.
Subsection
On 2nd Commandment
Impurity vs. Idolatry
Object of Worship: Formal, Material, of Consideration
.
.
Order of Contents
Not All Deviating Worship is Idolatry 5
Indirect Idolatry 1
Associations with Idolaters 3
Civil Relations with Idolaters 2
Enter a Temple of Idols? 1
History 4
Lutherans
Latin 15+
.
Articles
1500’s
Traheron, Bartholomew – A Warning to England to Repent & to Turn to God from Idolatry & Popery, by the Terrible Example of Calece… ([Wesel?] 1558) 26 pp.
Traheron (1510?–1558?) was an English reformer who was exiled during the reign of the Romanist, Bloody Mary (1553-8) in England, when this work was printed, from Germany.
White, Peter – A Godly & Fruitful Sermon against Idolatry, wherein the Foolish Distinctions & False Interpretations of the Second Commandment & other Scriptures pretended by the Papists are plainly & fully Confuted (London, 1581) 42 pp.
White was an English minister.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 2
4. ‘The First Precept, where is entreated of Idolatry & sundry kinds of Idols’ 307
‘Whether it be lawful for Christians to dwell among infidels’ 309
‘Whether it be lawful to have teachers, which believe not in Christ’ 311
‘Of the Suffering of Jews & Heretics’ 328
Constant, Leonard – A Christian & Wholesome Admonition Directed to the Frenchmen which are Revolted from True Religion & have Polluted Themselves with the Superstition & Idolatry of Popery trans. Christopher Fetherstone (London [1587]) 130 pp.
Constant (d. 1610)
.
1600’s
Perkins, William – A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, & an Instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship in The Works (d. 1602; London: Legatt, 1626), vol. 1, pp. 669-716 on 1 Jn. 5:21
Rivet, Andrew – 19. ‘On Idolatry’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 1, pp. 452-88
Weems, John – 3rd Son, ‘The Idolater’ in A Treatise of the Four Degenerate Sons… (London: Cotes, 1636), pp. 163-293
Palmer, Herbert – The Necessity & Encouragement, of Utmost Venturing for the Church’s Help, together with the Sin, Folly & Mischief of Self-Idolizing… (London: 1643) 71 pp.
Tombes, John – Anthropolatria; or the Sin of Glorying in Men, especially in Eminent Ministers of the Gospel… with which the church of Christ is still infected… a Discourse… (London: 1645) 19 pp.
Tombes (c. 1603–1676) was a student of William Pemble and an Anglican clergyman, who came to develop baptist views. In church government he is said to have been presbyterian. Towards the end of his life he was a communicating Anglican layman.
Durham, James – Lecture 2, ‘Concerning the Idolatry of the Church of Rome’ in A Commentary upon the Book of the Revelation… (Edinburgh, 1658)
Ness, Christopher – ch. 2, ‘Second Property, is the Idolatry of the Romish Religion’ in A Protestant Antidote Against the Poison of Popery, clearly proving the Religion of the Church of Rome to be… 2. Idolatrous… (London, 1679), pp. 31-55
Ness (1621-1705) was an English puritan minister who was ejected in the Great Ejection of 1662. Ness took the 2nd Indulgence in 1672 as a congregationalist minister, and was subsequently excommunicated four time. John Owen recommended his book against Arminianism.
eds. Gibson, Edmund & John Cumming – A Preservative Against Popery, in Several Select Discourses upon the Principal Heads of Controversy Between Protestants & Papists, being written & Published by the Most Eminent Divines of the Church of England, Chiefly in the Reign of King James II [1685-88] (1685-1688; London, 1848), vol. 6, bk. 1, ‘An Idolatrous Worship’
Sherlock, William – 1. ‘A Discourse concerning the object of religious worship, or Scripture proof of the unlawfulness of giving religious worship to any besides the one Supreme God’, pp. 90-147
Sherlock (c. 1639/1641–1707)
Wake, William – 2. ‘A Discourse concerning the nature of idolatry: in which the charge of idolatry is made good against those of the Church of Rome’, pp. 148-214
Wake (1657-1737)
Fraser, James – Prelacy an Idol, & Prelates Idolaters: All Prelatists, Maintainers of, & Compliers with Prelacy, Charged with Idolatry & Proven Guilty: a Sermon 2nd ed. (Glasgow: Paton, 1742)
Fraser (1639-1699)
.
Books
1500’s
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – A Treatise of the Cohabitation of the Faithful with the Unfaithful, whereunto is added a Sermon made of the Confessing of Christ & his Gospel, & of the Denying of the same (Strasbourg, 1555) 86 pp. ToC
This is on the issue of voluntarily living in the midst of idolaters.
Calvin, John – Four Godly Sermons against the Pollution of Idolatries… (1561; London: Hall, 1651) 212 pp. ToC
.
