or that suppose whether the body of a man or a piece of bread And besides this not only the exteriour reason but that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which contains the first and self-evident common Notions or Axiomes that are without syllogism noematically true layes fast hold on the object in this controversy Transubstantiation being easily resolvible into a flat and manifest contradiction to these as I have abundantly shown in my Antidote and Reply But there is no contradiction at all to either sensation or common notion in the mystery of the Trinity only exteriour reason and imagination raise some mists and obscurities about it Which well exercised minds in contemplation can easily discern and dispute from this venerable mystery so far forth as it is exhibited to us in the ancient symbols of the Catholick Church Wherefore of two desperate cases it is the more hopeful that the bread being not tranâ—ubstantiated and yet they taking it to be so they may scape being Idolaters than that it is transubstantiated to save them from Idolatry XXXIV That the believing the bread not to be there does not all clear the Romanists from down-right Bread-worship which is Idolatry And I must confess I was once inclinable to this opinion my self that in this case they are not Idolaters see my Idea of Antichristianisme Book 1. Chap. 13. sect 6. before I had more closely and carefully considered the point And the Church of Rome does not want at this day witty Patrons and of admirable art and eloquence to perswade the heedless into this security That though the bread should not prove transubstantiated yet they cannot be bread-worshippers while they believe it is for if they believe it is transubstantiated they believe it not to be there namely within the Symbols or Species and thence they pretend it is demonstratively evident that they cannot worship it but only Christ into whose substance it is believed to be transubstantiated For whatever is taken say they for an object of worship the understanding must affirm either truly or falsly that it is there whither the worship is directed Which arguing bears a smart plausibility with it But I answer That what is made an object of worship through mistake there is no need the understanding affirm it is there but rather the contrary For it does not think the undue object is there but the due one Those that worshipped the Sun that is that which we call the Sun and understand thereby a flammeous body devoid of sense and understanding that appears alike to the sight of the sun-Sun-worshippers and to ours as the species appear the same to those that believe the bread transubstantiated and to them that believe it not be it called what it will they did not believe that which we know to be the Sun to be there but an intellectual Deity which the Sun is not and yet we all acknowledg them for all that to have been Sun-worshippers and Idolaters Wherefore using just weights and measures we must conclude the Romanists Bread-worshippers and Idolaters the bread not being transubstantiated since their worship then lights upon bread instead of Christ as the Sun-worshippers upon the Sun instead of an intelligent Deity He that strikes his Friend in the dusk of the Evening thinking it is his Enemy thinks his friend is not there who notwithstanding finds himself the Object of his stroak and wishes he had not been there This Idolatry I must confess is committed through mistake but so is all Idolatry that is committed in good earnest so that this cannot excuse the fact from so grievous a crime And that it is Idolatry is evident Divine worship being given to a piece of bread which is a peculiarity of the Godhead and must be given to none but him And the violation of any Divine peculiarity is Idolatry by the proposed definition thereof XXXV The application of the Heathen Idolatry to this definition besides his present scope By vertue of which we demonstratively have shown the sundry Idolatries of the Church of Rome in their worshipping the Image of Christ in their worshipping and invocating Saints and Angels and in their adoration of the Eucharist And in vertue of the same Definition the Idolatries of the Heathen might be as clearly demonstrated in their worshipping the supream God by Images and in their religious worship they did to Daemons which this definition would prove to be Divine But this would be quite besides my present purpose and neither useful nor sutable to the subject in hand XXXVI The great difference betwixt religious respect and preference and Divine worship It remains now only that we free several Ceremonies used in our own Church from the imputation of Idolatry by application to this definition as well as we have evinced several of theirs to be Idolatrous by the same Which will be a no less useful and it may be a more pleasant consideration to our own to see how little hold the adverse party can take of these small strings to pull us back again into Popery For if the definition of Idolatry be unapplicable to them it is manifest they cannot be Idolatrous And the inapplicability is so easily discoverable that there will be no need to insist long on this matter In the general then we are to note what a vast difference there is betwixt religious worship properly so called which is the same with Divine worship and pious or religious affection and respect or preference of one thing before another for its relation it has to the objects or exercise of our Religion or Divine worship It is but an homely Proverb Love me and love my dog but it may be of no impertinent significancy in this place For it is not understood of the love of friendship but of such a love as that inferiour Creature is capable of and is fit to give him in relation to his Master to whom we owe the love of friendship So they that have a real Divine reverence for God it is no wonder they find an inclination in themselves of bearing some reverence or having some respect to those things or persons that in a special manner relate to him Whether it be Priest or Temple or any holy utensil or the like Which reverence is quite different from that Divine worship or reverence that is due to God himself more different than the love to ones Friend and to his Spaniel and therefore can be no peculiarity of the Godhead and consequently no violation of his peculiarities to give it to another Which is the true Notion of Idolatry XXXVII The keeping our hats off in the Church freed from Idolatry by this Definition We will illustrate this with some few examples and so conclude They that keep off their hats in the Church and do it even then when Divine Service is not a doing there are not by any means conceived to do that Divine reverence or worship which is peculiarly due to God
Attributes or Rites chosen and appropriate to his own worship which his own choice is enough to make peculiar to him though closely look't into they may have also a natural significancy of those excellencies that are proper to the Godhead Such are the having a Temple and a Symbolical presence erected for invocation and worship praying before that Symbolical presence having incense burnt before it and Lamps or Candles light up c. These and the like were the modes that God made choice of to signify the honour and worship due to himself and therefore to use them to any else is a violation of his peculiarities For by the violation of the peculiarities of the Godhead I understand any kind of prophanation or vilification of them either by obscuring or lessening of them in himself or else by communicating of them to others As to set up such a Symbolical presence to be worshipped towards as pretends to represent God who is irrepresentable as being infinite in Majesty and Greatness this were to lessen obscure or indeed to abolish the infinite glorious Majesty of God which is peculiar to him and so to make an Idol of him and therefore were gross Idolatry But to erect a Symbolical presence to a Creature that is Idolatry upon the other score it implying Omnipresence or Omnipercipience to be in that Creature IV. What a Symbolical presence is For a Symbolical presence is nothing else but some figure or imagerie instituted or erected for the invoking of supplicating or any way religiously worshipping that invisible Power or Spirit for whom it is erected or made So that in brief