Martyrs But S. Austin saith afterwards we worship therefore the Saints with that worship of love and society c. What means this c. here let us have all or nothing with which holy men in this life are worshipped whose heart is prepared to suffer as much for the truth of the Gospel he that hath but an eye open saith T. G. must see that S. Austin speaks here of the worship which the Christians of his time gave to the Martyrs themselves And he that hath but one corner open cannot but see that he doth not speak of Religious worship which Faustus objected but having denyed that to be given to Martyrs he now shews what they did give them viz. such a kind of worship as we give to holy men alive and is that the Religious worship either Faustus or S. Austin meant S. Austin calls it worship but he means no more by it than when he said before that they are to be loved for their goodness and honoured for their examples but what is all this to Religious worship or Invocation of them when S. Austin in another place expresly denyes that the Saints are invocated by him that offers the sacrifices at the Altar nay although that Altar were in the place of their sufferings And here saith T. G. I think I have done their work for them and he is not mistaken whatever he cites from Bishop Forbs that S. Austin was only to be understood of Invocation at the Altar I shall make it appear that the argument holds good and that those who speak against it it is because they do not understand the strength of it Bishop Forbs in this place and several others takes occasion without reason to find fault with Bishop Andrews a man of far greater Learning than himself and of better judgement in these matters and it is he and not Bishop Montague as T.G. mistakes whom Bishop Forbs introduces Iohn Barclay charging with leading King James aside But I still say the argument clearly proves that S. Austin denyed Invocation of Saints and I am sorry to see Bishop Forbs so weakly led aside by Bellarmin and others upon this ground because in the Canon of the Mass the Saints are not directly prayed to in the Roman Church but they are in the Missa Catechumenorum and in the Litanies therefore thus it was in the African Church in S. Austins time Who knows not what great alterations have been in the Liturgies of the Church since that time Yet thus wisely doth T. G. speak upon this subject if I speak of that part of the Mass which was antiently called the Mass of the Catechumeni the Priest indeed before he ascends to the Altar desires the Blessed Virgin and the rest of the Saints c. to pray for him but in the Missa Fidelium there is no Invocation of them If there had been none any where else there had been a far greater conformity between the Church of Rome and the Church in S. Austins time we plainly prove there was no Invocation at the Altar let T. G. shew any other part of publick worship at that time wherein they were invocated But all these mistakes arise from not considering the mighty difference of the Liturgy in S. Austins time in the African Church from what hath since obtained in the Roman Church But to give T. G. some better light in this matter and withal to shew the invincible strength of this argument I shall prove these two things 1. That the Prayers of the Church did not begin in S. Austins time till the Catechumens were dismissed 2. That the prayers after their dismission were performed at the Altar 1. That the prayers of the Church in S. Austins time did not begin till the Catechumens were dismissed For which we have a plain Testimony from S. Austin Ecce post sermonem fit Missa Catechumenis manebunt fideles venietur ad locum orationis whereby he shews not only that prayers did not begin till the dismission of the Catechumens but that the Altar was then accounted the proper place of prayer and elsewhere he saith that Invocation did begin after the Creed ideo non accepistis prius orationem postea symbolum sed prius symbolum ubi sciretis quid crederetis postea orationem ubi nossetis quem invocaretis which words could have no sense if any solemn invocation were then made before the Creed So S. Ambrose describes the service of the Church of Millan in his time Post lectiones atque tractatum dimissis Catechumenis Symbolum aliquibus Competentibus in baptisteriis tradebam Basilicae by which it seems the Service began with the Lessons then followed the Sermon after that the Creed and then when the Catechumens were dismissed the prayers of the Church begun so S. Ambrose presently after saith when he had instructed the Competentes Missam facere coepi i. e. the Missa Fidelium or the Prayers of the Church when the Missa Catechumenorum was dispatched or they sent out of the Congregation So Iustin Martyr describes the Service of the first Christians that it began with the Lessons of the Prophets and Apostles then followed the Sermon and after that the Prayers began and then followed the Eucharist which was then constantly received in the publick Service The Council of Laodicea mentions prayers beginning after the Sermon i. e. the publick prayers of the Church of which that Council mentions the prayers for the Catechumens before their dismission which in the Greek Church were performed by the Deacon in the Ambo making the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the people to which they joyned their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after these followed the prayers for the Penitents and then the Prayers of the Faithful or the proper