THE Factious and Unchristian Temper of our Age has so unhappily spread it self thro' all Ranks of Men, that even those, whose business ought to be the Advance­ment of Piety, have not escap'd it's ma­lignant Influence. And this they evidence too clearly to the world, whilst They shew themselves so industri­ous in multiplying the number of many needless Conten­tions in the Church, instead of endeavouring to lessen and abate them. This is the Misfortune of him, who under­takes to assert the Antiquity of the Protestant Religion concerning Images, in Answer to a Dozen Leaves of Nubes Testium: Who because he is a Profess'd and Virulent Enemy to Catholics, seems resolv'd to contradict and Ridicule, in a strain of Drollery more becoming the Stage than his Coat, every thing they Believe and Teach, tho' it be the very Doctrin of his own Church. And like a Blind Combatant strikes at all before him, without di­stinction of Friend and Enemy, with a Have at all. At this Game plays this Undertaker; whose only care be­ing [Page 4] to write an Answer in FULL, Answers, and Con­demns even those Practices, as are allow'd and approv'd by his own Church; and in this new Method of Contro­versie spends the greatest part of his Twelve-penny Pam­phlet: So that tho' he pretends to be a Son of the Church of England, yet whosoever considers, how often he strikes that Church in the Face, must needs question the Legitimation, and necessarily conclude, that 'tis Uncer­tain What Church he is of, whilst the only thing Cer­tain is, That he is No Papist. This whole matter, as to his needless multiplying of Controversies, and opposing the Doctrin and Practice of the Church of England, as well as that of the Church of Rome, I'll shew briefly in declaring, what the Church of Rome and England teach concerning,

• 1. The Historical Use of Sacred Images.
• 2. The Commemorative Use of Images.
• 3. The Respect and Honor due to Images.

In all which if it be made appear that the Two Churches agree, there will need but little more, to prove This Answerer a Trisler, whilst he so laboriously sets him­self against both; and at the end of all, says nothing to the purpose.

1. As to the Historical Ʋse of Images, 'tis the Profess'd Doctrin and Practice of the Church of Rome, to have the Pictures and Images of Holy Things and Passages both in Houses and Churches, for the instruction of the Ignorant in the knowledge of the History of both the Old and New Testament; that so they may be acquain­ted with those Sacred Persons of Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles, and be inform'd of the Wonderful Works wrought by God in Mans Creation and Redemption. This appears in the Council of Trent Sess. 25 and in the Catechism ad Parochos part. 3. de Invoc. Sanc. par. 40. [Page 5] Both which agree, that Holy Pictures and Images are made, to inform the People of the History of Holy Writ, and that for this end they are set up in Churches and o­ther Places.

This same Historical Ʋse of Holy Images is conform like­wise to the Doctrin and Practice of the Church of Eng­land, as is evident in Mr. Montagu's Appeal to Caesar, who declaring the Church of England's Own, Proper, True and Antient Tenets, (Ep. Ded. to the King) such as be with­out any doubt or question, Legitimate and Genuine, such as she will both acknowledge and maintain for her own, in this Book Authoris'd and Publish'd by Express order of King James and Charles l. and approv'd as containing nothing in it, but what was agreeable to the Doctrin and Dis­cipline establish'd in the Church of England (Ib.) says ex­presly, c. 20. that Images were improv'd unto an Historical Ʋse in St. Gregory's time, and then adds; Had the Church of Rome gon no farther in Practice or Precept, than that which St. Gregory recommends, our Church (says he) I suppose (for so our Doctrin is) would not blame them, nor have departed from them about that Point. And agen chap. 23. Doth the English Church condemn the Historical or Civil use of Images? It do's not (says he) in Practice; all the World knows that; nor yet in Precept or Doctrin, that I know. And at the end of the same Chap­ter, he says, Images may be had and made—ut Ornatui sint, ut Memoriae, ut Historiae; For Ornament, for Com­memoration, and for History; and that they may be made for such Ends, No Law of God forbiddeth, says our Gamaliel, pa. 203. ad Apol. Bel. From whose words, in a Book so Authentic, and approv'd by Two Kings, Heads of the Church, 'tis beyond question, that the Historical Ʋse of Images is agreeable to the Doctrin and Practice of the Church of England. And this do's most Evidently ap­pear [Page 6] to any, that will but put his head into any Church of this Communion, where presently Moyses, and Aaron shew themselves to the Beholder, and let him know the concern they had in Those Commandements, which they there guard betwixt them. This may be seen with great advantage in the Church at the Savoy, where be­sides these Two Saints of the Jewish Law, the Four Evangelists have their place in full proportion between the side Windows, with St. Peter, and St. Stephen, and the Twelve Apostles in twelve Niches on the Front of the Gallery. But above all, the New Church in St. James's in the Fields commends this Practice in a Rare Piece of Workmanship, where the hand of the Artist has set forth to the Life upon the Font, the History of Original Sin, and it's Cure in the Water of Baptism. Adam and Eve stand beneath, Confessing the guilt of that Sin, for which Infants are brought thither to be cleans'd. Round the Bason is seen Christ under the hand of the Baptist in Jordan, authorising the Institution of that Salutary Laver: And over it is an Angel, as it were descending to move the Waters, and to signifie that the efficacy of that Sa­crament is from above. Then if you turn towards the Altar, in one Figure is represented the Institution of the Blessed Sacrament at the Last Supper: The very same which is over the Altar at his Majesties Chappel at White­hal, and for the very same intent, viz. A Pellican feeding her Young ones with her Blood; to signifie what Christ gives to the Faithful, his Children, in the Sacrament, that he feeds them with his Blood. Much more may be seen in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches of this kind, not only in relation to the Old, but New Testament, even the Crucifixion of our Saviour, but especially in the New Common-Prayer-Books, interleav'd with Pictu­res.