all Idolatry is such as either turns God into an Idol or turns an Idol that is the Creature we give religious worship to in some respect into a God in giveing it something which is peculiar unto him V. That that religious worship of Daemons which was truly Idolatry was really Divine Whence for the utter taking away all litigiousness about terms That religious worship which misapplyed or given to any Creature constitutes Idolatry may rightly and truly be also called Divine and is so if it make the act Idolatry for that implyes that it violates some peculiarity of the Godhead and attributes it to the Creature which is as to that respect to make a God of it And such Divine worship as this was that which the Heathens gave to their Daemons though they took it to be only religious and such as did not appertain peculiarly to God himself as is particularly observable in the Platonists whom yet neither St. Austin nor any other serious Christian will stick to conclude to have been Idolaters in their Daemon-worship And therefore if we will but use just weights and measures whatever Christians do the like things to Saints and Angels pretending it is not Divine worship but an inferiour religious worship they must be also judged to commit Idolatry VI. The way of convincing the Romanists of Idolatry in this Treatise And this was one way of convincing the Roman Church of their Idolatries But laying aside all these more exteriour and obvious Arguments we will deal now more precisely and Philosophically and argue only from the most intrinsecal and essential Topick in all Logick and examine the Roman Idolatries by the inmost Notion and Definition of the Thing shewing that even that which seems to be only by Divine Declaration Idolatry is also if more rationally considered Idolatry according to the proposed Definition VII That the forbidding to worship God by an Image is the natural sense of the second Commandement As the worshipping God by an Image is plainly declared Idolatry by God himself in the second Commandement Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image c. Thou shalt not bow down to it nor worship it c. The bowing down to and worshipping a graven Image though in pretence to worship God thereby is plainly prohibited by this Commandement For the prohibition of worshipping any other God is sufficiently evident in the first Commandement Thou shalt have no other Gods but me Whereby he pronounces that he alone will be worshipped whence it naturally follows that this next precept is at least chiefly about the purity and congruity of his own worship forbidding to worship him by any Image in bowing to it or worshiping it though in reference to himself This is the most natural and indeed the necessary sense of this precept if we consider the extream incredibility of any other senses that are offered or can be offered VIII All other senses plainly impossible and incredible For let us suppose first that the sense is Thou shalt not bow down to nor worship the graven Image that thou makest and settest up thou shalt not worship the Image it self instead of God or for God It would be a prohibition of a thing even impossible to humane Nature to do that a Jew suppose should worship an Image that himself has made of some log of wood or stone instead of or for the God that brought him out of the land of Egypt and the house of Bondage indeed that created the whole World as if he could take the Image for this God and not worship it in reference to him How nugatorious would they make the Divine Law-giver by such a prohibition to interdict those things which it is impossible for men to doe And now let us suppose the other sense of the precept to be and I can neither meet with nor devise any more Thou shalt not make to thy self any Idol that is to say no Image of any Heathen God or of any false God whatsoever that this cannot be the chiefly intended sense thereof is plain First from the apparent superfluity of this precept that being so strictly and apertly interdicted before viz. That they should have no Pagan gods nor any gods whatever besides Jehovah Which while they hold to it is impossible they should make to themselves any Images or Idols of those gods to bow down to or worship So that this prohibition would be superfluous if that was the only meaning of the commandement And then in the second place this sense is incoherent with the words following For I am a jealous God Which implyes suspicion of some foul dealing betwixt any Member of his Spouse the Church and Himself that they may communicate any thing of that which is peculiarly due to himself unto another But if the Jews should make an Idol that is the Image of some Pagan God and worship it the matter would be past suspicion they would apertly and professedly be found false to Jehovah and to commit Adultery with another God IX The golden Calf no intended Image of Apis but the Symbolical presence of Jehovah To which you may add in the third place that God himself has thus interpreted this commandement that he will not be worshipped by an Image though erected and worshipped in reference to himself as is most undeniably plain in the golden Calf
golden Calf though erected to himself XIII Two evasions to shun this sense The first from the Septuagints Translation of Pesel proposed and answered The best and most ordinary evasions are these two The first that the Septuagint translating Pesel not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sculptile but Idolum do plainly enough insinuate that an Image to the true God is not there forbid for worship but Idols only or Images of the Heathen Gods or any false Gods But those that argue thus do not consider that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek is of as indifferent and large a signification as Imago in Latin or Image in English Plotinus when he was desired to sit to have his Picture drawn said he would not have them give themselves the trouble of making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Image of an Image or Shadow of a Shadow So that we way with better reason imagine the Septuagint to have chosen this word as an universal Bar against not only Statue-worship but even Picture-worship also Or to have made choice of Idolon rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sculptile because it signifieth more determinately such Sculptilia as are Images or have Imagery on them that they should not be bowed to in a religious way not forbidding to direct their worship towards every thing that is carved when it does not at all pretend to make God representable as Imagery does So that there being these Reasons so obvious why the Septuagint might Translate Pesel Idolon rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sculptile the inferring they did it in reference to the Idols of the Heathen is of no force And besides suppose that Pesel signifies an Idol in the sense of the adverse party what do they get by it when as the text then will run thus Thou shalt not make to thy self any Idol or Image of any Heathen God nor the likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the earth beneath thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them It is manifest that yet for all this all manner of Image-worship or Picture-worship is forbidden not only of the Heathen Gods but all whatsoever and therefore they cannot be worshipped no not in reference to the true God himself Or if you would understand the following words viz. Nor the likeness of any thing in Heaven above c. still of the Heathen Gods Images which is perfectly illogical and impossible for any one that attends to reason to admit the object of the precept being plainly here distributed into two parts The first part the Idols or Images of the Heathen Gods the other whatever other similitudes or Images besides Yet if these words could be drawn to the same sense with the other so that the Images of the Heathen Gods or any false Gods might be understood by them and that the whole prohibition were concerning such like Images or Idols that would also notwithstanding clash with the next words following For I am a jealous God For in this case as I noted above the matter would be beyond jealousie it would be a confessed act of spiritual Adultery w ch is Idolatry But to Argue from the mention of Gods jealousie that the Image must be meant of