero
truly and shrewdly derives the name "religion" from "relego", and
yet the reason which he assigns is forced and farfetched, viz., that
honest worshipers read and read again, and ponder what is true. I
rather think the name is used in opposition to vagrant license - the
greater part of mankind rashly taking up whatever first comes in
their way, whereas piety, that it may stand with a firm step,
confines itself within due bounds. In the same way superstition
seems to take its name from its not being contented with the measure
which reason prescribes, but accumulating a superfluous mass of
vanities. But to say nothing more of words, it has been universally
admitted in all ages, that religion is vitiated and perverted
whenever false opinions are introduced into it, and hence it is
inferred, that whatever is allowed to be done from inconsiderate
zeal, cannot be defended by any pretext with which the superstitious
may choose to cloak it. But although this confession is in every
man's mouth, a shameful stupidity is forthwith manifested, inasmuch
as men neither cleave to the one God, nor use any selection in their
worship, as we have already observed.
But God, in vindicating his own right, first proclaims that he
is a jealous God, and will be a stern avenger if he is confounded
with any false god; and thereafter defines what due worship is, in
order that the human race may be kept in obedience. Both of these he
embraces in his Law when he first binds the faithful in allegiance
to him as their only Lawgiver, and then prescribes a rule for
worshipping him in accordance with his will. The Law, with its
manifold uses and objects, I will consider in its own place; at
present I only advert to this one, that it is designed as a bridle
to curb men, and prevent them from turning aside to spurious
worship. But it is necessary to attend to the observation with which
I set out, viz., that unless everything peculiar to divinity is
confined to God alone, he is robbed of his honour, and his worship
is violated.
It may be proper here more particularly to attend to the
subtleties which superstition employs. In revolting to strange gods,
it avoids the appearance of abandoning the Supreme God, or reducing
him to the same rank with others. It gives him the highest place,
but at the same time surrounds him with a tribe of minor deities,
among whom it portions out his peculiar offices. In this way, though
in a dissembling and crafty manner, the glory of the Godhead is
dissected, and not allowed to remain entire. In the same way the
people of old, both Jews and Gentiles, placed an immense crowd in
subordination to the father and ruler of the gods, and gave them,
according to their rank, to share with the supreme God in the
government of heaven and earth. In the same way, too, for some ages
past, departed saints have been exalted to partnership with God, to
be worshipped, invoked, and lauded in his stead. And yet we do not
even think that the majesty of God is obscured by this abomination,
whereas it is in a great measure suppressed and extinguished - all
that we retain being a frigid opinion of his supreme power. At the
same time, being deluded by these entanglements, we go astray after
divers gods.
2. A distinction without a difference
The distinction of what is called dulia and latria was
invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be
paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. For it is plain
that the worship which Papists pay to saints differs in no respect
from the worship of God: for this worship is paid without
distinction; only when they are pressed they have recourse to the
evasion, that what belongs to God is kept unimpaired, because they
leave him latria. But since the question relates not to the word,
but the thing, how can they be allowed to sport at will with a
matter of the highest moment? But not to insist on this, the utmost
they will obtain by their distinction is, that they give worship to
God, and service to the others. For "latreia" in Greek has the same
meaning as worship in Latin; whereas "douleia" properly means
service, though the words are sometimes used in Scripture
indiscriminately. But granting that the distinction is invariably
preserved, the thing to be inquired into is the meaning of each.
"Douleia" unquestionably means service, and "latreia" worship. But
no man doubts that to serve is something higher than to worship. For
it were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to
reverence. It is, therefore, an unjust division to assign the
greater to the saints and leave the less to God. But several of the
ancient fathers observed this distinction. What if they did, when
all men see that it is not only improper, but utterly frivolous?
3. Honoring images is dishonor to God
Laying aside subtleties, let us examine the thing. When Paul
reminds the Galatians of what they were before they came to the
knowledge of Gods he says that they "did service unto them which by
nature are no gods," (Gal. 4: 8.) Because he does not say latria,
was their superstition excusable? This superstition, to which he
gives the name of dulia, he condemns as much as if he had given it
the name of latria. When Christ repels Satan's insulting proposal
with the words, "It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only shalt thou serve," (Matth. 4: 10,) there was no
question of latria. For all that Satan asked was "proskunesis",
(obeisance.) In like manners when John is rebuked by the angel for
falling on his knees before him (Rev. 19: 10; 22: 8, 9,) we ought
not to suppose that John had so far forgotten himself as to have
intended to transfer the honour due to God alone to an angel. But
because it was impossible that a worship connected with religion
should not savour somewhat of divine worship, he could not
"proskunein" (do obeisance to) the angel without derogating from the
glory of God. True, we often read that men were worshipped; but that
was, if I may so speak, civil honour. The case is different with
religious honour, which, the moment it is conjoined with worship,
carries profanation of the divine honour along with it.
The same thing may be seen in the case of Cornelius, (Acts 10: 25.) He had
not made so little progress in piety as not to confine supreme
worship to God alone. Therefore, when he prostrates himself before
Peter, he certainly does it not with the intention of adoring him
instead of God. Yet Peter sternly forbids him. And why, but just
because men never distinguish so accurately between the worship of
God and the creatures as not to transfer promiscuously to the
creature that which belongs only to God. Therefore, if we would hav
one God, let us remember that we can never appropriate the minutest
portion of his glory without retaining what is his due. Accordingly,
when Zechariah discourses concerning the repairing of the Church, he
distinctly says not only that there would be one God, but also that
he would have only one name - the reason being, that he might have
nothing in common with idols. The nature of the worship which God
requires will be seen in its own place, (Book 2, c. 7: and 8.) He
has been pleased to prescribe in his Law what is lawful and right,
and thus restrict men to a certain rule, lest any should allow
themselves to devise a worship of their own.
But as it is
inexpedient to burden the reader by mixing up a variety of topics, I
do not now dwell on this one. Let it suffice to remember, that
whatever offices of piety are bestowed anywhere else than on God
alone, are of the nature of sacrilege. First, superstition attached
divine honours to the sun and stars, or to idols: afterwards
ambition followed - ambition which, decking man in the spoils of
God, dared to profane all that was sacred. And though the principle
of worshipping a supreme Deity continued to be held, still the
practice was to sacrifice promiscuously to genii and minor gods, or
departed heroes: so prone is the descent to this vice of
communicating to a crowd that which God strictly claims as his own
peculiar right!
| Previous Chapter
| Book Index |
Next Chapter |