[Page 7] 2ly. As to the Commemorative Ʋse of Images, 'tis re­ceiv'd and approv'd in the Church of Rome, as 'tis ex­plicated in the Council of Trent above cited, where 'tis said; That the Use of Holy Images is Beneficial to the People, because by them they are put in mind of the Be­nefits and Blessings receiv'd from Christ; and by seeing the Wonderful Miracles wrought by the Power of God, and the Exemplary Lives of the Saints, they are excited to give God Thanks for such Favors, to love him, and compose their Lives according to the Exemple of such Holy Men. The same is declared in the Catechism ad Parochos, ut sup. where the Parish Priest is directed to inform the People; That Holy Images are plac'd in Churches, to put them in mind of the Divine Mysteries and Blessings, that so they may be more Zealous and At­tentive in the Love and Service of so Good a God. And that by beholding the Representations of the Saints, they may be admonish'd, to conform their Lives to such Ex­amples. Thus teaches the Church of Rome.

The Church of England likewise agrees with her in the same Doctrin and Practice; allowing of Images, as helps to Piety, and for the affecting the minds of the Beholders with Pious Cogitations, and encouraging them to a Vertuous and Exemplary Life. This is most apparent in the Injunctions given by King Edward VI. to his Clergy and Ministers, wherein they are order'd to Instruct the People in their Circuits, that Images serve for Remembrance, whereby Men may be admonish'd of the holy Lives and Conversation of them that the said Images Represent. Which is the very Doctrin now mention'd in the Council of Trent and Catechism ad Parochos. This Mr. Montagu explicates more at large, in his Book call'd A New Gag, &c. where treating of Images, he says to the Papists: Images have these uses assign'd by your Schools— [Page 8] The Instruction of the Ignorant, the Refreshing of Hi­story, and Exciting Devotion: You and WE also give unto them these. And a little after, The Pictures of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and Saints may be made, and had in Houses, set up in Churches. —The Protestants do it, and use them for Helps of Piety. In his Appeal to Caesar like­wise he thus delivers the Sense of the Church of Eng­land in this affair, c. 21. Our strictest Writers, says he, do not condemn or censure St. Gregory for putting upon them (Images) that Historical use of suggesting unto, moving or affecting the mind even in Pious and Religious Affections: For Instance, in Remembring more feelingly, and so being empassion'd more effectually, with the Death, Blood-shed and Bitter Passion of our Saviour, when we see that Story fully and lively Represented unto us in Colors, or Work by a Skil­ful hand. And I know not the Man that is made of human Mold, but when he readeth on this (Painted) Book, his Tragical Endurances for Man, will reflect upon himself, and his own Soul and Conscience, with a Lively apprehension of Man's Sin, God's Love, Christ's endeared Charity, in un­dergoing these unknown Sufferings for our sake. Thus this Eminent Author most feelingly explicates the Pious use of Holy Images, as proper for the suggesting Good Thoughts, and inflaming the Soul with most Christi­an Affections, in order to the Love and Service of God.

In this the Reader may behold, how little Difference, or rather how great an Agreement there is between the Legitimate and Genuin Doctrin of the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, as to these two first Points mention'd, viz. The Historical and Commemorative Ʋse of Sacred Images. Now when a Member of the Church of Rome has endeavor'd to shew, that this Doctrin as to the Historical and Commemorative Ʋse of Holy Images is [Page 9] agreeable to the Antient Church, as is done in Nubes Testium; who could ever expect, that any Member of the Church of England, much less a Divine, should appear, bidding Defiance to such Doctrin, with endeavors to shew the Practice of it to be Heathenish, Heretical, and but a Popish In­vention? Could a Man think, that any Church of England Divine would take so much pains to abuse and Ridicule his own Church? Certainly he must be either very Ignorant of what his own Church teaches; or very blindly Malicious against the Church of Rome, that to expose her, should not care what Mischief he did his own Mother Church. But thus it happens sometimes, when Men are guid­ed by Passion instead of Truth and Reason; 'tis impossible to avoid these Absurdities, when such Bitter Spirits take Pen in hand, who look no further in Answering, than to Contradict their Adversa­ry, right or wrong. And how far this Answerer has done this, 'twill be not amiss in this Place to consider.

1st. Then he pretends to shew, pa. 20. That the first making of Pictures among Christians proceeded partly from the Example of some HERETICS. This Bolt he shoots against the Papists: But will not any Reader presently reflect, that if Pictures in Churches, be not a Christian Institution, but the Corruption of Heretics; that the Church of Eng­land, for all the Pictures they set up in their Churches, follow not Christ and his Apostles, as they pretend, but the Invention of Heretics? And what Credit is this to his Church?