some strange God for what Husband would be jealous of his Wife for honouring or kissing his own picture that is no more than a witty sophism built upon a false Hypothesis as if the mans picture could as easily rob the man of what is due to him from his Wife as an Image rob God of what is due to him For the Image being visible God invisible there is manifest danger of joyning ones devotion which is all that God can have of us to the garish Image more than to God and the true Notion of him in our minds and that by worshipping Him in such a vile manner we may be brought off afterwards to worship other Gods as mean as we have made him by this sort of worship XIIII The second evasion touching the Cherubins on the Mercy-seat proposed and answered The next evasion which seems most considerable is in that they pretend that God himself has interpreted his own Law to another sense than we would have in commanding golden Cherubins to be set on the Mercy-seat for his own worship This excuse is very trite amongst the Romanists and the second Council of Nice alledges the same but it is plain that it falls exceeding short of the case For the scope of the second Commandement is not the forbidding all Image-work in the places of worship but the bowing to Images and worshipping them which the case of the Cherubins does not reach For the people was never commanded to bow down to or worship the golden Cherubins nor do the Jews profess themselves to have done so but to have bowed down to and worshipped God alone And besides that they were not intended for an Object of the Peoples worship or adoration is plain in that they were carefully hid from their sight And if they could penetrate with their imagination through the vail and make themselves present hard by the Cherubins their posture plainly shows they were never intended to be worshipped their faces not being turned towards the People to receive their salutations but towards one another Indeed if they were an object that it was their declared duty to worship when they saw them the same religious affection may be conceived to be directed towards them through the vail But formal adoration to a visible object while it is hid and made invisible is methinks as uncouth and unnatural as the bowing to some Person on the other side a brick-wall in which there is not the least loop-hole to see thorough Wherefore there being no precept to the people of the Jews to bow down to the golden Cherubins and to worship them nor it being any professed practice of them and the posture of the Cherubins being such as intimates they were not made to be worshipped by them and they being carefully hid from the eyes of the people that they might not see them though they were symbols of the special presence of God and Notes or Instruments for the directing their adoration thitherward to God in a special manner there present it is evident they were no object of the peoples worship and that they were neither to bow down to them nor worship them though they bowed toward them as a determinative circumstance of their worship of God This is so plain that I believe no man that considers it can have the confidence to deny it viz. That the Cherubins were not the object of the Peoples worship much less intended so by God XV. A difficulty touching the High Priests bowing in the Holy of Holies proposed But the great difficulty as it seems to some is how the High Priest when he went into the Holy of Holies which he did once by the year and bowed as they conceive before these Cherubins bare and open to
the Apostle plainly declares of those wise men of the Heathen who knew God yet were so foolishly subtil and phantastical as to worship him in the Images of Men Birds four-footed Beasts and creeping things which they could not but know were but at the best Hieroglyphicks of him no personal representatives of his Godhead yet forasmuch as they worshipped those Figures they are said to have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the Images of these corruptible Creatures For in worshipping these Images in reference to God they naturally acknovvledg or suppose a fitness in them to represent the glory of God or his Divine presence vvhich therefore must needs be an unspeakable vilification of his infinite glorious Majesty And what pretence can there be for any Figure or Symbolical Presence to have divine worship done to it or to be an object thereof in any sense if it vvere conceived to have no fitness to represent the Divinity And therefore the Psalmist according to this natural Notion inferres from the Israelites vvorshipping the Golden Calf that they turned the glory of God into that Creature Psalm 106.19 They made a Calf in Horeb and worshipped the Molten Image Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an Ox that eateth grass Which ansvvers very fitly to that of St. Paul They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to a corruptible man c. Rom. 1.23 XX. That in worshipping these representative Images in reference to God divine worship is given unto them as suppose to the Image of God the Father And that the vvorshipping of these representative Images in reference to God is the giving of Divine vvorship to them is manifest out of Scripture as Acts 7. And they made a Calf in those dayes and sacrificed to the Idol To say it vvas but sacrificium Relativum or Transitivum that passed to God not Terminativum that terminated in the Calf it self is but School-cobvveb-stuff Sacrifice is a peculiar vvorship belonging to God and by no distinction or evasion can any thing else partake in it so as to have it offered to it This is evident in this kind of Divine vvorship and there is the same reason of them all They vvorshipped the Calf in Horeb but in reference to Jehovah as plainly appears out of the Historie and therefore vvith Latria relativa or transitiva not terminativa But does this distinction of so subtil Texture cover their chance No certainly If this distinction vvere good and vvould justify their act vvhy does either the Psalmist or St. Steven find fault It is apparent therefore that Divine vvorship is so due to God alone that it is in no sense due to any thing else but that even the meer natural or external act must be to him only And therefore he will not be worshipped by an Image that the Image may not in any sense partake of his worship which yet it will in the natural externality thereof if we do it towards the visible Image For outwardly we behave our selves no otherwise towards the Image than towards God himself nor make any other external Application to the one than to the other As suppose there was an Image of God the Father in the shape of an Old man and one would make his adoration to God towards this Image with that mind with that devout look with that solemn and serious motion of the spirits in the eyes that is befitting the profound reverence we owe to God this natural visible and external act of worship passes plainly upon this Image as well and in such sort as on God himself and is such as no greater nor more lively expression of his highest devotion can be made by any suppliant To whom then but to God alone can this belong And therefore to make these expressions to a senseless stock and stone is the foulest violation of the divine peculiarities that can be by communicating them to so unworthy a subject as well as by lessening obscuring or rather abolishing the infinite glorious Majesty of the Godhead by supposing him or implying him representable by a wretched Statue of wood metal or stone as I noted before XXI That there is the same reason concerning the Image of Christ. And now for the Statue or Image of Christ if it be worshipped towards with such a religious look and devout cast of the eyes as before significative of the highest veneration that is due to God or can by us be given to him it is apparent that this exteriour ritual worship is done to this Image also nor can be any more doubted than if kissing of this Image were the Ritual performance and it were kissed that this Image was the Object of the kissing with all the exteriour devotionalness used therein and that therefore this Image thus adored though but relatively partakes of divine worship By which communication the peculiarities of the Godhead are plainly violated as well as by burning Incense or otherwise sacrificing