the World, which is I my felf, the Lord Jehovah, who brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the Houle of Bondage. When the Supream God commands us to worship himfelf, the meaning must be, that we pay our Worship and Adorations to a Supream Being, confidered as Supream; and he who worships fuch a Supream Being, worships the true God, whom we can diftinguish from falfe Gods only by this Character, that he is Supream: And when this Supream Being forbids as to worship any other Gods, it must fignifie, that we muft worship nothing which is not Supream, not that we must not believe that which is not Supream to be the Supream God; which would be ridiculous Nonfence, to command them not to own that Being for the Supream God, which they know not to be Supream.

But it may be said, that the Heathens did worship fome Beings, who were not the Supream God, as Supream, as this Author tells us, they did the Sun, though no body told him fo, that I know of; for Macrobius, whom he cites in this Caufe, does not fay, that they worshipped the Sun as Supream God, though he fays that most of the Gods they worshipped did fignifie the Sun: But fuppofe the Sun were the chief Object of their Worfhip, and look'd on as the greatest and most prin cipal God, this does not prove that they worshipped it as the Supream God: for thefe are two very different things to be worshipped as the chief God, which fuch a People have, and to be worfhipped under the Notion of Abfolutely Supream. Some Pagan Idolaters might worship a Creature as their chief and greatest Deity, and might call it their great, their greatest God, because it is the greatest God they have; their King and Prince of Gods, as Mr. Selden tells us, they called the Sun, as being the chief Planet who directed and governed the

Influen

Influences of the reft, not as the Maker of the World, as this Author afferts: But those who direct their Worship to a Supream and Soveraign Being, confidered as abfolutely Supream, infinite in all Perfections, the Maker and Governour of the whole World, can under this Notion worfhip no other but the Lord Jehovah, because there is no other Supream God but he. Which fhews, that the firft Commandment is fo far from forbidding the Worship of other Supream Gods, befides the Lord Jehovah, that to make fence of it, these other Gods must be expounded not of Supream, but inferiour Deities; and it is so far from being the Notion of Idolatry, to worship other Supream Beings, befides the Lord Jehovah, that it is Nonfence to fuppofe it. The true Notion of Idolatry in the first Commandment, is to worship fome Inferiour Beings, together with the Supream God: It is a groffer fort of Idolatry, when men wholly neglect the Worship of the Supream God, and worship fome Creature for their greatest and chiefeft God; and it is worse still, when men worship bad Spirits, than when they worship good Spirits, together with the Supream God: but it is evident, this Law condemns the Worship of any Inferiour Beings, though we do alfo worship the Supream God.

I fhall give but one Inftance more of this nature, and that is, the fecond Commandment, which in fuch exprefs words forbids the Worfhip of all Images, of what kind or nature foever. Now whatever Reasons men may imagine there are for the Worship of Images, they can be of no force against an express Law: And if thefe words be not express, Thou shalt not make to thy felf any graven image, &c. I defpair of ever feeing an expreís Law. For had God intended by this Law to forbid the Worship of any Images, under what notion or refpects

foever,.

Ibid. p. 30.

foever, I would defire to know what more fignificant and comprehenfive words could have been used to have declared his mind, unless he had exprefly rejected those falfe Interpretations, which the Patrons of Image-Worfhip have fince invented, but were never thought on at that time.

The fame Author, whom I have fo often mentioned, having expounded the first Commandment only to a pofitive fence, not to forbid the Worship of other Gods, but only to command the Worship of the Lord Jehovah, exprefly contrary to the very letter and plain fence of the Law; agreeably to this,he makes the fecond Commandment only to forbid the Worfhip of Idols or falfe Gods, and not that neither, unless they take them for the Supream Deity. His words are thefe :

In the next place, he forbids them the Worship of all Idols, i. e. as himself defcribes them, the likeneß or fimilitude of any thing that is in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, or in the Water under the Earth. A plain and indeed a logical definition this, that Idolatry is giving the Worship of the Supream God to any created, corporeal, or vifible Deity, or any thing that can be represented by an Image, which nothing but corporeal Beings can, and to fuppofe fuch a Being the Supream Deity, is the only true and proper Idolatry. Now let any man judge, whether this be not fuch a glofs as utterly destroys the Text.

