A brief reply to a late answer to Dr. Henry More his Antidote against idolatry Shewing that there is nothing in the said answer that does any ways weaken his proofs of idolatry against the Church of Rome, and therefore all are bound to take heed how they enter into, or continue in the communion of that church as they tender their own salvation.

CHAP. IX.

His Answer to the first Paragraph.

That the image of Christ, says he, may be worship∣ped ••ith ••••e ••orship of ••atria (though expres••y contrary to the Doctrine of the second Council of Nice) is the commonly supposed Opinion of St. Thomas and St. ••onaventure. But there is a great difference betwixt, is to be wors••ipped, and may be worshipped. And besides it is hard to say, what the meaning of these two Doctors is, they wind about so, and enter into such nice distinctions, &c.

The Reply.

AS to the being contrary to the Council of Nice, I Reply, That I have already shown that it is most consonant thereto, both from Pho∣tius and the Council it self. And therefore Thomas and Bonaventure being such very ancient School∣men, about 400 years ago, and therefore much nearer to the Nicene Council, it is most likely they followed the air of that Council and of Pope Adri∣ans letter to Irene and Constantine approved by that Council. And it is incredible that Pope Adrians letter and the sense of the Council concerning so great a point, and ••f so high importance, should be unknown to the Church of Rome, especially the

more learned of them, for above four hundered years together. Touching [May be worshipped] and [Is to be worshipped] I demand whether any undue VVorship may be given to the Image of Christ. If therefore that VVorship which may be given is due and fit, it is plain it is to be given or ought to be given; which questi∣onless was the Opinion of both Thomas and Bo∣naventure. And lastly, As to the winding into nice distinctions, what distinctions are here but onely of Terminativè, and Relativè, or Transitive? which are intelligible enough, viz That Latria cannot be given to the Image of Christ Terminativè but onely Relativè, or Transitivè, It must 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pass to the Prototype as the Council of Nice speaks. That is to say, We must do Divine honour to the Image of Christ that Christ ultimately may be honoured thereby, which is plainly to commit gross Idolatry to the glory and honour of Christ. And therefore my Ad∣versary durst name none of these nice distinctions, not because they are above the capacity of the Vulgar, but because even a Vulgar capacity can easily observe the folly and futility of them.

His Answer to the second Paragraph.

First, he says, That my alledging of Azorius is a proof∣less Accusation or Calumny against them. I suppose, because •• cite not the very place and words. Secondly, Touching the Doctrine z••rius witnesses of, he says it is so far from being the constant Opinion of their

Theologers, that it is now generally rejected by them, unless limited by that qualifying distinction of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which he says I have forgot or purpose∣ly omitted in my long Translation out of Photius, though the onely material word in the whole citation. For he contends that the Worship due to the Image and the Prototype, is Analogically though not Uni∣vocally the same; which he would have intimated in that passage of Photius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that therefore I have purpose••y omitted the Translation of it. He streams out a great deal further in this second part of his Answer to this Paragraph, but what ever is material I shall have an eye to in my Reply.

The Reply.

To that of Azorius, I have no more to say than thus, to prove it no Calumny; That his words Instit. Moral. part 1. lib. 9. cap. 6 are these, Con∣stans est Theologorum sententia imaginem eodem ho∣nore & cultu honorari & coli quo colitur id cujus est Imago. What can be more express? Touching the doctrine it self, I note from the very intimati∣tion of my Adversary, that he cannot well deny, but that it has been the general doctrine of their Church though now it is not, they being Apo∣states, as it seems, from the Opinion of Pope Adri∣an, the steers-man of that Council of Nice, whom yet they now make a Fallible Mortal, renoun∣cing his Opinion and the Councils, as I think I have plainly proved above. And then to what he

says, Unless limited by that qualifying distincti∣on of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which I purposely omitted in Translating of Photius. First, I say, I did not omit the Translating of it; For I render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thus, According to the excellency of the Prototypes, [according] here being the same that pro ratione, and that the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But, not onely notwithstand∣ing this passage, but from this very passage have I demonstrated, according to the mind of Photius and the Council, that one and the same Worship, even univocally the same, is to be given to the Image and the Prototype. Of such confessed Ido∣latry has their. Church been found guilty of till of late, even according to my Adversaries Con∣cession.