Liturgy of the Church began The Author of the Constitutions called Apostolical appoints the Service to begin with the Lessons of the Old Testament the Psalms the Epistles and Gospel after which the Sermon was to follow then the Catechumens and Penitents being dismissed they must all rise and go to their prayers for the Catholick Church as it is there described in the eighth Book he mentions the occasional prayers that were made for the Catechumens and Penitents before their dismission and then follow the forms of Solemn Invocation which were not to be used till the other were dismissed the Assembly To the same purpose the counterfeit Dionysius describes the practice of the Church that the Catechumens and Penitents were admitted to the Lessons and Psalms and then were excluded the Congregation And none were allowed to be present at the Prayers of the Faithful but such as were allowed to be present at the Eucharist as the fourth degree of Penitents which is called communicating in Prayers by the Council of Nice by which we may see T. G.'s skill in Antiquity when he puts the forms of invocation used by those who were to
the object of worship but that the acts of worship were to be performed to the Images themselves The former use of Images doth suppose them to be only of the nature of Books which represent things to our minds without any act of adoration performed to that which is only an instrument of intellection although the thing represented to the mind be a proper object of adoration As if by reading a Book an Idea of God is represented to my mind whom I ought to worship yet no man can imagine that from hence I should fall down upon my knees out of honour to the Book or with a design to worship it When a man reads his prayers out of a Book and makes use of that only as a means or instrument to help his understanding and direct his expressions no man can have any colour of Reason to say that he worships the Book which he uses for a quite different purpose It is the same case as to Images when they are used for no other end but barely to represent to the mind an object of worship as a Crucifix may do our Saviour then it is no more than an external Note or Character and hath the same use that words have But those who go no farther than thus stand condemned and Anathematized by the second Council of Nice For that not only determines with a great deal of assurance that Images are to be set up in Churches and houses and wayes in order to the worship of them but very freely Anathematizes all sorts of dissenters either in judgement or practice Anathema be to all those who do not Salute the Holy and Venerable Images Anathema to all hereticks Anathema to those that follow the Council against Images Anathema to them that do not salute the Images of Christ and his Saints Epiphanius in the sixth Session declares this to be the sense of the Council Those who say that Images are to be had only for memory and not for worship or salutation are half-wicked and partly true and partly false they are so far right as they are for Images but they are in the wrong as they are against the worship of them O the folly of these men saith Epiphanius But this is not all for as it was not sufficient to have Images for helps to memory so neither was it to give them some kind of honour or reverence nothing but worship would satisfie them So the Patriarch Tarasius saith in plain terms they who pretend to honour Images and not to worship them are guilty of Hypocrisie and self-contradiction For worship saith he is a Symbol and signification of Honour therefore they who deny to worship them do dishonour them This was the Patriarchal way of arguing in this famous Council And this he proves from the saying of Anastasius Bishop of Theopolis Let no man be offended with the name of adoration or worship for we worship men and Angels but do not serve them and worship is an expression of Honour And it would do one good at heart to see how all the Reverend Fathers clap their hands for joy at the subtle Criticism which it seems that Bishop had discovered viz. that when our saviour said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him Only shalt thou serve that Only was not applyed to Worship but to Service Mark that cryes the Council Only belongs to Service and not to worship therefore although we may not serve Images yet we may Worship them If the Devil had been so subtle might not he have said to our Saviour Mark that you are forbidden Only to Serve any else but God but you may Worship me notwithstanding that command The Patriarch Tarasius in his Epistle to Constantine and Irene expresses this worship by the very same word which is used to God for when God saith Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve he restrains Service to himself but allows Worship to other things therefore saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the least doubt or dispute it is a thing acceptable and well pleasing to God for us to worship and salute the Images of Christ and the B. Virgin and of the Holy Angels and Saints If any man think otherwise and have any doubt in his mind or any wavering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Worship of the Venerable Images the Holy and Oecumenical Synod hath Anathematized him and what is an Anathema but a Separation from God And thus it becomes no less than damnation to doubt of the Worship of Images O blessed Change from what it was in the primitive times when it was damnation to