Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians were I hope the former Discourse hath shewed their Doctrines and Practices are not so very like those of Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians that their Cases should be made so parallel but as in his Conclusion he hath summed up the substance of his Representations so I shall therein follow his Method only with this difference that I shall in one Column set down his own Representations of Popery and in the other the Reasons in short why we cannot embrace them Wherein Popery consists as Represented by this Author 1. IN using all external Acts of Adoration before Images as Kneeling Praying lifting up the Eyes burning Candles Incense c. Not merely to worship the Objects before them but to worship the Images themselves on the account of the Objects represented by them or in his own Words Because the Honour that is exhibited to them is referred to the Prototypes which they represent 2. In joining the Saints in Heaven together with Christ in Intercession for us and making Prayers on Earth to them on that Account P. 5. 3. In allowing more Supplications to be used to the Blessed Virgin than to Christ For he denies it to be an idle Superstition to repeat Ten Ave Maria's for one Pater Noster 4. In giving Religious Honour and Respect to Relicks Such as placing them upon Altars burning Wax-Candles before them carrying them in Processions to be seen touched or humbly kissed by the People Which are the known and allowed Practices in the Church of Rome P. 8. 5. In adoring Christ as present in the Eucharist on the account of the Substance of Bread and Wine being changed into that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. P. 10. 6. In believing the Substance of Bread and Wine by the Words of Consecration to be changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of Bread and Wine remaining as before P. 10. 7. In making good Works to be truly meritorious of Eternal Life P. 13. 8. In making Confession of our â—â—s to a Priest in order to Absoluâ—on P. 14. 9. In the use of Indulgences for taking away the Temporal Punishments of sin remaining due after the Guilt is remitted 10. In supposing that Penitent Sinners may in some measure satisfy by Prayer Fasting Alms c. for the Temporal Pain which by order of God's Justice sometimes remains due after the Guilt and the Eternal Pain are remitted P. 17. 11. In thinking the Scripture not fit to be read generally by all without Licence or in the Vulgar Tongues P. 19. 12. In allowing the Books of Tobit Judith Ecclesiasticus Wisdom Maccabees to be Canonical P. 21. 13. In preferring the Vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible before any other and not allowing any Translations into a Mother Tongue to be ordinarily read P. 24 26. 14. In believing that the Scripture alone can be no Rule of Faith to any Private or Particular Person P. 28. 15. In relying upon the Authority of the present Church for the Sense of Scripture P. 29. 16. In receiving and believing the Churches Traditions as the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and assenting to them with Divine Faith just as he doth to the Bible P. 31 32. 17. In believing that the Present Guides of the Church being assembled in Councils for preserving the Unity of the Church have an Infallible Assistance in their Decrees P. 38. 18. In believing the Pope to be the Supreme Head of the Church under Christ being Successour to S. Peter to whom he committed the care of his Flock P. 40. 41. 19. In believing that Communion in both Kinds is an indifferent thing and was so held for the first Four hundred years after Christ and that the first Precept for Receiving under both Kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo I. and confirmed by Pope Gelasius P. 51. 20. In believing that the Doctrine of Purgatory is founded on Scripture Authority and Reason P. 54 c. 21. In believing that to the saying of Prayers well and devoutly it is not necessary to have attention on the Words or on the Sense of Prayers P. 62. 22. In believing that none out of the Communion of the Church of Rome can be saved and that it is no uncharitableness to think so P. 92. 23. In believing that the Church of Rome in all the New Articles defined at Trent hath made no Innovation in matters of Faith P. 107. Our Reasons against it in the several Particulars 1. THou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image or any likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth c. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them Which being the plain clear and express Words of the Divine Law we dare not worship any Images or Representations lest we be found Transgressors of this Law Especially since God herein hath declared himself a Jealous God and annexed so severe a Sanction to it And since he that made the Law is only to interpret it all the Distinctions in the World can never satisfie a Mans Conscience unless it appear that God himself did either make or approve them And if God allow the Worship of the thing Represented by the Representation he would never have forbidden that Worship absolutely which is unlawful only in a certain respect 2. We have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous 1 John 2. 1. And but one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. For Christ is entred into Heaven it self now to appear in the Presence of God for us Heb. 9. 24. And therefore we dare not make other Intercessors in Heaven besides him and the distance between Heaven and us breaks off all Communication between the Saints there and us upon Earth so that all Addresses to them now for their Prayers are in a way very different from desiring others on earth to pray for us And if such Addresses are made in the solemn Offices of Divine Worship they join the Creatures with the Creator in the Acts and Signs of Worship which are due to God alone 3. Call upon me in the Day of Trouble I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorifie me Psal. 50. 15. When we pray to Our Father in Heaven as our Saviour commanded us we do but what both Natural and Christian Religion require us to do But when men pray to the Blessed Virgin for Help and Protection now and at the Hour of Death they attribute that to her which belongs only to God who is our Helper and Desender And altho Christ knew the Dignity of his Mother above all others he never gives the least encouragement to make such Addresses to her And to suppose her to have a share now in the Kingdom of Christ in Hea. ven as a Copartner with him is to advance a Creature to Divine Honour and to overthrow the true Ground of Christs Exaltation to his
clear stating this Controversy these things are to be premised 1. We do not charge them that they make Gods of dead Men i. e. that they believe the Saints to be Independent Deities For this our Author confesses were a â—ost damnable Idolatry 2. We do not say that the State of the Church of Rome with respect to the Worship of dead Men is as bad as Heathenism For we acknowledg the true Saints and Martyrs to have been not only Good and Vertuous but extraordinary Persons in great Favour with God and highly deserving our Esteem and Reverence as well as Imitation whereas the Heathen Deified Men were vile and wicked Men and deserved not the common Esteem of Mankind according to the Accounts themselves give of them And we own the common Doctrine and Advantages of Christianity to be preserved in the Church of Rome 3. We do not deny that they do allow some external Acts of Worship to be so proper to God alone that they ought to be given to none else besides him And this they call Latria and we shall never dispute with them about the proper signification of a Word when the Sense is agreed unless they draw Inferences from it which ought not to be allowed To this Latria they refer not only Sacrifice but all that relates to it as Temples Altars and Priests so that by their own Confession to make these immediately and properly to the Honour of any Saint is to make a God of that Saint and to commit Idolatry 4. They confess that to pray to Saints to bestow Spiritual or Temporal Gifts upon us were to give to them the Worship proper to God who is the only Giver of all good things For else I do not understand why they should take so much pains to let us know that whatever the Forms of their Prayers and Hymns are yet the Intention and Spirit of the Church is only to desire them to pray for us and to obtain things for us by their Intercession with God But two things cannot be denied by them 1. That they do use solemn Invocation of Saints in Places of Divine Worship at the same time they make their Addresses to God himself withal the Circumstances of External Adoration with bended Knees and Eyes lifted up to Heaven and that this Practice is according to the Council Trent which not only decrees a humble Invocation of them but declares it to be impiety to condemn mental and vocal Supplication to the Saints in Heaven 2. That they do own making the Saints in Heaven to be their Mediators of Intercession but not of Redemption although Christ be our Mediator in both senses And upon these two Points this Controversy depends Let us now see