The remains of the reverend and learned Mr. John Corbet, late of Chichester printed from his own manuscripts.

Of Divine Worship, in three Parts.

The First, Of the Nature, Kinds, Parts, and Adjuncts of Di∣vine Worship. The Second, Of Idolatry. The Third, Of Su∣perstition less than Idolatry.

TO make diligent search into the nature of Divine Worship, I have judg'd my self concern'd, as a Christian, and a Minister, and a Sufferer for conscientious dissents and doubtings about some points thereof in joyned by Authority. Some Delineation of what I discern in this important matter, by the assistance of Divine Grace in reading and thinking, I have here drawn in a narrow compass. And I have done it to the intent, that I might have a Scheme of my thoughts herein, at hand, and ready for view, to be rectified where it is wrong, and to be further improved where it is right, and more readily managed as cause requires; likewise, that from others, who will do me the favour to peruse and consider it, I may have help for a better or clearer knowledg of these points. For I know my great defectiveness in this knowledg, and am an humble seeker of more clearness and ex∣actness therein; yet I am not dubious in the main heads. In the body of an Animal, the greater veins are more easily discernable in their whole Systeme; the sma••••er, with more difficulty; and the smallest are almost imperceptible. So in Theology, the large veins of the greatest and most important truths, are very visible and palpable; but the smaller branches thereof may not be easily discern'd, and are not traced in their several passages, without attentive and acurate investigation. It behoves every one to do his best, for as perfect un∣derstanding in matters of his own Function and Practice, as he can reach unto. But when we have done all, we know but in part,

and see darkly as in a glass: The sense whereof should dispose men of different judgments to that considerateness and sobriety, which will cause, that the one neither despise nor judg the other, but that all receive one another with mutual charity.

The First Part.

§ 1. Of Worship in General.

AS touching Worship in general, its Nature is by some set forth, to be an observance yielded to others, accord∣ing to their excellency of Worthiness. And in this largemotion, it seems the same with giving honour, and so it is due not on∣ly to Superiors, but to equals and inferiors, for any Worthi∣ness, Natural, Moral, or Political, that is in them, according to the Apostles Precept, Honour all men.

But by others, the notion of Worship is made (and I think rightly) narrower than that of Honour, viz. a respect not meerly to anothers worth or excellence, but to his Superiority and Power over us, whether Natural, Civil, or Ecclesiastical, and such an observance of him, as implies Subjection.

The highest kind of Worship, is that which is due to the highest Excellency and Soveraignity, and is called Divine Wor∣ship.

§ 2. Of Divine Worship in its more comprehensive Sense.

TO Worship God, is to yield him that observance which is his due, and his alone, according to his incommunicable Excellence, and Soveraingty over us, and his other transcendent Relations to us.

Our observance due to God alone, is our voluntary act of absolute or unlimited subjection, and whatsoever is expressive thereof. All Divine Worship herein consisting, must needs be for na∣ture or kind, the highest that can be rendred; yet there are several parts or kinds thereof, that differ in the degrees of par∣taking

of the nature of this kind. Some partake thereof in a more noble and eminent, and others in an inferior way; and these are appendent and subservient to the former.

Every Act of obedience to God, taken formally, is Divine Worship in a larger sense; for every such act considered formally, as obedience, is a direct rendring of that observance or honour to him, which is his due. Consequently, Devotion towards God incompasseth the whole duty of man; for mans whole duty is of no larger extent than observance due to God.

But those Acts which are the matter of our observance to∣wards God, yet nextly and immediately respect our neigh∣bour, or our selves; being materially and in themselves consi∣dered, are not directly Religious or Divine Worship, but re∣ductively, as being imperated by Religion.

§ 3. Of Divine Worship in the stricter or narrower sense, and which is specially here intended.

THE Worshipping of God is the direct acknowledging of his being, and perfections, and soveraignty over us, &c. to his honour. Consequently, it is the yielding of such honour to God, as no other being is capable of, because his being and perfections, and supreminent Relations, are incommunicable to a∣ny other.

Wherefore it is no fit Question, because no matter of debate, Whether Divine Worship may be given to a Creature? But the question concerning Worship given by some to a Creature, is, Whether it be Divine Worship, or that which belongs to God, or no? And if it be found to be that which belongs to God, it is evident without more ado, that it cannot be given to a Creature. For Gods Worship is communicable, no more than his excellency is.

But to the question as ordinarily express'd, Whether Reli∣gious Worship may be given to a Creature? The answer is made, by distinguishing Religious Worship into the elicite, or impe∣rate Acts of Religion. That Religious Worship in the latter sense may be given to men, is past doubt. For all due Civil Worship is imperated by Religion: but the elicite Acts of Reli∣gion, being acts of Devotion due to God, as God, cannot be

rendred to any Creature, nor any outward and imperate Act, immediately expressive thereof.

§ 4. Divine Worship distinguished into internal and external.

ALL kind of Worship, and consequently the Worship of God, is divided into internal and external, according to the essential parts of man, internal and external, the Soul and the Body.

The internal Worship of God, is an Act of the Mind or Soul, whereby, according to the apprehension of his worthiness, it en∣tertains a worthy estimation of him, and hath complacence in him, and consents to the due expressions thereof.

Hence it is evident, that the inmost and deepest part of Gods Worship, is a superlative reverence and love of him.

The external Worship of God, is the direct and immediate expression of the internal, by any outward Sign, Word, Gesture,

Action.

The internal is to the external, what the Soul is to the Bo∣dy; yea, it may be compleat Worship of it self, as when the outward expressions cannot be performed, or are not requisite.

The external without the internal, is a carkass without life. Nevertheless it is an Observance, or Worship, and hath its moral Estimation, or comes to account.

§ 5. Divine Worship distinguished into Natural and Instituted. And first, of Natural Worship.

THE Worship of God is either natural or instituted. Na∣tural Worship is that which in specie, and immediately, is founded in the Nature of God, and the Nature of man, and Gods relation to Man, and Mans relation to God.

And it is twofold, either that which is naturally necessary, or that which is naturally laudable. That which is naturally ne∣cessary, is indispensable and unchangeable. That which is natu∣raly laudable must be used whensoever conveniently it may.

There is natural Worship due to God, both as the Creator of man, and as the Redeemer of fallen man.

As God is our Creator, he is our absolute Owner, and Ru∣ler, and Benefactor; and as such, he is to be acknowledged by us, with

all due observance. And whatsoever Acts of observance towards God we are upon this ground immediately obliged unto, they are Natural Worship due to God as our Creator.

All Natural Worship due to God as Creator, is discernable by natural revelation, or the Book of Nature. In Nature intire, it was clearly and compleatly thereby discernable; but in Nature fallen, more dimly and defectively; yet not for want of objective evidence, but for the indisposition of our faculty.

Likewise to God our Redeemer, there is a Worship due from us, naturally and immediately arising from our redemp∣tion, and our relation to God therein founded. And it is (our redemption being supposed) no more of Gods arbitrary institu∣tion, than that Worship which is founded in the Law of our Creation, and primitive State.

To the knowledg of this sort of Natural Worship, we come by means of that Divine revelation, by which we come to the know∣ledg of our redeemed state. But the knowledg of our redeemed state being supposed, natural Reason will shew, that such and such Acts of observance in specie are naturally and indispensably due to God our Redeemer.

§ 6. Of Divine instituted Worship.

INstituted Worship is that which depends in specie, and im∣mediately upon Gods free Will, and Arbitrary institution. But the institution being made and continuing, it is naturally and necessarily due to God, so far as he requires it, tho it be not immediately natural. For our natural and unchangeable relation to God, necessarily and perpetually obliges us to what∣soever God hath appointed, so far, and so long as he hath appoint∣ed it.

§ 7. Of Moral and Ceremonial Worship.

THis distinction being commonly used, must here be taken no∣tice of. It is wholly coincident with the former. For that which is commonly called Moral, is for the most part, but not all of it, natural Worship; nor perhaps is all natural Worship to be called Moral; for there may be some natural Ceremonies, that is to say, naturally laudable, tho not absolutely necessary. Nor

is all instituted Worship Ceremonial, but some is Moral, as ob∣serving of the weekly Sabbath, or Lords day. Nor is all Cere∣monial Worship instituted. For besides natural ceremonies, other ceremonious religious Acts may be used arbitrarily and occasionally, and but once; indeed such Acts may be called in∣stituted, as Instituted is opposed to Natural, but not as it beto∣kens stated or setled.

The word Moral is ambiguous, and, as I suppose, inconveni∣ently used in this matter; as it also is, when used in distinguish∣ing the divine Law into Moral and Ceremonial. For every Law is Moral, or circa mores; and all Worship is Moral, as being an Act of our behaviour conformable to the divine Law. Never∣theless we must yield to use, which hath the dominion of words, and inquire into the meaning of this word in this point.

Sometimes the word in this case is taken by them that use it, for that which is of perpetual right. But that this is not the adequate sense, appears, for that some things not ceremonial, but esteemed moral, are not perpetual. And there is a com∣mon distinction between Moral natural, and Moral positive; and that Moral positive is not in the nature of the thing perpetual, is unquestionable; and it is evident, that some Moral positive is not de facto of perpetual right, as the old Seventh-day Sabbath; Concerning which day, tho there might be something ceremo∣nial in the corporal rest thereof, especially under the Mosaical dispensation; yet the observing of that measure of time, and that special day every week set a part for Gods solemn Worship, was not ceremonial, nor yet natural, but Moral positive, yet not perpetual. Besides, there is nothing in the nature of the thing to hinder the perpetuity of some ceremonial Law or Worship, if it pleased God to perpetuate it. Yea, there are some ceremonial Ordinances of Divine Worship now instituted, that are to indure to the Consummation of all things, namely, the two Sacraments of the New Testament.

The best distinguishing-terms that I can find to express what is generally meant by Moral and Ceremonial Worship, is, That the former is substantial, ••nd by it self Divine Worship; the later is but a supplemental as an appurtenance to the former, the better to express it, and set it off, and externally to compleat it. I suppose the term Complemental might here fitly enough be used but that it sounds ill from the sense which it hath in com∣mon

use. And meer ceremonial persons do indeed but com∣plement with God, according to the common meaning of that word.

Tho ceremonial Worship be but supplemental to that which is called Moral and Substantial; yet being appointed of God, it is not to be lightly esteemed, but to be valued according to its importance. And there be some parts or kinds thereof, that are of high importance in Religion, as the Sacraments and Sa∣crifies under the the Old Testament, and the Sacraments of the New-Testament.

§ 8. The parts of Worship distinguished from the adjuncts or acci∣dents thereof.

WOrship may be considered both as a generical, and as an integral whole, and accordingly it hath specifical and integral parts. Every specifical part or kind thereof, hath in it the common name and nature of the genus. And every in∣tegral part of the same species is homogenial, and hath the name and nature of that species. And the specifically different parts may be considered as integral parts, and heterogenial, that go to the making up of one intire Divine Service.

It imports much to discern and distinguish rightly between Worship it self, and the accidents thereof, without which it is not performable, or at least not performable in due manner; such as are, order, method, phrase, or form of words, degree, fre∣quency, time, place, furniture.

These things appertain to Divine Worship, not in any pecu∣liar reason, but in common, as to all grave, civil or humane actions.

Nor do these things immediately and directly respect God and his Honour, to whom the Worship is directed; but Man and his convenience, by whom the Worship is performed.

Nevertheless God and his Honour is concerned in them, in as much as he is concerned that men be set in all convenient circumstances for his Worship, and therefore ultimately they respect him, and they are to be used for the hallowing of his name.