worship them This worship he expresses in the same Epistle by Kissing by bowing by prostration all which he shews from the signification of the word and the use of it in Scripture And in the Definition of the Council among the Acts of worship are reckoned the oblation of Incense and Lights because the honour of the Image passes to the thing represented by it So that all external acts of adoration were by the Definition of this Council to be performed to Images and the same have been practised by the approbation of the Roman Church wherein this Council of Nice is received as a General Council and appealed to by the Council of Trent supposing the Decrees of that Council to be still in force In the Constitutions of Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury made in the Convocation of the Bishops and Clergy begun at S. Pauls 14 Ian. A. D. 1408. we have a particular enumeration of the several Acts of worship which were required to be performed to Images and the places and Reliques of the Saints viz. processions genuflections bowing of the body thurifications deosculations oblations burnings of Lights and Pilgrimages and all other forms and modes of worship which have been practised in the times of our predecessours or in our own and this not only the People were required to practise but the Clergy to teach and preach up the worship of the Cross and other Images with these acts of adoration And this Constitution is extant in Lyndwood as part of the Canon Law then in force who in his Notes upon it observes that offering incense was a sacrifice as it was burnt upon the Altar and a part of Latria and therefore he saith the same incense was not used to the Clergy and people with that burnt upon the Altar but of another sort which was not consecrated In the Records of the Tower is extant the Form of Renunciation imposed on the Lollards wherein are these words concerning the worship of Images I do swear to God and to all his Seynts upon this Holy Gospell that fro this day forward I shall Worship Images with praying and offering unto them in the worschop of the Seynts that they be made after And yet after all this plain evidence some have had the confidence to tell
those are either from Scripture or Fathers 1. From Scripture where they are charged with forsaking God Deut. 32.15 16 17 18. As though the Israelites committed no Idolatry in the Wilderness but that of the Golden Calf whereas it is well known that they worshipped Baal Peor Moloch and Remphan of which a blacker character is given than of the other But the Psalmist saith that in worshipping the Calf they did forget God Psal. 106.19 20 21. And was not that forgetting the God that appeared with such a terrible Majesty on Mount Sinai to turn His glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth grass But in the expressions of Scripture to forget God is to disobey Him Beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God in not keeping His Commandments and His Iudgements and His Statutes which I command thee this day And was not this forgetting God in this sense so openly to break one of the Laws he had so lately given them That which seems to come nearest the matter is the expression of S. Stephen That our Fathers would not obey but thrust Him from them that is the true God saith T. G. whereas the words are plainly meant of Moses and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt saying Make us Gods to go before us which relates not to the object but to the manner of worship by such a Symbol of worship as was in greatest veneration among all the Egyptians This is the force of all that he brings out of the Scripture 2. From them he betakes himself to the Fathers and he quotes two passages of S. Athanasius and S. Hierome and a doubtful place of S. Chrysostom to his purpose This is the first time I have found T. G. citing the Fathers truly and pertinently and it were too hard dealing with him not to allow him these Testimonies especially about the exposition of a place of Scripture wherein their best Commentators take so much liberty of receding from them when they apprehend the scope and circumstances of the place do enforce another sense as I have already shewed at large concerning this And to these Fathers I shall oppose the Testimony of others who make the Egyptian Ox to be only a Symbolical representation of the Patriarch Ioseph and say that on this account the Israelites made choice of the Golden Calf so the Author of the Book De Mirabilibus S. Script in S. Augustins Works as good an Author as the Homilist de Poenit. whom he quotes under S. Chrys. name saith That the Egyptians set up the Image of an Ox by the Sepulchre of Joseph and for this cause the Israelites made choice of that similitude when they made an Idol in the Wilderness Iulius Firmicus Maternus saith That the Neocori did preserve in Egypt the Image of Joseph by which he understands Apis or the Sacred Bulls the same is affirmed by Rufinus and Suidas From whence it follows that this being looked on as the Symbol taken up in Egypt in remembrance of the service of Ioseph it was very unlikely that the Israelites should look on the Image it self as so powerful a thing as the Testimonies of Athanasius and S. Chrysostom imply to be able even before it was made to deliver them out of Egypt which is such a horrible contradiction that we had need to have better Testimonies than those to make us think the Israelites such Sots to believe it But if it were only looked on as a