1600’s
Ainsworth, Henry – An Arrow Against Idolatry taken out of the Quiver of the Lord of Hosts (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1624) 124 pp. ToC
Ainsworth (1571-1622?) was a separatist minister.
Ps.-Casaubon, Isaac – The Orginal of Popish Idolatry, or the Birth of Heresies… being a True & Exact Description of such Sacred Signs, Sacrifices & Sacraments as have been Instituted & Ordained of God since Adam… (S.O., 1630) 125 pp. ToC
Tenison, Thomas – Of Idolatry, a Discourse, in which is Endeavored a Declaration of, its Distinction from Superstition, its Notion, Cause, Commencement & Progress… (London: Tyton, 1678) 415 pp.
Tenison (1636-1715) was a latitudinarian Anglican.
.
Quotes
1500’s
William Tyndale
An Answer to Sir Thomas More’s Dialogue, the Supper of the Lord… (d. c. 1536; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1850), p. 58
“If I love such things as God has lent me, and committed unto mine administration, so that I cannot find in mine heart to bestow them on the uses which God has appointed me, then I dishonour God and abuse his creature, in that I give more honor unto it than I should do; and then I make an idol of it, in that I love it more than God and his commandment; and then I dishonor my neighbor, from whose need I withdraw it.”
.
1600’s
George Gillespie
A Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies… (1637), pt. 3, ch. 4
pp. 51-52
“…that whereunto more respect and account is given than God allows to be given to it, and wherein more excellency is placed than God has put into it, or will at all communicate to it, is an idol exalted against God: which makes Zanchius to say, ‘Si Luthero vel Calvino tribuas, quod non potuerant errare, idola tibi fingis.’ (bk. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. col. 505)”
.
p. 63
“…as Zanchius evidences by sundry instances, idolatry is committed when more estimation is had of anything, more dignity and excellency placed in it, and more regard had to it than God allows or than can stand with God’s revealed will. For a thing thus regarded, though it be not exalted, ut Deus simpliciter [as God simply], yet it is set up, tanquam Deus ex parte [just as God in part] (bk. 1. de viti. ext. cult. oppos. cols. 504-5).”
.
John Owen
The Works of John Owen (NY: Robert Carter, 1852), vol. 7, Nature & Causes of Apostasy from the Gospel, ch. 12, pp. 252-53
“Too high an estimation of any peculiar way of worship is apt to entice the minds of some into a hurtful confidence in these things. Having an apprehension that they alone have attained unto the right way of gospel worship and the administration of its ordinances, and that, perhaps, on such accounts as wherein they are eminently deceived, they begin first greatly to value themselves, and then to despise all others, and, if they can, to persecute them. This insensibly works them into a trust in that which they esteem so excellent, and that unto an open neglect of things of a greater weight and moment.
Thus is it not unusual to see persons who are under the power of some singular opinion and practice in religion to make one thing almost their whole business, the measure of other things and persons, the rule of communion and of all sincere love;—to value and esteem themselves and others according unto their embracing or not embracing of that opinion…
Wherefore, although we ought greatly to prize and to endeavor after the true order of the church of Christ, the purity of worship, and regular administration of ordinances, yet let us take heed that we prize not ourselves too much on what we have attained; for if we do so, we shall be very apt to countenance ourselves in other neglects thereby, which will certainly bring us into a spiritual sickness and declension.”
.
Not All Deviating Worship is Idolatry
See also, ‘Undue Protestant Ceremonies are Not Equatable to the Old Testament High Places’.
.
Order of
Quotes 3
Articles 2
.
Quotes
Order of
Ball
Tombes
Baxter
.
1600’s
John Ball
An Answer to Two Treatises of Mr. John Can, the Leader of the English Brownists… (London: R.B., 1642), ch. 2, p. 29
“Your long labor in setting down the faults to be found in our Liturgy is to small purpose. The Nonconformists do except against many things appointed in the Book, as inconvenient at least, and such as should be taken away or reformed, as the reading of Apocryphal books under the title of holy Scripture, specially such parts as be corrupt for matter: The cross and surplice as idolothites by participation and signs of mystical signification: The corruptions in the translations: and some things in the forms of burial, matrimony, thanksgiving for women after child-bed, etc. But these they condemn not as idolatry, nor as that which makes the worship itself false and idolatrous. It is one thing to say such a rite is inconvenient, superstitious, scandalous borrowed from the Papists, not warranted by the Word of God, in the use will-worship, if the word be taken largely; another that the worship itself is false and idolatrous.”
.
John Tombes
Theodulia, or a Just Defence of Hearing the Sermons & other teaching of the present Ministers of England… (London: E. Cotes, 1667), ch. 7, section 15, ‘Kneeling in receiving the sacramental elements is not idolatry’, p. 259 Tombes (c. 1603–1676)
“Till divine worship be given to a creature, it is not idolatry, although in the kind or means of worship there may be will-worship; and in the opinion of those that count their act or the object to be holy, when it is not, there may be superstition of the mind; and in the use of such things, or forbearing their use, superstition in the members…”
.