I take not this to be any constitutive, or consecutive diffe∣rence between the Worship it self, and its adjuncts, that the

one makes acceptable to God, and is a means of Grace from him, and the other not. For I conceive both the one and the other may have this effect, tho not in equal degree.

Tho Ceremonial Worship be but an appurtenance of that which is called Moral; yet it is truly a species of Worship, as having the common nature of Worship in it. Howbeit, it is but an Analogi∣cal species, as having the nature of its genus, but in an inferior way.

§. 9. Of those acts of Religion that are Moral Natural Worship.

THE acts of Religion that are Moral Natural Worship, are the hearing of Gods word with heart-subjection; prayer, comprehending confession of our sin and misery; petition for all needful grace and mercy; and praise, with thanksgiving; self-re∣signation to God, and covenanting with him; making vows to him; swearing by his name; and devoting any thing to his im∣mediate Service. All these are expressions of divine honour.

Of all these there may be certain external forms of positive institution, and so as to those forms they may be called instituted worship.

Moreover the thing vowed may be instituted and ceremonial, tho the vow of it self be Moral Worship.

The end of an Oath may be the confirmation of the truth un∣to men; and the nearest end of a Vow to God, may be some be∣nefit to men; and the matter of a Vow may be some common thing; yet the Vow, as to its essential form, is divine Worship in a direct engagement made to God for his honour; and an oath as to its essential form, is divine worship in a direct acknowledg∣ing of Gods Omnipotence, Omniscience, infinite Holiness, and taking him to witness to the truth which we attest, with a volun∣tary subjection to his righteous judgment. And the internal end of both Vow and Oath, is the glorifying of God as our Supreme Lord and Judg.

The external part of the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament, is instituted ceremonial worship; but the internal part, which is the soul and spirit thereof, being our solemn receiving of the grace of the Covenant given us of God in Christ, and our solemn engaging to God according to the tenor of that Cove∣nant, is a most important and main part of divine service, and is worship Moral, Natural.

§ 10. Of particular acts which are Natural Ceremonial Worship.

KNeeling, bowing of the body, prostration, lifting up of the hands and eyes to heaven in worshipping God, are in one respect worship it self, and in another respect but circumstances of Worship. They are acts of external Worship as they are na∣tural expressions of the internal. And they may be accounted and called circumstances of Worship, being considered as subser∣vient appurtenances to the more substantial parts of Worship, to which they are sometimes necessarily conjoined, and from which remaining intire and compleat notwithstanding, they may at other times be spared. These things being naturally laudable, but not naturally necessary, are necessary to be used when conveni∣ently they may, and not otherwise.

Some have called the aforesaid, and such like external acts, na∣tural Ceremonies; and they are called Natural, because Nature it self teacheth men to use them, without any Divine or Humane institution; and a rational man by the meer light of Nature, is directed to use them; yet men are by nature directed to things not without government of counsel and discretion. For in these things Nature is in part determined and limited by the custom of several Ages and Countreys, and by the difference of several cases.

The posture of Standing in the acts of solemn professions and engagements made to God, as in declaring our assent to the Ar∣ticles of the Christian Faith, and consent to the Covenant of Grace; also in acts of solemn Praise and Thanksgiving, as in the repeating of Laudatory Hymns, is such an outward expression of our internal devotion, as is very consentaneous to Nature, and so an outward act of Worship.

§ 11. Of External acts which by custom of the Age or Countrey express devotion in Worship.

MEN say, That Custom is a second Nature. And some ex∣ternal acts that are grounded on Custom, are as signifi∣cant and expressive, at least before men, as those that are natural; and the neglect of them would be very incongruous and scanda∣lous.

Of this kind is the uncovering of the head in the Male Sex, by putting off the Hat, &c. and in the Worship of God it is an act or part of worship; for it is done directly to his honour, and is immediately expressive of heart reverence towards him.

Yet I grant that all reverential acts about Gods Worship, are not acts of worship, but some are only adjuncts thereof, as shall be shewed.

No Ceremonial act, either natural or customary, is necessary to be observed, where natural infirmity, or other necessity, makes it inconvenient.

§ 12. Of External acts, which by divine Institution, or the general custom of Nations, express Divine Honour.

THE erecting of Altars, offering of Sacrifice, and burning of incense, are by the custom of mankind accounted Divine Honours. And they were such acknowledgments as God did in the Law appropriate to himself. Therefore these acts are pro∣perly divine worship to whatsoever object they are directed. Yea, tho there be not an intention of acknowledging a Deity in the object or person to whom they are directed; yet they are exter∣nal Divine Worship, or a giving of that external honour which is appropriated to the Deity.

The dedicating of Temples, and consecrating of places to any being, may be of ambiguous interpretation. First, it may betoken the setting apart a place as sacred to that being, to which it is set apart, and the place of its worship, and special residence, and be∣nign influence upon mortals; and in this sense it is an act of di∣vine worship; and in this sense I suppose the Papists have dedica∣ted Churches and Chappels, and other places, to Saints and An∣gels. 2. It may betoken only the setting apart of a place or house in memorial only of the created person, Saint or Angel, but to the honour and service of God. And in this later sense the dedicating of a Church or other place to a created being, is not a deferring of divine honour thereunto.

In like manner the dedicating of days and times to any person for invocation, or any service which is usually rendred to God, to be performed to that person, is a giving of divine worship to him. But the dedicating of days and times in memorial of some blessed person, to the honour and service of God alone, is no giv∣ing of divine worship to that person.

§ 13. Of fasting, wearing of Sackcloth, or other vile apparel, lying in ashes, being barefoot, and the like austerities used in Gods Worship.

1. THese acts are evident expressions of Humiliation and Self-abasement; and some of them are fit expressions thereof in all places and times, as fasting, and wearing of mean apparel; and some of them but in some Ages and Countries, because, tho they are apt in nature to express the same, yet therein nature is subject to some variety according to the different customs of times and places. 2ly. They are fit means of mortification, some of them in all times and places, as fasting; some of them only in some times and places according to custom. 3ly. Consequently they are fit adjuncts of Divine Worship in special seasons and oc∣casions of solemn Humiliation.

But 4ly. These acts may become also acts of Divine Worship (whether they be lawful acts thereof is another Question), being used as direct means of honouring and pleasing God in abasing and displeasing self: For so they are done before his Foot-stool to the exalting of his name in our abject and forlorn state and po∣sture. And the Scripture expresly takes notice of a kind of Will-Worship in a certain voluntary abasement, and neglect of the bo∣dy, Col. 2.23.

§ 14. The nature of Monastick Vows of Obedience, Poverty and Chastity, considered.

THat the formale of these Vows, as of all others, is Divine Worship, is not doubted; the inquiry therefore is of the subject matter thereof.

By the matter of these Vows the asserters thereof intend a special religious state over and above the general religious state, which is Christianity it self; which special state contains an ob∣ligation to certain offices and works to be done, intended for the direct and immediate honouring and serving of God, and that in a more sublime and perfect way than Christianity in gene∣ral; and so they are made direct matter of devotion or Wor∣ship.

But the matter of those Vows may be so intended and managed, as to be religious only reductively, as being for the advance∣ment of Religion, namely, for vacancy to holy exercises, for more Freedom in the Christian warfare, upon which account Caelibate or single life was commended by St. Paul; not that he commended the Vow thereof, but a constant purpose thereof for those ends, in case of the gift or power to continue therein. Now whether they be fit matter of Vows in this later sense, is afterwards to be considered. The like may be said of abstinence, as of Caelibate.

§ 15. Of Decency and Order, adjuncts of Divine Worship.

THE Apostles rule, Let all things be done decently and in or∣der, is of the law of nature, and would have obliged the Churches of Christ, tho it had not been written in the Holy Scripture.

Decency as such, is no part of Worship, but an adjunct; it is the convenient setting it off, or a mode thereof agreeable to its dignity. And it is not proper to it alone, but common to all Civil matters and Humane actions of a grave nature, viz. that it be performed in a meet habit, and posture of Body, and Furni∣ture, and other like significations of due respect to a holy action.

Order likewise is an adjunct of Worship, and is not to be ex∣tended to the making of new Worship; for that it is no other than the due disposing of what is already made, and the conve∣nient setting and ranking of the several parts thereof, for Me∣thod, Measure, Time, Place, and other circumstances. And it belongs to Divine Worship, not on a peculiar, but common reason, as to all humane actions, wherein order is both beau∣tiful and advantageous, and disorder is deformed and preju∣dicial.

The Apostles said Rule, intends that necessary Decency and Order, the want whereof is undecency and disorder; but not Gaudy dresses, Theatrical ornaments, Pompous formalities, Imagery, and Various flourishes, affected by the sensual fan∣cy. Such Decency is injoyned as is suitable to things of a holy and reverend Nature.

We may know what is injoyned in a Law, by what is there∣in forbidden. Now in this Law nothing is forbidden, but un∣decency and disorder; and therefore nothing is injoyned but the necessary Decency and Order opposite thereunto. And in plain reason, whatsoever is not undecent, is decent; and what∣soever is not disorderly, is orderly; I mean in a capable subject of these adjuncts.

Most Matters of Decency and Order, are simply necessary on∣ly in genere, but not in specie any further, but that some species or other under the genus is to be made use of according to prudence.

Some particular species of Decency are in themselves necessa∣ry when they are possible; and they are those whose opposites are undecent from the nature of the things. Some are necessa∣ry from extrinsecal circumstances, as from custome of the Time and Place, the Quality and Condition of persons, &c. The former kind may be called Natural, the later Civil or Cu∣stomary. And the later sort are necessary even by the Law of Nature, yet not immediately, but mediately, such circumstan∣ces being supposed. But this sort admits of much variety and alteration.

Less decent hath the nature of undecent, when it it chosen in opposition to more decent; as less good hath the nature of evil, when it is chosen in opposition to greater good. But here it is not fit nor safe to contend about magis and minus, nor to strain to the uttermost pitch in things that are matter of Controrvesie, or Scruple, or Jealousie; but it is best to take up with that which is most passable among all, provided there be no simple undecen∣cy: For then in that case no necessary Decency is neglected.

§ 16. Of Time and Place considered as Adjuncts, or as matter of Worship.

TIME and Place in general are necessary Adjuncts or Cir∣cumstances of Divine Worship. For no action Natural or Moral, can be performed without them. And they are meer Adjuncts, when they attend Divine Worship in a way and reason common to it with other humane Actions, and are ap∣pointed and used about it, according to convenience for the due performance of it. And then they are only for the Worship per∣formed

therein, but the Worship is not from them.

But Time and Place in Gods Worship sometimes have a high∣er state, and become the matter thereof, as the old Sabbath, and the Lords day, and the Tabernacle, and Temple, under the Mosaical dispensation. For as God by his Institution did make those Times and Places not occasionally but statedly holy, and a means of sanctifying his people; so his people in their sub∣mission to his appointment, and their very Dedication and Ob∣servation or Sanctifying of those Times and Places, did perform special Acts of Worship, being an Oblation to God, and an im∣mediate giving of honour to him. And those Times and Pla∣ces were not only sanctified by the duties therein performed, but the duties were partly sanctified, and made acceptable by those Times and Places.

Howbeit those sacred Times and Places, that have been advanced to be matter of Worship, are also in that state of advancement Adjuncts to that Worship to which they appertain, and are appro∣priated. For there is that inferiority and superiority in several parts of Worship, that some may be rightly accounted adjuncts to others.

As God by his Institution can make Times and Places, that of themselves are but meer Adjuncts, to be matter of his Worship, and hath done it in the forementioned instances; so men also may by their Institutions make Times and Places statedly or permanently Holy, and matter of Worship, and an Oblation to God. How lawfully they may do so, is afterwards to be considered; but however the dedicating and observing thereof hath the Nature of Worship in it. For the efficient cause, Whether it be God or Man, is extrinsecal to the formal na∣ture of Worship, which lies in the formal Reason, and direct and proper end and use of the action, by whomsoever institu∣ted.