Symbol of Gods presence this gives a probable account why the Israelites should make choice of this before any other of the Egyptians Images because by it the Kindness of Ioseph who by Moses is compared to a young Ox was supposed to be remembred by them But 2. We are to enquire whether supposing that the Israelites did revolt to the Egyptian Idolatry in the worship of the Golden Calf that be sufficient to prove that they did not worship the True God under this Symbol For if the Egyptians themselves did worship the Supreme God under Symbolical representations of Him then although the Israelites might return with their hearts into Egypt yet this doth not prove that they did not worship the true God by the Golden Calf Plutarch who discourseth largely concerning the Egyptian Worship saith That the Golden Bull was the Image of Osiris which was shewed for four daies together from the seventeenth of the Month Athir And it was a common practice in Egypt to have Golden Images effigies sacri nitet aurea Cercopitheci wherein Lucian saith The barbarous Nations did exceed the Greeks who made their Images of Wood or Ivory or Stone For there were two sorts of Images of their Gods among the Egyptians Those Images and representations which were in their Temples or places of worship and those which they accounted the living Images of their Gods viz. Beasts such as the two famous Bulls Apis and Mneuis the one at Memphis the other at Heliopolis both in honour of Osiris which places were as the Dan and Bethel of Egypt Memphis being the Metropolis of the upper Heliopolis of the lower Egypt wherein the Israelites lived and saw the worship of the sacred Bull of Heliopolis Plutarch saith The Egyptians looked on Apis as the Image of the Soul of Osiris Diodorus saith That they looked on the soul of Osiris as passing by transmigration into Apis from which doctrin the worship of Beasts was not only entertained in Egypt but is so in the East Indies to this day in which case the Beast is only the material object of worship but the formal Reason is the Presence of some Divine Soul which they suppose to be there which on their supposition ought to have divine worship given to it by the principles of the Roman Church as the Elements of Bread and Wine on a supposition more extravagant viz. of Transubstantiation But whether the worship of Animals came into Egypt from the doctrine of transmigration or from their usefulness or from some politick Reasons which are mentioned both by Plutarch and Diodorus this is certain that Plutarch thinks Their wiser men did not worship the Animals themselves but looked on them only as representations of some divine perfection which they discerned in them and on that account gave worship to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those persons ought to be most esteemed who did not worship the Animals themselves but through them did worship the Deity and they ought to be looked on as clearer and more natural representations of God than inanimate things and we ought to esteem them as the Workmanship and Instrument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God that orders all things And there is all the reason to imagine that what hath a soul and sense is better than that which hath none viz. an Image and the Divine Nature is not seen in colours and Figures and smooth Superficies which are worse than dead creatures for these
worship the same Gods with them nor offer up libations and the smoak of sacrifices to dead men Nor crown and worship Images that they agreed with Menander who said we ought not to worship the work of mens hands not because Devils dwelt in them but because men were the makers of them And he wondered they could call them Gods which they knew to be without soul and dead and to have no likeness to God it was not then upon the account of their being animated by evil Spirits that the Christians rejected this worship for then these reasons would not have held All the resemblance they had was to those evil Spirits that had appeared among men for that was Iustins opinion of the beginning of Idolatry that God had committed the Government of all things under the heavens to particular Angels but these Angels prevaricating by the love of Women did upon them beget Daemons that these Daemons were the great corrupters of mankind and partly by frightful apparitions and by instructing men in Idolatrous rites did by degrees draw men to give them divine worship the people not imagining them to be evil Spirits and so were called by such names as they liked best themselves as Neptune Pluto c. But the true God had no certain name given to him for saith he Father and God and Creator and Lord and Master are not names but titles arising from his works and good deeds and God is not a name but a notion engrafted in humane nature of an unexpressible Being But that God alone is to be worshipped appears by this which is the great command given to Christians Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve with all thy heart and with all thy strength even the Lord God that made thee Where we see the force of the argument used by Iustin in behalf of the Christians lay in Gods peremptory prohibition of giving divine worship to any thing but himself and that founded upon Gods right of dominion over us by vertue of creation In his Book of the Divine Monarchy he shews that although the Heathens did make great use of the Poets to justifie their Polytheism yet they did give clear testimony of one Supreme