Richard Baxter
The Cure of Church Divisions (London: Symmons, 1670), pt. 1
Direction 32, p. 188
“By this petulant carnal kind of zeal, I remember our divisions were here raised at the first: To deride the Common Prayer and deride them that used it was too common with some kind of religious people: And they excused it by Elijah’s example [1 Kn. 18:27], as if idolaters and the true worshippers of God that differ from us in a form or ceremony were all one.”
.
Direction 33, p. 190-93
“And what pitiful arguments have they to prove this charge of idolatry: ‘False worship of the true God is idolatry as well as worshipping a false God: But such is the [Anglican] Liturgy: therefore—’
This is all that these rash preachers must trouble the Church and seduce men into a hating factious zeal with. But what mean these men by ‘false worship’? Do they mean worship contrary to God’s Word? That is, which is sinful? And do they mean all such sinful worship or some only?
If they mean all such sinful worship, then these words of theirs are idolatry: for they are part of their preaching, which is part of God’s worship, in their own sense: And it is false doctrine and tends to men’s perdition. And so they and all false teachers should be idolaters. By this they would turn all sins in worship into one: It is all idolatry.
Is not every confused prayer sinful which has unmeet expressions and disordered, and has wandering thoughts and dull affections? Is there any of these love-killers that dare say they pray without sin? And must we not separate from them then as idolaters? Yea and every man from himself; that is, he must give over praying because it’s all idolatry?
But perhaps they will say: ‘This sin is but in the manner and not in the matter.’
Answer: Very good; it seems then that sin in the manner of worship is not idolatry…
Will you find some words which you can call false in the matter? Suppose it were so? When an Antinomian, an Anabaptist, a Separatist or anyone that errs does drop some of his errors in his prayers (as I think none will deny that they use to do), must we needs believe that his prayer is idolatry therefore, as being false worship? And is it unlawful to join with such? Then we shall have more separation than you yet plead for or practice yourselves. No two men in the world must join together if all sinful worship, or worship false sometime in the very matter does necessitate a separation…
…
But what text of Scripture is it that ever told these men that all false worship is idolatry? what text do they name but such as if they did it on purpose to show their boldness in adding to God’s Word? The Second Commandment is the chief which they insist on.
But whatever expositions they may forge, there is no such word, nor sense in the Commandment. We all hold that as the gross, direct idolatry is the worshipping of a false God, against the First Commandment; so to make any such false representation of the true God, by words or deeds, as makes Him like an idol, and contradicts his nature, and so to worship Him, this is also a secondary kind of idolatry: Because God is none such as they represent Him, and therefore it is not God indeed but an idol which they worship. And because God is not like to anything corporeal in heaven or earth, therefore he that makes an image of any thing in heaven or earth as like to God, or to represent Him, he makes an idol of God by blasphemy. ‘To what will you liken Me, that I should be like unto it, saith the Holy One?’
This is the idolatry forbidden in the Second Commandment: It is not all false worship, but one sort of false worship, which is idolatry: what else that Commandment forbids is neither called idolatry, nor can so be proved.
It is an odious sound, to hear an ignorant, rash, self-conceited person, especially a preacher, to cry out, ‘Idolatry, Idolatry,’ against his brethren’s prayers to God because they have something in them to be amended, while perhaps his own prayers have so much false doctrine in them or false fire of carnal passions and uncharitableness, as makes it a much harder question whether it be lawful to join with such as he is, while he abhors so much to join with others.”
.
Articles
1600’s
Tombes, John – Theodulia, or a Just Defence of Hearing the Sermons & other teaching of the present Ministers of England… (London: E. Cotes, 1667)
Tombes (c. 1603–1676)
“But those inventions of men and customs of the nations, which the texts alleged mention, were such as were expressly forbidden, drew them to serve other gods and to forsake the Lord, not such as are usually by Seperatives [Separatists] called ‘inventions of men’, to wit human ceremonies, confessed out of the case of worship in themselves to be things indifferent, such as out of pretended prudence at least, or public authority are imposed for discipline, order or decency without giving any divine worship to a creature.
Let all the texts alleged be viewed, and there is none of them that mentions the mingling such inventions of men, no not those which our Savior reprehends in the Pharisees, Mk. 7:3-4, 8 (which are far worse [than the Anglican ceremonies]) as the departing from God’s pure institutions…
and therefore the threatnings and punishments in those places are grossly abused when they are applied to the imposing or use of such ceremonies or discipline as are (whether rightly or wrongly) retained in the Church of England.”