what our Representer saith to them 1. His Church teaches him indeed and he believes that it is good and profitable to desire the Intercession of the Saints reigning with Christ in Heaven but that they are either Gods or his Redeemers he is no where taught but detests all such Doctrine There are two Ways of desiring the Intercession of others for us 1. By way of Friendly Request as an Act of mutual Charity and so no doubt we may desire others here on Earth to pray for us 2. By way of humble Supplication with all the external Acts of Adoration and we cannot think S. Peter or S. Paul who refused any thing like Adoration from Men would have been pleased to have seen Men fall down upon their Knees before them and in the same posture of Devotion in which they were praying to Almighty God to put their Names into the middle of their Litanies and so pray them then to pray for them But how are we sure that their Church teaches no more than this I have read over and over the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism about it and I can find no such limitation of their sense there where if if any where it ought to be found The Council of Trent mentions both the Prayers and the Help and Assistance of the Saints which they are to fly to If this Help and Assistance be no more than their Prayers why is it mentioned as distinct Why is their reigning together with Christ in Heaven spoken of but to let us understand they have a Power to Help and Assist For what is their Reigning to their Praying for us But I have a further Argument to prove the Council meant more viz. the Council knew the common Practices and Forms of Invocation then used and allowed and the general Opinion that the Saints had power to Help and Assist those who prayed to them If the Council did not approve this why did it insert the very words upon which that Practice was grounded They likewise very well knew the Complaints which had been made of these things and some of their own Communion cried shame upon some of their Hymns Wicclius saith one of them Salve Regina c. is full of downright Impiety and horrible Superstition and that others are wholly inexcusable Lud. Vives had said He found little difference in the Peoples Opinion of their Saints in many things from what the Heathens had of their Gods These things were known and it was in their Power to have redressed them by declaring what the sense of the Council was and that whatever Forms were used no more was to be understood by them but praying to them to pray for them Besides the Council of Trent in the very same Session took care about Reforming the Missal and Breviary why was no care taken to Reform these Prayers and Hymns which they say are not to be construed by the Sense of the Words but by the Sense of the Church There was time enough taken for doing it for the Reformed Missal was not published till six Years after the Council nor the Breviary till four In all that time the Prayers and Hymns might easily have been altered to the Sense of the Church if that were truly so But instead of that a very late French Writer cries out of the necessity of Reforming the Breviaries as to these things wherein he confesses Many Hymns are still remaining wherein those things are asked of Saints which ought to be asked of God alone as being delivered from the Chains of our Sins being preserved from spiritual Maladies and Hell Fire being inflamed with Charity and made fit for Heaven In good Conscience saith he is not this joining the Saints with God himself to ask those things of them which God alone can give And whatever Men talk of the Sense of the Church he confesses the very Forms and natural Sense of the Words do raise another Idea in Mens Minds which ought to be prevented But doth not the Roman Catechism explain this to be the sense of the Church I have examined that too with all the care I could about this Matter And I cannot find any Necessity from thence of putting this Sense upon them I
