Note (return) — Replies to Minor Queries.

"Hath God himself any where declared this to be only an explication of the first commandment? Have the prophets or Christ and His apostles ever done it? How then can any man's conscience be safe in this matter? For it is not a trifling controversy whether it be a distinct commandment or an explication of the first; but the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the worship of images depends very much upon it, for if it be only an explication of the first, then, unless one takes images to be gods, their worship is lawful, and so the heathens were excused in it, who were not such idiots; but if it be a new and distinct precept, then the worshipping any image or similitude becomes a grievous sin, and exposes men to the wrath of God in that severe manner mentioned in the end of it. And it is a great confirmation that this is the true meaning of it, because all the primitive writers[20] of the Christian Church not only thought it a sin against this commandment, but insisted upon the force of it against those heathens who denied that they took their images for gods; and, therefore, this is a very insufficient account of leaving out the second commandment (that the people are in no danger of superstition or idolatry by it.)."—Stillingfleet's Doctrines of the Church of Rome, 25. Of the Second Commandment.