Ch. 7
Sect. 1. All Idolatry is, by exhibiting Divine Worship to a Creature
Sect. 2. All Will-worship of God is not Idolatry
“[Opponent:] ‘Those that worship the true God in any other way than he has said He will be worshipped in, and is prescribed by Him, are idolaters…’…
Answer: If [worshipping] by ‘any other way’ be meant of any creature as the medium or representative of God, as the golden calf or brazen serpent, I yield the major [premise] to be true and deny the minor [of the opponent]: But if he meant by ‘any other way’ any sort of worship, such as was the worship of God by washing of hands according to the tradition of the elders, Mk. 7:3-4, I deny both major and minor.“
Sect. 3. This Authors Argument as well proves himself an Idolater as the Conformist
“…’the way of worship not prescribed by God’ may be either when the worship is to another thing besides or with God, which alone proves idolatry… Or, ‘by another way’, is meant another ceremony or rite in which the worship of God is placed, such as was the Pharisees’ washing their hands, which may be will-worship, if to God only, but not idolatry; and so if he could prove our [Anglican] ministers guilty of this, yet should they not be proved idolaters any more than the Pharisees were, with which neither Christ nor his apostles do charge them…” – p. 216
Sect. 11. Acting in the holy things of God, by an Office-power and modes of Idolaters, may be without Idolatry
“…the office-power, no, not though it were from idolaters, for idolatrous purposes, does not make persons actually idolaters, till they do actually exhibit divine worship to a creature.
Suppose a person be ordained a priest to offer sacrifice-propitiatory for the quick and dead in the mass; yet if he repent thereof, and never do adore the breaden-god, he is not an idolater: Yea, suppose he act in baptizing, preaching, marrying, burying according to the rituals of the Romanists, by virtue of his ordination as a priest, or, as this author speaks, his office-power, without exhibiting any divine worship to a creature (which in some of these may be), yet is he not thereby an idolater. The reason whereof is manifest, because he is not an idolater to whom the definition of idolatry agrees not.
And this is the reason why, if Jeroboam’s priests, though conse∣crated for the worship of idols, did not worship them, they were not to be accounted idolaters: Nor are those that act by virtue of authority committed to them in matters civil, from rebels [such as Oliver Cromwell], equally guilty of rebellion as those from whom they derive that their authority, unless they act rebelliously; if they act for the restitution of their prince, the public peace, they are accounted good subjects [as many did under Cromwell], and not rebels, though at first they derived their authority from rebels.
Nor does the worshipping of God by a form merely of humane composition make idolaters, though it have been abused to idolatry with the rites and modes of idolaters, unless there be idolatry in the form, and the rites and modes be idolatrous in their use: because, notwithstanding this, no divine worship may be given to a creature.
So, though the form of baptism in the Roman Church were merely of human composition, used with crossings, cream, oil, spittle, if these rites were used, though by them abused to idolatry, not as they do, so as to give divine worship to a creature, the users in this manner, however guilty of will-worship or superstition, yet would not be justly chargeable with idolatry; no, not though they should in some sort symbolize with idolaters, that is, be assimilated to them or in some sort comply with them.” – pp. 245-46
Sect. 12. The English Ministers oppose Popish Idolatry, as other Protestants
Sect. 13. The Ministers of England act not by virtue of an Office-power from Idolaters
Sect. 14. The Common-Prayer Book worship was not abused to Idolatry
Sect. 15. Kneeling in receiving the Sacramental elements, is not Idolatry
Sect. 16. The Crimination of the Ministers, as Idolaters, is not excusable
“I think all will-worship is not idolatry: Our Lord, who accused the Pharisees of will-worship, did not accuse them of idolatry…
his accusing ministers of idolatry, for using a Service-book in the main right in respect of the worship, and a gesture [kneeling in receiving the Supper] avowed to be only to the true God, in a Church, holding in the main, the right Faith, under a prince that professes the same Faith and worship, and to be a defender of it.
As for such relics of pagan customs, or Popish, as yet remain, though it were to be wished they were quite left [off], since they are not used in any honor to the pagan idols, but the original and reason of them at first [such as honor and decency], being almost if not quite forgotten by those that use them, and are become but as civil customs that have no state in [or condition of being] religious worship, experience shows that they are more easily reformed by neglect than by earnest declamations against them. Nor do I think the course this author takes, of seeking reformation by invectives and separations, likely to promote it, but to exasperate rulers and make opposites more violent in their way.” – pp. 263-64
Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author
Baxter, Richard – pp. 36-38 & 41-43 of Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen, ed. Travis Fentiman (1684; RBO, 2024)
.
.
The Reformed on Lutherans
Quotes
1600’s
French Reformed
.
William Twisse
The Doubting Conscience Resolved, in answer to a (pretended) perplexing question, etc. Wherein is evidently proved that the holy Scriptures (not the Pope) is the foundation whereupon the Church is built (London: 1652), pp. 27-28
“3. We acknowledge different opinions between Lutherans and Calvinians; so no doubt there are different opinions among the Lutherans themselves, and the Calvinians themselves, but we utterly deny there are different religi∣ons.
