TWO branches of the popish con­troversy, viz. the infallibility and supremacy claimed by the bishop and church of Rome, were handled by the two aged and learned divines ^†, whom I have the honor to succeed in this department of the Dudleian Lecture. It is now proposed, by divine assistance, to offer something con­cerning the idolatry of that church; it being one of the capital errors objected against her. This branch of the controversy alone is so fruitful, that it would require many discourses to handle it in all its extent and variety. This learned audience will, therefore, expect nothing more in a single discourse, tho' long, than a general idea of popish idolatry; an imperfect sketch, the outlines of it.

[Page 6]Idolatry consists in general in the service of idols, or false, imaginary deities. But this, like all other crimes, admits of various degrees. The worship of a creature under the formal notion of its being the true God, exclusively of him, is the grossest kind of idolatry. The worship of any creature in common with him, as though it were equally God, is a lower, but still very high degree of it. A third species thereof is paying such service to creatures, un­der the notion of religion, as God hath forbid­den, and as they are unworthy of; although it may be professedly paid to them, not as gods, but in subordination to him, as the ultimate object of worship. It is also idolatry to wor­ship the true God by images, or under any supposed material representations of him. And it may be laid down as a general rule, that all such practices as the scripture hath condemned as idolatrous in Jews or Pagans, are equally idolatrous in professed Christians.

Protestants have not accused Papists of the first and grossest kind of idolatry, or worship­ping idols exclusively of the true God; but they have charged them with all the others: And to make good this old accusation, is the business now before me. In the prosecution of which, a summary account will be given of the doctrine and practice of the church of Rome respecting the worship of the eucharist, saints and angels, pictures and images.

[Page 7]Christians early began to speak too mysti­cally, not to say unintelligibly, concerning the eucharist, or Lord's supper. They did so more and more, till the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the worship of the sacrament, were fully established. The council of Trent, confirmed by pope Pius IV, and considered as an authen­tic standard of popery, defines the doctrine of the church of Rome as to this, and many other points, more particularly than had been done by any former council. In session 13th that council declareth as follows: 'Principio do­cet sancta synodus,' &c. In the first place the holy synod teacheth, and openly and simply pro­fesseth, that in the pure sacrament of the holy eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really and substantially contained un­der the species [or appearances] of those sensible things ^†. This great mystery is increased in chapter 3d of the same session, where the coun­cil attempts to explain it. It is there said, 'Statim post consecrationem,' &c. That im­mediately after consecration, the true body of our Lord, and his true blood, exist under the species of bread and wine, together with his soul and Divinity; his body indeed under the species of bread, and his blood under the species of wine, by virtue of the words [of consecration;] but the body itself un­der the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by virtue of that natural connexion and concomitancy, by which [Page 8]the parts of Christ the Lord, who presently rose from the dead to die no more, are united together; and also the Divinity, because of the admirable hy­postatical union thereof with the body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that one and the same thing [or as much ^*] is contained under either species, and under both: [...] whole and perfect Christ existeth under the species of bread, and un­der every part of its species; also under he spe­cies of wine, and under its parts.

Thus these venerable fathers. And this wonderful change of the bread and wine is said, in the next chapter, to have been conve­niently and properly called transubstantiation. It follows, chapter 5th, 'Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur,' &c. There is therefore no room left for doubt, but that all the faithful of Christ, according to the practice ever received in the catholic church, should in reverence give the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament. For neither is it therefore the less to be adored, because it was in­stituted by Christ the Lord, to be taken [or eaten and drunk] ^‡. Thus the council: And in the Roman ritual this sacrament is honored with the title of our Creator.

It must be observed here, that the church of Rome distinguishes worship into latria, du­lia, hyperdulia and coadoration. By the first of which, latria, they understand the highest kind of worship, or that which is due to God alone. And the council of Trent expresly [Page 9]declares, that the eucharist is to be worshipped therewith. The doctrine and practice of the church of Rome in this respect are exactly con­formable to each other. The eucharist is wor­shipped by them in the most solemn manner, with prostrations, prayers and incense. The host is often carried in processions, with the greatest solemnity: And those who are but casually pre­sent where it passes along, are obliged to kneel down, as in an act of worship to God; unless, perhaps, they will run the risque of the inqui­sition, or of being knocked on the head by the devout rabble that attend it. ^*

[Page 10]Their doctrine and worship being harmo­nious in this respect; it follows, that if the doctrine of transubstantiation is false, their wor­ship grounded thereon is idolatry. It is be­yond the design of this discourse to enter into a particular discussion of that doctrine, or the arguments by which it is defended: It shall suffice to observe a few things with relation thereto.

This doctrine is as plainly absurd, self-re­pugnant, and impossible to be true, as any one that can be imagined. For what can be more so, than that bread and wine should be changed into the very body and blood of Christ; while yet all the known properties of bread and wine remain, without the subject or substance; and none of the peculiar properties of flesh or blood are perceived? What more impossible, than that this bread and wine should also be changed, at the same time, into an human soul, and into the very substance of the Deity? This [Page 11]doctrine supposes also, that the same undivided body of Christ may be wholly in heaven and wholly on earth, and in ten million different places on earth, at the same time. It supposes, that tho' the bread is wholly changed into body, and the wine wholly into blood; yet both the body and blood of Christ, the soul and Divinity, exist wholly and perfectly under each of the species seperately considered, and under every part thereof, be they ever so minute and nume­rous: Every apparent crumb of consecrated wafer, and each drop of consecrated wine, how­ever small, contains whole, intire Christ un­der that species; body, blood, soul and Divi­nity; and yet it is owned, that there is but one Christ! Besides; this doctrine supposes, that when our Lord instituted the supper, he took his whole body into his own hand, which was but a part of it; put himself into his own mouth, swallowed down his intire body in­to his stomach, and at the same time gave his body and blood to be wholly eaten and drunk by each of his apostles! Could the most fertile imagination invent grosser, more ridiculous, or more impious incongruities?