Deity who was the Maker and Governour of all things for which end he produces the sayings of Aeschylus Sophocles Orpheus Pythagoras Philemon Menander and Euripides all very considerable to this purpose In his works there is extant the resolution of several Questions by a Greek Philosopher and the Christians reply in which nothing can be more evident than that it was agreed on both sides that there was one Supreme God infinitely good powerful and wise Nay the Greek Philosopher looks upon the ignorance of God as a thing impossible because all men naturally agree in the knowledge of God But there are plain evidences in that Book that it is of later date than Iustins time therefore instead of insisting any more on that I shall give a farther proof that in his time it could be no part of the dispute between the Christians and Heathens whether there were one Supreme God that ought to be worshipped by men and that shall be from that very Emperour to whom Eusebius saith Iustin Martyr did make his second Apology viz. M. Aurelius Antoninus It is particularly observed of him by the Roman Historians that he had a great zeal for preserving the Old Roman Religion and Iul. Capitolinus saith that he was so skilful in all the practices of it that he needed not as it was common for one to prompt him because he could say the prayers by heart and he was so confident of the protection of the Gods that he bids Faustina not punish those who had conspired against him for the Gods would defend him his zeal being pleasing to them and therefore Baronius doth not wonder that Iustin and other Christians suffered Martyrdom under him But in the Books which are left of his writing we may easily discover that he firmly believed an eternal Wisdom and Providence which managed the World and that the Gods whose veneration he commends were looked on by him as the subservient Ministers of the Divine Wisdom Reverence the Gods saith he but withal he saith honour that which is most excellent in the world that which disposeth and Governs all which sometimes he calls the all-commanding reason sometimes the Mind and Soul of the World which he expresly saith is but one And in one place he saith that there is but one World and one God and one substance and one Law and one common reason of intelligent beings and one Truth But the great objection against such Testimonies of Antoninus and others lies in this that these only shew the particular opinions of some few men of Philosophical minds but they do not reach to the publick and established Religion among them which seemed to make no difference between the Supreme God and other Deities from whence it follows that they did not give to him any such worship a◠belonged to him Which being the most considerable objection against the design of this present discourse I shall here endeavour to remove it before I produce any farther testimonies of the Fathers For which we must consider wherei◠the Romans did suppose the solemn and outward acts of their Religion to consist viz. in the worship appropriated 〈◊〉 their Temples or in occasional prayers and vows or in some parts of divination whereby they supposed God did make known his mind to them If I can therefore prove that the Romans did in an extraordinary manner make use of all these acts of Religious worship to the Supreme God it will then necessarily follow that the controversie between the Fathers and them about Idolatry could not be about the worship of one Supreme God but about giving Religious worship to any else besides him The Worship performed in their Temples was the most solemn and frequent among them in so much that Tully saith therein the people of Rome exceeded all Nations in the world but the most solemn part of that Worship was that which was performed in the Capitol at Rome and in the Temple of Iupiter Latialis in Alba and both these I shall prove were dedicated to the Supreme God The first Capitol was built at Rome by Numa Pompilius and called by Varro the old Capitol which stood at a good distance from the place where the foundations of the great Temple were laid by Tarquinius Priscus the one being about the Cirque of Flora the other upon the Tarpeian Mountain There is so little left of the memory of the former that for the design of it we are to judge by the general intention of Numa as to the worship of the Deity of which Plutarch gives this account That he forbad the Romans making any Image of God either like to men or beast because the First Being is
think the Name of Iesus equal to an Image of Christ. I am now come to his last Instance viz. bowing towards the Altar he would insinuate as though the Church of England were for giving some kind of worship to the Altar although under the degree of Divine Worship due to God alone and saith that as the allowing this would render me a true Son of the Church of England so the allowing the like to the sacred Images of Christ would make me in this point a perfect Proselyte of the Church of Rome Which is in effect to say that the Church of England in allowing bowing to the Altar doth give the very same worship to it which their Church requires to be given to Images and that they who do one and not the other do not attend to the Consequence of their own Actions I shall therefore shew 1. That the Church of England doth not allow any worship to be given to the Altar 2. That the adoration allowed and practised in the Church of England is of a very different Nature from the Worship of Images 1. That the