grant in one place where it explains the difference of the Invocation of God and Saints it saith We are to pray to God as the Giver and to Saints that they would obtain things of God for us and then it adds the Forms differ that to God is Miserere Nobis and Audi Nos that to Saints is Ora pro Nobis Very well And is there then no other Form owned or allowed in the Church of Rome to Saints besides this Hold a little saith the Catechism for it is lawful to make use of another Form and that is we may pray to Saints too Ut nostri misereantur And how doth this now differ from that to God but only in Number But it adds that the Saints are very pittiful then surely we are encouraged to pray to them for help and pitty Yes saith the Catechism we may pray to them that being moved with pity towards us they would help us with their Favour and Intercession with God But yet this doth not clear the Matter for elsewhere the Roman Catechism attributes more to Saints than meer Intercession and we may pray to them for what is in their Power For where it undertakes to give an exact Account of the Reason of Invocationâ— of Saints and Angels it there parallels them with Magistrates under a King and saith they are God's Ministers in governing the Church Invocandi itaque sunt quod perpetuo Deum intuentur Patrocinium Salutis nostrae libentissime suscipiunt What is this Patrocinium falutis nostrae Is it only Praying and Intercession with God That cannot be for it instances presently in deliverances by Angels and Jacob 's praying to the Angel to bless him and not meerly to intercede for him But though this is spoken of Angels yet from hence it infers the Invocation of Saints too But what need we insist more on this since they do own the Ministry of Saints as well as Angels with respect to the Church and do Canonize Saints for particular Countries as lately S. Rosa for Peru. And where there is such a particular Protection supposed what incongruity is it to interpret the Form of their Prayers according to a Doctrine so received and allowed But of this more under the next Head 2. He confesses that we are all redeemed by the Blood of Christ alone and that he is our only Mediator of Redemption but as for Mediators of Intercession he doth not doubt but it is acceptable with God we should have many I would ask concerning this Distinction the Question which Christ asked concerning John's Baptism Is it from Heaven or of Man No doubt there may be such a Distinction of Mediators if God please to make them But who hath Authority to appoint Mediators with him besides himself Is it not usurping his Prerogative to appoint the great Officers of his Kingdom for him Would any Prince upon Earth allow this viz. when he hath absolutely declared his Pleasure that his own Son should present Petitions to him that others shall take upon them to set up Masters of Requests themselves Can any thing be plainer in the New Testament than that God hath appointed the Mediator of Redemption to be our Mediator of Intercession And that his Intercession is founded upon his Redemption As the High Priest's going into the Holy of Holies to intercede for the People was upon the Blood of the Sacrifice of Expiation which he carried in with him If there were no Revelation in this Matter there might be some reason for it But since the Revelation is so clear in it this Distinction looks just like the Socinians Distinction of a God by Nature and a God by Office which was framed on purpose to avoid the plain Texts of Scripture which called Christ God So doth this look as if it were intended to avoid that clear Text which saith There is but one Mediator between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus Which is preâ—ently answered with this Distinction although there â—e not the least ground in that or any other Text for it Yes saith our Author Moses was such a Mediator for the Israelites Job for his three Friends Stephen for his Persecutors The Romans were desired by S. Paul to be his Mediator and the Corinthians and Ephesians so almost every sick Person desires the Congregation to be his Mediator that is to be remembred in their Prayers p. 4 5. But is there no difference between Men praying for one another and desiring others to pray for them here on Earth and an humble Invocation of the Saints in Heaven to be our Mediators of Intercession with God there There is a threefold disparity in the Case 1. Here upon Earth we converse with one another as Fellow-Creatures and there is no danger of our having an Opinion thereby that we are able to assist one another any other way than by our Prayers But the Case is very different as to the Saints in Heaven who by being addressed to there by such solemn Invocation may too easily be conceived to have the Power of bestowing such Blessings upon those who call upon them 2. Heaven is looked on by all Mankind who direct their Devotions thither as the particular Throne of God where he dwells and discovers himself after another manner than he doth upon the Earth And we are directed to pray to our Father in Heaven where he is represented as infinitely above all his Creatures and the great Concernment of Religion is to keep up the apprehension of this distance between him and them Now it is hardly possible