The evidence of sense is the most certain, that we are capable of; and by this we know that transubstantiation is false. The Romanists do not pretend to deny, but that all the five senses bear testimony against it, as much as they possibly could if it were false, or if the bread and wine remained after the juggling, hocus-pocus [Page 12] ^† trick, which they term consecration. It is, therefore, at best weak and puerile, in such a case as this, to urge the testimony of scripture, or divine revelation. For the truth of the Chris­tian revelation itself depends on the truth of certain facts, by which there was an appeal made to the senses of men; particularly the miracles and resurrection of our Saviour. The evidence of sense being set aside as precarious, it cannot be proved that ever our Lord uttered those words, 'This is my body'; that he had any body at all; or that there was ever such a per­son in the world, as 'the man Christ Jesus,' in distinction from a mere phantasm, or, in the language of our adversaries, from the species of a man. Thus does the church of Rome, by this doctrine, subvert the very foundations of christianity. We cannot be more certain, that any one thing in nature is what it appears to be, and not another, the most different therefrom, than that true bread and wine re­main after consecration; and consequently, that transubstantiation is the grossest imposition and insult, that ever the priesthood itself put upon the superstitious credulity of mankind.

This doctrine then, being plainly false, the church of Rome is certainly guilty of idolatry, in worshipping the eucharist as true God. For what is idolatry, if it be not so, to believe a creature to be the Creator, and to pay divine homage thereto accordingly? Besides; when, [Page 13]to justify their worship of the eucharist, so often objected against as idolatry, they alledge transubstantiation; making this supposed change the ground of their worship; this is an implicit acknowledgment, that their worship would actually be idolatrous, if there were no such change: For why is this alledged, to exculpate themselves, if their worship of the eucharist would not be idolatry without it?

Some Roman-catholics have, indeed, ex­presly owned this consequence. Costerus par­ticularly, a learned jesuit, expresseth himself very strongly, as cited by doctor H. More. Saith he, ‘The errors of those were more to­lerable, who worshipped some golden or silver statue, or some image of any other materials, for their God, as the heathen worshipped their gods; or a red cloth hung upon the top of a spear, as is reported of the Laplan­ders; or some live animal, as of old the Egyptians did; than those who worship a bit of bread, as hitherto the Christians have done all over the world, if the doctrine of transubstantiation be not true.’ Thus do some Roman-catholics fully agree with us in this consequence; but others deny it. And the substance of what the latter say, is, That tho' transubstantiation should be false; yet the Deity is certainly there present in the bread and wine, so that they do not miss of the proper object of adoration, while they seem to wor­ship those material objects: And, that they [Page 14]cannot be justly charged with idolatry, because they do not intentionally worship a creature, knowing it to be so, but firmly believing it to be true God. Thus they try to exculpate themselves, on the very disagreeable supposition that transubstantiation is an error, and their in­fallibility mistaken; whether effectually, or not, may appear from the following considerations.

The divine nature is essentially every-where; intimately and equally present in all sensible objects throughout the universe. And if mere­ly the divine presence in an object, will excuse its worshippers from idolatry, then all other creatures may be worshipped without idolatry, as well as the eucharist; provided the wor­shippers intentionally direct their devotions ultimately, not to these objects abstractly con­sidered, but as symbols of the Deity present in them. This is a plain consequence, and allow­ed by some Roman-catholics. Thus, no person, who is a believer in the true God, an omni­present being, can ever be guilty of idolatry, how many material objects soever he may worship in the same sense that the Romanists worship bread and wine in the eucharist. Tho' each of these objects is supposed to be God, and worshipped under that persuasion; and tho' the votary would be mistaken in this respect; yet he would not miss of the proper object of adoration, because, the worst come to the worst, God is present therein, whom he intends to worship; which is sufficient to clear [Page 15]him from idolatry. For example; if one per­son should worship the sun, another an image of wood or brass, a third a man, a fourth a beast, and the fifth a devil, even with latria; each of the devonionists being so infatuated as to believe the object of his worship the living and true God; Roman-catholics could not, upon the principle aforesaid, charge them with idolatry; or do it without condemning them­selves. They would, indeed, be mistaken, but not idolaters; because it was their intention to worship the true God.

But all idolatry, when people are sincere in their worship, supposeth some mistake, or error in the judgment, either as to the object or the act of worship. Without some erroneous opi­nions there can be no idolatry: And, as a learned divine hath justly observed, where this sin is committed the most in good earnest, there is the greatest mistake in the judgment of the worshipper. But they who alledge, that a mistake with respect to transubstantiation, if it be really one, excuses the worshippers of the bread and wine from idolatry, because they think they are worshipping God; do in effect say, that idolatry cannot be committed by any one, who is so erroneous as to believe the creature he worshippeth to be God most high. This is quite absurd: For according to this way of reasoning, the more ignorantly and stu­pidly any worship mere creatures, believing their proper Deity, and the more devoutly they adore [Page 16]them; so much less liable they are to the im­putation of idolatry. But the direct contrary is manifestly true: By how much more sin­cerely any believe a creature to be the true God, and worship it as such; by so much the more gross is their idolatry. Let us suppose, for illustration, that among the Israelites of old, who worshipped golden calves, there were per­sons of different opinions; that some adored them merely as symbols, or representations of the true God; but that others were so sottish as to believe the calf, to which they bowed down, was really Jehovah himself under the appearance or species of a calf; even the very God that created, and brought them out of Egypt. Now, on this supposition, would any sensible man say, that the former were, indeed, guilty of idolatry, but not the latter; because they believed this four-footed beast to be their Creator? Ought it not to be said, on the con­trary, that they were, for that very reason, more brutish idolaters than the others, who worshipped it only as an image or symbol of the Godhead? Or let us apply this to the heathens. The ignorant vulgar, who worship­ped sensible objects as real deities, were ever and justly accounted more sottish idolaters than those speculative persons, who had no such high opinion of these objects, but worshipped them merely as representations of the gods; or rather, as some of them seem to have done, of the vari­ous powers, virtues and perfections of one [Page 17]almighty, spiritual and invisible being. Thus, if among the ancient Persians some adored the rising sun, only as the most glorious symbol of the Deity, and a principal mean or instrument of his munificence, while others worshipped it as being itself God; the idolatry of the latter was certainly more gross than that of the for­mer. By the same rule, the more sincerely any believe transubstantiation, and worship the eucharist as God; the more sottish is their ido­latry. Their idolatry would be less scandalous, tho' real, if they worshipped it merely as a re­presentation of the Deity, or a sacred memorial of our redemption by Christ. And here it is natural to observe, that the idolatry of the Ro­manists is more gross in this respect, than that of the Israelites in worshipping golden calves, or than many persons, even among the Pagans, were chargeable with. There is no good rea­son to think, that the Israelites believed a gol­den calf, which they had just made, to be the true God, their Creator; as the Papists do, bread and wine. And it is certain, that some of the more intelligent heathens disclaimed, with much indignation, the thought of worshipping any material objects, otherwise than as symbols of the Deity; while the vulgar adored them, as having divinity belonging to them. So that popish idolatry, in this respect, approacheth nearer to that of vulgar Pagans, than to that of the more enlightened among them. And in­deed, none of them were ever so brutal and savage, as to eat what he took for a deity: at [Page 18]least we read of no such sect as that of God-eaters, even in the most barbarous nations and ages. And it is certain that the Egyptians, who worshipped many sorts of animals, roots and vegetables, that were good for food, as gods; yet thought it impious at once to adore and devour them: But the Papists, it seems, are less delicate, or squeamish.