Here it may be considered, Whether every Adjucnt of Wor∣ship instituted of God, doth by that Institution become a mat∣ter or part of Worship, which otherwise it would not be. Some say that in the old Law, the least ceremony prescribed of God, was a part of Worship. Which Assertion I do not now so far examine, as to declare my assent or dissent. But if it were so, I think it was not meerly as prescribed of God, but upon some further Reason. For I do not see that God cannot prescribe a

meer adjunct of Worship, but it must thereby lose its formal state, or become formally another thing, viz. a matter of Worship; but think it may remain in its own state, a meer Adjunct still. Nevertheless, the observation of that divinely prescribed Adjunct, may be an act of Worship so far, as every act of obedience to God as such, may be so called. But here we speak of Worship, not in so large, but in the stricter sense.

§ 17. Of sacred Signs, and significant Ceremonies in Divine Worship.

A Sign is something more known, shewing another thing less known; or that which is more open, discovering something more latent; or at least, that which doth further clear and confirm the truth of what is alike evident.

There are Signs natural, and customary, and instituted, and arbitrary, and stated, and occasional.

As things signified, so Signs are either Sacred, or Common. And as of all other things, so there may be Signs of Wor∣ship.

And Signs immediately expressive of Worship, are Wor∣ship. For all external worship, is a sign of the internal; whe∣ther it be true, or feigned. And Ceremonies that signifie, or express an act of Worship, are ceremonial Worship.

But all significant Ceremonies are not Worship, because they do not all signifie, or express an act of Worship.

Among significant Ceremonies, that are parts of Worship, I reckon the Cross in Baptism, being confessedly a sign of our dedication to Christ.

§ 18. Of the nature of being holy, and the distinctions of holiness.

HOliness in Creatures signifies, either a quality in Angels and Men, which is called the Image of God; or the re∣lation of any thing to God, as appropriated to him.

In a general sence, all things in heaven and earth are the Lords: but whatsoever is his in a special sence, or separated to his use, is called holy: As first, persons, either more gene∣rally devoted to him, and that heartily, as all the faithful and their seed; or professedly, as all visible Christians; or else, by

special Office, as the Priests of old, and now the Ministers of the Gospel. 2ly. Things, some by his own immediate Com∣mand; others by general directions to Men: and of these, some are more remotely, others more nearly set apart unto him. Things more nearly, or strictly devoted to God, are Temples, Utensils, Lands, &c. which are Holy, being justly related to God by lawful Separation. Ministers are more ho∣ly than these, because more nearly related to God. Things remotely, or more at large devoted to God, are the Meat, Drink, House, Lands, Labours, Offices, &c. of every one that is godly, who with himself devotes all that he hath to God.

Indeed, as every thing is sanctified of God to a Believer, so every thing is sanctified by a Believer unto God. But the holiness of things is ordinarily understood, of things not re∣motely, and at large, and ultimately, but more nearly, and in a stricter sence devoted to God.

Some say, such a state of Separation to holy uses, that the thing may no more be alienated, is proper holiness. But others think this too narrow a description. For there may be a tem∣porary Separation, as well as perpetual to holy uses, as here strictly taken for those onely that more nearly respect God's Worship and Service; and not for all uses, ultimately respecting God's Honour; in which larger sence, by the Holy, all things (as hath been said) are used to holy uses. Some say, That those things are not sacred, that accompany Religious Worship in a way common to it with other things, as Time, Place, Furniture, &c. Things used in Religious Services, may be civil in their own Nature, and they do not then alter their Matter, or Form, but onely their Subject, to which they are Adjuncts. To which it is answered, That things considered in their own nature, that is, Physically, are neither civil nor sacred, but are either the one or the other, according to their relation and application. Therefore many things of the same species Phy∣sically considered, may be sometimes Civil, and sometimes Sa∣cred, according to their different use and relation, as the same Physical act that is but civil reverence in a civil affair, may be religious reverence in a religious Service. They accompany Religion in a way common to it, with other actions, Physically, but not Morally, or Relatively. And whereas it is said, they are of the same use out of God's service, as in it; as there is

the same use of mens eyes in reading one Book, as in read∣ing another: The Answer is, They are of the same use Physi∣cally, but not Relatively, and Morally.

For explaining the former Paragraph, be it noted, That Religi∣on presupposeth civility, and consequently holy things and acti∣ons require civil things and actions as inferior attendants thereon. Religious Worship, or Divine Service, must needs be accompanied with many things of a meer civil import, which do not thereupon alter their state from civil to sacred; as the civil Habits both of Mi∣nisters, and People, the civil order of their sitting according to their several ranks; and other civil decencies observed in holy Assem∣blies, that still remain but meer civilities. For they are not ap∣plied, nor related to Religion as adjuncts to a Subject; nor are referred to a holy use, or end; otherwise then as all things are referred ultimately to a holy end: onely they are requi∣site to accompany Religion in their lower state of Civility. Nevertheless there be many things, which in civil affairs are meerly civil, yet in Religious Exercises are Religious, their Re∣lative state being altered, for that they are directly applied to a religious or holy use and end; as bowing of the Body, lifting up the Hand, or the Eyes, standing up, being Physically the same, are Sacred actions, being applied to Divine worship; and civil, when applied to civil repects.

Every thing should be reverenced according to the Degree and Measure of its Holiness.

The Second Part of Idolatry.

§ 1. Of Superstition in general.

AS there is a defect in Religion, so there is an excess, and this is called Superstition.

This excess is not in the formal reason of Religion (for we cannot too much observe, reverence, and love God) but

either in the undueness of the object, or the acts thereof, In∣ternal, or External. Excess in the undueness of the object of Religious Worship, is Idolatry. Excess in the Internal acts thereof, lies in the inward anxiety, scrupulosity, or other exorbitant fancy about it.

The Excess in the External acts, is either in the Kind, or the Measure thereof; in the Kind, as being forbidden either in particular, or in general; in the measure, of what for the Kind is lawful, as when it is to the neglect of other duties.

The Excess is more rare in natural, than in instituted, or positive Worship.

To be too religious, is in some respect to be irreligious; it is sometimes Sacrilegious, in robbing God of his due in other kinds; and at all times it wants the formal nature of True Religion.

Superstition is either positive, in forbidden acts of Worship; or negative, in religious abstainings from things not forbidden, as some distinguish. But I conceive, that in this latter kind the formale of Superstition lyes not in a negation, or meer not doing, but in a certain observance about not doing, and a conscientious nolition.

§ 2. Of Idolatry in general.

IDolatry is a species of Superstition, being an excess in the object of Worship. It is the giving of Worship, that is pro∣per to God, to that which is not God.

An Idol in its most proper sence, is an Image, that is the like∣ness or resemblance of any Being; more especially, that which is made for the resemblance of the true, or a false God. It also signifies, whatsoever Being, visible, or invisible, yea or fig∣ment of the brain, that is worshipped as God.

Moreover, an Idol is not onely that, which besides the true God is avowed for God; but also that, which hath any part or kind of Divine Honour given to it; for it is thereby made interpretative another God.

If any incommunicable Attribute of God be given to ano∣ther, as Omniscience, or to be the searcher of hearts, that other is made another God, though not simply, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or so far.

Idolatry may be committed by such as own no more gods than the onely living and true God; for though they do not acknowledge more Gods than one, yet they may give his in∣communicable honour to that which they confess to be no God.

To pray to any Creature for that benefit, which God onely can do for us, as to give Rain, or fair Weather, is Divine Wor∣ship and Idolatry.

§. 3. Of Latria and Dulia.

AS for the famous distinction of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we will consider it first according to the Words, then accor∣ding to the Sence that is given thereof by those that use it.

As for the words; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not used onely for worship gi∣ven to God, Deut. 28.48. Levit. 23.7. Nor is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used onely for worship given to Creatures, Acts 20.19. Rom. 12.11. 1 Thes. 1.9. Latria is a Word that generally signifies all Service; and dulia signifies Service in a stricter way; to wit, of those that are not sui juris, but absolutely at the disposing of him whom they serve.

As for the sense of this distinction given by the Users; Latria is that worship whereby the object is acknowledged to be the first beginning, and the ultimate end of all: and dulia is that wherein the object is not acknowledged so to be.

This their way of distinguishing, doth not make two kinds of worship, either in the outward acts, which are the same in latria and dulia, even among the Papists, except Sacrifice onely; or in the Internal acts of the Will; to wit, Love, Fear, Trust, &c. which may be the same in both, and through Superstition may be greater in their dulia than latria; but onely in an intellectual apprehension, which the vulgar are not apt to mind.

Moreover, when the object is not apprehended to be the first Cause, and last End; that is, the Supreme God, nothing hin∣ders, but it may have that kind of Worship given to it, which is due to him onely; as to Pray to it, to Swear by it, to burn Incense, to dedicate Temples and Altars, and to make Vows to it.

The Worship which Cornelius was about to give to Peter, and

which John was about to give to the Angel, from a trans∣port of Mind, was more than was due to Creatures: yet Cor∣nelius did not think Peter, nor John the Angel, to be the first Cause, and last End. Nor did the Devil move our Saviour so to acknowledge him, when he would have had him fall down and Worship him; yet he rejected his motion, as seeking the worship due to God onely; yea, and that which is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luk. 4.8.

§. 4. Of Idolatry, serious and dissembled.

SErious Idolatry is, when the mind gives the honour due to God, or any part thereof, to a Being that is not God; and when the using of the External signs of that honour pro∣ceeds from the intention of the mind to honour it thereby.

In all serious or undissembled Idolatry, there is ignorance or error about the object, or the act of Worship. First, about the object; either the thing worshipped is taken to be God, when it is not God; or it is taken to have some Attribute of God, which it hath not, or to injoy some Prerogative of God, which it doth not. In the Two later cases the thing is worshipped, though not simply, yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as God. Se∣condly, About the act of Worship, 1. When the worship given to that which is not God, is not taken to be Divine Worship, when indeed it is such. 2. When the Worship taken to be Divine, is not taken to be applyed to the object, when indeed it is applyed.

Dissembled Idolatry, is meerly External, when an External Sign of Honour due to God alone is given to that, which is not God, without the intention of the mind to honour it thereby.

Every outward act, that is ordinarily used for signification of Divine Honour, is not of it self, as Physically considered, a signification thereof, and consequently not Idolatry. But whensoever such an act is knowingly and voluntarily done, at such time and place, and in such circumstances as make it to be taken for a signification of Divine Honour, it is imputed to him that doth it for a signification thereof. Though it be true, That that which is not a sign of Internal Honour, is not Wor∣ship; nevertheless, he that doth not internally honour, may

give the outward sign of doing it. He doth really give the sign of such honour, though but a feigned one, and so is really guilty of Idolatry, though but dissembled. He doth really make shew of giving that honour to another, which is due to God onely, and professedly owns another object of Divine worship, and so far an other God. And though it be not Men∣tal, yet it is Corporal Idolatry, as an Atheist or impious person doth not Internally Honour God, but contemn him; yet do∣ing those things which are External Signs thereof, he doth Externally worship God.

§. 5. Of adoration given to the Host.

THat the Papists give Divine Worship to the Host, is by them∣selves acknowledged; and it is no small part of their Religi∣on. The Council of Trent determines, That the same Divine Worship which we give to God himself, is to be given to the most Holy Sa∣crament. And by the Holy Sacrament, they mean the Body of Christ under the accidents of the Bread.

This, according to the Protestants Doctrine, is the giving of Divine Honour to a morsel of Bread; and therefore a most stupid, and stupendious kind of Idolatry.