to the Image as St. Steven complains of the Israelites sacrificing to the golden Calf though in relation to Jehovah which cannot excuse the Idolatry XXII That Relative Idolatry is as down-right Idolatry as Relative Adultery and Murder down-right Murder and Adultery For let any one judge in common sense and reason whether a foul unfit action to an undue object can be excused by an intended relation to a fit one Nothing can be more enormously incongruous than the giving divine worship which is Latria to a carved stock or stone ordinarily called Idolum or Imago And the giving this Latria to this Idolum is that which is most properly Idololatria But if in giving Latria to this Idolum which is so hugely unfit an object in relation to a fit one all is well and the fact lawful the short and the long then is That relative Idolatry is lawful which is as good sense as to say That relative Murder or relative Adultery is lawful As if to kill the next innocent man to wreak ones revenge on the nocent that deserved to be killed would excuse that Act from down-right Murder or to lye with another Woman with an intended kinde remembrance of his own in her absence were not down-right adultery Why then is not this relative Idolatry down-right Idolatry as well as relative murder and adultery down-right adultery and murder and why is relative murder and adultery still down-right murder and adultery but because that intended reference or relation takes not away the Specifick turpitude of the Fact How then can the intended relation in relative Idolatry take away the Specifick turpitude of that Fact so that it remain not down-right Idolatry still XXIII That relative Idolatry is real and proper Idolatry even according to the nice Notion of the Schools Which it does even in the nice Notion of the very Schools the Latria in this case being really not transitive or relative quatenus Latria but terminated on the very Idol it self
unto the fabrick they are under but because this place is set apart for holy uses and is of a different nature from ordinary places that have no such relation to God and his Divine worship out of an habitual deep devoutness toward God they also express this more inferiour affection and reverence to the place of his worship by way of distinction and preference of it before other common places be they never so magnificently built Which is not to give it a reverence any thing equal or of the same kind with that we give to God but only a greater and another sort of reverence than we would give to any place that is not related to him And this is no more Idolatry than Moses his putting off his shooes because the ground was hallowed by the special presence of God there And therefore it was not unfit to show some reverence thereto in those circumstances and not to prophane it and soyl it by his dirty shooes Nay indeed necessary having that express command of God for it Or if one should do so of himself in such a meaning of reverence as I have intimated though it might be superstitious under Christianity yet it could not be Idolatrous no peculiarities of the Godhead being violated thereby XXXVIII As also kissing the Bible in the administration of Oathes Kissing the Bible also in the administration of Oathes which is in use amongst us and might according to the proper Notation of the Latine word be called Adoration that word signifying properly either the a motion of our mouth to the thing kissed or the admotion of our own hand to our mouth and so by kissing it signifying chiefly our kindness and affection but withal our respect to the Person or thing we in this manner salute this Ceremony here is only an expression of our love and value we have even for the material word of God as I may so speak by reading whereof we find such Divine comforts and refreshments and which gives us to know the will of God and that salvation which is through Jesus Christ revealed in this book And if a man after the serious reading of a Chapter therein his heart being full of joy and holy consolation should at the close of all kiss the Bible as he layes it down out of a pious affection unto the very instrument of communicating such grace and comfort unto him what more Idolatry were there in this than in such an ones hugging his Bible in the Pulpit before the People to signify how dear it was to himself and should be to them all XXXIX That bowing towards the Altar or Communion-table does not fall within the verge of the true Notion or Definition of Idolatry And as for bowing towards the Altar they that so do questionless intend by that action adoration to God properly or in the highest sense so called so that it is one species of Latria Which can be no Idolatry in it self to be directed towards a place sith it cannot be done at all but it will be directed toward some place or other And if the Church for uniformity sake appoint one place rather than another so long as it is but towards it only it can be no Idolatry For it is no more Idolatry to worship God towards a place than in a place for both these are but Circumstances not Objects of Divine worship But now it being concluded fitting to use adoration when we first come into Gods house as also for uniformity sake towards one certain place or part thereof and all the place being in some sort holy but yet a preference of one part before another because of the more than ordinary devotion used there in celebrating the most endearing Mysteries of our Religion the death and passion of our blessed Saviour and our union with him by participation of his Flesh and Blood that place where the symbols of this are exhibited and these great and endearing mysteries celebrated it is no wonder if it have the preference in our Religious affection and respect before all the places in the Church to be as it were the directâ— Eve instrument toward what part of the Church we should do our adorations namely that the Altar or Communion Table should be this instrument of direction and that this should be the peculiar Honour done to it to be so In which sense it is bowed towards as the Mercy seat of old was by the Jews and the Book of their Law under a Canopee in their Synagogues now is without the least shew or suspicion of Idolatry For Divine worship is not at all done to that in any of those cases towards which it is directed but only to God himself There being no Animal Figures exposed to receive the worship as in the case of the Heathen and the Eucharistick bread being in no sense at all a Symbolical presence as well as having no Imagery on it but both Bread and Wine mere Tokens of the Body of Christ slaine crucified or sacrificed and of his blood shed for us Which therefore are not the Person of Christ nor Hypostatically united to his Person in this condition and consequently the symbols thereof cannot be any symbolical presence as I have also noted in my Reply The Altar therefore has the honour of being a directive instrument whither as the Church has where to do divine worship But the worship is no more done to the Altar by being done towards it than it is done to the Church by being done in it Forasmuch as there is no Animal Figure thereon as the Ancient Pagans conceived their Gods to appear in several such shapes and therefore worshipped them in them For this would be a personal representative and so receptive of the worship done towards it according to the manifest sense of Scripture and natural interpretation of reason but here being no such Statue or Image there erected all is safe Wherefore all the honour the Altar receives in these adorations made towards it is this that it is used as a directive instrument for people to show which way they are to set their faces when they make these adorations to God which is far from giving any Divine worship to the Table or Altar and therefore is far out of the reach of our definition of Idolatry LX. Nor bowing to the name of Iesus And so whereas all the names and attributes of God are holy and we have a greater reverence for them than for any words or names that do not relate to God though we do not owe Divine worship or reverence to them for as much as they are not God but words that pass away as other sounds do whereas I say all the names of God are holy yet because the name Jesus exhibits to us the manifestation of God in the most endearing circumstances therefore as the Mysteries celebrated on the Altar caused that preference of it before all other parts of the Church for to do our worship towards so