2ly. He asserts ib. that the making Pictures a­mong [Page 10] Christians had it's Origin principally from the Fond Inclinations of those, who being Converted from Heathenism to Christianity, retain'd still an old relish and love of those Superstitious▪ Practices, to which they had been accustom'd so long. Is not this to let the Person of Quality, to whom he writes, know; that the Church of England, in using and allowing Sacred Pictures of Christ, his Apostles, &c. (as is shewn above) in Houses and Churches, follows not only an Heretical Abuse, but likewise the Super­stitious Practices of Heathens?

3ly. He says, that there was no such thing, pa. 15. as the Ʋse of Images in the Primitive Ages. Which is to inform his Reader, that the Church of Eng­land, as to this Point of Images, is faln from the Christianity of the Primitive Times; and that she stands in need of a Reformation.

4ly. He shews pa. 22. that the having Pictures in Churches, is contrary to an Express Canon of the Council of Eliberis, held An. 305. by the Fathers of the Primitive Church. In which he condemns his own Church for contradicting the Positive De­crees of so Antient a Council.

5ly. From the Example of an Antient Bishop renting a Veil or Hanging, whereon was the Image of Christ, he declares, pa. 25. in the words of the Bishop, such Pictures to be contrary to the Authori­ty of the Scriptures. Which is plainly to tell the World, that the Use of Hangings, such as have Christ, or his Saints Represented on them, as may be seen in many Houses, in Cathedral and Colle­giate Churches, are all contrary to the Word of God.

[Page 11] These are some of the Severe Reflections he makes upon his own Church, while he's blindly knocking down Popery. Who could desire a better condition'd Antagonist than this, who is so Good-natur'd, as never to strike at his Adversary, but he gives himself a Blow over the Face at the same time? Has not he fairly defended his own Church, while he thus exposes her under the Guilt of being Heathen­ish, Heretical, going contrary to the Primitive Church, to Councils and Scriptures, which is the Blackest of that Dirt, he has done his best to cast upon the Church of Rome? Hitherto the Reader has seen the Doctrin of the Church of Rome and of England, as far as concerns the Two First Points, viz. the Historical and Commemorative Use of Holy Images; and how this Worthy Answerer, with some wrest­ed and misapply'd Passages of Antiquity, strikes most rashly at Both Churches; not caring, so he can but overthrow the Church of Rome, what other Church, tho' his own, falls with her. Now we will consider the Third Point, which is of the Honor and Respect due to these Images of Christ, &c. And as to this,

The Church of Rome teaches, that the Images of Christ, &c. ought to be kept, especially in Churches, and DUE Honor and Veneration given them: Not for that any Divinity or Vertue is be­liev'd to be in them, for which they are to be Worship'd; or that any thing is to be Asked of them, or any Confidence to be placed in them, as was done by the Heathens; but because the Honor shewn to them is referr'd to the Prototypes, or Things Represented by them: So that by the Ima­ges [Page 12] we Kiss, and before which we Kneel, we Adore Christ and Reverence his Saints, whom the said Images Represent. So the Council of Trent de­livers this Doctrin, Sess. 25. The like is shewn in the Catechism ad Parochos, ubi sup. And the whole meaning of it is nothing more, than what was given at large by Leontius Bishop of Cyprus, who flourish'd An. 620. that is, above a Thousand and threescore years ago; who thus makes his Apolo­gy for the Christians against the Jews, who charg'd them with the breach of the second Command­ment, in giving honor to Images. ‘The Pictures and Images, says he, of the Saints are not ador'd amongst us, like Gods. For if I Worship'd the Wood of an Image, as God, I might as well do the like to any other Wood: If I honor'd the Wood as God, I would never throw it into the fire, when the Image is once disfigur'd.—As therefore he that has receiv'd a Commission from his Prince, and kisses the Seal, dos not respect the Wax, the Paper or the Lead, but gives the Honor to the King; so we Christians, when we shew Respect to the Figure of the Cross, do not honor the Nature of the Wood, but the Sign, the Pledge, the Remem­brance of Christ; through this beholding him, who was Crucified on it, we respect and Adore him. And as Children, full of a dear Affection to their Father, who is Absent from them, do kiss with Tears, and with all Tenderness embrace his Stick, his Chair, his Coat, which they see at home; and yet do not adore these things, but ex­press their Desire and Honor they have for their Father: Just so do all we Faithful honor the Cross, [Page 13] as Christs Staff; the most Holy Sepulcher, as his Chair and Couch, the Manger and Bethleem as his House, &c. Not that we honor the Place, the House, the Country, the City or the Stones, but Him that was Conversant amongst them, who appear'd in our Flesh, and deliver'd us from Error, Christ our Lord; and for Christ we honor those Things, which belong to him, describing his Passion in our Churches, in our Houses, in the Streets, in Images, upon our Linen, in our Chambers, upon our Cloths, and upon every Place, to the end that having these continually before our Eyes, we may be put in mind, and not like thee (O Jew) forget our Lord and God. As you therefore expressing a veneration for the Book of the Law, do not Honor the Paper or Ink of which 'tis compos'd, but the Word of God contain'd in it: So I, shew­ing Reverence to the Image of Christ, do not Adore (no, God forbid) the Wood or the Colors; but having an Inanimate Representation of Christ, by this seem to be possess'd of, and to Worship Christ himself. As Jacob having receiv'd the par­ty-color'd and Bloody Coat of his Son Joseph, kiss'd it, full of Tears, and put it to his Eyes; not doing this for any Love or Honor he had for the Coat; but by this seeming to kiss Joseph, and hold him in his Arms: So all Christians, hold­ing or kissing any Image of Christ, of his Apo­stles or Martyrs, do the like to Christ himself, or his Martyrs, in the affection of their Souls.’ By all which 'tis evident, that all the Honor and Ve­neration paid by Catholics to any Picture or Image of Christ or his Martyrs, is only to express the [Page 14] Love and Honor they have for Christ and his Mar­tyrs; and that in thus doing, they no more com­mit Idolatry, or make Gods of those Pictures, than that Woman is disloyal to her Husband, who in affection to him, respects and kisses his Picture; than that Subject is a Traytor to his Prince, who Honors his Portraiture; or than all those, who pay a Reverence to the Chair of State, for the Rela­tion it has to the King, make a King of the Chair, in so doing. This then is the Doctrin and Practice of the Church of Rome.