Let me dismiss this part of the subject with a remark of the late Dr. Middleton, agreeable to what was just now said, in his excellent Letter from Rome, shewing an exact con­formity between popery and paganism in many particulars. ‘As to that celebrated act of popish idolatry, the worship of the host, saith he, I must confess, that I can­not find the least resemblance of it in any part of the pagan worship: and as often as I have been standing by at mass, and seen the whole congregation prostrate on the ground, in the humblest posture of adoring; I could not help reflecting on a passage of Tully, when speaking of the absurdity of the heathens in the choice of their gods: But was man, says he, ever so mad as to take that which he feeds upon for a god? ^§ This was an extravagance reserved for popery a­lone: And what an old Roman could not but think too gross even for Egyptian idola­try to swallow, is now become the princi­pal part of worship, and the most distinguish­ing article of faith, in modern Rome.’

[Page 19]LET us now proceed to the worship of saints and angels, as practised in the same church; by which the charge of idolatry will be further fixed upon her.

The worship of demons, or the souls of renowned persons after their decease, is a very ancient species of idolatry; as some suppose, even more ancient than the flood. Be that as it may, this became afterward almost an uni­versal practice. For it is past dispute, that the greater part of the gods and goddesses worshipped by the heathens, were demons; deceased heroes and kings, the inventors of arts, and other famous persons, male and fe­male. This kind of worship was strictly pro­hibited to the Israelites; but yet they some­times fell into it, in conformity to their hea­then neighbours. Christianity, which was designed to be the religion of the world, not of one nation only, was particularly adapted to put an end to this, and all other kinds of superstitious, false worship among the Gentiles; and to establish that of one God, by one Me­diator, thro'out the earth. ‘For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave him­self a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.’ ^† And ‘there is none other God but one. For tho' there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are [Page 20]all things, and we by him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, &c.’ ^* The primary business of the apostles, when they went among the Gentiles, was to convert them from the worship of de­mons, and other idols, to the faith and wor­ship of the true God. ‘We preach unto you, said they, that ye should turn from these vani­ties unto the living God, which made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein’ ^‖. During the apostolic age, and some time after, Christians in general were so averse to the worship of demons, and all other sorts of idolatry, that they determinately re­fused any compliances with the worship of their heathen neighbours, even at the expence of their blood. They considered the worship of angels and demons as inconsistent with the religion which they professed; and as what would have been an implicit renunciation of it. But the church of Rome is, in effect, for reconciling these things together; even the temple of God with idols. For many ages past, the worship of demons, or angels, and the souls of dead men and women, has been fully established therein, and as much practised as ever the like worship was among the heathens. The chief difference is, that the Romanists do not call the saints or angels gods and goddesses; though, for aught that appears, they attribute as much power to them at least, as the pagans did to their inferior deities; and depend as much upon them.

[Page 21]The rise and progress of this species of idola­try in the Christian church, was briefly as follows. The martyrs were justly held in great honor after their decease. The caemete­ries, or places of their burial, used to be much frequented, even from the earliest times: There the people prayed, not to them indeed, but to God; and sometimes sung hymns in honor of their memory. All this was done for some time, without any thought of wor­shipping them, though not wholly without superstition. But an extravagant, and even idolatrous veneration for them succeeded, at least as early as the fourth century. For Vi­gilantius, who lived at the latter end of it, as Dr. Middleton has observed, publicly charged the ruling clergy with paganizing and idola­try, on account of several heathenish customs then in the church; particularly the veneration of saints and reliques. ‘We see, says he, in effect, a pagan rite introduced into our chur­ches, under the pretext of religion; when heaps of wax candles are lighted up in clear sun-shine, and people are every-where kissing and adoring, I know not what, con­temptible dust, preserved in a little vessel, and wrapped up in precious linnen. These men do great honor truly to the blessed mar­tyrs, by lighting up paultry candles to those, whom the Lamb in the midst of the throne illuminates with all the lustre of his majesty.’ It is said that Jerom, who attempted to an­swer [Page 22]Vigilantius, neither disowned these prac­tices, nor denied that they were borrowed from the pagan worship; but justified them by saying, ‘That was once done to idols, and was then to be detested; but this is done to the martyrs, and is therefore to be received.^*’ So it seems, that even in Jerom's opinion, what was detestable superstition and idolatry when done by Christians in honor of the martyrs: There needed only to transfer the veneration from those idols to the saints, in order to render it laudable, at least ad­missible: The kind of worship might be retained, if the particular objects of it were changed, and christian demons introduced in­stead of pagan demons!

But worldly policy, as well as superstition, had some hand in establishing saint-worship. When Christian teachers became corrupt and worldly-minded, thro' the indiscrete zeal, or, perhaps, policy, of Constantine the Great, they aimed more at increasing the number of nominal Christians, for secular ends, than that of real ones; or preserving their religion in its original purity and simplicity. And ac­cordingly, observing how attached the Pagans were to the worship of their gods and demi­gods, to their magnificent temples, images, and the feasts kept in honor of their deities; the Christian leaders were for bringing them over, [Page 23]by imitating many of their customs. Then spacious churches were built, sumptuously adorned, and dedicated to the martyrs; pic­tures, images and altars were brought into use therein; and the formal invocation of saints encouraged. Thus Christians rivalled, if not surpassed Pagans, in their own way, with a view to bring them over to the faith of Christ, at least to a profession of it. By which temporizing policy, as bishop Stilling­fleet observes, christianity came at last to be little or nothing else but 'reformed paganism,' as to its external worship: Or, as Turretin says, ‘the empire was brought over to the faith, but the church also infected with the pomp of the empire; the Pagans were con­verted to Christ, but the Christian worship depraved to the fashion of paganism. ^*’

The worship of saints prevailed more and more until the Reformation, tho' not equal­ly in all parts, nor without opposition. It continues in the church of Rome to this day, nearly in as high credit as ever. ^‡ They are [Page 24]from time to time canonizing new saints, tho' more sparingly than in some ages past; just as in old pagan Rome they were from time to time enrolling more dead men in the number of the gods. They erect oratories and altars to them, prostrate themselves before their shrines, and burn incense to them; all nearly in the same manner, that the Pagans did to their factitious deities. And the Pantheon at Rome, formerly the temple of all the gods, is now dedicated to Mary and all the saints. They also make formal vows and prayers to them for blessings temporal, spiritual and eternal. Why might they not as well offer sheep and oxen in sacrifice to them, as pay them such worship as this; and yet be free from idola­try?