But now, Secondly, with my Adversary to say, They are onely Analogically the same, is a phrase of uncertain signification, whether it is to be un∣derstood Logically or Geometrically. If Logically, it is as much as to say, That the Worship to the Image and the Prototype agree in one immediate Genus Analogum. As in those words that I suspect∣ed foisted into the Council, there is mention of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by which suppose were meant the highest and most principal Latria, which is except∣ed there as undue, suppose to the Image of Christ; but that there may be some other Latria that is. Wherefore the Genus Analogum that is immediate to these two Latria's, is a Latria common to them both, and the two Latriae under it, the one to Christ, the other to his Image, are the species of this

Genus. And so in like manner of Hyperdulia to the blessed Virgin and of Dulia to the rest of the Saints, these words used in respect of their Images and of themselves must be the species of those common genera, Hyperdulia and Dulia. But according to the Rudiments of Logick the species of a Genus Ana∣logum do really, though one dependently of the other and less principally, partake of the common nature of the Genus; which being either Latria, Hyperdulia, or Dulia, and all these Religious Wor∣ship, it is manifest Religious Worship is given to all the Images.

But now if we understand that the Worship done to the Image and the Prototype is. Analogi∣cally the same in a Geometrical sense, we are first to take notice, that Analogy in Geometry requires four termes; as, in A, B:: B, C. or A, B:: C, D. And therefore the four Termes in this Case, will be, Christ, the Worship of Christ, Christs Image, the Worship of Christs ••mage: As Christ to t••e Worship of Christ, so Christs Image to the Worship of Christs Image. Now if you will say, The Worship of Christ and the Wor∣ship of Christs Image is one and the same Term in this Analogy, you ipso facto declare, that, seeing the Worship of Christ is Latria prope••ly so called, the Worship of Christs Image is so also. You see therefore how gross a thing it is to say the Termes are Analogically the same in this Geometrical way, it implying also a Parity be∣twixt the Image of Christ and Christ himself. And the same inconvenience will recu•• though you

take them alternately: As Christ to Christs Image, so the Worship of Christ to the Worship of Christs Image. Here again if the VVorship of Christs Image and the VVorship of Christ be the same, it will follow that there is a Parity betwixt Christ and his Image, which is Impossible. But you will say, the Worship of Christ, and the Wor∣ship of Christs Image is Analogically the same, That's the thing you mean. But you seem not to know what you mean your selves: If you mean in that Logical sense above, you have your An∣swer already; If you mean in a Geometrical or Arithmetical sense, if I should use your freedom of speech elsewhere, I might say more than that it is not sense. For the Termes including a pro∣portion are not called Analogically the same, but the proportions included betwixt each two Termes, which make up the four Termes pro∣portional, are rightly said to be the same; As in 6 to 3, and 4 to 2, the proportion betwixt 6 and 3 is the same proportion that betwixt 4 and 2; but neither 6 and 3 nor 4 and 2 are Analogi∣cally the same. Therefore nothing with any sense can be said this Geometrical way unless this, That there is the same proportion betwixt the VVorship of Christ and the VVorship of his Image, that there is betwixt Christ and Christs Image. But this is far from saying the VVorship of Christ and the VVorship of his Image is Analogically the same; there being no sameness of Termes including proportions in these Cases, unless the Termes be equal, as in 10, 10:: 5, 5▪ or 10, 5:: 10, 5.

But thus will the Image of Christ have Latria due to it as well as Christ himself. But such muddy and confounded Doctrines must needs be the mothers of confounded Notions and distinctions. But supposing, As Christ to his Image (which must be the ground of proportion betwixt the two Wor∣ships of Christ and Christs Image) so the Wor∣ship of Christ is to the Worship of Christs Image; the Image of Christ beingin a most absolute sense infinitely inferiour to Christ himself, what kind or share of Worship that is to terminate on his Image, can be imagined so mean, but it will be really too much? and therefore the fittest propor∣tion will be none at all. And how will lighting up Candles and burning Incense before Christs Image, which is plainly Religious Worship, yea Sacrifice and therefore Latria, as I have proved above, and yet enjoyned by this Council of Nice, bear so little proportion to the Worship of Christ himself, as his Image does to him, which is infi∣nitely inferiour?

