The Reply.

The Doctor Answers, that the Name may be a symbol, as Aristotle has defined. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aword or Name may be a symbol of that conception I have in my mind, says Aristotle, but he says nothing of its being a symbol of the external Object. But let that go; Though it be a symbol, yet it is very unnatural to conceive it a symbolical Presence, not is any where called so, nor accounted so by any one. Besides, a symbolical Presence must be a standing permanent representation of that which it is the symbolical Presence of, consecrated and intended for that purpose. How unna•ural therefore is it to conceit a name, that is no sooner sounded but vanishes from the senses, to be a symbolical Pre∣sence, but onely a meer note or symbol to help our memories, and to be part of speech and dis∣course: So plain is it, there is not the same reason of the Image of Jesus, and the Name of Jesus. No• is the second Commandment against bowing to sounds but Images: Nor do we, which is best of all, bow to the Name of Jesus, but at the Name of Jesus, as I an∣swered above. And if it could be proved that the Name of Jesus were a symbolical Presence of one kind, as my Adversary phrases it; so long as it is not of that kind my nineteenth Conclusion speaks of, and founded on the second Commandment, what is it to the purpose? Or if it were included, unless that of the second to the Philippians commanded to bow Page  99 to it in such a sense, which my Adversary will be never able to prove, what will it avail? But I have even over-answered this Objection. And it is al∣ready too too manifest, that though bowing at the Name of Jesus be no Idolatry, bowing to the Image of Jesus may be palpable Idola••y.