Let me instance in a few of their hymns and prayers to the saints, by way of specimen. To St. Nicholas they address themselves as follows: 'Ergo pie nos exaudi,' &c. Therefore graciously here us, who are intent on praising thee, lest we are subjected to the fraud of the enemy; bring us help. Deliver us from all evil; conduct us in the right way; and after this life, introduce us into eternal joys. To St. Agnes thus: 'Ave, Agnes gloriosa,' &c. Hail, glorious Agnes; preserve me in the right faith, O sweet and beloved virgin, I intreat thee with prayers. Grant to all, that they may in perfect charity worship God, by whom thou wast elected. They have longer forms of devotion to other saints; in which they dis­tinctly implore of them almost every blessing [Page 25]that can be named; at least as many and great ones as the Pagans used to pray for to any of their gods, not excepting their Jupiter optimus maximus; altho' they call this worship, which they pay to the saints in common, only dulia, in distinction from latria. But their worship of the virgin Mary they term hyperdulia; by which it is not easy to know what they mean, only in general, that it is something more extravagant and outrageous than their worship of other saints, or of angels. In her Rosarie, as it is called, that is, a kind of liturgy for the virgin Mary, and in other devotional books, they give her the following titles: Queen regent of hea­ven, mistress of angels, mother of grace, mother of mercy, mother of God, the hope of the world, the trust of sinners, the repairer and savi­our of despairing souls, the giver of spiritual grace, the female saviour of the world, the healer of the sick, the confirmer of the just, the restorer of them that go astray, the helper and hope of the desolate, a most ready helper; and the like.

They seldom speak of the merits and inter­cession of Christ, but in conjunction with those of Mary; and in language that expresses their hope of salvation by her's, as truly as by his^†. They solemnly confess their sins to God and to her, in the same breath; as may be seen in several parts of the Ritual. They sometimes beseech [Page 26]her to exercise the authority of a mother, and to command her son. And in the office intitled Ordo commendationis animae, the dying person is directed to pray to her in these terms: 'Maria, mater gratiae', &c. O Mary, mother of grace, mother of mercy, do thou protect me from the enemy, and receive me in the hour of death. Let me here subjoin a prayer or hymn to Mary out of the Rosarie, as follows: 'Reparatrix salvatrix', &c. Thou female repairer aud saviour of the despairing soul, the showerer down and bestower of spiritual grace, heal my wounds, I pray, I fervently desire; and grant the gifts of grace to the soul that calleth upon thee: That I may be chaste and modest, gentle, valiant, sober, godly, regular, circumspect, a stranger to revenge, well instructed, and guarded by the divine ora­cles; constant, grave and pleasant, benign, lovely, prudent in heart, careful to speak the truth, hat­ing evil, ever cleaving to God in pious works. Part of another of these admirable collects in the Rosarie, is as follows: 'Cor meum illu­mina', &c. Enlighten my heart, thou refulgent star of the sea, and ever defend me from the de­vices of the enemy. O glorious virgin Mary, mother of the eternal King, deliver us from all evil, and from the punishment of Hell. This is a specimen of hyperdulia.

They have another approved book among them, called the Mary-Psalter, and the Psalter of our Lady, the work of their seraphic doctor Bonaventure, and himself, if we can believe so strange a thing, both a saint and a cardinal; in [Page 27]which book the devotional psalms of David are turned into forms of prayer and praise to Mary: So that, with some little variations, the same devotions which David offered to the King of heaven, they offer to the Queen of heaven, at once, according to their divinity, his mother, spouse and daughter. Part of one of these psalms is thus paraphrased: 'In te, Domina, speravi', &c. In thee, Lady, have I hoped; I shall never be confounded. Receive me to thy favor; incline thine ear unto me, and rejoice me in my trouble. Thou art my strength and my refuge, my consolation and my protection. Unto thee have I cried when my heart was in distress; and thou heardest me from the top of the eternal hills. Into thy hands, O Lady, I commend my spirit, my whole life, my last day. Another thus: 'Salus sempiterna', &c. Eternal salvation is in thy hand, O Lady; they that will duly honor thee, shall receive it. Thy clemency shall not fail thro' eternal ages; and thy mercy is from generation to generation. Another thus: 'Dis­positione tua mundus', &c. By thy disposition [or providence] the world endureth, which thou, with God, has founded from the beginning. O Lady, I am wholly thine; save me, because thy praises are delightful in my pilgrimage. This is hyperdulia with a witness! And to these speci­mens of devotion to Mary let me subjoin part of an equally pious inscription mentioned by Dr. Middleton, over the gate of a great church in Italy; viz. ‘There is no one who can be saved, O most holy virgin, but thro' thee— [Page 28]Mary, indeed, opens the bosom of her mercy to all; so that the whole universe receives out of her fulness: The captive, redemption; the sick, a cure; the sad, comfort; the sinner, pardon; the just, grace; the angle, joy; the whole Trinity, glory.’ The learned writer last named, very pertinently remarks, that ‘when Jeremiah rebukes the people of Iudah for burning incense to the Queen of heaven, one can hardly help imagining, that he is prophe­tically pointing out the worship now paid to the virgin; to whom they actually burn in­cense at this day under that very title ^*.’ It is also well known that their churches, especially in Italy, are filled with votive tables and offer­ings to Mary and other saints, for supposed cures and deliverances wrought by them; in like manner as the heathen temples were adorned, in honor of the gods and goddesses. And Dr. Stillingfleet relates, that there was once a dispute among some Romancatholics, whether the Lord's prayer might, or might not, be used to the saints. ‘And it was well resolved, and very subtilly, says he, that ultimately, principally, primarily and strictly, they might not; but secondarily, less principally and largely, and relatively they might.’