Things therefore succeed so ill this Arithmetical way that I half phancy my Antagonist to affect the Logical, though I must confess I know not which he would be at, he is so off and on; which made me show the unsuccesfulness of both. But let the Reader judge of his words, pag. 87. As the Man and the painted Man are Analogically the same, so the honour done to the painted Man and the Man himself, are not univo••ally but Analogically the same; which he applies to Images and Prototypes. By saying not Univocally but Analogically the

same, (though a few lines before he expresses himself in a Geometrical way) he seems to make a Man and a painted Man two species under one Genus Analogum, whenas a Man and a painted Man are termes equivocal; As if Thomas and Bo∣naventure when they declared the Worship gi∣ven to the Image and the Prototype to be the same, meant equivocally the same! What is all this but Tergiversation and Equivocati∣on? No question there••ore but Thomas and Bona∣venture meant as Photius, and Photius as the Ni∣cene Council, and the Nicene Council as Pope A∣drian. And that Religious Worship is meant to Images in their worshipping them, is plain from that Clause; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That besides Salutation and Adoration, they were to add the setting up Lights and burning of Incense in honour to them. For the honour done to the Image passes to the Prototype. Now as I above noted, burning of Incense is a Sa∣crifice, and setting up Lights was a piece of Re∣ligious service in the Pagan Religion to their Dae∣mons and a kind of Oblation, and it is here plain∣ly expressed to be done in honour to the Images, out of all which it is apparent that it is Religious Worship. And then, in that it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to pass to the Prototype, that is a further Con∣firmation thereof, and intimation that it is that very Worship that is competible to the Prototype; whether Christ, the blessed Virgin, or any other Saint, to all whom Invocation is expresly competi∣ble

according to the Council of Trent it self; which yet is comperible to no invisible Power, but the very God••ead. But Pope Adrian in his Letter to Irene and Constantine says expresly, that Images and their Prototypes are lookt upon but as one, and therefore their VVorship bu•• as one; not one to the Image the other to the Prototype, (accordingly as Photius hath faithfully declared the sense of the Council) but one Religious Wor∣ship passing through the Image to the Prototype: As those that should VVorship the Moon through a glass window with the picture of the Moon in it. I do not at all doubt but this was the ge∣nuine and true sense and air of that second Council of Nice.

And therefore my Antagonist must give me leave to give credit to Azorius, (who, by the by, does also declare, that it is the sense also of the Council of Nice and of Trent) when he tells us this is the constant Opinion of their Theologers, especially the more ancient Schoolmen, as Alex∣ander Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, &c. as keeping to the right sense of Pope Adrian and this seventh general Council called on purpose to decide this matter of Images. And if you have changed of late from this Rule, it is but a con∣cession how grosly you were lapsed into Idolatry before. Nor are you yet a jot mended, by say∣ing it is Analogically the same VVorship, it still remaining Religious VVorship terminated in the Images t••emselves; which is a gross blot, and makes the matter worse than before. But to

make the Worship equivocally the same, is such an equivocating quibble to put on these two Saints of Rome, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure, that all the honour done to their Images will not recompense this injury done to their Memo∣rie.

And thus I have used my Christian liberty, which my Adversary so courteously allowes me, in impugning Gabriel Biel, and whosoever else do corrupt the genuine sense of Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaventure, with such pittifull glosses. And whereas he says the Council of Trent never men∣tions any such Worship of Latria due to the Image of Christ; I Answer, it mentions the Council of Nice, and refers to the sentence of that Council, which assuredly was the same that Azorius says is the constant Tenet of Theologers. And thus consequentially at least does the Council of Trent declare for Latria to the Image of Christ. Be∣sides, as I have noted; Azorius is of Opinion that the Council of Trent of it self is of this judge∣ment. But of this enough, Not has he any thing else on this second Paragraph which may not easi∣ly be Answered from what is said already.

His Answer to the third Paragraph.

Here is a Calumny, saith he, of the first Magni∣tude, most uncharitably implying that the Roman Church prayes to Images as the Heathen did to their Idol-Gods. The charge is so gross that no person but one remove from a fool can

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

either believe the Doctor, or think he believes himself.

The Reply.