The Church of England seems to concur with the Church of Rome in all this Point. This may be gather'd partly out of the Ecclesiastical Ca­nons agreed to An. 1603. in the First year of King James I. where Can. 30. 'tis said, That the Holy Ghost did so Honor by the mouths of the A­postles, the very NAME of the Cross, that it did not only comprehend even Christ Crucified under that Name, but likewise the efficacy of Christ's Death and Passion, &c. In which words this Church acknow­ledges, the Giving Honor to the NAME of the Cross to have been the Practice of the Apostles, as they were inspir'd by the Holy Ghost. And that the Name of the Cross, was not only to put them in mind of the Person, whom they were to Wor­ship (as a Modern Doctor says of the Name of Jesus,) but that the Holy Ghost did by the Apostles, Honor the very NAME it self. Spiritus S. per Apostolorum ora, ipsum Crucis Nomen usque adeo ho­noravit. And in honoring that Name, did honor Christ Crucified; Christum ipsum Crucifixum sub eodem comprehenderet. Which is the very Practice [Page 15] and Sense of Catholics, both as to the Name of the Cross, of Jesus, and of Pictures; Names or Words being Pictures to the Ear, as Pictures are Words to the Eye.

But it comes nearer our Case, what is added in the same Canone 2^o. Honor ac Dignitas Crucis Nomini acquisita, etiam & SIGNO Crucis, vel ipsa Aposto­lorum aetate (neque enim contrarium ostendi potest) existimationem peperit Honorificam. The Honor and Esteem shewn to the NAME of the CROSS, did pro­duce even in the Age of the Apostles, an honorable Esteem likewise for the SIGN of the Cross; neither can any thing contrary to this be prov'd. What can be plainer, than that according to this Canon, 'tis the Sense of the Church of England, that the Primitive Christians were taught by the Apostles, not only to Honor the Name of the Cross, but like­wise the SIGN of the Cross? And certainly, if according to this Church, the Apostles taught their Followers, to honor in their Hearts and Souls the Sign of the Cross, it can neither be contrary to the Apostles, nor this Church, to do so now, and to express this Honor outwardly, which they are thus taught to conceive inwardly, and entertain in their hearts. 'Tis an Absurdity sure too great, to fall upon the Church of England, thus absolutely to approve the Affection of Honor and Esteem to­wards the Sign of the Cross in Christians Hearts, as both a Christian Duty and an Apostolical Doct­rin; and then afterwards, to condemn the same Honor and Affection of the Soul, as Idolatry and Superstition, when 'tis express'd Outwardly, either in Words or Gesture: For how is it possible, that [Page 16] what is Apostolical in the Heart, should, by being express'd outwardly, become Idolatrous?

This Doctrin is deliver'd more expresly by Mr. Montague, who in his Book call'd a New Gag, thus declares the Express Tenet of Catholics and of his own Church, p. 318. You say the Pictures of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and Saints, must not have Latria; So We. You give them Dulia; I quarrel not the Term, tho' I could. There is a Respect due unto, and Honor given Relatively to them. If this you call Dulia, We give it too. Let Practice and Doctrin go together, We agree. Nay he shews farther, 'tis impossible to keep or set up the Pictures of Christ or his Saints, without having a REVER­ENCE and HONOR for them, in due kind. Hear him in his own words, in his Appeal to Caesar, c. 21.