Some of the Protestant Profession have gone about to Extenu∣ate the same, saying, That it is material, but not formal Ido∣latry in the Papists. For that the Consecrated Bread is taken to be very Christ, who is very God; and therefore, though the thing Worshipped be not God, yet it is Believed to be the True God by those Worshippers, and Worshipped as such.

Nevertheless, it hath been granted by some of the Popish Writers, That if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be an Er∣ror, they are guilty of the most abominable Idolatry in the Adoration of the Host; and they could not find out the afore∣said extenuation of it, in case of such Error, by distinguishing between Material and Formal Idolatry.

And some Romanists do say, That these words, This is my bo∣dy, may bear a Figurative sence; as those Words, That Christ was a Rock: and that if there were no other Evidence for Transubstantiation, but what the Scripture gives, there were no reason to make it an Article of Faith. Bellarmine saith, These words necessarily infer either a real Mutation in the Bread, as the Catho∣licks

hold; or a Metaphorical, as the Calvinists hold; but by no means admit the Lutheran sence. And he concludes, That though there be some obscurity and ambiguity in the Words, yet it is taken away by Councils and Fathers.

The Persians, in old Gentilism, Worshipped the Sun for the Su∣preme God; and their Idolatry was not the less abominable for their Error about that Object of Worship. And surely it was Formal Idolatry; that is, There was in it the formalis ra∣tio, or true nature and reason of that Sin.

Nay, I think it more Sacrilegious, and Blasphemous against the True God, to take any Creature to be he, and to wor∣ship it accordingly, than to give Divine Worship to a Creature not imagined to be the Supreme God, but some inferior deity.

St. Austin speaks in his Preface to his Sermon on Psal. 93. of certain Hereticks that honoured the Sun, and said, That it was Jesus Christ. Now divine honour given to the Sun under such a mistake, is horrid Idolatry; and why not also divine honour given to a morsel of Bread by the same mistake?

The Lutherans Doctrine of Consubstantiation, doth not infer that the Eucharist is to be adored. They believe indeed, That Jesus Christ is really present in the Sacrament; but they do not believe, That the Sacrament is really Jesus Christ, nor adore it as such.

But that the Papists condition in respect of this sottish Super∣stition of Bread-worship being so bad, may not be made worse than it is, it may be considered, That they do not take the Bread to be the Deity, nor to be he that is God, save onely ac∣cording to his Human Body, into which they believe the Bread is changed, and so worship it as our Lords Body; or to express it in the most favourable sence, they worship him as there pre∣sent in his proper Body; and withal, worship the bread sup∣posed to be that Body.

§. 6. Of the Popish Invocation of Angels and Saints departed.

THis Invocation is without Precept or Precedent in Holy Scripture. Invocation on God alone is according to Scrip∣ture. Christ teacheth, to pray, Our Father, in his great Rule and Standard of Prayer. We are taught to Invocate him, on

whom we believe, Rom. 10.14. which is God alone. As In∣cense the Type, so Prayer the thing typified, is to be offered to God alone.

Prayer is an Act of such Worship as Papists call latria. It supposeth the Being to whom it is directed, to be the Author and Fountain of the good we pray for. And so they that are prayed to, are invocated in Gods stead. And whereas some say, That the Saints are to be invocated, not as Authors of Di∣vine benefits; it is apparent that Papists invocate them as Au∣thors directly and without ambages, praying to them for health and deliverance from danger, yea for the highest benefits, as to St. Peter to open Heaven Gates to them. They direct their prayers to them as to those that can dispence the Grace of God to men at their pleasure.

Also prayer implies a prostration of the whole Soul and Spi∣rit, and Body, to the person that is invocated, by Acts of Subje∣ction, Devotion, Dependence, Reverence, and all higest Observance. Experience shews the fond ravishments of Soul in the super∣stitions towards those to whom more especially they are devoted, ordinarily making no inferior Expressions of their Devotion to∣wards them, than toward God and Christ: Yea, they are so in∣tercepted and taken up by this Dotage, as to forget God.

If Saints are invocated as Mediators, they are invocated in Christs stead. Christ is our Intercessor in Heaven, as our Redeem∣er, 1 John 2.1. And therefore they that are not our Redeemers, cannot be our intercessors in Heaven.

Moreover we cannot rationally commend our prayers to any but such, as we know both can, and will represent them to God.

The Popish Invocation of Saints and Angels, is an ascribing to them the incommunicable Excellencies of God, as to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 searchers of hearts, and perceptive of all the cases and concernments of those that invocate them; and an Omniscience and Omnipresence, if not absolute, yet at least re••••••ctive to this lower World, the Habitation of us Mortals, is ascribed to them thereby.

To excuse this Sacriledg and Idolatry, that incredible conceit of the Saints beholding all things, in speculo Trinitatis, is but a sorry shift. Such Omniscience the Manhood of Christ hyposta∣tically united to the Godhead, did not pretend unto. And the devising of it, is a transcendent presumption of mans wit, for the invading of Gods right.

The truth is, the Worship of Saints and Angels maintained in the Roman Church, in parity of reason answers the Pagans Worshipping of Daemons, being either Souls of Men departed, or other Invisible Powers, whom they imagined to be Inferior Deities subordinate and ministring to the Supreme God. And after the manner of the Heathens, the Papists have appointed among the Saints certain particular Patrons of Provinces, Cities, Artificers, living Creatures, &c.

When we desire holy persons on Earth to pray for us, we feek not to them as Patrons, or Intercessors in the vertue of their Merits; but as Brethren at the same distance from God with us. And the help is mutual, according to the Communi∣on of Saints, and for which we have Promise, Precept and Ex∣ample.

§ 7. Of Erecting Altars, and bringing Oblations to any besides God.

THose external Acts, that by Nature or Custome, or Divine Institution, are or were appropriated Expressions of that internal honour or observance that is due to God alone, are Divine Worship. And such are the Acts of Erecting Altars, and bringing Oblations, and burning Incense, and making Vows, and dedicating Temples, and ordaining Festivals.

The Erecting of Altars, either for Sacrifice or other Obla∣tions to any being, imports either an apprehension of that being, as an avenger of sin in a higher way than mans temporal Judg∣ment and Vengeance, and the propitiating thereof towards us; or else a grateful acknowledgment of benefits received from a higher hand, than any humane Benefactor upon Earth, even from a soveraign providence. And that which is so propitiated, or gratefully acknowledged, must be either the Supreme God, or some Inferior Deity, to which that is ascribed, which the most High God hath not communicated to any other.

And besides the reason of the thing, the custom of all man∣kind, and Divine Ordination, hath made this a proper Act of Divine Worship. If it were high presumption to render that kind of Worship to any subject, which the Soveraign Prince hath appropriated to himself; much more presumptuous and sa∣crilegious is it for us to use the appropriated signs of Divine honour, towards any Creature.

Nay, tho God hath now relinquished such a Mode of Wor∣ship, as Altars properly so called, and Sacrifices, and Oblations, Propitiatory or Eucharistical, (the reason of them ceasing by the new Dispensation); yet it is Idolatrous to use the same af∣terwards towards a Creature. For tho it be disused in Divine Service, yet still it hath the Impress or Signification of Divine honour.

Wherefore the Erecting of Altars and bringing Oblations to any besides God, is Idolatry.

§ 8. Of making Vows to any besides God.

BOth Divine Ordination, and the Custom of Nations, hath made the making of Vows a proper act of Divine Worship; and therefore when it is directed to any Creature, it is Idolatry.

In the reason of the thing, Vowing is an act of Divine Wor∣ship.

Vowing to God imports Heart-Subjection and Devotion to him, and trust in him as the Soveraign disposer of us and our concernments.

Vehement and resolute Promises made to men upon Earth, may Metaphorically be called Vows to them. And things set apart for the use and Service of some persons only, may in like manner of speaking be said to be devoted to them.

The Popish Vows made to Saints departed, are of the same reason with Vows made to God, importing that Subjection, Devotion and Dependence, which is due to God alone, and therefore are Idolatrous.

Sometimes the very matter of Vows made to Saints, are matters of Religious observance, or Devotion towards them, as of Invocation, Oblations, Dedication of Temples to them, &c. Sometimes the matter of such Vows may be something to be performed to men upon Earth, as for one to Vow to a Saint, that he will give so much to the Poor; and even in this later case the Vow quoad formale is a religious Subjection or Ob∣servance towards the Saint, as an Invisible Celestial power, in expectation of favour from him in case of performance, and of vengeance in case of failing therein.

It will not excuse these Popish Votaries to say, That in Vow∣ing to the Saints they do not imply an Obsequium or Devotion to∣wards

them, as the first Principle or Cause, &c. which they say is latria; nor an expectation of favour or vengeance from them, as their absolute Supreme Governours, and disposers of them and their Affairs; but only as Inferior to God. For the things which God challenges to himself, they render to the Saints, (tho pretendedly but in an inferior respect), as namely, the pro∣stration of the Soul and Spirit, the Subjection of the Conscience to them, and Dependence on them, as causes of good or evil in a Supernatural, transcendent, and Divine manner of dispensa∣tion.

It was one kind of the Idolatry of the old Heathens, to Erect Altars, and make Vows, and Prayers, and offer Sacrifices to such as they knew were not the Supreme God, but the Souls of men departed, or other Daemons. And Idolatry was rare among the Romans, if this were not Idolatry. The Papists do in their practice make the Saints departed such Inferior Deities, as the Heathen Daemons were. And indeed they have bor∣rowed the names Divi and Divae from them.

Moreover, to make Vows to Saints, supposeth them capable of receiving Vows, and that capacity supposeth them to know all things on Earth, or at least all things whensoever and where∣soever directed to them, even the secret intents of the heart; and this makes them Gods 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

§ 9. Of burning Incense to any besides God.

BUrning of Incense is a kind of Worship which God hath ap∣propriated to himself, and therefore this Worship given to any Saint or Angel is Idolatry.

The burning of Incense did typifie prayers, and praises; and other spiritual Services offered up as a sweet favour, or acceptable to God; therefore can no more be offered to a Crea∣ture, than prayers, or the like Services may.

Being offered by the Priest in the Sanctuary, while the people were praying in the Court of the Temple, it did typifie the In∣tercession of Jesus Christ with God. Therefore it is Divine Worship; and being transferred to any Creature, it is no less than Idolatry.

§ 10. Of dedicating Places and Times, and erecting a symbolical presence to any besides God.

THESE are acts which God appropriated as his own Worship.

The dedicating either of Temples and Chappels, or Groves or other places, to any Saint or Angel, as the place of his worship and special residence, and benign influente upon mortals that make their Addresses to him (which the Papists do) is Idolatry; it be∣ing divine worship directed to a wrong object, or that which is not God.

But to dedicate Temples or Chappels to God and his Service only, but in memorial of Saints or Angels, is not Idolatry, it be∣ing not a rendering ought to the creature that is due to God alone, tho those places be called by the names of such Saints and Angels in honour of their memory.

The case of dedicating Days and Times to Saints and Angels, may be stated and resolved in the same manner.

The erecting of a Symbolical Presence, with incurvation thi∣therward, was declared by God to be a manner of worship due to him, and not to be given to any else; and therefore to observe the same towards any other, is idolatry.

§ 11. Of worshipping Reliques.

I Suppose by Reliques are meant not only any parts of Christ or the Saints, but also any adjuncts, as Raiment, &c.

When the Papists say, That a Saints Reliques are to be worship∣ped with the same worship that is due to the Saint; and Christs Reliques with the same worship that is due to Christ, they are self-convicted idolaters.

No doubt a respect may be had to the true Reliques of Saints, as we respect the Reliques of dear Friends, or of Ancestors, or of worthy Patriots or Princes, as some remaining Monuments of those that have left the World.

