of adoration; in which sense it is knees, with her arm stretched out; used synonymously with idol. The the other of a man over against use and adoration of images have her, with his hand extended to rebeen long controverted. It is plain, ceive her: these statues were said from the practice of the primi- to be the images of our Saviour, tive church, recorded by the ear-and the woman whom he cured of lier fathers, that Christians, dur- an issue of blood. From the foot ing the first three centuries, of the statue representing our Saand the greater part of the fourth,viour, says the historian, sprung, neither worshipped images, nor up an exotic plant, which, as soon used them in their worship. How-as it grew to touch the border of his ever, the generality of the po- garment, was said to cure all sorts pish divines maintain that the use of distempers. Eusebius, howand worship of images are as an-ever, vouches none of these things; cient as the Christian religion it- nay, he supposes that the woman self to prove this, they allege a who erected this statue of our Sadecree, said to have been made in viour was a pagan, and ascribes a council held by the apostles at it to a pagan custom. PhilosAntioch, commanding the faith-torgius (Eccl. Hist. lib. vii, c. 3) ful, that they may not err about expressly says, that this statue the object of their worship, to was carefully preserved by the make images of Christ, and wor-Christians, but that they paid no ship them. Baron. ad ann. 102. kind of worship to it, because it is But no notice is taken of this de-not lawful for Christians to worcree till seven hundred years after ship brass, or any other matter. the apostolic times, after the dis- The primitive Christians abstained pute about images had commenced. from the worship of images, not, The first instance that occurs, as the Papists pretend from tenin any credible author, of images derness to heathen idolaters, but among Christians, is that record-because they thought it unlawful ed by Tertullian de Pudicit. c. in itself to make any images of the 10, of certain cups or chalices, as Deity. Tertullian, Clemens AlexBellarmine pretends, on which andrinus, and Origen, were of was represented the parable of the opinion, that, by the second comgood shepherd carrying the lost mandment, painting and engraving sheep on his shoulders: but this were unlawful to a Christian, stylinstance only proves that the ing them evil and wicked arts. church, at that time, did not think, Tert. de Idol. cap. 3. Clem. Alex. emblematical figures unlawful or- Admon. ad Gent. p. 41. Origen. naments of chalices. Another incontra Celsum, lib. vi, p. 182. stance is taken from Eusebius The use of images in churches, as (Hist. Eccl. lib. vii, cap. 18) who ornaments, was first introduced by says, that in his time there were to some Christians in Spain, in the be seen two brass statues in the beginning of the fourth century; city of Paneas, or Cæsarea Phi- but the practice was condemned Jippi; the one of a woman on her as a dangerous innovation, in a

council held at Eliberis in 305.||the beginning of the eighth century; Epiphanius,inaletter preserved by insomuch, that in 726, when Leo Jerom, tom. ii, ep. 6, bears a strong published his famous edict, it had testimony against images; and he already spread into all the provinces may be considered as one of the subject to the empire. The Lufirst iconoclasts. The custom of ad-therans condemn the Calvinists for mitting pictures of saints and mar-breaking the images in the churches tyrs into churches (for this was the of the Catholics, looking on it as a first source of image worship) was kind of sacrilege and yet they rare in the end of the fourth cen-condemn the Romanists (who are tury, but became common in the professed image-worshippers) as fifth. But they were still consider-idolaters: nor can these last keep ed only as ornaments, and, even in pace with the Greeks, who go far this view, they met with very con- beyond them in this point, which siderable opposition. In the fol- has occasioned abundance of dislowing century the custom of thus putes among them. See ICONOCLASadorning churches became almost TES. The Jews absolutely conuniversal, both in the East and demn all images, and do not so West. Petavius expressly says (de much as suffer any statues or figures Incar. lib. xv, cap. 14) that no in their houses, much less in their statues were yet allowed in the synagogues, or places of worship. churches, because they bore too The Mehometans have an equal near a resemblance to the idols of aversion to images; which led them the Gentiles. Towards the close to destroy most of the beautiful moof the fourth, or beginning of the|numents of antiquity, both sacred fifth century, images, which were and profane, at Constantinople.— introduced by way of ornament, Bingham's Orig. Eccl. b. viii, c. 8; and then used as an aid to devo- Middleton's Letters from Rome, p. tion, began to be actually worship-21; Burnet on the Art. p. 209, ped. However, it continued to be 219; Doddridge's Lect. lect. 193; the doctrine of the church in the Tennison on Idolatry, p. 269, 275; sixth, and in the beginning of the Ridgley's Body of Div. qu. 110. seventh century, that images were IMAGE OF GOD in the soul, to be used only as helps to devotion, is distinguished into natural and and not as objects of worship. The moral. By natural is meant the worship of them was condemned in understanding, reason, will, and the strongest terms by Gregory the other intellectual faculties. By Great, as appears by two of his the moral image, the right use of letters written in 601. From this those faculties, or what we term time to the beginning of the eighth holiness. century, there occurs no instance of IMAGINATION is a power or any worship given, or allowed to faculty of the mind, whereby it be given to images, by any council conceives and forms ideas of things or assembly of bishops whatever. communicated to it by the outBut they were commonly worship-ward organs of sense; or it is the ped by the monks and populace in power of recollecting and assem