But it has distasted some (says he) that RE­SPECT and HONOR should be given unto them (Images of Christ.) Strange it should displease any, that can approve of any, be it but a Civil use of them. I cannot tell; unless Men would ins [...]ntly have them pull'd down in all places, demolish'd, stamp'd to powder, whosesoever, whatsoever, wheresoever. The setting of them up, suffering them to stand, using them for Or­naments, for helps of Memory, of Affection, of Re­memoration, cannot be abstracted, to my Ʋnderstan­ding, from Reverence and Honor Simply, in due kind. Can a Man have the True Representation of his Prince, Parents, Patrons, &c. without Awe, Respect, Re­gard, Love, Reverence, moved by Aspect, and wrought in him? I profess my Imperfection, or what they will call it, it is so with me. Unco impacto in Latrinas, [Page 17] in Gemonias, in malam Crucem, the Pictures, Statues, Paintings, Representations, of Christ, the Virgin, Apostles, Martyrs, Holy Men and Women; unless the very having and preserving of them, do in some sort imply RESPECT, REGARD and HO­NOR done unto them, without offence justly given, without Scandal, or Inclination to Impiety. Then he urges the Truth of this Doctrin with the words of Junius. Junius, says he, was no Papist; not in your opinion, I hope. He in his Animadversions upon Bellarmin de Imaginibus, says, Hoc nemo NOST­RƲM dicit, non esse COLENDAS, nec ullo modo. Suo modo COLI probamus, velut Imagines; at non religioso cultu, qui aut superstitiosus est, aut impius; nec cùm aliorum scandalo, sive Cultus se­paratus sive conjunctus cum eorum Cultu intelligatur, quorum sunt Imagines. None of us say, that Ima­ges are no ways to be worship'd. We prove that they are to be worship'd in a way peculiar to them, as Images, but not with a Religious Worship, which is either Superstitious or Impious: Neither to the scandal of o­thers, whether the Worship be understood the same, or different from that which is given to the things Re­presented by them.

Thus this Learned Man delivers and defends the Doctrin of his Church in relation to the Images of Christ and his Saints, against the Arguments of some Informers, which he thinks to be no other than Puritans, and at best, some FƲRIOƲS ONES of his own Church, or SINGƲLAR ILLUMINATES, as he terms them, ib. c. 20. And now what great difference here in this Point between the Two Churches? The Council of Trent [Page 18] says, that Images of CHRIST, &c. ought to be set up in Churches, and DƲE HONOR and VE­NERATION given them. The Church of England (by Mr. Montague) says, that the Images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saints, may be set up in Churches; RESPECT and HO­NOR may be given them in Due kind; The using them for helps of Memory, of Affection, of Reme­moration cannot be abstracted from REVER­ENCE and HONOR simply, in DƲE kind. The Catechism ad Parochos says, These Images are set up in Churches, ut Colantur, that they may be Honor'd or Worship'd; that is, in due kind. The Protestants say (by Junius) None of us deny, but they may be Honor'd or Worship'd in their kind: Nay more, We prove, They are to be Worship'd in some manner, that is, as Images. Both Churches then agree, that Sacred Images may be set up in Churches; that a Respect, Honor and Reverence is due to them, in their kind; and both concur in terming this Honor or Reverence, Cultus or Wor­ship, i. e. in it's kind, Suo modo. Junius expres­sing it due, velut Imagines, as they are Images, The Council of Trent, because they Represent Christ, &c. which is upon the very same reason and ground.

Besides this, 'tis agreed by both Churches, that this Reverence shewn to these things, is founded purely upon the Relation they have to God, and is terminated finally upon him. This as to the Church of Rome, appears from what is al­ready quoted out of the Council of Trent: And as to the Church of England, from the words of [Page 19] Montagu above mention'd. And from Bishop Jewel, who (in Rep. ag. Hard.) says; We Wor­ship the Sacrament, the Word of God, we Worship all other things in such Religious wise to Christ be­longing. And then afterwards giving the Rea­son: The Sacraments be Ador'd (says▪ he) but the whole Honor resteth not in them, but is passed over from them to the things Signified. Which is the very Relative Honor mention'd so often by Ca­tholic Divines. And this Divinity is found like­wise in some Modorn Church-Men, as Dr. Stilling­fleet, who (in his Def. ag. T. G. pa. 600.) says, that Altho' no Irrational or Inanimate Being be ca­pable of that real Excellency, to deserve any Honor from us for it's own sake; yet such things may have a Relation to matters of so High a Nature, as to deserve a different Ʋsage and Regard from other things: And this afterwards he terms a Reverence, and, if I may so call it, a Religious Respect to Sa­cred Places and Things. In which words, tho' there's some Mincing it; yet it delivers in some manner the whole Doctrin of Catholics.

The two Churches thus agreeing in the lawful­ness of placing Images in Churches, and that an Honor, or Reverence, or even Worship in it's kind, is necessarily due to them, as they serve for helps to Piety; of Affection or Rememoration, and have Relation to God. The Answerer of these leaves of Nubes Testium, lets fly at all this, like one of Montagu's FƲRIOƲS ONES, or SINGƲ ­LAR ILLƲMINATES. He runs it down, under the Name of IMAGE-WORSHIP; and is sure, with this very Word alone, so far to pre­vail [Page 20] upon the Ignorant and Vulgar at least (with whom, by his loose arguing, he seems chiefly concern'd) as to gain their Votes, in crying down the Papists for Idolaters; and then his Business is done. Upon this strain he runs to the end of his Pamphlet, proving that Image-Worship is contrary to Fathers, to Antiquity, to Councils; Image-Worship, Image-Worship, is all the Cant: But never tells, what this Image-Worship is; and never re­flects, that his own Church is for an Image-Worship too.

Thus unhappily in the midst of Dust and Noise he manages the Controversie with the Papists, without ever Stating the Question, or declaring what the Papists hold, unbecoming a Scholar; and multiplying many Needless Contentions, unbecom­ing a Christian.