AN APPENDIX To the late Antidote against IDOLATRY WHEREIN The true and adequate Notion or Definition of Idolatry is proposed Most Instances of Idolatry in the Roman Church thereby examined Sundry uses in the Church of England Cleared With some serious Monitions touching Spiritual Idolatry thereunto annexed LONDON Printed by I. R. for Walter Kettilby at the Sign of the Bishops-Head in St. Pauls Church-yard 1673. Reader I Shall not wonder if thou be at a loss what to impute this my so sudden appearing in publick again upon the same Subject for I must confess I my self am in some sort at a loss what to impute it to Whether to the excess of my zeal in a cause of so great importance or to my impatience to be freed from these Polemical Engagements which are not so suitable to my Genius But so far as I know my own meaning it is both And therefore having since my last by further converse with either books or men discovered as I conceive the utmost that can be said touching the point betwixt Me and my Antagonist for the more timely assisting so weighty a truth and for the freeing my self from any future trouble I have here aforehand obviated whatever I can suspect he may return as material in answer to my Reply This it may be may save us both any further labour at least it will my self For I profess my self to have neither hope nor ability of satisfying others by any other evidences than by which I find my self so fully and clearly satisfied That I have vindicated some uses in our own Church from all suspicions of Idolatry is but what I owe to her as a professed member of her body and to the honour and memory of our pious and judicious Reformers That I have annexed some few Monitions touching spiritual Idolatry is for the rescuing my self also from the imputation of an over Bigotical zeal against the external or ritual For I am abundantly aware how little the avoyding the outward or ritual Idolatry will avail to salvation unless we also seriously endeavour to purify our selves from the inward or spiritual without which purity no man shall see God But in pretence of cleansing our selves from the inward to make nothing of the outward is the fruit of that false spirit that appeared in the Gnosticks of old and has expresly showed it self in these latter times amongst some high flown Enthusiasts who have had the boldness to declare that there is no such thing as external Idolatry Which is spoken with as much soundness of truth as if they should declare That there is no such thing neither as outward Murder Adultery Perjurie and Blasphemie But our blessed Saviour that infallible example of life has taught us a better lesson of fulfilling all righteousness And they that will be externally wicked what have they but their own vain boast to witness their integrity That God would deliver thee and my self and all men from all manner of Hypocrisie that we may injoy God in the simplicity of Heart and a good Conscience to our present and everlasting comfort is the earnest desire of Thine in the love of the Truth H. More Errata sic corrige PAge 23. Line 20. for chance r. shame p. 24. l. 6. for mind r. mine p 25. l. 16. r. fouly p. 26. l. 17. r. real p 29. l. 22. r. it is p. 32. l. 13. r. be commensurate p. 37. l. 26. for mind r. mine p. 38. l. 29. r. bis bounty p. 40. l. 28. for dispute r. dispell p. 45. l. 27. for a motion r. admotion p. 48. l. 28. r. at the name p. 54. .l 24. r. live we as p. 55. l. penult for they r. these p. 59. l. 8. r. 1 John 5.20.21 AN APPENDIX To the late Antidote against IDOLATRY I. A brief account of his proceeding in his Antidote against Idolatry I Have already in my Antidote against Idolatry with sufficient useful evidence and certainty discovered what is and ought to be held to be idolatry amongst Christians but in such a way that I only exhibited several cases or instances of Idolatry and proved them sometimes rather by Testimony either Divine or the common suffrage of men I mean such as are Christians than from the intrinsick general Notion of Idolatry not at all intended to be proposed in that Treatise that method I then took being sufficient for the use and purpose then aimed at which was to convince the World by plain and obvious Arguments what things professed and practised in the Roman Church might justly be esteemed Idolatrous II. The definition of Idolatry with the usefulness thereof But now for the greater satisfaction of the more curious and Philosophical Genius out of those several instances in the abovesaid Treatise I shall draw one common Notion or Definition both true and adaequate which will be a certain measure whereby we may expeditely understand whatever is truly Idolatry and what not For it is plain that to whatsoever the Definition belongs the thing defined belongs to the same and to whatsoever the Definition does not belong the thing defined cannot belong to it Of so great importance is it therefore to propose a true and adaequate Definition of Idolatry Which I conceive is this Cultus superstitiosus quo peculiaritates Divinae violantur Idolatry is a kind of superstitious worship whereby the peculiarities of the Godhead are violated There is no kind nor act of Idolatry which will not fall under this general Notion nor any kind or act of Ritual worship that falls under it that is not Idolatry as will more plainly appear after our explication thereof III. The explication of the Definition As for the Term defined Idolatry there is no man so unskilfull though according to the Notation of the word it signifies properly the worship of an Image or Idol as to think that to be the adaequate sense of Idolatry since they that worship the Sun are acknowledged to be Idolaters though they worship him without an Image And therefore that scruple passed over nothing hinders but that the Notion of Idolatry may be as large as the proposed Definition which is superstitious worship whereby the peculiarities of the Godhead are violated I add superstitious to worship that the Genus may be the more immediate and by superstitious I understand pseudoreligious if I may so speak that is false or depraved religious worship And I name no object because I would not restrain it to any one kind of object but be the pretence of worshipping God Saints Angels or what ever object else when it is in such a way as that the Divine peculiarities are violated that is Idolatry according to this Definition Superstitious worship therefore is the Genus of the Definition what remains the difference viz whereby the peculiarities of the Godhead are violated I am fain to make use of this more general and abstract term peculiarities that it may comprehend whatever things are peculiar to God whether his
which Aaron made which was not intended for the Image of Apis the AEgyptian God but was the Symbolical presence of Jehovah Indeed St. Steven sayes Act. 7.39 40. And in their hearts they turned back again into Aegypt it may be in the grossest sense if they could have brought Aaron to their lure saying unto Aaron make us Gods to go before us But it is most likely that this is only a reprehension of their AEgyptianizing in matters of Religion desiring to have some visible Object and Figure to sustain their Faith and spend their Devotion on according to the mode of AEgypt who gave Divine worship to Images This mode of Religion their minds hanker'd after as their mouths elsewhere watered after the flesh-pots of AEgypt for which they are also taxed Psal. 106.19 They made a Calf in Horeb and worshipped the Molten Image Thus they changed their glory that is the God of Israel or his Divine presence into the Similitude of an Ox that eateth grass As if Iehovah the Almighty Infinite and Eternal God that did such great things in Aegypt wonderous works in the land of Ham and fearful things by the Red-sea could be representable by any such figure So that in this they quite forgat God their Saviour both what an excellent being he is and utterly irrepresentable by Imagery and forgat his commandement which is one special and material way of forgetting him Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image thou shalt not bow down to it nor worship it X. That the History of the golden Calf plainly implyes that sense thereof