For any to make use of Reliques to keep the Devil away from them, or for any preservation spiritual or temporal, is a sortish superstition.

§. 12. Of worshipping the Crose.

STaurolatry is Idolatry.

It is a question with me, Whether many of the Papists can mean by the worshipping of the Cross, and of Reliques, any more than high veneration, or reverend respect. Surely they are not all so stupid as to pray to them, or to expect help from them, as from principal agents, but only as from instruments or means.

Yet there is no ground of veneration or reverence to the Cross for its relation to Christ: For it was the instrument of the Cru∣elty of his Murtherers. And the Cross did not bring salvation, as a cause thereof, any more than the men that crucified Christ. Christ overcame not by the Cross, but on the Cross, it being ta∣ken in the proper, and not in a figurative sense.

Paul's glorying in the Cross of Christ, is to be taken tropically for Christ as crucified.

Besides, if the Cross properly taken, were to be gloried in, it doth not follow that it, it to be reverenced, much less adored. One may glory in a shameful suffering for Christ; and yet the suffer∣ing is not to be adored nor reverenced.

§ 13. Whether Christ as Man, or Mediator, is to be worshipped.

LET it be considered, 1. There is but one immediate, formal, and adequate reason of Divine Worship, to wit, the Su∣preme Majesty, independent and infinite excellency of the Eter∣nal Godhead. 2. All Divine Worship is, for the nature of it, the highest observance and honour that can be given, because the for∣mal object, and the adequate reason or ground of it, is the high∣est and infinite Excellence and Soveraignty. 3. Tho in Christ the Mediator the Godhead be necessary to mediation; yet mediation is not necessary to the Godhead. 4. Our Faith doth not rest sim∣ply and finally, but mediately on Christ, as he is our Mediator God-man. 5. Christs Mediatory power and glory as God-man, is different from his natural and essential power and glory.

Now to answer the question, That Jesus Christ, the Mediator God-man, is to be worshipped, appears plainly from Rev. 1.6. Rev. 5.8, 12, 13, 14. Rom. 14.3, 9. But from the aforegoing

consideration it is evinced, that he is Worshipped with Divine Worship, not as Mediator, but as God. Christ as Mediator is the material or terminative, but not the formal object there∣of. For if upon supposition of what cannot be, our Mediator had not been God, he could not have been Worshipped with Di∣vine Worship. That God should communicate the honour due to him, as God to another that is not God, is impossible.

Indeed Christ is Worshipped as Mediator, if we take as Mediator specificative to denote the person Worshipped, and not reduplicative to denote the formal reason of his being Wor∣shipped. Therefore Divine Worship ascribed as due to Christ, invincibly proves his Divine Nature.

Tho the Office of Christ, and the discharging of it, be not the formal ground, yet it is an excellent motive to give him that Wor∣ship that is due to his Infinite Excellence and Soveraignty.

When any one saith, Lord Jesus pray for me, the prayer is directed to him as God, tho the business recommended to him, is performed by him as man. And withal note, that we desire him to intercede for us, in a way becoming the coessential Son of God.

Christ is adored, not as Judg reduplicative, but because he is Judg, and because the Godhead judgeth principally, but the Manhood only by instrumental concurrence and Association.

Christ in his Mediatory Office doth put forth Divine Opera∣tions, but not as in such an Office formaliter, and immediately, but as it is seated in a Divine person. 2ly. Some further answer, That the Divine Operations so put forth, are impulsive causes, but not formal reasons of Adoration.

In what respect the Divinity is communicated to the hu∣manity of Christ, in that respect Divine Worship is communi∣cated thereunto, that is, in respect of Hypostatical Union. The Di∣vinity withal its adorable Attributes, is hypostatically residing in the Humanity. And the Man Christ Jesus is Worshipped not as man, but as hypostatically united to the Godhead.

When we Worship Christ, our Worship is terminated on his p••rson as God-man; but the ground of the Worship is wholly taken from his being God.

§ 14. Of Worshipping Images, or of Idolatry in the Mediate object of Worship.

AN Image is the likeness or resemblance of any thing. And the use of it in Religious Worship, is to represent that whose Image it is.

More largely, an Image may be taken for that which represents another thing, tho not supposed to be the likeness thereof, an In∣stance whereof is given in an unhewn Stone for Neptune.

A Symbol of presence is not the same thing with an Image. For only the presence of a thing after a fort is denoted by the one; but the other presents the thing it self. Therefore God al∣lowed Symbols of his presence, but forbad the making of any Image of him.

The Worshipping of an Image may be considered, either as giving Worship to the matter of it, which is Wood, Stone, Me∣tal, &c. or to the object represented by it, a supposed Deity.

Moreover, a material Image may be conceited to be more than a meer Image or representing likeness, and taken for an animated body, or an incorporated Deity, and the Worship may be directed both to the material, and the invisible substance toge∣ther, as to a compound consisting of Body and Soul.

The Worship given to a meer Image, cannot be understood to be given to it, in regard of its physical substance, as it is Wood or Stone, &c. but meerly upon the account of its resembling and representing the Prototype. And it is Worshipped not abso∣lutely as the ultimately terminating object; but relatively, as a medium or mediate object; and no rational Idolater can ren∣der more to an Image. Wherfore the Prototype is Worshipped in it, and the Worship passeth through it to the Prototype as to the ultimate object.

And consequent to this it is, that the Worship given to the Image, must be of the same kind with that which is given to the Prototype, yet given to the Image but improperly, and relatively; for if it be of another kind, it doth terminate in the Image it self, and doth not by the Image pass to the ultimate object.

The Worshippers of Images are not agreed, what Worship is due to them. Bellarmine saith, The Worship that is due to an Image properly by it self, as terminating the Worship, is a kind

of imperfect analogical Worship reductive to the Worship due to the Exemplar, which is neither latria, nor hyperdulia, nor du∣lia, but is reduced to them as imperfect to the perfect.

Hence it follows, that for image-worshippers to avoid Idola∣try, it is requisite that they understand these distinctions of la∣tria, dulia, hyperdulia, by it self, and by accident, properly, im∣properly, simply, secundum quid, analogically, reductively. And is this safe provision for the souls of men, that they may not incur the anger of the jealous God, by the provoking-sin of idolatry, and all to set up a Worship that is needless?

A meer inanimate thing can have no kind of excellence in it self to deserve Worship from us men; nor any reverence as the absolute and properly terminating object thereof; and conse∣quently, a meer material image cannot be rationally intended for such an object of worship. But if the image be taken for an ani∣mate body, or an incorporated Deity, then it is an absolutely ter∣minating object of the worship performed to it.

Worshipping towards a Symbolical presence, is not a worship∣ping of the symbol, as the bowing to the throne of a Prince, is not a worshipping of the throne. And so the bowing towards the Mercy-seat in the most holy place, was not a worshipping thereof. It was medium cultus, but not medium cultum.

The idolatry of image-worship is most frequently spoken of in Scripture, because it was most ordinary; and it is the concomi∣tant of almost all other kinds of idolatry. For both the true and false gods are by idolaters commonly worshipped in images. I shall consider this kind of idolatry, first as it is used in the wor∣ship of false gods, and then as it is used in the worship of the true God.

§ 15. Of the worshipping of false Gods in Images.

AMong the Heathens, the images of their gods were called gods, not properly, but tropically; as the Picture of a man is called a Man; for humane understanding cannot take a meer statue, or a picture, for a god. Therefore as to this point the hea∣thens were as justifiable as the Papists.

The Heathens thought that the special residences of their gods were in the images, and that their power was exerted by them. So do the Papists take their Sacred images for the special residen∣ces,

as of God, and of Christ, so of the Saints and Angels, which they also worship with the worship due to God only, and so make them idols.

The Devil by Gods permission was wont to dwell and ope∣rate in certain images, by which means they came to be famous, and more adored than others. So the Papists think a divine or su∣pernatural efficacy to be tyed to one image, more than to ano∣ther.

The Vulgar Heathens being infatuated by Satanical illusions, might without much difficulty be brought in part to terminate their worship in the images themselves, being set forth and adorn∣ed as they were, to astonish the beholders, and raise fear in them, that they might apprehend them the very gods which they wor∣shipped, but not the whole of them, but only as it were the bo∣dies, where with the invisible Deities did incorporate. And mul∣titudes of ignorant vulgar Papists m••y be supposed to be under the same gross in••atuation.

Upon the Reasons aforegoing it might be, that the Prophets laboured so much to prove that images were not gods.

As the more intelligent Papists look upon the images no other∣wise than as Symbols and Representations of those beings to which they give divine worship; so the more intelligent Hea∣thens did no otherwise.

As the wiser Heathens extremely differed in their opinions a∣bout the gods, from the Vulgar; yet concurred with them in all external rites of worship; so do the more learned Papists con∣cur with the ignorant vulgar among them in all external practi∣ses of their idolatry.

To worship a false God in an image, is double idolatry, because here two things that are not God, are worshipped with divine worship, viz. the ultimate object absolutely, and the Medium or mediate object, to wit, the image relatively.

§. 16. Of making images of the true God.

AN image to represent the true God, is an idol, as the golden Calf in the Wilderness, and the Calves of Dan and Be∣thel

To make an image of God, is to blaspheme him. An infinite Nature cannot be represented, but it must be an infinite dispa∣ragement to it.

It may be asked, May not God be represented by such corpo∣real forms, as sometimes he appeared in? Ans. In the burning bush, and in the glory on Mount Sinai, God appeared not as in an image or representation of himself, but as in symbo••s of his presence. Whether it were God or Angels only that appeared to Abraham and Jacob in humane shape, is controvertible; or it might be God the Son as a preludium to his incarnation. Besides, God did not take those humane shapes as images or representati∣ons of himself, but as signs of his presence.

The soul of man is Gods image, but in an equivocal, impro∣per, metaphorical sense. And such an image of God as it is, it cannot be pictured; and an image of mans body is not so much as the image of Gods image.

No made image can be the image of that Excellency, in respect whereof God differs from the creature.

The virtues of the mind are more capable of being pictured, than God is.

God forbad the Israelites to make an image of him, and adds this reason, That in Mount Sinai they saw no similitude, Exod. 20.4. Deut. 4.5.

It is folly to say, Only such images are forbidden as are inten∣ded to express the perfect likeness of God; and that he hath allowed an image for analogical resemblance of him. For none is so mad as to think any image doth express the perfect likeness of God. The Heathens, that acknowledged the Eternal God, did not think that any of their images did express the perfect likeness thereof. And did God make a Law to forbid that which is im∣possible in the nature of the thing, and allow all possible Repre∣sentations of him?

The Cherubims were no Representation of God; they were only Hieroglyphical signs of Gods own appointment.

To make an image of Fire or Light, to signifie the inaccessible light which God dwells in, or to picture rays of light with the Name of God, is not to make an image or representation of him; it is no other than Hieroglyphical writing.

Moses saw that which the Scripture calls Gods back parts, to wit, a created glory.

There is a great deal of difference between imperfect conceptions of God in our minds, and unworthy representations of him to our senses. And I know no other conception of God, than of a Being

infinitely perfect; and this is an intellectual apprehension, and not a material imagination of him.

§ 17. Of worshipping the True God in Images.

TO worship God in images, is not to glorifie him as God, but to extenuate his glory by a false Representation of him.

To worship God in an image, is in the sense of image-wor∣shippers to worship the Image it self with divine honour rela∣tive.

And so to worship an image, is to make it false God, or idol, and to communicate Gods worship to the creature. The golden Calf is in Scripture called an idol.

To worship God as animating an image, is idolatry.