If he had examin'd the Doctrin of his own Church, and understood what Catholics teach, he would have soon discover'd the vanity of this Engage­ment; and found, that after so much bustle upon this matter, there's but little more in't, besides Fighting about Names and Words; and that how­ever tolerable this may be in a School for a Logic Dispute, 'tis unworthy of a Divine, who pre­tends to be a Preacher of the Gospel of Peace.

'Tis already here made out to any unprejudic'd Considerer, that, according to the Doctrin of Pro­testants, especially those of the Church of England, 'tis impossible to separate even the Historical Use of Holy Images, from a Respect and Reverence which necessarily follows them: Much less can they serve as Helps to Piety, for the exciting Devotion, and [Page 21] bringing to mind the Persons Represented, but they force from the beholders an Interior Love and Honor; so that, as 'tis impossible, for a Good Sub­ject to have by him the Picture of his Prince and of a Traytor, without being differently affected in his Soul towards them, even in the very same manner, as he is to the Persons they Represent. So neither can a Faithful and Good Christian, be­hold the Pictures or other Representations of Christ, of Judas, of Mahomet, but his Soul will be different­ly mov'd towards them with Love, Respect, Ho­nor, Veneration, on the one side; with Indignation and Contempt on the other, as he finds himself affected to the Persons Represented by them. Thus far is acknowledg'd by Protestants, and may be gather'd from what is above cited out of Montagu and Junius. Catholics say the same, and so cannot be censur'd or condemn'd for this. What then is their Crime? The Charge urg'd against them is, that they shew this same Honor and Veneration outwardly to these Holy Images of Christ, the Apostles, &c. They kiss them, pull off their Hats, they Bow, they Kneel, Burn Tapers, Incense, and Pray before them: This is the Crime, this the Image-Worship and Idolatry of the Catholics.

And here, in their behalf, and to bring this Voluminous Controversie into a Narrower Com­pass, I must ask of the Answerer; If it be lawful for Protestants and Catholics to have an INTE­RIOR Respect, Honor and Reverence for Holy Images, as appears evidently confess'd above; how comes it to be so Ʋnlawful and Abominable for Catholics to signifie and express outwardly this same Respect, [Page 22] Honor and Reverence, which is so Commendable for all Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, to have Inwardly in their Souls? Certainly, That Honor and Reverence, which in the Heart is Chri­stian, cannot but be Christian in the Expression: And 'tis very absur'd, to think a Duty can become Idolatry by professing it. If a Christian has a great­er Reverence in his Soul, for the Book of the Holy Scriptures, than for any other Book whatsoever, may not he lawfully express this Reverence by Kissing it? If the Woman in the Gospel, respects and Honors in her Heart the Hem of our Savi­ours Garment; is the Kissing that Hem, any more Idolatry, than was that Affection and Reverence she had in her Soul towards it? If a Christian has a Respect and Reverence even for the House of God, or Church, above other Houses, that are not De­dicated to his Service; may not he shew this Re­spect, by Ʋncovering his Head? If a Christian Ho­nors the Communion-Table above other Prophane Tables; may not this Honor be exteriourly pro­fess'd, by setting Candles on it, and Plate, and adorning it with Hangings, and then Bowing to it, without a Crime?

If a Christian Reverences and Honors in his Heart the NAME of Jesus, or of the Cross, as the Church of England says the Apostles did; can it be Idolatry outwardly to profess this same Honor, by Bowing or Bending the Knee? And if he Respects the Sacrament, may not he shew this exteriorly, by receiving it Kneeling? And if these Exterior Professions and Acknowledgments of the Interior Respect, Honor and Reverence that is due to these [Page 23] things, may be thus commendably shewn, by Kissing, Ʋncovering the Head, by Tapers, Orna­ments, Bowing and Kneeling, without any Abomi­nation in the sight of God, or just Scandal to our Neighbor; why may not the like Interior Respect and Honor, acknowledg'd due to Holy Represen­tations of Christ or his Saints, be profess'd outward­ly by the same Visible Expressions of Respect and Reverence: Especially since what is done to all these things, is upon no other account, than the Relation they have to God, and as appertaining to him and his Service?

Neither let the Answerer think to take Sanctuary, in calling this Veneration shewn to Pictures and Images of Christ, a Worship, as an Image-Worship: For however this may work upon the Mobile and Unthinking Crowds, and fill their heads with a Notion of Idolatry; yet every Man of Sense and unbiass'd Judgment knows, that this word Wor­ship is equivocal, and that 'tis not every thing is presently made an Idol of, which is any ways said to be Worship'd: As is shewn at large in The Pap. Misrep. 2. Part. c. 5, 6. For 'tis not only the Ho­nor, which Catholics shew to Holy Images, is call'd a Worship; but likewise that is a Worship, which Protestants give; as is own'd by Junius above; so that in this Sense Protestants may be said and prov'd to be Image-Worshipers too. The Reverence likewise shew'd by Protestants to the Sacrament, is call'd by Jewel (Rep. to Hard.) a Worship: The Honor given to the Bible he stiles a Worship. In the same way of speaking, the Respect to the Communion-Table may be term'd a Worship; Bow­ing [Page 24] in Reverence to the Name of Jesus may be styl'd a Worship. And in this Sense, 'twill not only be laid to the Church of England's charge, that she teaches and approves Image-Worship; but likewise Bread Worship, Book-Worship, Table-Worship, and Name-Worship: And 'twill not be very difficult, by the equivocation of this word, and the help of a little Pulpit-Sophistry, to paint out This Church as Black with Idolatry and Supersti­tion, to the People, as she has done the Church of Rome.

