7. Hence it follows, that Abraham’s subjects could not sin in obeying him, provided that Abraham commanded them not to deny God’s _existence_ or _providence_, or to do somewhat expressly contrary to the honour of God. In all other things, _the word of God_ was to be fetched from his lips only, as being the interpreter of all the _laws_ and _words_ of God. For Abraham alone could teach them who was the God of Abraham, and in what manner he was to be worshipped. And they who after Abraham’s death were subject to the sovereignty of Isaac or Jacob, did by the same reason obey them in all things without sin, as long as they acknowledged and professed _the God_ of Abraham to be their God. For they had submitted themselves _to God_ simply, before they did it to Abraham, and to Abraham before they did it to the God of Abraham: again, to the God of Abraham, before they did it to Isaac. In Abraham’s subjects therefore, to deny God was the only _treason against the divine Majesty_; but in their posterity, it was also treason _to deny the God of Abraham_, that is to say, to worship God otherwise than was instituted by Abraham, to wit, in images made with hands,[20] as other nations did; which for that reason were called _idolaters_. And hitherto, subjects might easily enough discern what was to be observed, what avoided in the commands of their princes. Footnote 20: _In images made with hands._ In chap. XV. art. 14, there we have showed such a kind of worship to be irrational. But if it be done by the command of a city, to whom the written word of God is not known nor received, we have then showed this worship (in article 18) to be rational. But where God reigns by way of covenant, in which it is expressly warned not to worship thus, as in the covenant made with Abraham; there, whether it be with or without the command of the city, it is ill done. [Sidenote: God’s covenant with the Hebrews at Mount Sinai.]