Truly I think there were very few among the Pagans that were so silly and unwise, as to take the very wood and stone they prayed to for a God, but for the Image of that God they prayed to, towards which they doing their devotions hoped to be heard. There might be some so sottish amongst them, as I have heard a story long since of an old woman amongst you, who having done her devoti∣ons to the Image of the Virgin, and being asked by one that stood by, what Lady she prayed to, to her in the Church, or to her in Heaven; what talk you to me, says she, of our Lady in Heaven? I pray to this Lady before my eyes. I will not deny but there may have been such sottish old wives amongst the Pagans too; But assuredly for the most pa•••• neither you nor they profess to pray to the very Image of wood or stone, but to the Prototype it is consecrated to. And now say, whether this Ca∣lumnv of the first magnitude has not melted into a liquid Truth: There is no praying to the Image terminatively but to the Prototype before the Image, in either the Pagan, or Pagano-Christian Religion, unless by such doting old wives as that story goes on. The very meanest and most igno∣rant of the Indians will profess, they do not take their Pa-Gods, or Idols, to be Gods▪ or Worship them as such, but Worship God in

them, as I am certainly informed by a carefull in∣quirer into those things.

His Answer to the fourth Paragraph.

Chemnitius his word, says he, is no proof with us, who is a known Sinon, a person of that tryed in∣tegr••ty, as that he that never trusts him shall be sure never to be deceived by him. This he makes another Calumny.

The Reply.

But this, I say, is a kind of an equivocating form of rayling against a very eminent person, for his great learning and faithfull industry in supporting the Truth. But why a Sinon I pray you?

Si miserum fortuna Sinonem Finxit, vanum etiam mendacemque improba finget.

If he undertook a miserable Cause, destitute of all Truth and solidity, as your Party does in such Points as we are upon, then indeed there were some temptation for him to do as some at least of you do, to use slights, and shifts, and tricks, to foist in, and to expunge by expurgatory Indexes, to feign any thing plausible for your own advan∣tages: but our Cause being firm of it self, we are put to no such devices; but if we were destitute of Truth on our part, would willingly imbrace it where we find it. Or if you could phancy Chem∣nitius

a Sinon, could you phancy him such a fool to quote Consecrations out of a known Pontifical, where every body might see there is no such thing. I am glad I have the Ritual by me, which I make use of in the next Paragraph, that proves that there is such a thing as Consecration of Images in your Church to be prayed before, and the Saint whose Image it is to be invoked before it. But in that Consecration, you will say, there is no mention of Thundring and Lightning, and Storms to be chased away by these Images consecrated. But I beseech you what more of absurdity or incredi∣bility, that the Church of Rome in honour to their Saints should consecrate their Images to these purposes, than that she should consecrate bells to the said uses? as you may see abundantly in Du∣randus his Rationale, lib. 1. cap. 4. Pulsatur & be∣nedicitur Campana ut fruges, mentes & corpora cre∣dentium serventur, procul pellantur hostiles exercitus & omnes insidiae ••nimici, fragor grandinum, procelia turbinum, impetus tempestatum & fulgurum tempe∣••entur, infestaque ton••trua & ventorum flamina su∣spendantur, spiritus procellarum & Aereae Potestates perterreantur, &c. When they consecrate bells to such mighty Powers and effects as these, can any man that is but one remove from a fool, doubt whether they would consecrate the Image of St. John and the blessed Virgin to such like purposes? Their Agnus Dei is also consecrated to the like uses, as you may see in the same Durandus, lib. 6. cap. 79. And in the above said Ritual you may observe I know not how many things to the like

purpose, The Cross, Oyle, Salt, Water, and the like: So that he must be very weak that can misbelieve this Quotation of Chemnitius out of the Pontifical he mentions, or that it is any Calumny to pro∣duce his Testimony, or improper for me to use it, though he be a Protestant, my scope being not onely to grapple with the adverse Party, but also to confirm our own.

His Answer to the fifth Paragraph.

There is no such expression, says he, in the whole Prayer, as Grant O Virgin, or Grant O Saint, but Grant O God. How then do we here make the Virgin and other Saints, fellow-distributers of Grace and Glory with Christ himself? Much less do we make them fellow distributers of Grace and Glory with Christ upon their own Merits, who have no Merits of their own, but such as flow from and have their absolute dependence of the Merits of Christ. And least of all are they here made fellow-distributers of Grace for the service done to them in kneeling and praying before their Statues; there being no such causal as that (For) specified at all in the Prayer.

The Reply.