The Lutherans we hold to be true Churches, agreeing with us in the fundamental points of faith, and likewise in being free from idolatry; for albeit they have images in their churches, which we conceive to be a very dangerous thing, yet they do not worship them; and although they hold real presence in the sacrament, yet they do not adore it.
So that albeit we think some of their opinions are contrary to the Scripture, and they think the like of some of ours, yet neither we say of their religion, nor they of ours I trow, that it is contrary to the Scripture, much less that it is condemned in Scripture.”
.
On Indirect Idolatry
Latin
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1659), vol. 3, pp. 234-386, 532-39 & 931-34
18. ’Of Indirect Idolatry & of Participating in Idolatry’
19. ‘Of the Same,’ pt. 2
20. A Short Appendix on Prayer to the East
21. ‘Of the Same,’ pt. 3
22. Appendix
24. Notes & Observations of Albaspinus on Canons 2-4, 40, 55, 56, 59 of the Council of Eliberin [on Indirect Idolatry]
37. Appendix to the Disputations on Superstition and Idolatry
63. An Addition to the Disputations on Cross-Worship & Indirect
.
On Associations with Idolaters
See also ‘Is every Romanist Excommunicated?’.
.
Articles
1600’s
Gillespie, George – An Useful Case of Conscience Discussed & Resolved concerning Associations & Confederacies with Idolaters, infidels, heretics, or any other known enemies of truth & Godliness (Edinburgh: Anderson, 1649) 34 pp.
This article was born out of a very specific context, namely the Scottish Protester vs. Resolutioner Controversy. Scotland was an established Christian nation. The “wicked men” here treated of were not simply unbelievers, or immoral persons, but were seen as enemies of religion and subverters of the State due to their past political involvement. The question is not of an indirect or remote cooperation with them, but rather that of a direct and immediate cooperation and a dependent relation upon them in a necessary and God-fearing design.
Binning, Hugh – An Useful Case of Conscience… concerning Associations & Confederacies with Idolaters, Infidels, Heretics, Malignants, or any other Known Enemies of Truth & Godliness… (d. 1653; 1693)
This article was born out of the same general context as that of Gillespie’s above.
.
Latin
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – 23. A Question Proposed from the Classis [Presbytery] of Gorinchem to the Theological Faculty of Utrecht [with an answer, regarding whether reformed persons may be joined with Papists under certain conditions] in Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1659), vol. 3, pp. 358–68
.
On Civil Relations with Idolaters
See also ‘Is every Romanist Excommunicated?’, ‘International Relations Between Nations’ and ‘Who may Fight in a Defensive War: Good Christians, Professing Christians or all Citizens?’
.
Quotes
Order of
Perkins
English Puritans
.
1600’s
William Perkins
‘A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, & an Instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship’ in The Works (d. 1602; London: Legatt, 1626), vol. 1, p. 692
“Touching civil society with them, two points are to be handled: [1.] What society may be used with them, and [2.] what not.
For the first, we may use their society upon neccessity that cannot be avoided, unless we will utterly reject the fellowship of mankind. Paul, who forbids the Corinthians to company with a brother that is an idolator, for all this gives them liberrty to converse with the idolatrous of the world. (1 Cor. 5:10-11) This may seem strange but the reason is because the company of believers was then but small and the whole world beside was nothing but idolaters: and therefore it was impossible for believers to avoid their society unless they meant to go out of the world. And upon this necessity, Paul permits the Church in his days to use the fellowship of idolators; and for the very same cause he says, 1 Cor. 10:27, ‘If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, go if ye will.’
Secondly, believers may lawfully join with idolaters in the society of concord. For by the general calling of Christianity they are bound to have peace with all men. Upon this ground may the Church make covenants of peace with idolators upon even and just conditions. Heb. 12:14, ‘Have peace towards all men, and holiness.’ Rom. 12:18, ‘Have peace with all men, if it be possible, and as much as in you lies.’ Thus Abraham made a league of peace with Aner and Eschol, king of the Amorites, and with Abimelech; and Isaac with Abimelech, and Jacob with Laban (Gen. 23-24): and Heber the Kenite with Jabin a foreign king (Judg. 4:17): and thelr examples have sufficient warrant. For that which we may do we may bind ourselves to do.
Thirdly, we may use any such fellowship with them as is, or shall be occasioned by virtue of our particular calling. Thus Christ, being the Savior of the world, conversed with publicans and sinners. Thus Paul being the Apostle of the Gentiles, enters into Athens, and there beholds their devotions. It is God’s commandement that the believing wife, shall nor forsake her unbelieving husband, if he be willing or desirous to dwell with her. (1 Cor. 7:13)
If it be alleged that Ezra constrained the Israelites to put away their Ammonitish and Moabitish, and the rest of their heathen, wives (Ezra 10:3): I answer that their marriages were indeed void and no marriages:
First, because the nations with whom they married were people, according to God’s Law, civilly dead: in that God had commanded their destruction, unless when peace was offered, they accepted of it. (Dt. 20:10)
Secondly, in that they were not only idolators, but also enticers to idolatry; God by express commandment did simply forbid the Jews to marry with them unless they did repent and changed their religion. And in regard of this commandment, the foresaid marriages were nullities, as incestuous marriages are no marriages by reason of the absolute prohibition of God.