To make an image to be medium cultum, or the thing which we worship mediately on pretence of its representing God, and that we worship him in it ultimately, is the thing directly forbid∣den in the Second Commandment.

I think it is also thereby forbidden, to make an image or re∣presentation of God to be medium cultus, tho it should not be medium cultum; because it seems to me, that God in the Second Commandment forbids such resemblances and representations of himself, not only to be worshipped, but to be used in his Wor∣ship.

It is not unlawful to make an image of other things besides God, as of some holy man, as an object or medium of our considerati∣on, exciting our minds to worship God.

Query, Whether a Crucifix, or an Historical image of Christ, according to his humane body, may not be used in that manner? If it be lawful to have such a Picture of Christ, why may we not make use of the beholding thereof, to excite our devotion to him?

Nevertheless, seeing the Second Commandment forbids the worshipping of God by a representation, as a means of worship, tho not worshipped; I doubt whether lawfully we may have a Picture of Christ (who is worshipped indeed in his whole per∣son, yet only upon the account of his divine nature) as a means of the worship rendered to him. Besides there is peril of idola∣try, and of worshipping the Picture it self.

For the same cause I think it dangerous to have a Crucifix or other Picture of Christ for a stated or fixed representation of him according to his humane body.

§ 18. Of material Images and Representations not of God, but of other things used in Gods Worship, and of the Symbols of the Divine Presence; of worshipping towards the East, and bowing towards the Altar.

TO make such Images and Representations to be used in Di∣vine Worship, is not simply evil, as appears by the brazen Serpent, a temporary Ordinance for an occasion in the Wilder∣ness; and by the Cherubims on the Mercy seat, a stated Ordi∣nance for the Mosaical dispensation.

There were also supernatural unimitable Representations, tho not of the Divine nature, yet of the Divine presence, as the bur∣ning bush, and the appearances on Mount Sinai.

Divine Worship directed to such Images or Representations as to a mediate object, is idolatry. The Ark, and the Cherubims, and the Temple, were not made the object of Worship. A learned man writes, That incurvation in way of Religion towards any Symbolical presence, as to an object, is flat idolatry; if it be in worship of Saints, Angels, and Demons, it is double idolatry; if in the worship of the true God, single.

I suppose it is one thing to make somewhat (as for instance, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Mercy-seat, and the Temple) an object of our consideration in the Worship of God, as instruct∣ing and exciting therein; and another thing to make it the ob∣ject of worship it self. And the said Author saith, That to direct our adoration towards a supernatural and unimitable transplen∣dency of the divine presence, is not idolatry I suppose he means▪ that the burning bush which Moses saw, and the visible glories on the Mount, were only media cultus, not objects thereof, the presence of God shining th ough the same as a bright medium.

Whether a symbolical presence of God may be erected of mans devising, is to be examined. I think it high ••resumption and ar∣rogance so to do. For it is uncertain, at least to men, whether God in the times of the Gospel reside in any local limits more especially than elsewhere. And from our Saviours words Joh. 4. Neither in Jerusalem, nor in this mountain, &c. the contrary is by

many supposed to be evident. But if God doth chuse any local limits of his special residence more than others, can any besides himself assign the same?

Gods special residence with his people, and yet more special in the time of his worship, is of another reason than his residence in certain places. And this residence with his people he himself hath testified in his word, and the reason of the thing is manifest.

Therefore to make our Temples or Altars (as some call the Communion Tables) to be a Shechinah or divine presence, I sup∣pose is unwarrantable; as also to call the Communion Table (as some have) Solium Christi.

The lifting up of eyes and hands to heaven in prayer and praise, is warrantable and comely, because there God dwells in his greatest visible glory; and he hath declared in his word, that he hath made the Heaven his throne, and the earth his footstool.

The ancient Churches that worshipped towards the East, did not worship the East as a middle term or object, and therefore were not guilty of idolatry. What they meant by it, I under∣stand not any further, than a mystical sense in that posture of wor∣ship, as that Christ is the day spring from on high, or the Sun of righteousness arising, &c. And as to the expediency of that cu∣stome, I leave it here undetermined.

I believe that those among us who bow towards the Altar (as they call it) do not make it an object of worship. Some give this account thereo••, that it is of the same nature with putting off our hats while we are there; which putting off the hat surely is no making of the Altar, or place where it stands, or the Build∣ing, or any part thereof, the object of worship, but is an expres∣sion of reverence either in the worship of God, or to the stated place of his worship. Some may make the Altar a symbolical pre∣sence, or the throne of Christ, which I think to be unwarranta∣able, and therefore bowing towards it upon that account to be culpable. Some may have only a mystical signification in it, as was in the ancient usage of worshipping towards the East. Some may use it only for uniformity's sake, that seeing to bow to God in their entrance into the Church, and going out of it, is fit (as they suppose), therefore it is also fit to direct it the same way. But the expedience of this practice I leave undetermined.

§ 19. Of the Scandalous use of Images.

IT may be a stumbling-block to have such Images, as others a∣mong us give unlawful worship to; as in Popish Countreys to have the image of a Crucifix, and the Virgin Mary, and other Saints, and of Angels. Yea, I think it better not to have them at all, by reason of the peril of idolatry.

To place such images in Churches, is a publick stumbling-block•• for it may be a temptation to some to worship them; and to say the least, they do more hurt than good.

The Historical use of such images in divine worship as are wont to be worshipped, that is, to have them for objects of re∣membrance, and means of exciting devotion, is dangerous; and more especially such a use of the images of the object then wor∣shipped, as a Crucifix or other picture of Christ, because it tends to pollute the mind with idolatrous imaginations, or by prepos∣sing the mind to hinder the spiritual exercise thereof, which is the ordinary effect of images.

Any images of feigned Deities, or of any powers, which are a temptation to any to believe in them, and worship them, are un∣lawful.

To set before our own or others eyes the images of the old symbols of divine presence in the time of worship tho as objects only of remembrance, and means of exciting our affection to God, is dangerous.

§ 20. Of the meer appearance of Idolatry in any kind.

BY the meer appearance of idolatry, I understand not exter∣nal, or meerly corporeal idolatry, of which I have before spoken. For this differs from that on this manner: That is an out∣ward sign of inward worship, tho it be but seeming or feigned; but this is only an appearance of being such a sign, when it is not.

Query about incurvation towards the Altar, or Communion-Table, Whether it give not an appearance of idolatry before the Vulgar, and those that are less accurate in distinguishing between an object to which, and toward which?

Query much more about directing worship towards a Crucifix or other pictures, tho but as to objects of remembrance.

The same appearance may be in the mixing of expressions of veneration to Saints or Angels amidst the worship of God, tho they be not those expressions that are appropriated to Gods wor∣ship, but only such as are common to the worship due to God and the creatures. There may be indeed a notorious signifying of the difference of our veneration towards them, from what is due to God. Howbeit for fear of scandal, it may be better wholly forborn.

Also the like appearance may be in bowing to a King or Poten∣tate amidst the Worship of God, except time, custom, and man∣ner of doing, do notoriously notifie the distinction.

Also when that which is a common expression both of Civil and Religious honour, shall be made by a King to be a symbol of giving divinee honour to him, if one use that expression towards him or his image with a civil intent, without protesting against the idolatrous use thereof.

§ 21. Whether a course of Idolatry in what kind soever, infer a state of damnation.

THE meaning of this Question is, Whether all Idolatry be mortal sin, not only in respect of desert, but existence, as sins whose ordinary habitual practice denies the being of grace, and presence of the sanctifying Spirit.

That all idolatry in whatsoever degree, is not of this nature, is plain. For idolatry in general is the giving of that honour to the creature, which is due to the Creator alone; and this lies not only in solemn avowed worship, but in the affection of the heart. There are Idola seculi, as well as Idola templi. And it is too com∣mon among the true worshippers of God, to rob him of his ho∣nour, and to place it upon the creature, and that habitually, as on a Child, or Wealth, &c. tho only in a mortified, and not in a prevalent degree. The remainders of covetousness, which is idolatry, is a witness hereof.

And if this may be in reference to the idols of the heart, why not also in reference to the idols of the Templ••? Nay, more easi∣ly may it be in this later, than in the former respect, in some de∣vout persons that live in darker times and places, because it may

proceed not from the love of the creature, more than God; but meerly from ignorance and error about the way of Divine Wor∣ship.

Wherefore I doubt not, but many holy Souls in darker Ages & Countries, have been habitually or customarily guilty of a lower kind of Idolatry in making Idols to themselves, not simply as God, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And the excessive honour they gave to the creature, did not distroy the sincerity of their Devotion towards God, nor deny their unfeigned giving of the highest honour to him alone. For such we now speak of, may heartily and prevalently own the true God, and all the essentials of Religion, and so they may be of the true Church of God, as True is taken for the essence, and not for the integral perfectness and healthfulness of the Church.

The Third Part: Of Superstition less than Idolatry.

§ 1. Of excess in the quantity or measure of Religious Observances.

ALL Superstition is an excess in Religion. The excess in the object thereof, being opened in the Second Part, here it remains that I speak of that which is in the Acts thereof; and this excess is either in the measure or in the kind, when the Rule of Religion is transgressed in either of these ways; and in some instances there may be an excess in both.

Excess in the quantity or measure of Religious Observances is, when tho the thing in kind were not an excess, yet for the quan∣tity it is more than conduceth to the end of Religion, yea is an hindrance thereto; as for Example, Prayer, or Preaching of the word too Prolix, or at an unseasonable time; too rigid a pres∣sing of Religious Exercises on the Lords day, or at any other

time lawfully set apart thereunto, contrary to the works of Mercy, or present necessity; yea that conveniency to life and converse, which doth not divert the mind from the things of God; too much care and curiosity about circumstances of Decency and Order; and too great a heaping up of Rites and Formalities.

§ 2. Of Excess in Religious Observances, for the kind thereof.

EXcess in the kind, is when mans presumption in giving ho∣nour to God, gives such signs of honour to him, as for kind he would not should be given, but hath forbidden the same.

God may forbid the kinds of Religious Observances either in particular, as he did some heathenish rites to his people of old, expressing them by name; or else in general, viz. by a general rule forbidding all of such a nature and reason in common.

Some kind of Religious Observances are unlawful in themselves, or in the nature of the things, as being naturally unfit to be offer∣rd to the Holy God, namely, such kind of Worship as was gi∣ven to Bacchus, and other like heathen gods, who were served congruenti vitio. And such need not to be forbidden in specie, be∣cause they are naught in their common nature, being vices, and 'tis enough to be forbidden in genere.

Some kinds of Religious Worship may not be vicious in their nature, nor contrary to Gods holiness to command or allow: Yet may be forbidden by the general precept of Scripture, or other supernatural Revelation.

§ 3. Of the Rule that limits the kinds of Worship.

OF Natural Worship, the Law of Nature is the limiting Rule for all the kinds thereof. Of positive Worship, namely, all that which in specie is not necessary in nature, but is of free Determination, the kinds thereof are supposed to be ei∣ther restrained to Divine Institution, or left to humane choice.

That there are Divine Institutions of positive Worship in sun∣dry kinds, is acknowledged by all that acknowledg the Scriptures Divine Authority. And that many kinds of positive Worship

have been taken up by humane discretion, is known by all that know what is practiced in the World. Now the Question is, Whether these kinds that are of humane choice, are law∣ful or lawfully intermingled in their use with Divine Institu∣tions?

That all kinds of positive Worship should be left to humane choice, seems in reason repugnant, in regard of mans natural darkness in Divine things, and proneness at the best to mistake therein, and to devise and chuse that which is incongruous or less congruous; much more in regard of mans propensity to Superstition, and bold presumption about Religious Ordi∣nances.