But there is no place so convincing that the golden Calf which Aaron made was made and worshipped in reference to Iehovah as what occurres in the very History God had promised to the people he would send an Angel before them to keep them in the way Exod. 23.10 This the People knowing and despairing of Moses being found again or impatient of his stay so long in the Mount which St. Steven interprets a rejecting of Moses or putting him from them Act. 7.39 for that is spoken of Moses not of God they come to Aaron Exod. 32. and say unto him Vp make us Gods which shall goe before us which Aaron immediately assents to and receiving their ear-rings made a molten Calf of them whereupon they said These are thy Gods O Israel which brought thee out of the land of Aegypt And Aaron built an Altar before this Image which himself had made and made proclamation and said To morrow is a feast to the Lord that is to Jehovah And on the morrow according to this proclamation they celebrate the Feast and offered burnt offerings c. to this Image Now let any unprejudiced man judge to whom this symbolical presence could be erected but to Jehovah Did not the Israelites ask of Aaron what God had promised the Angel in whom God would place his Name there Did Aaron at all stick to fulfill their desire Do not the People say of this symbolical presence These are thy Gods O Israel or which is all one This is thy God O Israel as Nehemiah has it Chap. 9. v. 18. that brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt which is utterly impossible for them to understand of the golden Calf which was but newly made and therefore is necessarily understood of that God that brought them out of AEgypt which is Jehovah no Aegyptian Deity but he that brought all those Plagues on AEgypt and delivered his People with an high hand And lastly is not an Altar built before the same symbolical presence and a feast proclaimed there to be celebrated to the Lord What more perspicuous coherence can be desired for the certainty of the sense of any passage of Scripture XI The gross repugnancies impli'd in supposing the Calf to be the symbolical presence of the God Apis. All things run smooth on this Hypothesis But supposing this Calf the Symbolical Presence of Apis an Aegyptian Deity who had the form of an Ox which might give some of the Antients occasion as I suppose to think it was so they not considering that Cherub also signifies an Ox or Calf and that one of the Angelical forms in the Chariot of God is both an Ox and is called a Cherub and that the Cherubins in the Ark were of this figure which is a symbol of the Angels who are the Chariot of God Psal. 68 17. The Chariots of God are twenty thousands even thousands of Angels and the Lord among them as in Sinai in the holy place where this Chariot or Chariots because it consisted of four parts was seen by Aaron like that by Ezekiel where one part had the form of an Ox or Calf and all four the feet of Oxen. So little estranged is the form of an Ox or Calf from the use of representing the presence of the God of Israel but suppose I say it is not the symbolical presence of Jehovah but of the Aegyptian Apis according to the conceit of some out of the respect they bear to the Fathers what an harsh and intolerable reproach is it in the mean time to Gods High Priest to affirm that he did thus profanely and impiously make an AEgyptian Idol for the People of God to worship and so assisted them in the grosly breaking of both the first and second Commandement at once and even then when the People did but desire the promise to be made good to them that the visible presence of God or his Angel in whom his Name was might go along with them and that Aaron notwithstanding instead of this should make the symbolical presence of a forraign God! Besides that the people themselves had not this judgment of it they declaring it to be the symbolical presence of him that brought them out of the Land of AEgypt Nor could they possibly believe the Aegyptian Apis to have done so to have inflicted all those plagues on his own Land in the behalf of a forraign people Besides that they were all along declared by Moses to be done in the Name of the God of Israel to whom also Aaron builds an Altar before this Calf and proclaimes a Feast to Jehovah which if by this Calf were meant the AEgyptian Apis would be as repugnant as to say Apis and Jehovah are all one XII The Certainty hence that the second Commandement forbids the worshipping God by an Image Wherefore we can be of nothing more sure than that this Golden Calf of Cherub was erected by Aaron to Jehovah and so understood by the People The worshipping whereof notwithstanding is agreed on all sides to have been Idolatry From whence it plainly follows that the second Commandement forbids the worshipping God by an Image which was the thing to be proved Nor do I know by what evasions those of the contrary opinion can escape the clearness of this proof and precept God so plainly interpreting the meaning of his own Law by his severe vengeance on the worshippers of the
his sight could so behave himself as not to be guilty of bowing to graven Images and worshipping them Which if he did I must confess that the Romanists have no contemptible plea for their interpretation of the second Commandement as if it were not against worshipping the true God by an Image But to this difficulty I answer these two wayes XVI The first way of answering it by denying the fact if it could not be done without bowing towards the Cherubins as an object First that if the High Priest when he was in the Holy of Holies could not bow to worship God by that gesture but he must also bow towards the Cherubins objectively and not meerly circumstantially I do flatly deny that he did bovv there And they can never prove that he did there being no mention thereof in the Scripture vvhere his behaviour in that place is described Levit. 16. But there being a plain prohibition in the second Commandement to bovv to graven Images and to vvorship them it is from hence demonstrable that the High Priest in this case would not For if to obey be better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of Rams 1 Sam 15.22 certainly the High Priest could not but see that obedience to so plain and strict a commandement as Thou shalt not bow down to any graven Images nor worship them c. was better than the breaking that command under pretence of worshipping God by bowing unto them namely to the Cherubins Wherefore we may be certain that in this case he would not bow towards them But if he could bow towards them without incurring this danger the difficulty is taken away and the true sense of the second Commandement remains firm and inviolable that God himself is not to be worshipped by an Image by bowing to it and worshipping it XVII The second way by asserting that he might bow in such circumstances as that the Cherubins were no object of his worship But now besides this in the second place if any one think it so probable that the High Priest did bow some time towards the Mercy Seat when he was in the Holy of Holyes let us pitch upon that which is most likely namely when he made his nearer approach thereto to besprinkle it with blood it is manifest there is no colour of saying that in these circumstances he bowed to or worshipped the Cherubins 1. Because the first thing that he was to do when he was to enter within the vail was to take a censure full of burning coales of fire his hands full of sweet incense beaten small and to bring them within the vail and to put the incense on the fire before the Lord that the cloud of the incense may cover the Mercy seat that is upon the testimonie that he die not Levit. 