His Answer to the ninth Conclusion.
Against this Conclusion he argues thus; Incurva∣tion of the body, according to my sixteenth Conclu∣sion, is one of the Actions or Gestures which God did chuse in the setting out the Mode of his own Worship. Ergo, Incurvation towards or in refer∣ence to any Creature is Idolatry. But now, says he, if this be true, Abraham who used this Incurva∣tion to Men and Angls, Gen. 18. and 23. and the beloved Disciple of Iesus, who reiterated the like Incurvation towards the Angel, Apoc. 22. 8. were Idolaters. And therefore my Conclusion cannot be true, that is laden with so great an absurdity. This is the main of his Argument.
The Reply.
In Answer to which I desire the Reader to per∣use my sixteenth Conclusion. My words are these, That the erecting of a Symbolical presence, with in∣curvations thither ward, &c. I do not say that simple Incurvation is one of the Actions or Gestures, which God did chuse to set out the Mode of his own Worship by, (for Incurvation of the body in general is neither Religious nor Civil, but Page 96 may be either, as all men know) but that it is In∣curvation toward a s•mbolical Presence, which God appropriated to himself, as a Religious Mode of Worship due to himself onely. Simple Incurvati∣on is permitted, and has been used, without any scandal to God or Man, both unto Men and An∣gels. Now neither Abrahams, nor St. Johns Incur∣vations being to the symbolical Presences of the Angels they bowed to, my sixteenth Conclusion is unconcerned in it, nor does it therefore at all en∣ervate my ninth, as is plain at first sight. For it does not at all imply that either Abraham, or St. John were Idolaters in their bowing to Angels or Men.