With such-like vain distinctions they amuse themselves, impose upon the ignorant, and en­deavour to palliate their idolatrous worship of saints and angels. They say, they do not call [Page 29]them gods, or worship them with latria; but with an inferior worship. The council of Trent says, in session 25th, 'Sanctos una cum Christo regnantes', &c. That the saints reigning to­gether with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men: that it is good and profitable humbly to invocate them, and to fly to their prayers, help and aid, for blessings to be impetrated of God by his Son', &c. By which cautious manner of speaking, it seems the council was a little afraid, either expresly to condemn or to justify saint-worship in all its enormous extent, or in the manner in which it was then, and is now actu­ally practised. I must crave leave to make se­veral remarks, relative to this point.

The distinction between latria and dulia, on which the church of Rome lays so much stress, is an arbitrary one, without any solid foundation in scripture. But taking their own explanation of these terms, the distinction will not excuse them from idolatry. People may be guilty of this, by paying an unwarrantable worship to saints and angels, or other creatures, tho' they do not adore them as equal to God in nature and dignity, but worship them as inferior to him. We are, indeed, to give honor, or, if they please, worship, which is an equivocal term, ^* to all those to whom it is due; and in such manner and measure as it belongs to them, either by the express appointment of God, or by natural rea­son and right, in virtue of the known relation [Page 30]in which they stand towards us. But the thing insisted on is, that that service and respect, whe­ther it be called honor only, or worship, which the church of Rome pays to saints and angels, is unwarranted by reason, contrary to scripture, and properly idolatrous. Tho' the holy angels are all ministring spirits, sent forth to minister to the heirs of salvation; yet we are forbidden to worship them thus. ‘Let no man beguile you of your reward, says the apostle, in a volun­tary humility, and worshipping of angels, in­truding into those which he hath not seen^†’— When John fell at the feet of an angel, paying him too profound a reverence; tho' it cannot be supposed, that he thought the angel was God, or meant to worship him as God, he received a check from him: 'See thou do it not: I am thy fellow-servant', &c. ^‡ And the council of Laodicea, convened anno 320 or 321, expresly condemned the worship of angels under the name of idolatry, and as a forsaking our Lord Jesus Christ ^*. Now, surely, if even angels are not to be bowed down and prayed to by us, tho' we know they minister to us, and are a su­perior order of beings; much less are the saints to be thus worshipped. We are to be follow­ers, but not worshippers of them, who thro' faith and patience inherit the promises; unless thinking and speaking of them with honor, and imitating their virtues, be to worship them. We know not that they have any concern with [Page 31]human affairs, or that they have any knowledge of what is passing in this lower world. But we are sure, neither they, nor the angels are omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent: Which consideration alone shews the folly, at least, of worshipping them in the manner the Papists do. Besides; the worship of demons [ [...]] is condemned by the apostle. ‘I would not, says he, that ye should have fellowship with demons. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons ^†.’ And giv­ing heed to 'doctrines of demons', is one cha­racteristic of those who should 'depart from the faith' in the last days. Now, this Greek word certainly signifies an angel or spirit, whe­ther good or bad. For Socrates, by the de­mon, of which he boasted, surely meant not the devil, or an evil malicious being, but a good genius, angel or spirit; and all the popish saints are properly demons^*. It is well if some of them are not demons even in the bad sense of the word.

Moreover; tho' they do not give their saints the titles of dii and deae, gods and goddesses; yet they call them divi and numina; as the Pagans of old Rome called dead men and wo­men after their apotheosis ^‡. And it appears [Page 32]from the example before produced, that they directly implore of them the greatest blessings of time and eternity; health of body and mind, guidance in the true faith, spiritual grace, pro­tection from the devil, deliverance from all evil, salvation from the pains of hell, a gracious re­ception at death, and admission to the joys of heaven. They may, if they please, call this only dulia and hyperdulia: But what more, what greater or better do, or can they, pray for to God himself? These are blessings, which he alone can bestow. And when they pray thus to the saints, expressing their confidence in their protection in the same terms, in which good men use to express their's in the power, provi­dence [Page 33]and grace of God; this is really giving divine honors to them: And if latria, as they say, is the worship that belongs exclusively to God; then this is plainly latria, whatever they may call it. To give such worship as this to the saints, is an implicit ascription of divine per­fections to them, while they are explicitly owned to be but creatures. It is a kind of worship, which supposes them to be omnipotent, omni­scient, and omnipresent; since He alone, who is possessed of those perfections, can be supposed to hear prayers at all times, from all parts of the earth at the same time; and able to grant such blessings. How poor an evasion is it then, for Romancatholics to say, they neither call the saints gods, nor worship them with supreme worship? For is not this to suppose them really gods? And is not that even supreme worship, which can, with propriety, be given only to God almighty? It is of no conse­quence, except as a matter of criticism, whether this be called latria or dulia: And if they are guilty of an apparent inconsistency in this res­pect, as well as of idolatry; it much more con­cerns their own infallibility to clear it up, than it concerns us.

Besides; this distinction might serve some pagan idolaters as well as it does them; all those, who acknowledged one God, as supreme. For him alone they professedly worshipped with supreme honors, answering to the latria of the Papists; the others they worshipped as subordi­nate, with a worship answering to dulia or hyer­dulia. [Page 34]But can we think that the apostle Paul would have been satisfied with such an apoloy as this? Suppose an Athenian Sophist, for example, had said to him: ‘Altho' you see us worship, and offer sacrifices to, many invisible beings, male and female; so that you consider us as polytheists and idolaters; you are mistanken, for want of attending to our learned distincti­ons. You must know then, that some of us at least, own one supreme and most perfect being: Him only we intentionally honor with latria; the rest we worship only with dulia, or hyperdulia, as subordinate to him. Observe well this distinction, good Master Paul; and you will then see we are no idolaters, how many demons, demi gods and goddesses soever we worship.’ Now, one may be pretty cer­tain, that the holy apostle's spirit would not have been less 'stirred in him', for an apology of this sort, than when he came to Athens, and 'saw the city wholly given to idolatry'^†. Nor is an apology of this kind more satisfactory from the mouth of a modern Romanist, than it would have been from that of an old Athenian.