To all which I Answer, It is true, it is not said▪ Grant O Virgin, nor Grant O Saint, but Grant O God▪ because this is a form of consecration of the Images of Christ, the Virgin or any other Saint; to wit, Prayer to God (not to the Virgin or any other Saint, not made before any of their Images al∣ready consecrated, as he would make his simple

folk believe whom he indeavours to keep in igno∣rance) but is, I say, a Prayer to God, that who∣soever shall invoke Christ, the Virgin, or such a Saint, whose Image is a consecrating, may be heard, and obtain by the Merits and Intercession of the party they pray to, grace here, and glory here∣after. This is the plain sense of the Consecration. And it is plain it is through their own Merits, though they may be supposed inabled so to merit be vertue of Christ. And if an Invocation of the Virgin, or any other Saint, before their Images, by their Merits and Intercession (which is the usual form of Invocation as you may see above) procure Grace here and Glory hereafter, are not they fellow-distributers of Grace and Glory with Christ? And does not the very form of Conse∣cration imply that they are Distributers, that is to say, that the Saints by their Merits and Intercessi∣on do procure Grace here and Glory hereafter for their Suppliants, upon the very account of their earnest and humble supplication to them before their Images, as being a means to this end and therefore Causal thereto? But I do not exclude herein the vertue of the Intercession and Merit of our highest Mediator Jesus Christ no more than the form of Consecration. Yet these notwith∣standing are like the Dii Medioxumi or Daemons of the Heathens, who were the lowest Negotiators of humane affairs with the Divine Powers. So that the strenghth of this Paragraph rests firm for any thing my Antagonist has alledged against it, as any one may perceive who lists to consider on it.

His Answer to the sixth Paragraph.

To that about Wax-candles burning before their Images and the Oblation of Incense smoking before them, he says, I pretend, but do not prove to be Idola∣trous, and that therefore it is a Calumny. To that of Temples and Altars he says again, they erect them to God alone, reserving onely a secundary ho∣nour for the Saints. This is the sum against this Paragraph.

The Reply.

To the first, I Reply, That it is very plain that burning of Incense was a Sacrifice to God in the Mosaical Law, which Incense was burnt before His symbolical Presence in the Sanctum Sanctorum, And I add also that the lighting the Lamps before him in the same place was another part of this Mosaical service to him, which is some-how imi∣tated by the Pagans in lighting Candles before the Images of their Daemons. In both which respects it is plain, that to do thus to the Images of the Saints is Idolatrous. And by thus doing the Saints are intended to be honoured according to the very Nicene Council, that presently upon the mention thereof, says, The honour done to the Image passes to the Prototype: wherefore that these actions are Ido∣latrous is plain already, and is more clearly confirm∣ed from the third Conclusion of the first Chapter▪ and the ninth of the second.

To the Second, I Reply, That the very Ru∣brick of the Ritual I have so often named (in the form of consecrating and laying the first stone of the Church) says thus, Nominando Sanctum vel Sanctam in cujus honorem ac nomen fundatur Ecclesia. Is not this plainly a consecration to the honour and name of the Saint? And again in the Form of conse∣crating the Church and the Altar, Te rogamus ut hanc Ecclesiam & Altare ad honorem tuum & women Sancti tui N. pargare & benedicere digneris, where questionless [ad nomen Sancti] includes honorem in it, which was expresly signified before in the consecrating the Foundation-stone, and is also in∣cluded in the signification of nomen. We do not pretend that you equalize the Saints, in these do∣ings, with God himself, but that you make them partake of true Religious Worship, though in a less share or in a more secundary way, with God in these dedications of Temples and Altars to them as well as to God, though not principally, or equal∣l••. Suppose a Pantheon dedicated to Jupiter and the rest of the Gods, no man would say it was dedica∣ted with equal honour to the rest as to him, and yet the dedicating of it to the rest would be Ido∣latry, as being Religious Worship as well as his, though not at the same pitch; wherefore these ex∣cuses are very weak and insignificant.

His Answer to the seventh Paragraph.

I shall not foul my paper with taking notice of such uns••emly brothel-language as fills up his next page.

It is enough to say, it is more than becomes a modest Doctor. This is all to this Paragraph.

The Reply.