bling images, and of painting for-who is absolutely immortal, 1st cibly those images on our minds, or Tim. i, 17. and to the human soul, on the minds of others. The cause which is only hypothetically imof the pleasures of the imagination mortal; as God, who at first gave in whatever is great, uncommon, or it, can, if he pleases, deprive it of beautiful, is this; that God has an-existence. See SOUL. nexed a secret pleasure to the idea IMMUTABILITY OFGOD, of any thing that is new or rare, is his unchangeableness. He is imthat he might encourage and stimu-mutable in his essence, Jamesi, 17. late us in the eager and keen pur-In his attributes, Ps. cii, 27. In suits after knowledge, and inflame his purposes, Isa. xxv, 1. Ps. xxxiii, our best passions to search into the 11. In his promises, Mal. iii, 6. wonders of creation and revelation; 2d Tim. ii, 12. And in his threatfor every new idea brings such aenings, Matt. xxv, 41. "This is a pleasure along with it, as rewards perfection," says Dr. Blair,“which, any pains we have taken in its ac-perhaps, more than any other disquisition, and consequently serves tinguishes the divine nature from as a striking and powerful motive to the human, gives complete energy put us upon fresh discoveries into all its attributes, and entitles it learning and science, as well as into the highest adoration. For the word and works of God. See hence are derived the regular orRyland's Contemplation, vol i. p.der of nature, and the steadfast64; Akenside's Pleasures of Imaginess of the universe. Hence flows nation; Addison's beautiful Papers the unchanging tenor of those laws on the Imagination, 6 vol. Spect which from age to age regulate the p. 64, &c.; Grove's Mor. Phil. conduct of mankind. Hence the p. 354, 355, 410, vol. i. uniformity of that government,and IMMATERIALISM, the be- the certainty of those promises, lief that the soul is a spiritual sub-which are the ground of our trust stance distinct from the body.and security. An objection, howSee MATERIALISM and SOUL. ever, may be raised against this

IMMENSITY, unbounded or doctrine,from the commands given incomprehensible greatness; and us to prayer, and other religious unlimited extension, which no fi-exercises. To what purpose, it may nite and determined space, re-be urged, is homage addressed toa peated ever so often, can equal. Being whose plan is unalterably See INFINITY OF GOD. fixed? This objection would have IMMORALITY, an action in-weight if our religious addresses consistent with our duty towards were designed to work any altermen,and consequently a sin againstation on God, either by giving him God, who hath commanded us to information of what he did not do justly, and love mercy. See Mo-know, or by exciting affections which he did not possess ; orby inIMMORTALITY, a state ducing him to change measures which has no end; the impossibili-which he had previously formed: ty of dying. It is applied to God, but they are only crude and imper

RALITY.

fect notions of religion which can puts him out of a possibility of sinsuggest such ideas. The change ning. Divines have distinguished which our devotions are intended several kinds of impeccability; that to make are upon ourselves, not of God belongs to him by nature; upon the Almighty. By pouring that of Jesus Christ, considered as out our sentiments and desires be-man, belongs to him by the hyposfore God, by adoring his perfec-tatical union; that of the blessed, tions, and confessing our unwor-in consequence of their condithiness; by expressing our depend-tion, &c.