And de facto, we find that God hath not so left the matter, but taken care to appoint the Worship which he expects from men in all Ages, as best knowing what is best pleasing to himself.

And in reason it must needs be, that he hath sufficiently provi∣ded for his honour in the Worship that he hath Instituted, as much as concerns or belongs to the reason and end of those kinds which he hath instituted.

And thereupon it is found in reason to be a presuming of our own against the Divine Wisdom, either to change an Ordinance which God hath instituted, for another ordinance of our own de∣vising, of the same reason, and to the same intent; or to add to the Divine Ordinances by way of supplement, Humane Ordinances of the same reason and intent with the Divine; and that either as necessary to Divine Service, or only as profitable, and de bene esse. For so to do, is plainly to derogate from the Divine Ordi∣nances.

Therefore it must be concluded, that there are certain Ordi∣nances of Divine Worship which may not be left to mans discre∣tion, either to change them, or to make additions to them of others of the same reason and intent, either as necessary or pro∣fitable; and in that regard supplemental and perfective.

The express Text of Scripture proves this, that some additions are forbidden, Deut. 4.2. Deut. 12.32. The prohibition is not meerly of adding to the Rule, but of doing more than the Rule requires; as the precept is not of preserving the Rule, but ob∣serving what is commanded in it. It is indeed against mingling the heathenish observations with Divine Institutions. And it

is not to be imagined, that it is only a prohibition of the forge∣ry of Divine Oracles.

§ 4. What of divine worship may not be devised or instituted by man.

NOW it is to be considered what kind of Religious observa∣tions God hath reserved to his own determination, and for∣bidden to be devised or instituted by man. And these are first, Such as are of the same reason with those Ordinances which God hath instituted to be observed by the universal Church to the Worlds end; as to make an addition of another weekly day to the same holy intents for which the Lords day is set apart; to insti∣tute any Ordinance that is of the same reason with the Sacra∣ments of the Covenant of Grace.

In vain do some say, That it is impossible for man to make a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, and consequently no or∣dinance devised of man ought to be excepted against as such. For altho God only can institute a lawful and valid Sacrament of the Covenant; yet man may presume to institute an ordinance that is of the same nature, reason, and intent with the Sacrament of divine institution, tho it be unlawful, and of no validity; even as other divine worship may be invented by man, which is not right nor effectual.

As touching the efficacy and profitableness of an ordinance, here distinguish between an aptitude to profit in case of Gods approba ion; and an actual profitableness. No doubt but many things not institut••d of God, have an aptitude to be useful; but it follows not that they will be useful if ordained by men. For the actual usefulness comes not from the aptitude of the thing, but from Gods institution; but that which is contrary to the will of God, is not blessed to supernatural ends; yea, that which is not sanctified of God thereunto, is not so bless d.

Tho God can be obliged by a seal only of his own annexing to his Covenant, yet it is too possible for m••n to p••••sume so far as to institute that whereby they fancy God as sealing and ••onveying to them his grace, and indeed that which can mean no less.

Mor••ov••r, in a Sacrament of the Covenant, as grace on Gods part is se••led, so self-dedication on mans part. An•• ••n ordinance of mans devising, that seals self-dedication to God upon the

terms of the Covenant of Grace, is at least the Moity of a Sa∣crament.

2. No new integral part of divine worship, without which the worship of God is supposed not intire, but deficient in part, may be invented of man. For it were to invent a new part of the Christian Religion, and to augment it beyond the state thereof, as setled by the Author and Founder of it.

Here note, that the accidental parts of Religion being varied, or augmented, or diminished, make no variation, addition, or di∣minution in the Religion, no more than alteration in clothes makes an alteration in the man.

3. No ordinance that is of universal and perpetual use to the Church of God (if it be at all of use) so that it may in no place, in no age be omitted, may be devised of man. For the de∣vising of such an ordinance supposeth a defect in the divine ordi∣nances of universal and perpetual use, to be made up by adding other ordinances by way of supplement. And it is but a presu∣ming that those other are requisite, when they are not. Also if the universal Lawgiver hath reserved any thing to his own pow∣er, it can be no less than the making of such Laws or Ordinances as are of universal and perpetual use. And surely that he hath reserved something to himself, few among us will gainsay.

Howbeit an arbitrary and temporary use of a Religious ob∣servance by particular men for such ends, as equally concern all Christians, may not be unlawful upon this account, because therein Christs Legislative power is not encroached upon, it be∣ing not made a Law to the Church, but only a private arbitrary observation.

§ 5. What things of or belonging to Divine Worship, may be devised or instituted by man.

THE things set down under the former head as forbidden, are such new ordinances of Worship as are co-ordinate with the divine ordinances, and are in proper sense additions, pretend∣ing, or in themselves expressing the same nature, reason, end and use, that the divine ordinances have, and consequently importing an insufficiency in them.

But there are such institutions of men in subordination to the divine institutions, as serve for the more convenient modifying

and ordering of the same. And they are not proper Additi∣ons, because they are not of the same nature and use, and these are unlawful.

All such modes of a duty as are necessary in genere, and not determined in specie, (as when there must be a practice one way or other, but whether this way or that way, is not de∣termined of God) are left free to humane determination.

This humane determination must be regulated by the general Rules of Gods word; of which there be these two chief; first, That all determinations be made for edification, and not for de∣struction. 2ly. That all things be done decently and in order. These two Rules we find expresly in Scripture, and they are also of the Law of Nature.

These things are neither the essential nor integral parts of Di∣vine Worship; but if any of them be called parts thereof, as being direct expressions of honour to God, they are but acci∣dental parts; as the putting off the Hat in Divine Worship is a Worshipping of God so far as it is an expression of honour to God.

And as to such matters, the term of accidental Worship may be allowed, not as if they had nothing of the Nature of Worship in them in any degree, (for Divine Worship is a genus, not Uni∣vocal, but Analogical, being predicated of all that comes under it, in some common notion or nature, but not in the same de∣gree; and these partake of the nature of Worship, but in the lowest degree), but because they are not essential parts of Re∣ligion, nor integral; being contradistinct to the substantial and more important parts thereof. And as being circumstantial expressions of giving honour to God, they may be called cir∣cumstantial Worship As for example, putting off the Hat is a Worship-gesture, and Worship only so much as gesture comes to.

These accidental parts ordinarily go not alone, but in atten∣dance on other more important parts, even of external Worship. Yet it may be here considered, whether putting off the Hat, or Bowing, or Kneeling, and the like, may not be Acts of exter∣nal Worship per se, or going alone, and not meerly in concomi∣tance with other external Acts therof. As, whether Moses his putting off his Shooes in the place where the Bush burned, were an Act of Worship per se, and not only as a circumstance or

attendance on other Worship; and so for the same or like Act in any other symbolical presence of God. If it be so, these Acts are even then but of the lower nature of accidental parts or modes of Worship.

I conceive the Lords commanding Moses to put off his Shooes, was not a new precept of Worship, but only a directing him to, or minding him of that, which already in that case was required, by telling him the occasion, which he was not aware of.

Whatsoever Nature or Custom hath so made decent or reverent, that the negation of it is undecent or irreverent, is doubtless commanded of God in his Worship, tho not by any particular, yet by general Laws.

And the Institution and Observation of such things is no Ad∣dition to Gods Law, but meerly an Application of the general Law in particular Cases, as the Law it self doth warrant.

All these are such mutable things, as are not fit to be in particu∣lar the matter of an universal Law, because they are fit in one place, and at one time, and not another.

Note, that things not determined of God, and left to the de∣termination of men, must be such as are necessary in genere, and not things idle and superfluous. A Superior may not institute a superfluous thing that is not simply evil; tho sometimes the in∣ferior may lawfully obey therein; or to speak more properly, lawfully do the thing to avoid inconvenience, or to testifie respect to the Superior, tho in that particular he hath no lawful power to command.

Note also, that of things necessary in genere, the Superior may not lawfully determine for such species, as, tho not simply evil, may have a tendency to evil, or be evil in the consequence, when he may determine that which will not be evil in the conse∣quence: Yet the inferior may obey, or rather observe the thing commanded, when the evil consequence of non-observance will be greater than the evil consequence of observance.

§ 6. Of the lawfulness of significant Ceremonies in Divine Worship.

BY a Ceremony, I understand an external rite in or about the Worship of God. By significant Ceremonies, I under∣stand rites in Divine Worship, signifying some material point of Religion.

There is no controversie about those outward actions, that by nature or general custome signifie the reverence of the mind, as kneeling, and lifting up our Eyes and Hands to Heaven in token of Devotion to the God of Heaven, and being uncovered in Prayer, &c. But the question is of those that signifie meerly by the force of authoritative institution, or private arbitrary intention. Such significant things, tho they may have some na∣tural aptitude to signifie such and such points of Religion; yet they do not actually signifie, but as arbitrarily designed there∣unto.

It is generally received, that significant Ceremonies in taking an Oath may lawfully be used; and that not only such as natu∣rally signifie, as lifting up the hand towards Heaven, but such also as signifie by Institution, as laying the hand on a Book, or kissing the Book. Now tho the end of an Oath may be a Civil thing, as the ending? of a controversie; yet the formale of it is Divine Worship. And the aforesaid ceremonies are expressive of the very external part of it; and they actually signifie by force of Institution.

Words signifie by general custom, and have the same sense out of the Worship of God, as in it; and therefore the arguing from their lawfulness, as signs of Worship, unto the lawfulness of insti∣tuted signs, seems liable to exception. Nevertheless it may be said, that inisttuted signs soon become customary, and as well un∣derstood as words.

The Christians heretofore being among Infidels, might law∣fully have the figure of the Cross somewhere visible about them, to shew that they were Christians. For the meaning was no more than if they had said, We are Christians. But it may be re∣plied, this was no Act of Divine Worship, but an indicant or speaking sign towards men.

With acknowledgment of my own weakness, I express my app••ehesions of this matter. God hath allowed words for signs expressive of Divine Worship; but I find not that he hath allowed words only, and forbidden Gestures and Actions for such an end. The dumb must express their internal Worship by gestures and actions, or they cannot externally Worship God at all. If signs of Devotion that are of customary signi∣fication be lawful, I see not why such as are of instituted signifi∣tion should be unlawful, and especially when they become as

customary, as those that have been without institution. And if instituted signs of devotion in general be lawful, I see not why signs of some special part of devotion, or mystery in Religion, should be unlawful.

I am more confident of the warrantableness of Rites and Cere∣monies of Worship that are used only instead of so many words pronounced, than of those that are added to words for their more solemn ratification, as seals are to a writing, or foederal signs to a verbal Contract. Nevertheless, the forementioned Ceremonies of Swearing seem added to the words of the Oath, for more so∣lemn ratification; and it alters not the case whether the words be read by him that administers, or pronounced by him that takes the oath; for either way they are his words that takes the oath.

Likewise I have more confidence of the warrantableness of those significant Ceremonies that are of private arbitrary intenti∣on, than of those that are of authoritative institution; also of those that are used occasionally, and pro hic & nunc, than of those that are used statedly.

Furthermore I apprehend, that significant Ceremonies of Di∣vine Worship, are more apt to degenerate into Superstition; and if they be multiplied, that Religion is therewith loaded as with unprofitable luggage; and that it is a form of Religion rather Mosaical than Evangelical, wherein spiritual worship is most re∣garded.

I think also, that significant Ceremonies are not necessary in genere, as those things are which are left to the determination of humane authority, and so not to be instituted and imposed in the ordinary Divine Service.

I apprehend, that our Lord Christ hath instituted all those stated Ordinances of positive Worship, that are necessary to the Church Universal; and therefore that more of the same nature are not to be devised by men.