Certainly if this Paragraph were not before the Readers eyes to peruse, he would think the Doctor a man of very soul and obscene lan∣guage. If it be the language of the holy men of God in the Scripture, If it be not more than becomes a modest Prophet, a modest St. John, Apoc. 17. 2, 4. a modest Jeremy or Ezeki••l to compare Idolatry to whoredom in broader terms than I have done, certainly what I have said here is not more than becomes a modest Doctor. But it is the Policy of my Adversary to fling away with a seeming disdain from what he knows not how to Answer. For this plain Similitude pinches hard and carries along with it a demonstration, that the Council of Trent have not taken away Idolatry from their way of honouring of Images, but confirmed it. He slips by my eighth Para∣graph also, as conscious it is too true what I ut∣ter in that similtude likewise. And I hope he now sees more clear than ever, that the pr••••ence of honouring Images is quite to be cast out of the Church, there being no good sense to be made of it any way.

His Answer to the ninth Paragraph.

To that of the smiling, and lowring Images, he says, That I charge their Church with connivence at such

Vnchristian Impostures as have ever been the Ob∣ject of her s••arpest Censures, not backing my Ac∣cusation with any single Instance. To the Veronica and to O Crux spes Unica, he Answers; To the first, that it is no part of any Ecclesiastick Of∣fice. To the second, that I might as well compare the Invoking God Almighty before the Ark of the Cove••ant to this devotion of speaking to the Cross, as the praying before Images, and make them both alike talking with a stock or stone. This is the main of his Answer in brief: If there be any further pretense of Reason, I shall mention it and meet with it in my Reply.

The Reply.

To the first I Reply, That it is a witty fetch to require of me an Instance of connivence at a fault which, as soon as it is known, is no interest of them that are to punish it to connive any longer at it. For those smiling, lowring and eye-rowling Images, so soon as they are deprehended to be such by Art and not by Miracle, they loose the effect they are intended for, which is to bring more plenteous Oblations to the Church. But for as much as these tricks of the Images cannot but be known to the wise of the Clergy, the Bi∣shop and others under him, to be tricks and not Miracles, and they suffering them till open disco∣very or complaint, why may they not be said to connive at them? or why was I bound to bring an Instance of their connivence in so short a

Treatise, more than my Adv••rsary of any sharp Cen∣sure of their Church against these Impostures? which he being deficient in••, I will help him with one Instance here in our own Nation in the time of Popery.

In the Abbey Church at Boxley there were two famous Images, one of St. Rumwald, a stone sta∣tue of the bigness of a little boy, the other was called the Ro••d of Grace. There was no admission here but upon a treble Oblation, one to the Con∣fessor, the other to St. Rumwald the touch-stone of clean life, and the last to the Rood of Grace. Now to those that offered frankly to St. Rumwald it was most easie to lif•• him; but on the contrary (by reason of a pin which the keepers could put in and take out at their pleasure) to those that offered faintly, it was immovable. So that it was a plea∣sant spectacle to the by-standers, to see a great lubber not able to lift that which a boy or a girle had taken up before. But he was made heavy to those whose Offerings were light, and light to those whose Offerings were more weighty. But they having passed this tryal of clean life, they then were admitted to the Rood of Grace. In which Image stood a man inclosed, and with many wyres made the Image goggle with the eyes, and nod the head, move and shake the jaws, according to the value of the gi••t that was offered. If it was a small piece of silver he would hang the lip. If it were a piece of gold then would his jaws go right merrily. Thus were the people abused and begui∣led for a certain time.

I but you will say, certainly some of the Pre∣lates, so soon as it was discovered, severely punished the Imposture. Nay I will tell you more, One of the Prelates discovered it, namely Arch∣bishop Cranmer, and the Image with all its engins was openly shewed at Pauls Cross, and torn in pieces by the people. Did not I tell you so? will my Adversary reply; But in the mean time let me tell him again, that it is well known how incli∣nable then Archbishop Cranmer was to Protestant∣ism, if not a Protestant in his judgement. But we speak of the Connivence of the Popish Clergy in this point, and desire one Instance of any such discovery of Imposture by them, that could any longer have been concealed. And if not, where is the Calumny of Connivence?

And for the Prayer to the Veronica, be it no part of any Ecclesiastick Office, yet it is in your approved Devotion-books, such as Hortulus Ani∣mae; and this Veronica is showd solemnly once a year to the people to spend their devotion on; and lastly Pope Iohn the 22d. is said to have granted a thousand years indulgence to them that repeat the whole Prayer, of which I have set down but a third part.