One cannot well help remarking here, by the way, the great disingenuity and assurance of those Romancatholics, who pretend that they pray to the saints only as friendly intercessors, to pray for them. Were this true, it would not excuse them; but nothing can be more false. And indeed, they are so much given to deny­ing notorious facts, and asserting known false­hoods, [Page 35]in their disputes with Protestants; that a famous ancient hieroglyphic in Diospolis, ought, methinks, to be inscribed in all their churches; the nearer the pulpit or altar the better. In that hieroglyphic a young child signified coming in­to the world; an old man, going out of it; an hawk, the Deity; an hippopotamus, hatred; and a crocodile, impudence. All which, being taken together, in the Egyptian manner, express­ed this useful lesson; O ye that come into the world, and that go out of it, God hates impudence.

Never did any pagan idolaters implore greater blessings of their supreme, or so great of their inferior deities, or demons, as the Romancatho­lics implore directly of their saints, especially of Mary. But it has sometimes been said by them, that there is a material difference in this respect: That those dead men and women, whom the heathens worshipped, were ignorant of true re­ligon, and black with crimes in their life-time; whereas those that are worshipped in the church of Rome, were very holy persons, adorned with many shining virtues, the workers of miracles, the special favourites of heaven; and the like. Be it so: But the question is not, who were the best, the most worthy of imitation, and an ho­nourable remembrance; but whether any de­mons, or dead men, were they ever so holy, can be thus worshipped without idolatry? True, it is more foolish and wicked to adore an ill man thus after his decease, than a wise and good one: But yet the latter is as truly idolatry as the o­ther. If the Pagans were idolaters in worship­ping [Page 36]their deceased kings and heroes, it was neither only nor chiefly, because they were wick­ed; but because they were demons, or dead men; creatures that ought not to be thus wor­shipped, altho' they had been virtuous & good. And since the Romanists pay the like, if not greater honors, to dead men and women, or de­mons; this must, for the same reason, be ido­latry in them also.

But it may be remembered, that some of those men, whom the Pagans deified, had really been great benefactors to their respective countries and ages; teachers of agriculture, and other use­ful arts; the destroyers of tyrants, and other wild beasts and monsters; the founders of cities and empires; wise legislators; upright judges, and good kings, the fathers of their people. In which respects they had at least as good a title to great honors, both living, and after their de­cease, as some of the popish saints; I think a much better. For divers of those, who adorn the Roman kalender, were but ignorant enthu­siasts, scarce better than madmen; persons who never did any thing worthy of applause. Was Symeon Stilites worthy of signal honors for having his station thirty years on a high pillar, like a statue on its pedestal? or the more like a god? Was Anthony, for peaching to birds, beasts and fishes? Was Francis, for hearing Christ's voice, as they say, come from a crucifix ^*; and being so transported with pious zeal or something [Page 37]else, as to throw away his breeches? Were others, for wearing out much hair-cloth and whip-cord on their backs, and no shoes on their feet, for many years? or for those numerous ridiculous feats, which knaves re­ported, and fools believed, as miracles? But other popish saints had, if possible, even less sanctity than these; being rebels, traitors and assassines; the pests of society, and disturbers of kingdoms. Were not Osiris, Hercules and AEsculapius, Vulcan, Rhadamanthus and Ro­mulus, at least as worthy to be enrolled a­mong the gods, as Ignatius Loyola, Garnet and Thomas á Becket, among the saints? It is more absurd to worship such contemptible and wicked persons as some of the popish saints were, than some of those, whom the Pagans deified; or even than to worship the stars and elements, which are so useful to us. And ‘I would gladly know, says one, why I may not as well honor God by giving worship to the sun, as to Ignatius Loyola, or St. Francis, or any other late canonized saint?—The sun is a certain monument of God's goodness, wisdom and power, and I cannot be mistaken therein; but I can ne­ver be certain of the holiness of those per­sons I am to give divine worship to. For all that I can know, Ignatius Loyola was a great hypocrite; but I am sure that the sun is none; but that he shines, and communi­cates perpetual influences, to the huge ad­vantage of the world. ^‡’

[Page 38]But to have done with saint-worship; the doctrine and precepts of scripture are clearly against this practice of the Romanists. And what scripture example there is of it, which they may think worthy their imitation, I know not; except, perhaps, it be that of the wicked rich man in hell, who earnestly pray­ed Saint Abraham, but in vain, to send Laza­rus to cool his tongue with a drop of water. But, methinks, it is time enough for men to follow this example, when they come into that place of torment themselves, and despair of God's hearing their prayers. A dreadful extremity! to which we pray our adversaries may never be reduced: And if there is any such place as the purgatory they talk of, we should be rejoiced, if there were any good rea­son to hope they might escape even that also— For, by their own account, it is a very tedi­ous, round-about and painful way to heaven.

THERE is time to add but little concern­ing the worship of pictures and images. This was probably introduced into the church in the fourth century, in common with other bad customs; and spread fast, tho' not without opposition. In the eighth cen­tury the indignation of many was so raised against it, that they destroyed all the images in churches, where-ever they could; and were therefore called the Iconoclasts. They chiefly occasioned the calling of the second [Page 39]council of Nice, anno 787; in which they were censured, and the worship of images confirmed; especially as that council expres­seth it, ‘the image of the Lord and God, our Saviour Jesus Christ; nextly that of our immaculate lady the mother of God, of the venerable angels, and then those of all the saints.’ The council, however palliates this idolatry by saying, they did not mean to give images the worship of latria, but an honorary adoration, as to a type; which redounds to the honor of the prototype. 'Imaginis enim honor,' &c. For the honor of an image ter­minates on the prototype; and he that adores an image, also adores therein what is represented by it. ^† This council also speaks of the great benefit of pictures and images, in edifying the people, especially the vulgar, who could not read. ^* The council of Trent refers to, and [Page 40]confirms the decrees of this; adding some farther explanations and cautions, relative to this point; particularly the following: Non 'propteréa Divinitatem figurari', &c. ^‡ That the Divinity is not therefore figured, as tho' it could be seen with bodily eyes, or expressed by co­lors or figures [a good reason why it should not be at all attempted.] Moreover, adds the council, let all superstition in the invocation of saints, in the veneration of reliques, and in the sacred use of images, be taken away.