As for his Worship of Idols, there is no fuch word in the Law, but Images, Likeneffes, Similitudes; but yet I will not dispute about this, for an Idol does not only fignifie a false God, but the Images either of false Gods, or falfe and corporeal Images of the true God. For the 135 Pfal. 15. Idols of the Heathens, as the Pfalmift tells us, are filver, and gold, the work of mens hands; which can relate to nothing but Images and Pictures: for corporeal Deities,

which

which were made by God,are not the work of mens hands. Now Idolatry, he fays, is giving the Worship of the Sapream God to any created, corporeal, or visible Deity, or any thing which can be reprefented by an Image, which nothing but corporeal Beings can. Now how plain and logical foever this definition of Idolatry be, there is not a word of it in the Text. That forbids not the Worship of any created, corporeal, or visible Deity, (which is forbid in the first Commandment) but only the Worfhip of Images, the likeness of any thing in Heaven, or Earth, or in the Water under the Earth. Now an Image differs from the thing whofe Image it is. And it is a very strange Expofition of the fecond Commandment, which forbids nothing elfe but the Worship of Images, to take no notice of the Worship of Images as forbid in it. According to this glofs upon the Law, a man may worship ten thousand Images and Pictures, fo he do not worship any visible and corporeal Deity, and not break this Commandment; which I think is not to give the fence of the Law, but to expound it away.

But how does the worship of corporeal and visible Deities, and nothing elfe, appear to be forbid by this Law, which mentions nothing at all but the likeness of things in Heaven, and Earth, and Water? Why, our learned Author imagines that no Images can be made, but onely for corporeal and vifible Deities, because nothing but corporeal Beings can be represented by an Image: which Conceit is worth its weight in Gold; for it evidently proves, that there are no Pictures of God the Father, nor of the Trinity, in the Church of Rome, because they are not corporeal Deities, and therefore cannot be represented by an Image: fo miferably have all Travellers been mistaken, who tell us of a great many fuch Pictures, and not very decent ones neither, There F.

can

can indeed be no Picture or Image to represent the likenefs and fimilitude of an incorporeal God, but yet the visible parts of Heaven and Earth, and the vifible Creatures in them, may be reprefented by Images, and the Images of fuch vifible things may be made the fymbolical representations of invisible and incorporeal Deities; and fuch invifible and incorporeal Deities may be worfhipped in the likeness and fimilitude of corporeal things; and then I am fure to forbid the Worship of Images may fignifie fomething more than meerly to forbid the Worfhip of fome vifible and corporeal Deities; for it may fignifie the Worship of invisible and incorporeal Deities, by vifible Images. But I perceive he imagined, that when God forbad them to make and worship the likeness of any thing in Heaven, in Earth, or in the Waters under the Earth, he only forbad the Worship of those Beings, whofe likeness or Images they made; whereas all men know, that thofe very Idolaters who worshipped these glorious parts of the Creation; did not repre fent them in their proper likeneffes and figures; and that those who worshipped invifible and incorporeal Beings, did it by material and vifible figures, which plainly proves, that when God forbad the Worship of Images, he had not refpe&t meerly to vifible and corporeal Deities, but forbad Image-worfhip, whether they were the Images of visible and corporeal, or of invifible and incorpo real Deities.

Our Author durft not fay, (as the Roman Advocates do) that God in the fecond Commandment only forbids the Worship of Images as Gods; which is fuch glorious Nonfence, that he could not digeft it: and therefore he supposes, that God does not forbid the Worship of Images at all, but only of fuch corporeal Deities as may be reprefented by Images; which is a more gentile

way