16.12 13. Which is a sign that he was not to dare so much as to look towards the Mercy seat much less to worship towards it till all on the Mercy seat the golden Cherubins and all were hid in a cloud of incense which is like the hiding of them from the sight of the People by the vail And that therefore their golden luster was to be no object of worship as being thus enveloped with smoak not to be seen at any distance 2. But now when the High Priest approaches up nearer to the Mercy seat which we have supposed the more likely time of worshipping let us see what possibility there is of his appearing guilty of worshipping the Cherubins though he should then bow towards the Throne of God more than in that former circumstance For the two Cherubins were placed at the two ends of the Mercy seat and that with their faces one towards another not to any that came up to the Mercy seat which is no fit posture to be worshipped in if they could be seen by any glimmerings in this thick Cloud of smoak And if they could they would be only a direction to the High Priest as well to overlook them as to give them a go by in following that intimation God has given him in Exodus Chap. 25. And there will I meet with thee and I will commune with thee from above the Mercy seat from between the two Cherubins which are upon the Ark of the Testimony And in the Psalms he is described sitting betwixt the two Cherubins Psalm 8.1 and 99.1 This is a plain case then that the High Priest could not but conceive that special presence of God to be seated betwixt the two Cherubins and therefore directing his devotion and gesture according to that instruction his bowing must be towards that presence betwixt the two Cherubins from the Mercy seat upwards as if the invisible Majesty was seated there as on a Throne or Chair of state The bowing to whom can no more concern the Cherubins than the bowing to a Prince on a wide Throne or Chair can concern the imagery on the arms of the Chair adorned suppose with two Eagles heads or the like Can any one conceit any worship done to these two Eagles heads when the Parties bowing is directed to the face and Person of the Prince above and betwixt the Eagles heads though the Eagles heads stand in a fairer posture to be bowed to than the faces of the Cherubins It is therefore every way plain and manifest that as the People of the Jews did not so neither did their High Priest bow to or in any sense worship the Cherubins in their bowing thitherward but only him that sat betwixt the Cherubins which was the thing to be demonstrated And that therefore there is no evasion left to elude the force of the second commandement that so strictly prohibits the worship of the true God by any graven Image which therefore according to the sense of that Commandement must be Idolatry XVIII The Idolatry forbidden in the second Commandement reduced to the proposed definition of Idolatry It remains now that we reduce this kind of Idolatry as we in order shall also do all the rest to our general definition of Idolatry that it may appear to be so even according to the plain Nature and Notion of the thing namely in that by worshipping God by an Image the peculiarities of the Godhead are violated which seems evident here upon a double score both from making the infinite irrepresentable Divine Majesty representable by an Animal-Figure which debases and vilifies the peculiar excellency of the Godhead which is so infinitely beyond any visible form whatsoever and therefore no Animal Figure can pretend to be the representative thereof as also from the giving Divine worship to these Animal Figures or Symbolical presences which is peculiar to God XIX No distinction betwixt Hieroglyphical and representative Images when Divine worship is done to them Which Divine worship does plainly argue them representative Figures not meerly Hieroglyphical whether they that worship them will call them so or no. As is apparent from the first of the Romans where
putting up their prayers before them and lifting up their eyes and hands towards them with compellations common to the Image and Prototype this is also the sacrifice of prayer offered to them as much if not more direct and express than the sacrifices offered on the Altar before the Golden Calf were to it which yet because it was done on the Altar before that Image St. Steven full of the holy Ghost declares that they sacrificed unto the Idol Wherefore it being so evident that in these Cases they are to acknowledg that they give Latria to these Images it seemed the wittiest and safest invention to declare in general that the Images relating to God are to have Latria done to them but not absoluta but relativa which they conceive makes it an inferiour kind of Latria since this Relative Latria because of its Relativeness is incompetible to God But how well this will do their business I have already noted But that this is the sense of their Church even of the Council of Trent it self is noted and confessed by Azorius and natural if not necessary for every one to acknowledg that is serious in the worship of these Images For if it were not Latria relativa but such a worship as the Images were capable of and might be the ultimate Object of themselves and it terminate there how small and mean and how lovv a kind of Worship would this be So that it would prove to be a meer fooling or trifling with Images to no purpose the worship of the Image though relating to God not at all advancing our adoration of him but rather necessarily casting us by restraining the worship to what the Image it self is the ultimate object of into the faintest and meanest mode of worshipping that can be expressed if it be but what it should be commensurate to so mean an Object Wherefore it is altogether incredible that this should be the meaning of worshipping of Images relating to God or that any of the People that are taught to vvorship them should not vvorship them vvith that height of affection and veneration they use to God for as much as the Image relates to God and that they are taught according to the very Council of Trent that by the Image of Christ vvhich they vvorship they vvorship Christ himself So plain is it that the act of vvorship before an Image relating to God is an intended adoration of God himself according the Council of Trent But for the occasional shuffles of any private Doctours of that Church that would have the worship of incurvation and the signs of devotion accompanying it terminated on the Image it self to make sure it may be in no sense Latria at what a loss vvill they be to ansvver touching the burning of incense and praying to God before these Images that relate to him Besides that the second commandement does plainly meet vvith such shufflers vvhich universally forbids any bovving to or vvorshipping Images relating to God and vvill not be put off by any evasion For I am a jealous God c. Nor vvas it unfit to give so forcible a stop though less methodical to a subterfuge so unnatural and irrational I vvill add also so repugnant to the Council of Trent vvhich is the touchstone of their faith vvho in these express vvords declare Per Imaginem Christi Christum adoramus And that adoration vvhich is done to Christ is divine adoration and consequently Latria XXVII The reduction of the worship of Saints and Angels to the proposed definition of Idolatry and particularly their invocation and making of vowes to them We proceed now to the consideration of the Images or Symbolical presences of Saints and Angels and to all the modes of their religious worship of which Invocation is the most principal and as it were the scope and foundation of all the rest Which worship of theirs I shall also plainly discover to be Idolatrous by manifest reduction to my proposed definition of Idolatry Which I will do with all brevity there being no difficulty at all in the business And I will begin with Invocation which as I have proved in my Antidote can belong to no invisible Power or Spirit saving to God alone Forasmuch as no man can have any solid faith or assurance that they can hear our Invocation or that they have any Omnipresence or Omnipercipience no not so much as Terrestrial Whence it it plain that in invokeing them one of the Divine peculiarities is violated or prophaned by being communicated to a Creature when of right it is only to be attributed to God the Saints having no such Omnipercipiency or Omnipresency in them as Doctour Thorndike himself cannot but confess accordingly as I have noted at the end of my Reply But to invoke them or pray to them for such things as it is in Gods power only to give which all Papists do as Dr. Thorndike plainly asserts nor can it be put off upon pretence of a figurative speech as I have proved in my Reply this is double Idolatry as violating two Divine peculiarities at once both the Omnipresence or Omnipercipience of God and also his Omnipotence they giving that power to a Creature which is in God alone But making Vowes to any Saint or Angel in such dangers