Here is a plain concession, that they figure the Divinity, even while they acknowledge it cannot be seen, or expressed by figures or colors: Which might, perhaps, pass for a con­tradiction in any church, but an infallible one. But not to stand on such niceties with them; [Page 41]to make and worship any picture or image of Christ, considered as God, which is what they chiefly intend here, is idolatry; and directly contrary to the second commandment, whe­ther it be latria, or dulia only, that is paid thereto. And the distinctions, of which the Papists serve themselves, would serve as well to justify the Israelites of old, provided they worshipped golden calves only as symbols or types of Jehovah; intending this honor should terminate on him, as the prototype. Upon the same principle, those Pagans who wor­shipped images, not for their own sake, but as supposed representations of the invisible God, could not be charged with idolatry, how often soever they might kiss, prostrate themselves before, and offer incense and sacri­fices to them. Some pagan worshippers of idols and images could, probably, have made such a plea as truly, and with a much better grace, than those of the Romancatholics who have the holy scriptures; in which all image-worship is plainly forbidden. And, indeed, the leaders in the church of Rome have shewn a consciousness, that scripture was against them in this respect, by leaving the second commandment wholly out of those which are designed for common use, and di­viding the last of the ten into two, to compleat the number.

As to other pictures and images; if it be idolatry to worship saints and angels, as it is [Page 42]practised in the church of Rome; it is even more so, to worship their images. As some have justly observed, they are guilty of double idolatry in this respect; first, in worshipping saints and angels themselves, and then in a­doring their images, with the like external worship of prayers, prostrations and incense: for either of these things would be idolatry, without the other. The same arguments which prove, that the Pagans worshipping the images of their demons, or inferior deities, was idolatry, will also shew the idolatry of the church of Rome, in worshipping the ima­ges of angels and saints, who are, strictly and properly, their demons. The more intelli­gent sort of pagans did not ascribe divinity to their images themselves; nor honor them with a more profound reverence, internal or exter­nal, than Romancatholics pay to theirs. Nay, some of them were intirely against the use of any images in their religious services; as tend­ing to give people too gross conceptions of the Deity. And when the council of Trent so gravely injoins, that all superstition in the wor­ship of saints and reliques, and in the sacred use of images, should be taken away, still encouraging these practices themselves; it is as anti-scriptu­ral and irrational as if those fathers had decreed, that men should commit fornication, but with­out unchastity; theft and robbery, but with­out injustice; murder, without breach of cha­rity; and blasphemy, without impiety. The [Page 43] sacred use of these vices, is hardly a greater solecism than the other. The superstition of this kind of worship cannot be taken away, without taking away that worship itself. Nor is there any better foundation for a distinction between the use and abuse thereof, than be­tween the use and abuse of lying and adultery, incest and perjury. Indeed, the leaders in the church of Rome find all these crimes very useful in their turns, and subservient to their own ends, when kept under their discrete and skilful management: So that, in their opinion, laying them wholly aside might, perhaps, be the greatest possible abuse of them. For what would then become of their dispensations, pardons, indulgencies, and I know not what; the wicked craft, by which they have their wealth?

THE patience of this learned and respec­table audience shall be requested no longer, than while I subjoin a few reflexions.

If then, the church of Rome be grosly ido­latrous in the several respects aforesaid; high­ly dishonouring God, and the one Mediator whom he hath appointed, by an undue wor­ship of, and dependence upon, many creatures; it follows, that she is so far from being the only true church, and chaste spouse of Christ, that she is a most corrupt one, a filthy prosti­tute, who hath forsaken her first love, and is [Page 44]become, indeed, the 'mother of harlots.' Some Papists expressly own, that ‘if the church of Rome is guilty of heresy, much more, if guilty of idolatry, it falls under the apostle's excommunication, Gal. I. 8.’ And if she be not actually guilty of both, it will be difficult at least, I believe absolutely impossi­ble, to shew what church or person ever was, that named the name of Christ. If soundness of doctrine and purity of worship are essential marks of a true church, as they allow; we must look for them, not in that of Rome, but else-where; unless we proceed upon the quaint maxim of one who said, that whoever would find what he is in search of, must look for it where it is not, as well as where it is. And if these marks are wanting, another, which they likewise boast of, must also fail them; viz. holiness: At least, it is not easy to see how that can be an holy church, how­ever catholic it may be, in which such abo­minable idolatry is publicly authorized, and universally practised.

It further appears from hence, what great danger there is of perdition in the communion of this church; every true son and daughter of which is, and must be, an idolater. The wrath of God has not been revealed from heaven more frequently, or in more awful terms, against any one class of sinners, than against idolaters. And one of the most distinguishing characters of the great apostacy from the faith, foretold, is [Page 45]idolatry, will-worship, a voluntary, affected hu­mility, and worshipping of angels and demons. 'The Spirit spake expresly, that in the latter times some should apostatize from the faith, giving heed to erroneous spirits, and doctrines concerning demons, thro' the hypocrisy of lyars, having feared consciences; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God,' &c.^* It is so much easier to find all these characters in a certain church now in the world, than the marks of a true one; that there is hardly any room to doubt about the right application of them.

The ancient Babylon was famous for idola­try; of which it seems to have been the first seat after the flood; perhaps was the principal, for a considerable time before either Egypt or Phoenicia obtained the infamous preheminence. If so, this suggests one intelligible reason, why the apostate, idolatrous party in the christian world should be designed by the spirit of pro­phecy, under the title of Babylon: And even the Romancatholics generally own, that Rome is the Babylon of the new testament; only they say, it is Rome pagan, not christian. Which, tho' said without any good reason, and even con­trary to strong evidence, was yet necessary for them to say; unless they would farther own, that the most dreadful curses in the whole bible are [Page 46]pointed directly against themselves; for these are pointed against Babylon. Nor is it wholly unworthy of remark, that the modern Babylon also nearly resembles the ancient in respect of the particular kind of death, which she inflicts on those, who renounce her idolatrous worship. In the ancient, they who would not fall down and worship idols, were cast into a furnace of fire: In the modern, burning to death is the ordinary punishment for such dissenters and schismatics; and in her is found the blood of prophets and of saints. The former was a most inhuman enemy and persecutor of God's peo­ple: But yet, where she slew her thousands, the latter has slain her ten thousands. So much does the pretended only true and unerring church exceed the ancient Babylon in execrable cruelty, persecution and tyranny!