And it do's not at all reflect upon the Church of Rome, or her Doctrin, that some of her Divines call this Respect, Honor, Veneration or Worship paid to Holy Images a Religious Respect, or Ho­nor, &c. For this is only a Dispute about a Word; and let it be call'd by what Name they please, whe­ther Honorary, Religious, or Divine, this alters not the Nature of the thing; for 'tis but the same thing, by whatsoever Name it be express'd. If some will have every Respect or Veneration, shewn to Holy Things, as to the Bible, the Sa­crament, the Name of Jesus, for the Relation they have to God, to be call'd a Religious Worship, let 'em call it so in God's Name. And if others will have no Veneration or Worship to be Religious, but that which is directly and immediatly given to God; let 'em have their way. These are fine Notions, and pretty Entertainments for School-debates; but are no concern of our Religion or Conscience. For as long as 'tis own'd, that there's a Respect and Reverence due to such Holy things, as in some particular manner have rela­lation [Page 25] to God and his Service, and we only express this Respect outwardly, which interiorly we feel in our Souls; let this be call'd an Honor, a Wor­ship, an Adoring; let it be said to be Honorary, Religious or Divine; let it be deem'd Absolute or Relative, 'tis equally alike to us; since we are satisfied, the wrangling of the Learned about Names and Words, has no influence upon the Acts of our Souls; and cannot make that to be Idolatrous, which in it self is not so.

Here then may the Reader see, how stands this Controversie between Catholics and the Church of England Protestants. Both Churches acknow­ledge, that there's an Honor, and Reverence that may be lawfully given to the Holy Images and Pictures of Christ. Both Churches express this Honor outwardly: Protestants, by using them in their Churches and Prayer-books, which (as Mon­tagu says) cannot be abstracted from giving them Honor and Reverence. While Catholics go far­ther, and say, that 'tis lawful to express this Ho­nor and Reverence due to them, as they have re­lation to God, by Kissing them, pulling off the Hat, Bowing, Setting of Tapers, &c. before them, in the same manner, and with no more just occa­sion of Scandal, and no more breach of any Commandment, than the Church of England do's express the Veneration She shews to the Bible in Kissing it; to the Church, by pulling off the Hat; to the Name of Jesus, by Bowing; to the Communion-Table, by setting Candles on it. Which being so many Actions intended to signifie the [Page 26] Interior Sentiment and Affection of the Soul; there can certainly be no more of Idolatry in them, or Superstition, than there is in the Intention, or in the Act of the Soul; the one being the same outwardly, what the other is inwardly. And, however some Divines and Leading Men of the Church of England, who are in love with wrangling, and thro' the Influence of an Un­christian Temper, seem to be afraid of a better Understanding coming amongst Christians, take pains to blow up this Controversie with some School and Empty Notions; yet 'tis not to be thought, there's any great difference between the Two Churches, were they to Speak their Sense in a Cool and Moderate Temper, where they might be free from the Suggestions of such Hot and Fiery Spirits, who seem to be rather Men of State and Policy, than of Religion. For, can it be imagin'd, that the Church of England, who confesses, that the Holy Ghost himself, the A­postles, and Primitive Christians instructed by the Apostles, Honor'd the NAME of the Cross, and had an Honorable Esteem for the SIGN of the Cross, can be in good earnest against those, who express outwardly this Honor, which in it self is thus acknowledg'd of Divine Institution, and to have been the Doctrin of the Apostles? If the Apostles too, as she owns above, did ho­nor the NAME of the Cross by their Mouths and Words; can she condemn those, who do the like with their Hands, their Heads or Knees? If it be the Doctrin of the Holy Ghost, to have [Page 27] this Honor for the Name and Sign of the Cross in our Hearts; and the Apostles, by the in­stinct of that Holy Spirit, did express this by their Words; may not We do so too? And if We may do this in Words, may not we do it in any other way of Expressing our Sense, which Na­ture has given us, and are answerable to Words? Words are nothing more than for their Signifi­cation; and if we signifie our thoughts by any o­ther way, as by Signs, by any Motion, or Gesture of our Body; these Actions being to express the same affection of our Soul, which we other ways do by Words, they are as Innocent as our Words; and 'tis impossible the Actions should be Idola­trous, whilst the Words are Orthodox: Since be­ing taught by the Apostles, to have an Honor in our Hearts for the SIGN of the Cross, 'tis the same thing before God and Men, whether we signifie this outwardly by our Tongues, or by our Lips, or by our Hands, or by our Heads, or by our Knees; these being only so many different kinds of Speaking, to signifie one and the same sense of our hearts. And whilst they are so, there can be nothing justly charg'd upon any one of these ways of Expressing, but will as certainly fall upon all the rest; for they being all upon the same inten­tion and design, of shewing outwardly the Ho­nor we are taught by the Apostles to have in our hearts, and this Honor thus severally express'd, being but one and the same, founded upon the Relation the Sign of the Cross has to Christ; if it be a Religious Worship, when 'tis signified by [Page 28] the Knee, 'tis Religious too when signified by the Tongue, and alike Religious whilst 'tis in the Heart; if it be Idolatrous to express it by the Knee in bending, 'tis Idolatrous too, to express it with the Tongue in Words; and most of all Idolatrous, as it is in the Heart.