to keep it up if in the Publick Offices of Religion in the solemnest postures of Devotion with Eyes lifted up to Heaven they do make Addresses both to God and to his Creatures 3. Men are sure when they pray to others on Earth to pray for them that they do no more than they can justify in point of Discretion when they speak or write to those that can understand what their desire is but no Man on Earth can be certain that the Saints in Heaven can do it For it is agreed they cannot do it without Revelation and no Man can be assured there is a Revelation and it is not reasonable to expect it for they pray to Saints to pray to God for them and they cannot tell what they pray for unless God to whom they are to prav reveal to them what it is they must pray to him for Is it not then the better the safer the wiser way to make our Prayers to him who we are sure is able to hear and help us and hath promised to grant what we ask in his Son's Name But there is no other Name either under Heaven or in Heaven whereby we can be saved or our Prayers accepted but His alone But our Author saith It is no part of his Faith how the Saints in Heaven know the Prayers and Necessities of such who address themselves to them p. 5. But how
And yet I am afraid our Author would think it a severe Anathema in this matter to say Cursed is he who believes Nonsense and Contradictions It will be needless to set down more since I have endeavoured by clear stating the several Controversies to prevent the Readers being â—mposed upon by deceitful Anathema's And yet after all he saith 〈◊〉 Cursed are we if in answering and saying Amen to any of these Câ—rses we use any Equivocations or Mental Reservation or do not assent to them in the common and obvions use of the Words But there may be no Equivocation in the very VVords and yet there may be a great one in the intention and design of them There may be none in saying Amen to the Curses so worded but if he would have prevented all suspâ—cion of Equivocation he ought to have put it thus Cursed are we if we have not fairly and ingenuously expressed the whole Meaning of our Church as to the Points condemned in these Anathema's or if we have by them designed to deceive the People And â—â—eâ— I doubt he would not so readily have said Amen THE CONTENTS AN Answer to his Introduction Page 1. 1. Of Praying to Images p. 16. 2. Of Worshiping Saints p. 25. 3. Of Addressing more Supplications to the Virgin Mary than to Christ. p. 34. 4. Of Paying Divine Worship to Relicks p. 40. 5. Of Adoration of the Host. p. 43. 6. Of Transubstantiation p. 46. 7. Of Merits and good Works p. 55. 8. Of Confession p. 60. 9. Of Indulgencies p. 63. 10. Of Satisfaction p. 66. 11. Of Reading the Holy Scriptures p. 68. 12. Of Apocryphal Books p. 82. 13. Of the Vulgar Edition of the Bible p. 84. 14. Of the Scripture as a Rule of Faith p. 86. 15. Of the Interpretation of Scripture p. 87. 16. Of Tradition p. 89. 17. Of Councils p. 90. 18. Of Infallibility in the Church p. 91. 19. Of the Pope p. 94. 20. Of Dispensations p. 97. 21. Of the Deposing Power p. 101. 22. Of Communion in one Kind p. 107. 23. Of the Mass. p. 108. 24. Of Purgatory p. 113. 25. Of Praying in an Unknown Tongue p. 119. 26. Of the Second Commandment p. 123 27. Of Mental Reservations p. 124. 28. Of a Deathbed Repentance p. 126. 29. Of Fasting p. 127. 30. Of Schisms and Divisions in the Church p. 129. 31. Of Friers and Nuns p. 131. 32. Of Wicked Principles and Practises p. 132. 33. Of Miracles p. 134. 34. Of Holy Water p. 136. 35. Of Breeding up People in Ignorance p. 138. 36. Of the Uncharitableness of the Papists p. 139. 37. Of Ceremonies and Oâ—dinances p. 141. 38. Of Innovations in matters of Faith p. 142. An Answer to his Conclusion p. 145. FINIS The ERRATA PAge 12. Margin for Conformat read Confirm p. 14. l. 19. for DoDrine r. Doctrine p. 35. Margin for Lapidiana r. Lapidicina p 39. l. 13. after publisâ—â—d insert in l. 26. after piece insert of p. 40. l. 4. blot out Or. p. 41. l. 4. for vigdantius r. vigilantius p. 82. l. 10. after cannot blot out say p. 88. l. 12. for Solemn r. Solitary p. 96. Margin for Sues r. Surs. ib. for Philean r. Philerene p. 98. l. 26. for Claevasus r. Clavasius p. 101. l. 12. for Doctrine r. Doctors p. 106. Margin for D' Erast r. D' Engâ—ien p. 112. 〈◊〉 26. for Ecclesiastical r. Eâ—charistical p. 132. l. 11. before whether insert 3. p. 134. 〈◊〉 â— for iâ— r. are l. 20. blot out as well p. 141. l. 4. and l. 19. for de r. be ADVERTISEMENT A Discourse against Transubstantiation Printed for W. Rogers Bulla Pli 4ti super Confâ—rm â—raâ— Concil Tridentini Thevenot Voyage des Indes p. 188. Bernier Memoirs Tom. 3. p. 172. Pag. 3. Suarez in 3. part Qu. 25. Disp. 53. Sect. 3. 