Touching the society forbidden us with idolators, it is the society of amity, that is, of familiarity and special love. Two examples, whereof we find in the Word of God. One is of contracts of marriage with idolators, which the Scripture precisely condemns as an abomination in lsrael and a profanation of the name of God, when Judah marries the daughter of a strange god, Mal. 2:11.
Boaz indeed married Ruth, a Moabitess, but she was entered and received into the body of the Israelites by a former marriage: and she was one that believed in the God of Israel. ‘Thy people’ (says he to Naomi and Ruth) ‘shall be my people, and thy God, my God.’ Sampson likewise married a woman of the Philistines (Judg. 14:4), but that was by divine instinct and consequently by a special appointment of God.
Again it is alleged that God by express law gave leave to the Israelites to marry heathenish women taken captives in war. (Dt. 21:10-11) Answer: That is a law only of toleration, without approbation, in which God, for the hardness of their hearts, permits the evil, which cannot by policy be quite taken away. And this appears by two things:
First, before the marriage, the woman by God’s appointment must be deformed, by cutting off her hair, by the growing of her nails, by putting off the garments of her captivity, and by mourning for her father and mother for the space of a month: and the end of this was to cause a dislike in the Israelites of their intended marriages, or to signify a change of religion, at the least in pretense, in the parties espoused.
The second example is of leagues, in mutual aid and protection, which may not be contracted between believers and idolaters. Jehoshaphat for making this kind of league with Ahab is thus reproved, 2 Chron. 19:2. ‘Wouldest thou help the wicked, and love them that hate the Lord? Therefore for this things the wrath of the Lord is upon thee.’ Again, that which we may not do, we may not covenant to do; now we may not mutually give and take aid and protection of idolators. This tends to the dishonor of God, because it makes idolators boast that the people of God cannot stand without their aid. It is further an occasion of idolatry and this league often enfolds the people of God in the same plagues and judgment with idolators. It has been the decay both of Greece and Hungary that they have heretofore entered into leagues of amity with the Turks.
lt may be objected that Abraham made this covenant of protection with the Amorites, Aner, Eschol, Mamre: and that thereupon they aided him in rescuing of Lot, and in the slaughter of the kings. I answer:
First, it may be they were believers, embracing the faith Abraham: nothing can be showed to the contrary.
Secondly, if they were infidels, the covenant that was between them was of peace only and they aided Abraham, not by request made by him, but by secret special motion of God.
Thirdly, the fathers did sundry actions upon bad custom, which God by law afterward redressed: and their examples may not be followed in all things.
Lastly, I suppose that Abraham joined with them as against a common adversary: and therefore the protection they ministered to Abraham was as necessary for themselves as for him and his people.
Here one exception must not be omitted. Put the case that the husband is an idolator and is content to dwell with his believing wife: she then is to live with him, not only in the society of peace, but also in the society of amity by doing all duties of Iove that concern a wife, so far as may stand with good conscience. For the precept of Paul’s, that marriage and marriage duties are to be preserved of the believing party with an infidel (1 Cor. 7:13-14), so be it the said infidel be content. It may be al!eged that thus the believer exposes himself to danger of idolatry.
I answer: Not because God defends them that call upon Him who thrust not themselves into danger, but bear the danger and calamity into which they are fallen, attending upon their callings.
Again, if the unbelieving party shall solicit the other and use all means, both fair and foul, to draw him or her to idolatry, the believing party in this case, may go aside for a time and omit the duty of marriage. For this is all one as if the idolatrous and unbelieving party should depart. For indeed, that party is said to depart in whom the cause of departing is, as in the Church he is a schismatic in whom the cause of the schism is, and not always he that separates.
Secondly, it may be objected that a Christian may not become the member of a harlot, much less of an idolator; considering idolatry is a great sin. I answer:
The reason is not like. For the fornicator consents to the fornication: and so does not the believing party, by doing duties that pertain to marriage, consent to the idolatry of the unbelieving party. And the fornicator willingly joins himself with an harlot; whereas the believing party desires he might be yoked with a believer and not with an infidel.
Lastly, it may be objected: if for adultery, divorce may be made, why not for idolatry which is spiritual adultery? I answer:
That not any sin by itself, as it is a sin, not breaking the troth and bond of marriage, is the proper cause of a divorce; and not any kind of idolatry, but the sin of adultery breakest his troth.”