Church of England doth not allow any Worship to be given to the Altar For this I appeal to that Canon wherein is contained the Explication of the sense of our Church in this particular Whereas the Church is the House of God dedicated to his holy Worship and therefore ought to mind us both of the Greatness and Goodness of his Divine Majesty certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof not only inwardly in our hearts but also outwardly with our bodies must needs be pious in it self profitable unto us and edifying unto others We therefore think it very meet and behooveful and heartily commend it to all good and well affected People members of this Church that they be ready to tender unto the Lord the said acknowledgement by doing Reverence and obeysance both at their coming in and going out of the said Churches Chancels or Chappels according to the most ancient Custome of the Primitive Church in the purest times and of this Church also for many years of the Reign of Q. Elizabeth The reviving therefore of this ancient and laudable custome we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good People NOT WITH ANY INTENTION TO EXHIBITE ANY RELIGIOUS WORSHIP TO THE COMMUNION TABLE THE EAST OR THE CHURCH or any thing therein contained in so doing or to perform the said gesture in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist upon any Opinion of the CORPORAL PRESENCE OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ON THE HOLY TABLE OR IN THE MYSTICAL ELEMENTS but ONLY for the advancement of Gods Majesty and to give him ALONE that honour and glory that is due unto him and NO OTHERWISE And in the practice or omission of this Rite we desire that the Rule of charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed which is That they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it This is the full declaration of the sense of our Church about it made by those who met in Convocation and were most zealous for the practice of it Agreeably to this Archbishop Laud speaks when this was charged as an innovation To this I answer saith he First That God forbid that we should worship any thing but God himself 2. That if to worship God when we enter into his House or approach his Altar be an Innovation it was a very old one being practised by Jacob Moses Hezekiah c. And were this Kingdom such as would allow no holy Table standing in its proper place yet I would worship God when I came into his House And afterwards he calls it doing Reverence to Almighty God but towards his Altar and Idolatry it is not to worship God towards his holy Table Now with us the People did ever understand them fully and apply them to God and to none but God From whence it appears that God is looked on as the sole Object of this Act of Worship and that our Church declares that it allows no intention of exhibiting any Religious worship to the Communion Table or East or Church or any Corporal Presence of Christ. 2. That the adoration allowed and practised in the Church of England is of a very different nature from the worship of Images For as I have fully made it appear in the State of the Controversie the Church of Rome doth by the Decrees of Councils require Religious worship to be given to Images and that those who assert this inferiour worship do yet declare it to be truly Religious worship and that the Images themselves are the Object of it whereas our Church declares point-blank the contrary nay that those Persons are looked on by the Generality of Divines in the Roman Church as suspected at least if not condemned of Heresie who practise all the external acts of adoration to Images but yet do not in their minds look on them as Objects but only as Occasions of Worship which make the difference so plain in these two cases that T. G. himself could not but discern it But to remove all scruple from mens minds that suspect this practice to be too near the Idolatrous worship which we reject in the Roman Church I shall consider it not only as to its Object which is the main thing and which I have shewed to be the proper Object of worship viz. God himself and nothing else but as to the nature of the act and the local circumstance of doing it towards the Altar 1. As to the nature of the act so it is declared to be an act of external adoration of God which I shall prove from Scripture to be a lawful and proper act of Divine Worship I might prove it from the general consent of Mankind who have expressed their Reverence to the Deity by acts of external adoration from whence I called it a natural act of Reverence but I rather choose to do it from Scripture and that both before the Law had determined so punctually the matters of Divine Worship and under the Law by those who had the greatest regard to it and under the Gospel when the spiritual nature of its doctrine would seem to have superseded such external acts of worship 1. Before the Law I instance in Abraham's servant because Abraham is particularly commended for his care in instructing his Houshold to keep the way of the Lord in opposition to Heathen Idolatry and this was the Chief Servant of his House of whom it is said three times in one Chapter That he bowed his head worshipping the Lord the Hebrew words signifie and he inclined and bowed himself to the Lord for the word we translate worship doth properly signifie to bow and both the Iews and others say It relates to some external act of the body whereby we express our inward Reverence or Subjection to another