2do principaliter Sect. 5. Bellarmin de Imag. l. 2. c. 24. Concil Tridenâ— Sess. 25. Moyens Surs honestes pour la Conversion de tous les Heretiques To. 2. p. 115. Catechis Rom. Part. 3. c. 2. S. 14. Sect. 25. Pag. 4. Wicel in Elencho Abusuum Vives in Aug. de Civit. Dti l. 8. c. 27. Entritiens de Pâ—ilalethe Philerene Part 2. p. 160 163 165. Catech. Rom. Part 4. c. 6. n. 2 3. Catech. Rom. Part 3. c. 2. n. 4 6. Cum praesint nobis Sancti rerâ—m nostrarum curam gerant Bellarm. de Sanct. Beatit l. 1. c. 20. §. deinde Non solum ab Angells sed etiam â— spiritibus beatorum hominum Regi Gubernarl fideles â—iventes Id. ib. c. 18. §. nos autem John 14. 13 14 16 23 24. Heb. 7. 25. 9. 7 24. 1 Jo. 2. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 5. S. Bonavent Opust Tom. 1. ad sin S. Bernardin Sen. apud Bernardin à Bustis Marial Part. 12. Serm. 2. Balinghem Parnass Mâ—â—iâ—â— p. 268. Mendoza Virid Sacr. l. 2. Probl. 1 4. Salazar pro Immac Concept c. 32. Hier. Peres de Nueros Lapidiâ—â—na Sacra Tr. 1. Sect. 12. N. 148. Pag. 7. Viridar Sacr. l. 2. Probl. 2. N. 11. La veritable Devotion envers la S. vierge Etable Defendu par le Pere Crasset à Paris A. D. 1679. Monita Salutaria B. V. Mariae ad Cultores suos indiscretos §. 3. n. 56. §. 4. Contemplations of the Life and Glory of Holy Mary the Mother of Jesus A. D. 1685. Pag. 4. Pag. 8. Billarmin de Cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 4. inis Pag. 12. Pag. 14. Pag. 22. Pag. 24. Pag. 25. Pag. 7. Alanus de Rupe de usu Psaltâ—â—ii l. 1. c. 6. De Imag. Sanct. l. 2. c. 4. Cassand Consult Art 21. Tract special 4. Controv. 4. Rabat Joy de Jasenists A. D. 1656. Pallavicin Hist. Concil Trident. l. 12. c. 6. Rossens c. Oecu lamp l. 1. c. 2. Coster Euchiâ—id c. 8. n. 10. Catherin in Cajet p. 133 c. Ed. Paris 1535 Iâ—gâ—â—â— 1542. P. 9 10 11 12. Vasq. in 3 Part. Disc. 180. Q. 75 Art 2. C. 5. Cajetan in 3 Part. Q. 75. Art 1 2 3. S. Luk. 24. 39. S. Joh. 1. 1 3. Bellarm. de Incarn l. 3. c. 8. Pâ—â—av de Incarnatione p. 6. c. 1. §. 3. Pag. 13. Concil Trident. Sess. 6. Can. 32. Meritum est Actio libera cui Merces debetur ex justitiâ Coster Enchirid. de Merit is boâ— Oper. c. 7. In quantum homo propriâ voluntate facit id quod debet meretur apud Deum alioquin reddere debitum non esset merâ—torum Aquin. 1 2. qu. 114 artic 1. resp ad 1. Meritum se habÄ›t ad praemium sicut pretium ad illud quod emitur Altisiodor l. 3. tr 12. Absoluta aequalitas inter mercedem meritum ponitur per modum Justitiae commutativae Bell. Justif. l. 5. â— 14. 2 Tim. 4. 8. Sâ—ss 14. Can. 6. Sâ—ss 14. c. 4. Lomb. l. 4. Dist. 17. Grat. de Poenit. Dist. 1. c. 90. Quidam Greg. de Valentiâ de Necessit Confess c. 2. Maldonat Oper. To. 2. de Poenit.
Durandus but in that of Clement the 8th it is put in more largely and as authentically as if it had been always there And is not this the way to reform the Worship of Images To come now to our Author's Reflections on the Misrepresentation he saith hath been made as to this Point 1. A Papist represented believes it damnable to worship Stocks and Stones for Gods to pray to Pictures or Images of Christ the Virgin Mary or any other Saints These Expressions are capable of a double sense and therefore this is not fair Representing 1. To worship Stocks or Stones for Gods may signify two things 1. To believe the very Stocks and Stones to be Gods And this we do not charge them with 2. To give to Images made of Wood and Stone the Worship due only to God and so by construction of the Fact to make them Gods by giving them Divine Worship And if they will clear themselves of this they must either prove that external Adoration is no part of Divine Worship notwithstanding the Scripture makes it so and all the rest of Mankind look upon it as such even Jews Turks and Infidels or that their external Adoration hath no respect to the Images which is contrary to the Council of Trent or that Divine Worship being due to the Being Represented it may be likewise given to the Image And how then could the Gnosticks be condemned for giving Divine Worship to the Image of Christ which Bellarmine confesses and is affirmed by Irenaeus Epiphanius S. Augustin and Damascen 2. To pray to Images of Christ or the blessed Virgin may likewise be taken in two senses 1. To pray to them so as to expect to be heard by the meer Images and so we do not charge them with it 2. To pray to them so as to expect to be rather heard by themselves for praying to them by their Images And if this be not so to what end are the Prayers made in the Consecration