as a Creature may have power to rid us from is but the same kind of Idolatry that simple Invocation if they be both mental or both vocal XXVIII The Idolatry of erecting Temples Altars Images or Symbolical presences to Saints or Angels reduced to the proposed definition And novv for the erecting Temples Altars Images or Symbolical presences to Saints or Angels all which is manifestly done in reference to their invocation it is thence plain that all this is done to an Idolatrous end and therefore upon this very consideration has the smut of Idolatry upon it But besides more distinctly God having appropriated these modes of being vvorshipped to himself and his judgement being so infallible vvhat befits him and is most proper for him when he will be vvorshipped in a more external and ritual vvay it is evident presumption and prophanation of the peculiarities of his Godhead as to external vvorship to communicate them to the Creature as I have proved in my Antidote And lastly the very nature of the thing demonstrates the Idolatry they being standing significations of the natural peculiarities of God communicated to a Creature For a Temple and Symbolical presence is fitly and securely erected to God because we are sure of Gods residence and presence there as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimates the inhabitation of the Divinity in it Let there be as many Symbolical Presences and Temples as you will and at what distance you will God is certainly at home in them all as being Omnipresent But for a finite invisible Power or Spirit though there were but one erected thereto there is no assurance of that Spirits residence there or if the effect of any Spirit be there
this name of Jesus above all other Names or words that signify God or his attributes may well be made use of to determine the time and occasion when in Divine service we should more exuberantly vent our devotion in the worshipping God our Saviour especially the Scripture seeming to hint some such thing to us And this is the honour done to the Name of Jesus that at the naming thereof we take occasion to do profound reverence and Divine worship to our eternal Redeemer Whence it is plain that that honour that accrews to the Name of Jesus or to the Altar by bowing at the naming of the one and towards the site of the other is far from any Divine honour and that therefore the peculiarities of the Godhead are not thereby violated nor any Idolatry committed XLI Nothing that has the least shew of Idolatry required of our Church in celebrating the Lords Supper And now lastly as for the Eucharist or holy Symbols of Bread and Wine that we kneel not to them I have sufficiently intimated in my Reply but are in that posture as being in devout ejaculations to God our hearts breathing towards him in the receiving this holy sacrament and this is all the due reverence I see required by the Rubrick of our Church or any direction thereof for the celebrating these holy mysteries And if any particular Doctours of the Church talk of worshipping the Sacrament if it be such affection and reverence as is expressed to the word of God that this is without any violation of the Divine peculiarities I have above noted and that therefore it can be no Idolatry and if they speak of adoration properly so called I charitably suspect they meant adoration done towards the Symbols as I have above explained the doing of it towards the Altar that is as using them as directive Instruments towards which we doe our adoration to Christ but not to them as any Objects thereof Which I should think would be hard for any man to imagine that is conscious to himself what a motion the Soul is in when it does an act of real and sincere adoration or Divine worship and considers what it is to be in any sense the Object thereof He would find it such horrid ill Syntax to make any thing in any sense the object of adoration besides God that he would be utterly ashamed of it and find it more absonous and incongruous more impertinent and troublesome than if one when he were to worship the visible Sun should interpose a burning rush-candle betwixt his eye and the Sun and tye himself to worship that also as an object in reference to the Sun while he pretends ultimately at the same time to worship the Sun it self it is plain it would be a distraction and impediment to him XLII The reason of some mens proneness to adoration of outward objects Which makes it suspicable that those that are so forward to have adoration done to outward objects are not eager enough to joyn their hearts and minds with that eternal invisible power which is best felt in the least distraction of thoughts but would stick in these outward things and so lay Religion at last as flat as the Earth and suffer the Souls of men to grow stupid in carnality Wherefore I presume better of any particular Doctours of our Church than that they have any such meaning as to assert the lawfulness of adoration or Divine worship to the Eucharistick Symbols which is an undue object of that worship that it may pass to a due one that is to Christ for this I have plainly proved above to be Idolatry XLIII The sense of the Church not to be interpreted by the rash expressions of any private Doctour But if any of our Church should speak so inconsiderately what is that to the Church herself that contains herself far within this compass And they that are of the Church are not tyed to any particular mens opinions but to the general profession and practice of the Church Which by these instances that yet are those that are most scrupled at you may see how clear she is from the least spot or soil of Idolatry according to the true Notion and Definition thereof she using no rites of worship whereby the Peculiarities of the Godhead are violated XLIV The great Peril in leaving a more pure Church for an Idolatrous one And therefore I hope these brief pains of mine in so freely and faithfully examining the rites of the Roman Church and of our own by this so intelligible a Rule will prove as well acceptable as seasonable to all that have any serious care of their salvation and they will take heed in this slippery Age how they leave a pure Church for a Church so plainly soiled with manifold spots of Idolatry but those in that soiled Church provide better for themselves by entring Communion with that Church that is more pure And in the mean time I hope they will excuse my more than ordinary zeal in a matter of so exceeding great moment and which so â—early concerns our eternal happiness it being so expresly declared in Scripture that no Idolater shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven XLV Of Spiritual Idolatry several instances thereof as Covetousness which the Apostle calls Idolatry Which as it is undeniably true and confessed on all sides concerning this external ritual Idolatry so certainly is it no less true of the internal or spiritual if we do not sincerely endeavour to rid our selves of it For there are other sorts of Idolatry than we have hitherto insisted on and such as we are as carefully to shun as we tender our own salvation Saint Paul expresly names one of this kind and calls it by the very name Mortifie therefore your Members which are upon Earth Fornication Vncleanness Inordinate affection evil Concupiscence and Covetousness which is Idolatry Colos. 3.5 The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the love of money which I suppose the Apostle doth not count Idolatry for the Imagery that ordinarily is upon Coins but for the trust and repose they put in uncertain Riches And there is the same reason in any worldly interest whatsoever in power friends and what ever else Those that trust in these more than in the living God do plainly commit Spiritual Idolatry Trust ye in the Lord for ever for in the Lord Iehovah is everlasting strength Isa. 26.4 The Lord is my Rock and my fortress my God my strength in whom I will trust Psalm 18.2 Yea though he kill me yet will I trust him saith Job Job 13.15 And so must we do whomever he should permit to kill us or any wayes persecute us being assured that nothing can come amiss to them that are his and put their trust in him But if when visible comforts fail our trust fails in the invisible God it is a sign we made the Creature the Rock of our confidence and gave that to it which is a peculiarity of the