A papist mis-represented and represented, or, A twofold character of popery the one containing a sum of the superstitions, idolatries, cruelties, treacheries, and wicked principles of the popery which hath disturb'd this nation above an hundred and fifty years, fill'd it with fears and jealousies, and deserves the hatred of all good Christians : the other laying open that popery which the papists own and profess, with the chief articles of their faith, and some of the principle grounds and reasons, which hold them in that religion / by J.L. one of the Church of Rome ; to which is added, a book entituled, The doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome, truly represented, in answer to the aforesaid book by a Prote

XXV. Of the Second Commandment. (Book 25)

THE Dispute about this is not,

Whether the Second Commandment may be found in a∣ny of their Books, but by what Authority it comes to be l••ft out in any; as he confesses it is in their short Catechisms and Manuals▪ But not only in these; for I have now before me the Reformed Office of the Blessed Virgin, Printed at Salamanca, A. D. 1588. published by Order of Pius V. where it is so left out: And so in the English Office at Antwerp, A. D. 1658. I wish he had told us in what publick Office of their Church it is to be found: But

himself pleads for the leaving it out, when he saith. The People are in no danger of Superstition or Idolatry by it; since the First Com∣mandment secures them from it; and there is nothing in this, but what is vertually contained in the First, and is rather an Explanation, than a new and distinct Precept. But is this so plain and clear, that a Mans Conscience can never make any just and reasonable Doubt concerning it? There is a terrible sanction after it; and men had need go upon very good Grounds in a matter of such moment. Hath God himself any where declared this to be only an Explicati∣on of the First Commandment? Have the Prophets, or Christ and his Apostles ever done it? How then can any mans Consci∣ence be safe in this matter? For it is not a trifling Controversie, whether it be a distinct Commandment, or an Explication of the First, but the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of the Worship of Images depends very much upon it: For if it be only an Explicati∣on of the First, then unless one takes Images to be Gods, their Wor∣ship is lawful, and so the Heathens were excused in it, who were not such Ideots: But if it be a new and distinct Precept, then the Worshipping any Image or Similitude, becomes a grievous sin, and exposes men to the Wrath of God in that severe manner mention∣ed in the end of it: And it is a great confirmation that this is the true meaning of it, because all the Primitive Writers of the Chri∣stian Church, not only thought it a sin against this Command∣ment, but insisted upon the force of it against those Heathens who denied that they took their Images for Gods: And therefore this is a very insufficient Account of leaving out the Second Com∣mandment.