of Images for those that shall pray before them To what purpose do so many go in long Pilgrimages to certain Images if they do not hope to be better heard for praying there But he goes on 2. He keeps them by him indeed to keep in his mind the memory of the things represented by them And is this all in good Truth We will never quarrel with them if this be true Representing No that he dares not say But 3. He is taught to use them p. 2. But how by casting his Eye upon the Pictures or Images and thence to raise his heart to the Prototypes And is this all yet No. But 4. He finds a double conveniency in the use of them 1. They represent at one glance and Men may easily make good Reflections as upon the sight of a Death's Head or old Time painted with his Forelock Hour-glass and Syth And will he undertake that Images shall be used in Churches for no other End Was the Picture of old Time ever Consecrated or placed upon the Altar or elsewhere that it might be worshipped as the Roman Catechism speaks of their Images 2. They cure Distractions for they call back his wandring Thoughts to the right Object What is this Right Object the Image or the Person represented And that must be either a Creature or God himself If it be a Creature doth not this imply that it is made a Right Object of Worship If God himself how doth an Image cure our Distraction in the Worship of an Infinite Invisible Being when the very Image is most apt to distract our thoughts by drawing them down from his Divine and Adorable Perfections to the gross and mean Representations of an Image But are we yet come to the utmost use of them No. But 5. He cannot but love honour and respect the Images themselves for the sake of those they represent Will this content them And will he promise to go no further It is hard to part upon Terms of meer Respect and Decent Regard where there is no encroachment upon Divine Worship And here we are at a stand But he goes further 6. And so he is come at last to veneration before Images And is this all Dares he deny veneration to Images When the Council of Trent hath determined it Eisque venerationem impartiendam What is this veneration before Images only Bellarmine hath a Chapter on purpose to prove that true and proper Worship is to be given to Images And was he a Misrepresenter Suarez saith It is an Article of Faith that Worship is to be given to them But if the Veneration be only before them why are they Consecrated and set up in Places proper for Adoration But 7. To satisfy any one that he is far from making Gods of his Images he is ready to break them into a thousand pieces What a Consecrated Image Dares he take a Crucifix from the Altar and tear it in pieces This doth not look like the Love Honour and Respect he mentioned before not to name Veneration And I am afraid this is a strain beyond true Representing Yet at length he hath found some pretty Parallels for the veneration of Images themselves and so we are come at last to the main Point But this is not directly owned yet in the way of his Representing it is fairly insinuated by his Parallels 1. A Christian loves and honours his Neighbour because he bears the Image of God in his Soul But doth he therefore take him and set him before him when he kneels at his Devotion to raise his Mind and cure his Distractions Would he set him upon the Altar and burn Incense before him because of the Image of God in him Is there no difference between the Object of Christian Love and of Divine Worship Nor between a Spiritual Invisible Divine Image in the Souls of Men and a Material and Corporeal Representation 2. We may kiss and esteem the Bible because it contains and represents to Us God's Word But when we kiss and esteem the Bible we remember the Second Commandment is in it and we dare not break his Law when we pretend to honour his Word But we think there is some difference between Reverence and Respect to the Bible and falling down before an Image The Circumstances of the one declare it to be meer Respect and a Religious Decency and if the other be not external Adoration we know not what it is 3. A good Preacher is loved because he minds Men of their Duty But what should we say to him that should therefore kneel down and say his Prayers and burn Candles and Incense before him out of a respect to his good Doctrine Did S. Peter or S. Paul like this when Men would have worshipped them A good Preacher would tell them of their Duty as they did and take Men off from the Worship of any Creature animate or inanimate and direct them to worship God alone who made Heaven and Earth II. Of Worshipping Saints FOr the