ence on his aid, our gratitude for IMPLICIT FAITH, is that by his past favours, our submission to which we take up any system or his present will, and our trust in opinion of another without examihis future mercy, we cultivate such nation. This has been one of the affections as suit our place and sta-chief sources of ignorance and ertion in the universe, and are to be ror in the church of Rome. The exercised by us as men and as divines of that community teach, Christians. The contemplation of" That we are to observe not how this divine perfection should raise the church proves any thing, but in our minds admiration; should what she says. That the will of teach us to imitate, as far as our God is, that we should believe and frailty will permit, that constancy confide in his ministers in the same and steadfastness which we adore, manner as himself." Cardinal To2d Cor. iii, 18. And, lastly, should letus, in his instructions for priests, excite trust and confidence in the asserts, "That if a rustic believes Divine Being, amidst all the revolu- his bishop proposing an heretical tetions of this uncertain world." net for an article of faith, such beBlair's Sermons, ser. 4, vol. ii; lief is meritorious." Cardinal CuCharnock's Works, vol. i, p. 203; sanus tells us, "That irrational Gill's Body of Div. vol. i, p. 50; obedience is the most consummate Lambert's Ser. ser. on Mal. iii, 6. and perfect obedience, when we

IMPANATION, a term used obey without attending to reason, by divines to signify the opinion of as a beast obeys his driver." In an the Lutherans with regard to the epistle to the Bohemians he has eucharist, who belive that the these words: "I assert, that there species of bread and wine remain are no precepts of Christ but those together with the body of our Sa- which are received as such by the viour after consecration. church (meaning the church of IMPECCABILES, aname giv-Rome.) When the church changes en to those heretics who boasted her judgment, God changes his that they were impeccable, and judgment likewise." What madthat there was no need of repent-ness! what blasphemy! For a ance; such were the Gnostics, church to demand belief of what Priscillianists, &c. she teaches, and a submission to IMPECCABILITY, the state what she enjoins, merely upon her of a person who cannot sin; or a assumed authority, must appear to grace, privilege, or principle, which unprejudiced minds the height of VOL. I.

3 F

unreasonableness and spiritual des-observed the same custom, both potism. We could wish this doc-when he conferred his blessing on trine had been confined to this children, and when he healed the church; but, alas! it has been too sick, adding prayer to the ceremoprevalent in other communities. ny. The apostles, likewise, laid A theological system, says Dr. Jor-hands on those upon whom they tin, is too often no more than a bestowed the Holy Ghost. The temple consecrated to implicit faith; priests observed the same custom and he who enters in there to wor-when any one was received into ship, instead of leaving his shoes, their body. And the apostles after the eastern manner, must themselves underwent the imposileave his understanding at the door; tion of hands afresh every time they and it will be well if he find it when entered upon any new design. In he comes out again. the ancient church, imposition of IMPOSITION OF HANDS, hands was even practised on persons an ecclesiastical action, by which a when they married, which custom bishop lays his hand on the head of the Abyssinians still observe. Moa person in ordination, confirma- rice's Dial. on Soc. Relig. p. 163, tion, or in uttering a blessing.168; Watts's Rational Foundation This practice is also frequently ob-of a Christion Ch. p. 31; Turner served by the Dissenters at the or-on Church Gov. p. 70; King's Pridination of their preachers; when mitive Christ. Ch. p. 49. the ministers present place their IMPOSTORS RELIGIOUS, hands on the head of him whom are such as pretend to an extraorthey are ordaining, while one of dinary commission from heaven, them prays for a blessing on him and who terrify the people with and on his future labours. They false denunciations of judgments. are not agreed, however, as to the Too many of these have abounded propriety of this ceremony. Some in almost all ages. They are suppose it to be confined to those punishable in the temporal courts who received extraordinary gifts in with fine, imprisonment, and corthe primitive times: others think it poral punishment. See FALSE ought to be retained, as it was an an- MESSIAHS. cient practice used where no extra- IMPOTENCY, or IMPOTENCE, ordinary gifts were conveyed, Gen. is considered as natural and moral. xlviii, 14. Matt. xix, 15. They do Natural is the want of some physinot suppose it to be of such an im-cal principle necessary to an action, portant and essential nature, that the or where a being is absolutely defecvalidity and usefulness of a man's tive, or not free and at liberty to act. future ministry depend upon it in Moral impotency imports a great any degree. Imposition of hands difficulty; as a strong habit to the was a Jewish ceremony, introduced contrary; a violent passion; or the not by any divine authority, but by like.

custom; it being the practice among IMPURITY, want of that regard those people, whenever they prayed to decency, chastity, or holiness, to God for any person to lay their which our duty requires. Impurity, hands on his head. Our Saviour in the law of Moses, is any legal de