.
English Puritans
A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pt. 3, p. 285
“To the places of Scripture which they [Separatists] bring against our people… we answer that they are all most unskillfully applied, for although some of them do prove that God’s people should be separated from the rest of the world (Lev. 20:24; Jn. 15:16; 2 Cor. 6:14–17), some of them that they may not offer sacrifice unto a multitude of gods, nor join with idolaters (Isa. 65:11), neither in the false worship of God (Eze. 16:25), nor in voluntary¹ leagues and familiarity…
¹ That necessary leagues and familiarity with idolaters is lawful and necessary, see ‘On Civil Relations with Idolaters’ at ‘On Idolatry’ (RBO).”
.
Under what Circumstances Might a Person ever Voluntarily enter a Temple of Idols?
Quote
1600’s
William Perkins
‘A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, & an Instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship’ in The Works (London: Legatt, 1626), vol. 1, p. 692
“Here it may be demanded whether it be lawful for Christian men to go into the temples of idols.
I answer: they may, if they have a calling so to do, and do not communicate with idolaters in their superstitions, or give any honor to idols: but on the contrary, do openly profess, either by word , or by their deeds, or both, that they abhor both the idols and their service. Thus was Elijah present with the priests of Baal. Thus were the three children present when the golden image was worshipped. Thus was the prophet of God present at the altar of Bethel, when Jeroboam stretched out his hand to offer incense to the idol. (1 Kings 13) Thus Paul was present in Athens, and in the places of idolatry, that he might behold their superstitions. (Acts 17; 27)
The Protestant princes in the crowning of Maximilian at Frankfurt brought the Emperor to the Church and to the place whereas he was to sit: this done, they returned without doing any reverence at all, and thereby professed their mislike of popish idols, and their service.
It may be objected that the prophet of the Lord prayed in the place where idolatry was exercised: because he prayed at the altar of Bethel, for the restoring of the King’s arm. (1 Kings 13:6)
Answer: He did not amiss: For to the clean, all things indifferent are clean : and therefore the place, though polluted with idolatry of others , was clean to the clean prophet. And the Jews were commanded, when they were in the midst of idolatrous nations, to worship God towards the Temple at Jerusalem. (1 Kings 8:48; Dan. 6:10) And God heard his prayer, by miracle restoring the king’s arm: and therefore He approved it.
And a prayer made in an idolatrous assembly is no approbation of idolatry, if there be an open profession of the mislike thereof: and the prayer be made upon some necessity, as this of the prophets was, that the king might be convinced of his impiety.
It may be objected that the prophet, refusing to eat in the place (1 Kings 13:8), should also have refused to pray there.
I answer: No, because God appointed abstinence from meat to be the sign of detestation of the idolatry committed in Bethel, and not abstinence from prayer. And this example of the prophet, does not warrant us to be present at idolatrous service, there to worship the true God, because he did not dissemble, but he openly professed the truth against idolaters.
On the contrary, if men resolve not to profess their detestation of idolatrous worship, either by word of mouth, gesture, or some other way; but only desire upon curiosity, to see new fashions, and hereupon, enter into the temples of idols; I think they ought not to do it. For they themselves tempt God by so doing; they offend their weak brethren and draw them by their example to do the like. And lastly, by their presence they confirm the obstinate idolaters in their superstition. The like is to be said of them, that curiously without calling go out of the precincts of the Church into idolatrous countries for this end only to see and to be seen.”
.
History
Timeline
.
Books
1600’s
Herbert, Edward – The Antient Religion of the Gentiles, & Causes of their Errors Consider’d (London: John Nutt, 1705)
Herbert (1583-1648) was an Anglican.
Ross, Alexander – Pansebeia, or, A View of All Religions in the World: with the Several Church-Governments, from the Creation, till these Times, 6th ed. (London: M. Gillyflower, 1696)
Ross was reformed.
.
Latin Book
Vossius, Gerhard – De theologia gentili et physiologia Christiana: sive de origine ac progressu idololatriae, 2 vols. (Frankfurt: Johann Hummi, 1668)
Vossius was an Arminian.
.
Latin Articles
1500’s
Oecolampadius, Johannes – A Golden Book… that Idols, which we Term Images of Gods, are to be Wholly Removed from Churches where the Populace of the Faithful Gathers in Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew & some other things which follow… Several Popular Sermons, a Libel that the Mass is not a Sacrifice, and a Libel that Images are to be taken out of Churches for Protestant Worship (Basel: [Andreas Cratander], 1536), pp. 487-505
Oecolampadius (1482-1531)
Bullinger, Henry – 4. ‘Of Idols, or Images of God, Christ or gods’ in A Simple Confession & Exposition of the Orthodox Faith & Catholic Doctrines of the Sincere Christian Religion (1566; Bern, 1676), pp. 8-10
Ramus, Petrus – 4. ‘Of the Second Precept, Against Idolatry’ in Commentary on the Christian Religion (Frankfurt, 1576; 1594), bk. 2, Of the Decalogue, pp. 111-24
Ramus (1515-1572)
Szegedin Pannonius, Stephan – ‘Of Idolatry’ in Common Places of Pure Theology, of God & Man, Explained in Continuous Tables & the Dogma of the Schools Illustrated (Basil, 1585/93), Things which are Prohibited to Men, p. 382
Aretius, Benedict – Locus 74, ‘Of Idolatry’ in Sacred Problems of Theology: Common Places of the Christian Religion Methodically Explicated (Geneva, 1589; Bern, 1604), pp. 220-26 & 368-86
.