If any significant Ceremonies be indeed necessary for some parts of the Catholick Church, in respect of time and place, there seems to me a fairer plea for their institution in those times and places; but the controverted Ceremonies among us seem to be necessary for the whole Church in every age, if at all neces∣sary.

Significant Ceremonies of the same nature and reason with those perpetual Ordinances that Christ hath instituted for the U∣niversal Church, may not be instituted by man, and particularly such as are made Symbols of the Covenant of Grace, and Chri∣stianity.

In matters doubted among sober Christians, Superiors should take heed of strict imposing, and thereby wresting the Conscien∣ces of their subjects, and overstraining them to a compliance with them, in derogation to Gods authority in their consciences.

If Superiors command that which is above their sphere to com∣mand, namely, things not necessary in genere; yet if they be not simply evil, subjects may do those things, unless they be evil in their consequence to a higher degree than the not doing of them would be In this case it is not formal obedience, but they are done for the ends sake, and to avoid evil.

§. 7. Of bowing at the Name of JESƲS.

IT is rationally supposed, that in this act, not the Name, but the Person so named, is made the object of adoration; the Name pronounced is only the occasion of the present adoration of the Person.

Nothing in Reason or Scripture doth evince, that it is simply evil to adore Christ by incurvation of the body, or other rever∣ent gesture, upon occasion of the pronouncing of the Name JE∣SUS.

Howbeit, to make such incurvation a stated Ordinance of wor∣ship, may be an excess in Religion, that is Superstition (tho not intolerable) partly, because it too rigidly tyes up Christians to a bodily exercise of no necessity, nor of great moment; partly, because it makes them attend to an overcurious gesticulation, and verges to externalness and formality, hindring the inward life and power of devotion; partly, because it makes a difference where God hath made none; and puts greater honour upon one Name, that of right hath not greater honour than the other, viz. Christ, God, Lord, or Jehovah. For tho the Name be not the ob∣ject worshipped, yet it hath an honour and preheminence given it above the other names, without sufficient ground.

But if the said incurvation be so severely commanded, that great mischief would follow the non-observance, I judg it may

be done, tho not formally, in obedience, yet for avoiding that mischief; and peradventure it may be expedient in that case to bow at the name of Christ, God, Lord.

The place, Phil. 2.10. is only a phrase expressing Subjection to Christ, and used also, Rom. 14.11. from Isa. 45.23. to express Subjection to God.

§ 8. Of kneeling in the Sacrament.

AS for kneeling in the Sacrament, the inquiry is not here of the expediency of it, much less of the imposing of it, but of the bare lawfulness of it, against which I find no evi∣dence.

The Act of kneeling among us is no adoration of the elements, nor owning of Christs corporal presence; but it is either a ge∣sture of prayer then made, or a sign of most submiss and re∣verential receiving those pledges of Divine Grace, or both.

Yet for as much as it was a Table-gesture in which Christs Disciples received it from their Lords hand, a Table-gesture cannot reasonably be thought less safe, or less decent.

§ 9. Of wearing the Surplice.

AS touching the Surplice, the wearing of a Garment of this or that colour, or of this or that form or shape in Divine Worship, is neither commanded nor forbidden of God. But tho as to its materiale it may be indifferent, yet as to its formal state, it may not be also so.

If the Scurplice be made a holy Garment, as the Priestly Gar∣ments under the Law; if it be used to make him that wears it more holy, and the Service more acceptable for obtaining Di∣vine Grace, it is Superstitious. If it be made a Symbol of san∣ctity, it may raise a scruple. But a distinctive habit of a Mi∣nister, whether used as his ordinary garb, or only in sacred Administrations, I cannot see to be Superstitious or forbidden. But a habit that is not Superstitious, may be too gawdy, or too theatrical.

What is the formal state or reason of the Surplice, is to be judg∣ed by the authoritatively declared meaning of those that injoyn it, touching its end and use.

But whatsoever the nature and reason of this Garment be, I cannot approve the inforcing of it upon such Ministers, and in such Congregations, to whom by reason of invincible prejudice, it is either odious or ridiculous, yea tho their prejudice be sup∣posed culpable. Wise Rulers give way to the unmoveable a∣versness of Inferiors in things unnecessary, and of no great mo∣ment, tho of good intention. And as I should be loth to wear a fools coat in Divine Service upon the command of a Superior, so I should be loth to appear in a Congregation in a habit which I knew would be to them as ridiculous as a fools coat, tho it were their great folly so to think.

§ 10. Of the Ring in Matrimony.

FOr as much as the Matrimonical contract and conjunction, tho it be a Divine Ordinance, yet is no part of Divine Worship, I no more doubt of the lawfulness of the Ring, as a sign of that contract, than of any other sign used for ratification of humane Contracts.

§ 11. Of the Cross in Baptism.

SOme Nonconformists say, that they deny not the Civil use of the Cross in Coins and Banners. Others of them say, they dare not reprove the Ancient Christians that used the sign of the Cross meerly as a professing signal action to shew to the Heathen that they did believe in Christ crucified. Indeed that usage thereof was not an Act of Worship, but an informing of men touching their faith.

It seems lawful to signifie, as by words so by other signs, that we are Christ's, and his devoted Servants. For Words are but a kind of signs.

The grounds of scrupling the sign of the Cross in Baptism, are these: 1. That it is not a meer circumstance, but an Ordi∣nance of Worship, as important as an external rite can be. 2. That being a solemn and stated Symbolical sign of a Divine Mystery, and devised of men, it is of that classis or rank of things which are not necessary in genere, and so not allowed to be de∣termined and imposed by men, as things necessary in genere are allowed. 3. That either the whole nature of a Sacrament, or at least a part thereof, is in it.

That it is a Sacrament, is thus proved It is an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual Grace. The outward sign is the representation of the Cross, the instrument of Christs sufferings; and the inward spiritual Grace is fortitude in the Christian war∣fare, according to the words of the Liturgy.

Here is a signification of Grace to be given us of God, and of our duty according to that Grace. Likewise this sign hath as∣signed unto it the moral efficacy of a Sacrament for working Grace, by teaching and exciting us to the spiritual warfare, and minding us of Christ crucified. Also it signifies and seals our Rela∣tion to Christ, or the Grace of being a Christian. And the Liturgy so speaks, We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock, and sign him, &c. in token, &c.

The pretence, that no rite can be a Sacrament, but what God hath instituted, is answered before, Sect. 4. And tho the im∣posers thereof, say it is not a Sacrament; yet if they so declare its meaning, as to be of the formal nature and reason of a Sacra∣ment, they make it to be one indeed, tho in word they deny it.

If it were granted that it hath not the compleat or intire na∣ture of a Sacrament, yet there is one essential part of a S••crament most apparently in it, that is, to be an ingaging sign on our part in the Covenant. For we use it as a token of ingaging our selves to Christ crucified, as our Captain and Saviour, by his Cross; and to perform the duties of his Soldiers and Servants to our lives ends. And as Baptism dedicates to Christ, so doth the sign of the Cross, according to the express words of the Canon, viz. It is an honourable badg, whereby the party Baptized is dedicated to the Service of him that dyed on the Cross. So it hath that in it which is essential to a Sacrament, and part of the nature thereof at least.

Besides, it seems to be an Ordinance of that nature and kind, which Christ our Lawgiver hath reserved to himself from the reason in Sections 3, 4, 5.

§ 12. Of Holy-days.

THAT some time of every day is to be spent in Religious ex∣ercises, and that whole days of Humiliation and Thanksgi∣ving are to be kept upon special occasions, and that there may be

an Anniversary commemoration of great Mercies or Judgments, is little doubted.

I see no reason why it is not lawful for a Nation or People to in∣stitute an Anniversary Commemoration of some eminent person sent of God as a great light among them, as the first propaga∣tor of the Gospel, or great Restorer of true Religion among them; as of Luther among the Germans, and Calvin among the French Protestants. For scarce a greater blessing doth arise to a Nation.

Mr. R B. saith, That an Apostolical Ministry being so emi∣nent a mercy, he can see no reason why the Churches of all suc∣ceeding Ages may not keep an Anniversary day for Peter or Paul, &c. but he saith also, that whether it be lawful to separate an Anniversary for the commemoration of Christs Nativity, Cir∣cumcision, and such like things, &c. which were equally existent in the Apostles days, and the reasons for observing them then, equal with the following times, is hard for him to determine, be∣ing not able to prove it lawful, and yet not seeing a plain prohibi∣tion of it. Yet he gives these reasons of doubting their lawfulness. First, the occasions of these days were existent in the Apostles times; and if God would have had these days observed, he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in the Scripture, as he did other like things. 2. If it were necessary, it would be equally necessary in all Ages and parts of the Catholick church, and therefore must be the matter of an universal Law; and God hath made no such Law in Scripture; and therefore to say it is necessary, is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture, as the Catholick Rule of Faith, and Universal Divine obedience. 3. God himself hath appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for; the Resurrection implies all the rest of the Works of the Redeemer. 4. The Fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue, seems to be of so high a nature, that man is not to presume to make the like.

He accounts it plainly unlawful for any Earthly Power to ap∣point a Weekly day in commemoration of any part of our Re∣demption, and so make another stated Weekly Holy-day, because it is the doing of the same thing for one day, which God hath done by another; and so seems an usurpation of power not gi∣ven, and an accusation of Christ and the Holy Ghost, as if he had not done his Work sufficiently.

I think it also an usurpation of Power not given for any Hu∣man Authority, to make any day or time permanently and unmo∣vably holy, as a perpetual oblation to God, and not only sancti∣fied by the duties therein performed, but also sanctifying the du∣ties, and making them the more acceptable.

But as to the observation, much more to the imposing of the observation of Holy-days of human institution, regard is to be had not only to what is lawful, but also to what is expedient. And it is as easie to offend by excess, as by defect, in the instituting of set-times and days appropriated to Divine Worship.

§ 13. Of a LITƲRGY.

ANY particular form, whether stinted or free, is not of the essence of prayer, but only its accidental shape or mode, and pertains to it not as to a holy action, but as to an action in general. And for that no action can be performed but in some particular mode or other, this holy action cannot otherwise be performed.

Now neither Scripture, nor the nature of the thing, hath made either a stated and stinted, or a free and extemporal form in it self necessary; and therefore either the one or the other may be used, as expedience requires, according to due choice and judg∣ment. As on the one hand they are too weak and ill advised that reject all set-forms; so they on the other hand are too opiniona∣tive that reject all immediately conceived; yea, or preconceived forms that are not prescribed. And both of them shew, that they are too much addicted to their Parties.

§ 14. Of Religious Austerities, as acts or matter of Divine Worship.

THere are Austerities inconvenient in their kind, such as the self cutting and lancing of Baals Priests, and such as the Po∣pish Whippings, or such as some of the Ancients, with pious in∣tention, but superstitiously used; as perpetual abiding on the top of a Pillar, never to sleep but standing, &c. And there are Au∣sterities inconvenient for measure, by excess in that which is for kind sutable and comely, as immoderate Abstinences and Abase∣ments;

all such being to be rejected, come not into the present consideration: But the query is, Whether allowable Austerities may be not only adjuncts, but also acts or matter of Worship?

Humiliation or Prostration of soul in self abasement before God, is an act of internal Worship. And I do not see but the Austerities we now speak of, may be lawfully used as direct and immediate signs of such humiliation, and consequently as acts of Worship. Whatsoever is directly and immediately expressive of internal Worship, is external Worship. And so fasting and other abstinences may be esteemed not only as fit adjuncts of Worship, and helps therein, but acts thereof.

Vows of the aforesaid allowable Austerities, to be continued in for term of life, or notable length of time, are dangerous, and apt to insnare the Consciences; and if a special religious state be placed in them, more than what belongs to Christianity as such, they are Superstition and Will-worship.