And in the last place, For that he says, The praying before the Ark to God Almighty (which Ark and the things in it and about it are wood) may as well be said to be talking with stocks and stones as the praying before the Image of a Saint and the Cross in such formes as are used to them, is a most sensless and absurd speech, to

say no worse. For the disparity is manifest. For did the Jews ever say, O Ark hear me, or, O Cherubims hear me. But here is plainly speaking to the Cross, which is but a piece of wood, (in this form) Hail O Cross our onely Hope, increase righteousness to the righteous, and pardon our sins. Besides, neither Ark nor Cherubim was in their sight to speak to, But the Image of St. Peter, or the Blessed Virgin is before their eyes, and they bear the names of these Saints, (as the Image of Christ does his; of which one Johannes in the Nicene Council declares, if any one call it or inscribe upon it, This is Christ, he does nothing amiss therein) and are as it were these very Saints represented to us in Figure and Person; and therefore when we speak to these wooden Personages, saying, O blessed Virgin, O holy St. Peter, &c. is not this infinitely more like talking to stocks and stones, then when the Jews having their faces toward the Ark, which yet was vailed from them, mentioned God alone? nor was there any wood-work, nor stone-work there, that was called God or Jeho∣vah. But what will not they say, that are in a bad Cause, to make a show to desend them∣selves?

But for O Crux ave spes Vnica, he would excuse the gross absurdity of it, (For none can excuse the Idolatry, when they yield Latria to the true Cross and contend what kind of Religious Worship is due to the Type of it) by saying that by Crux here is not meant the Cross but Christ crucified on the Cross. So that it is but a figurative speech,

The Cross for Christ upon the Cross, Metonymis subject••; as it is used, 1 Cor. 1. 18. For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness, that is, says he, Christ crucified on the Cross. But it is immediately in the former verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, left the Cross of Christ be made of none effect, Then immediately follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is plainly an Ellipsis, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And so the whole is, For the preaching of the Cross of Christ, &c. As it is taken, Gal. 6. 24. God forbid that I should glory in any thing saving in the Cross of our Lord Iesus Christ, whereby the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world. This is that which is foolish∣ness to them that perish, but the Power of God to them that are saved. So that there is no ground for a Metony••nia Subjecti, when an Ellipsis is so naturally understood, which will not at all serve his purpose. And the Metonymy indeed very poorly.

For it does not follow, because by a figurative speech the Subject may be put for the Adjunct; or the Symbol for the Person it is compared to in speech, that therefore we may (and yet seem to be in our wits) make Prayers or speeches to these Subjects or Symbols. The Cherubims are the seat of the Divine Presence; should the Jews therefore have said by a Metonymy, O golden Cherubims come and help us? And because men talk of the infallible chair at Rome, meaning the Popes, would any but a mad man propound questi∣ons to the chair, and not to the Pope himself,

to be resolved? And our Saviour Christ says, Apoc. 22. I am the bright morning Star, which is a figurative speech; Can therefore any one with eyes and hands lift up to the morning Star, say unto it, O bright morning Star illuminate my un∣derstanding, increase righteousness to the righte∣ous, and pardon our sins, but he will be lookt upon as an Idolater and Star-worshipper? and to say he means Christ the morning Star will not ex∣cuse him from mere madness and delirancy, if it could from Idolatry. And how much better, I pray, is it to speak to a piece of wood? nay, to the figure of another piece of wood? For Christ was not crucified on the wood they speak to. But by speaking to this piece of wood, they would be understood to speak to another piece of wood on which Christ was crucified at Ierusalem; nor yet to that piece of wood neither, but to Christ hanging on the wood, and that now at such a time as he is off of the wood, and is in Heaven to be spoke to himself as a gracious Intercessor, that we may not call on this stock or that stone, but make our immediate addresses to him in word and heart, that he would be graciously pleased to intercede with his Father for us.

To all which you may add, That comparing this passage of the Prayer with that which goes before, Arbor decora & fulgida, Electa digno stipite Tam sancta membra tangere; Beata cujus brachiis secli pependit pretium, and how within a line or two after follows, O Crux ave spes Vnica, &c. it is demonstratively plain, that it is the Cross it

it self, not Christ meant in this passage; unless you will make Christ his own Cross to hang upon, and make him distinct from his own Body and members. Whence the Absurdity and Ido∣latry of this devotion is most clearly manifest, and that it is no Calumny to charge them with it. The rest of this Section is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if you will, and I will leave my Anta∣gonist to injoy himself in the reek and perfume thereof.