1600’s
Bachoff, Reinhard – Catechism of the Christian Religion, which is Taught in the Churches & Schools of the Palitinate (Hanau, 1603), pp. 423-30
Q. 95,‘What is Idolatry?’
Q. 96,‘What does the 2nd Commandment Postulate?’
Bachoff (1544-1614)
Scultetus, Abraham – A Sermon on Idolatrous Images… (Frankfurt, 1620)
Maresius, Samuel – 24. ‘Of Idolatry’ in The Hydra of Socinianism Expunged (Groningen, 1651), vol. 3, bk. 5, pp. 662-65
Valckenier, Johannes – Rome Paganizing, or a Historical-Theological Examination of Papal Idolatry… A View of Papistry is Appended, or a Demonstration of the Apostasy, Novelty & the Consensus of Papistry with Old Heresies (Franeker: Albert, 1656) 588 pp. ToC Indices: Subject, Scripture, Philological
Valckenier (1617-1670) was a reformed professor of theology and Church history at Franeker and of theology at Leiden.
Du Moulin, Pierre – A Collection of the Theological Disputations held at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan (Geneva, 1661), vol. 1
30. Of Images & Idols, & their Worship, part 1: Of the Origin & Use of Images, & is it Divine Law unto God to Put Down an Idol?, pp. 262-75
32. Part 3, Of Idol-Worship & the Adoration of Images, & of the Contentious & Uncertain Declaration of the Pontiffs about it, pp. 282-92
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1659 / 1667)
vol. 3, pp. 234-386, 532-39 & 931-34
18. ’Of Indirect Idolatry & of Participating in Idolatry’
19. ‘Of the Same,’ pt. 2
20. A Short Appendix on Prayer to the East
21. ‘Of the Same,’ pt. 3
22. Appendix
23. A Question Proposed from the Classis [Presbytery] of Gorinchem to the Theological Faculty of Utrecht [with an answer, regarding whether reformed persons may be joined with Papists under certain conditions]
24. Notes & Observations of Albaspinus on Canons 2-4, 40, 55, 56, 59 of the Council of Eliberin [on Indirect Idolatry]
37. Appendix to the Disputations on Superstition and Idolatry
63. An Addition to the Disputations on Cross-Worship & Indirect Idolatry
vol. 4
‘Of idolatry’ in 50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Decalogue’, ‘On the 1st Commandment’, p. 778
Du Moulin, Pierre – A Collection of the Theological Disputations held at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan (Geneva, 1661), vol. 1
30. Of Images & Idols, & their Worship, part 1: Of the Origin & Use of Images, & is it Divine Law unto God to Put Down an Idol?, pp. 262-75
32. Part 3,Of Idol-Worship & the Adoration of Images, & of the Contentious & Uncertain Declaration of the Pontiffs about it, pp. 282-92
Hoornbeek, Johannes – 10. ‘Of Idolatry’ in Practical Theology, vol. 1, 2 (Utrecht, 1663; 1689), vol. 2, bk. 9, pp. 224-33
Turretin, Francis – Works, vol. 4, Disputations, On the Necessity of Our Secession from the Church of Rome
2. Roman Idolatry, pt. 1, pp. 31-53
3. Roman Idolatry, pt. 2, pp. 53-77
4. Roman Idolatry, pt. 3, pp. 77-97
Florin, Johann Henric – A Philological Disputation on the Distinction of the Terms ‘Image’, ‘Idol’ & ‘Similitude’ (Herborn, 1690)
.
.
Latin Books
1500’s
Viret, Pierre – On the Origin of the Old & New Idolatry… by which is Displayed… which Images & Relics are True or False… (Geneva, 1552)
Rainolds, John – Of the Idolatry of the Roman Church, in the Worship of the Saints, of Relics, of Images, of Water, Salt, Oil & other things, of Consecrated Things & of the Sacrament of the Eucharist (Geneva: Stoer, 1596) 646 pp. ToC
.
.
.
Related Pages
Expositions of the 2nd Commandment
Legitimacy & Necessity of Separation from Romanism
Whether Romanists may be Saved?
Opinion of Sanctity & Necessity: Not Essential to False Worship