concluded, that the _interpretation_ of all laws, as well _sacred_ as _secular_, (God ruling by the way of _nature_ only), depends on the authority of the city, that is to say, that man or counsel to whom the sovereign power is committed; and that whatsoever God commands, he commands by his voice. And on the other side, that whatsoever is commanded by them, both concerning the manner of honouring God, and concerning secular affairs, is commanded by God himself. [Sidenote: Certain doubts removed.] 18. Against this, some man may demand, first, whether it doth not follow that the city must be obeyed, if it command us directly to affront God, or forbid us to worship him? I say, it does not follow, neither must we obey. For to affront, or not to worship at all, cannot by any man be understood for a manner of worshipping. Neither also had any one, before the constitution of a city, of those who acknowledge God to rule, a right to deny him the honour which was then due unto him; nor could he therefore transfer a right on the city of commanding any such things. Next, if it be demanded whether the city must be obeyed, if it command somewhat to be said or done, which is not a disgrace to God directly, but from whence by reasoning disgraceful consequences may be derived; as for example, if it were commanded to worship God in an image, before those who account that honourable: truly it is to be done.[19] For worship is instituted in sign of honour; but to worship him thus, is a sign of honour, and increaseth God’s honour among those who do so account of it. Or if it be commanded to call God by a name, which we know not what it signifies, or how it can agree with this word _God_; that also must be done. For what we do for honour’s sake, (and we know no better), if it be taken for a sign of honour, it is a sign of honour; and therefore if we refuse to do it, we refuse the enlarging of God’s honour. The same judgment must be had of all the _attributes_ and _actions_ about the merely rational worship of God, which may be controverted and disputed. For though this kind of commands may be sometimes contrary to right reason, and therefore sins in them who command them; yet are they not against right reason, nor sins in subjects; whose right reason, in points of controversy, is that which submits itself to the reason of the city. Lastly, if that man or counsel who hath the supreme power, command himself to be worshipped with the same _attributes_ and _actions_, wherewith God is to be worshipped; the question is, whether we must obey? There are many things, which may be commonly attributed both to God and men; for even men may be _praised_ and _magnified_. And there are many actions, whereby God and men may be worshipped. But the significations of the _attributes_ and _actions_ are only to be regarded. Those _attributes_ therefore, whereby we signify ourselves to be of an opinion, that there is any man endued with a sovereignty