Altho' there had been no other weighty ob­jection against the church of Rome, besides her idolatry, this alone would sufficiently justify those who have renounced her communion: ‘For what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?’ or his worship, with that of bread, demons and images? But so enormously antichristian is this church in many other respects, that we might almost reckon idolatry itself among her lesser errors and abominations! In one view of it, in­deed, or merely as it affects civil society, it is far from being the greatest. No person, surely, can ever want good authority to leave the com­munion of such a church. A warrant for it may [Page 47]be found in almost every page of the bible; par­ticularly Revel. xviii. Where, after a description of Babylon as 'fallen,' or apostatized; as become the habitation of demons [ [...]] and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird, &c. it follows, ‘And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath re­membered her iniquities.’ This is sufficient warrant to come out of a church, whether Rome or any other, to which the characters of Babylon actually agree. And how much soever the church of Rome may curse those of the Re­formation, or imprecate upon them the ven­geance of Peter, Paul, the Queen of heaven, and the other saints; we may be pretty sure, that they have neither power nor inclination to harm us on this account; that they will nei­ther destroy us themselves, nor pray God to do it. They who invocate them to this end, in solemn form, and support and propagate what they mis-call religion, by persecution, fire and sword; have far more reason to fear the im­precations of those saints that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held; whom John saw under the altar, while they ‘cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?^†’—O Babylon, if thou [Page 48]fearest not the imprecations of those saints, who have been slain in and by thee, for the testimony which they held against thy idolatry, and other abominations; at least fear him, whom all saints and angels adore. Thou hast made kings and nations drunk with the wine of thy fornication; and thyself with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And tho' thou glorifiest thyself, and livest deliciously by fraud, oppression and blood, saying, I sit a queen, and shall see no sorrow; yet know, that thy day is coming: For strong is the Lord God who judgeth thee!^‡

Detestable as the idolatry of the church of Rome is, there are other of her principles and practices, as has been intimated, which more immediately affect the peace and order of civil society, the honor of princes, and the liberty and common rights of mankind. Our contro­versy with her is not merely a religious one: It is not, on our part, only a defence of the worship of one God by one Mediator, in op­position to that of a thousand demons or idols; of the authority of the sacred oracles, in oppo­sition to that of idle legends and traditions; and of sober reason in opposition to the grossest fanaticism: But a defence of our laws, liberties, and civil rights as men, in opposition to the proud claims and encroachments of ecclesiasti­cal persons, who under the pretext of religion, and saving mens souls, would engross all power and property to themselves, and reduce us to [Page 49]the most abject slavery: It is a defence, if I may so express it, of the common rights of seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting; all which popery attacks and undermines, by the doctrihe of transubstantiation; and would take them from us, as a means of making us dutiful sons, or rather wretched slaves of the church. We must not see, taste or smell, but as the church is pleased to give us leave. If she shews us a morsel of bread, or a drop or two of wine, after the priest has played a few tricks with it; we must believe it is no longer bread or wine, but God. And whatever else she declares, we must implicitly receive it on her authority, on pain of being burnt in this world, and damned in the next! So important is this controversy, as the honourable founder of this lecture well knew; having himself written and published a learned dissertation relative thereto.^‡ Altho' we had no regard for true religion, yet we ought in reason and prudence to detest the church of Rome, in the same degree: that we prize our freedom. Her laws, more arbitrary than those of Draco, are, in effect, like his, all written in blood. Popery and liberty are in­compatible; at irreconcileable enmity with each other. May gracious Heaven ever pre­serve us from the one, and bless us with the other: At least, if we are ever to be so unhappy as to lose our liberty, God grant the loss may not be aggravated, by having it taken from us either by lordly, tyrannical priests, or by [Page 50]those of the laity, from whom we have the best reason to expect the defence and security of it.

Popery is now making great strides in Eng­land; as great, perhaps, as it did in the reign either of Charles or James the second: I pray God, things may not at length be brought to as bad a pass! Thousands of weak and wicked Protestants are annually perverted to an impi­ous, horrid system of tyranny over the bodies and souls of men; which less deserves the name of religion, than that of an outrage on the senses, and most valuable rights of men, and a satire upon God. If we may believe those who pretend to know, and probably do, popish priests, jesuits, and other emissaries, are very open and bold in our mother-country of late years, meeting with no vigorous opposi­tion: And even popish bishops reside there, and go about to exercise every part of their function, without offence. It seems, there is far less good old protestant zeal than were to be wished and expected: Many, who call themselves prote­stants, look upon popery as an harmless, in­different thing, notwithstanding its inherent, restless, intolerant malignity, and most destruc­tive tendency. Heaven only knows what the end of these things will be; the prospect is alarming!

The agents of Rome, ever restless and schem­ing, compass sea and land to make proselytes; going about continually from country to coun­try, seeking whom they may devour: And, pro­bably, [Page 51]there is no protestant country, in which there are not some of them, at least lurking, if they dare not discover themselves. We should not be ignorant of their devices; nor ever off our guard against them. May this seminary of learning, may the people, ministers and churches of New-England, ever be preserved from popish, and all other pernicious errors. Our Saviour, on a memorable occasion, said to the tempter, ‘It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.’ If our popish tempters are not confounded and silenc'd with the like answer, it seems as if they had even less modesty than he, who once said, as the church of Rome now, in effect, faith; If thou wilt fall down and worship ME, all shall be thine.

To conclude: They who would keep them­selves pure from ever species of idolatry, must not only abstain from the worship of idols in the common gross sense, as practised by Pagans and Papists; but also from an inordinate love of this world, its pleasures and enjoyments; and love God supremely. The apostle stiles a covetous man 'an idolater':^† For there are many that make gold their hope, and say unto the fine gold, 'Thou art my confidence,' even before it is formed into an image by art, and man's device. By the same rule, all other wicked men are in some sense idolaters. What­ever usurps that place, that preheminence in [Page 52]the affections of men, which is due to God alone; that is their idol, that is their God. How many idolaters are there then, even among protestants? They only, who love God above all things, worship him in spirit and in truth, whatever church they live in commuion with. May such worshippers, whom the Father seeketh, be increased in every church, to his glory; even till 'THE MAN OF SIN,' whose coming is after the working of satan, with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, shall finally be consumed by the breath of the Lord, and ‘destroyed with the brightness of his coming! ^*’

PAGE 30, line 12 from the top, read, those things