Upon this Point turns the Greatest part of this Controversie, which of it self is very inconsi­derable. But our Answerer takes little care to see how the Question stands; He's for exposing the Church of Rome, and as long as he has the knack of doing this by Ridiculing, and Drolling, what should he trouble himself with such im­pertinencies, as are stating the Question, and speaking to the Point? He's satisfied the word Image-worship will do the work, without much need of longer Proofs; and therefore waving all such kind of Controversial Drudgery, he falls to the Historical part, in which, from the dif­ferent account of Historians, the disagreement in Time and Place and other Circumstances, he easily fills all with Confusion and Uncertainty. A tedious work he makes about the second Coun­cil of Nice, and sets it out in such abusive Lan­guage, with so much contempt and scorn, that he seems, at his writing this Character, to have come fresh from a Billings-gate Lecture. Hear how he attacks that Venerable Synod: They were a Pack of Greeks (says he pa. 38.) that were nei­ther the wisest, nor the honestest Men in the World. Then having undervalued the Proofs of that Council as Senseless and Ridiculous, he adds, pa. 39. [Page 29] Now you may judge, whether these were not rare Greek Wits. Yet we might forgive their want of Brains, if they had been Men of Integrity; but they were dishonest too. In this manner do's he com­plement this great Synod with the Honorable Titles of Fools and Knaves. Certainly he must be a wise Man in his own conceit, who makes so bold with three hundred and fifty Fathers, be­sides the Popes Legates, and the Vicars of the Oriental Patriarchs. But I leave him in this Buffoonry, wishing him only much joy of his Admirable Talent in this kind. The Chief thing he urges against this Council, is their establish­ing, as he pretends, Superstitious Errors, the Wor­ship or Adoration of Images, such as our Author judges to be nothing else than Idolatry; in this, doing altogether like himself, who quarrels with every thing; but how unlike the more Learned and Moderate Divines of his own Church, who vindicate this Council from all such imputations! Mr. Thorndike freely confessing, that he must maintain as unquestionable, that the Council of Nice injoyns no Idolatry, Epil. 3. pa. 363. And Dr. Field affirming, that the Nicence Fathers mean no­thing else by Adoration of Images, but embracing, kissing, and reverently using of them, and like to the Ho­nor we do the Books of Holy Scripture. (Of the Church l. 3. c. 36.) Thus do these Eminent Men deliver their Sense of this Council and it's Doctrin, which our Author has thought fit to render so Ridiculous to the World. He catches at Words, and without Examining or Understanding them, [Page 30] makes Idolatry and Superstition of the most Or­thodox and Christian Doctrin: And this I look upon the occasion of his letting flie so furiously at this Venerable Synod, and of all his Rallery against it. But I proceed to consider his other Arguments.

The principal thing he insists on, and which runs thro' his whole Pamphlet, is, that we can­not make it appear, even as a thing probable, that Images were so much as set up in Churches in the Primitive Times; and upon this Practice, now so common in the Church of Rome, he pres­ses her with the Guilt of Innovation. An Excel­lent Argument, well becoming a Leader of the People! But this is the Motive of Reforming. And do not some other Reformers, upon the same grounds, prove the use of Organs, in the Divine Service, to be an Innovation; since it cannot be made appear, even as probable, that there were any such things known to the Primitive Christi­ans of the first three or four hundred years? And do not others, still treading over the same steps, make the use of Cathedrals and Churches, of Dean­ries and Prebendaries, an Innovation in Christi­anity; since in the Primitive times there were no such things heard [...]f? After this rate some Men are pleas'd to argue; and at this pace the Reforma­tion may go on improving every day, till there's nothing of Christianity left, if such Principles and Reasons of some Church of England Reformers are but follow'd, as Just and Convincing. But these can have no authority, but with some Weak [Page 31] and Passionate Men. Others, who weigh things duely, know that the Circumstances of the Pri­mitive Christians, their being under Severe Per­secution, their living and conversing in the middle of Pagans and Jews, &c. did make many things inconvenient and unseasonable at that time, e­specially such as related to the Solemnity and Or­der of the Church, which otherwise were Good and Apostolical. This Mr. Montagu, a Wise and Learned Man, throughly consider'd; and par­ticularly in relation to Images, which, he says, in the first Ages were but few or none in publick, not because they were then Unlawful, or contrary to the Doctrin of the Apostles; but because they were inconvenient in those times of Persecution and Paganism. I'll here set down his own words to satisfie the Answerer, and to let him see the dif­ference between the Spirit of Peace and Mode­ration, and that of Bitterness and Wrangling. Thus then that Worthy Divine argues in his Ap­peal to Caesar, c. 23.

‘As the Ancient Fathers of the Primitive Times had very few or no Churches at all, at least of Note, Dignity or of Receipt, because they liv'd in Times of fierce Persecution, and were seldom, or Few of them Stationary, but compell'd subinde mutare sedes; so had they very few, I grant, or no Pictures at all in public use amongst them, not so much as for Ornament sake. And the reason was, because they lived continually a­mongst Pagans, and were themselves, for the most part, such as had abandon'd and come o­ver [Page 32] from Paganism unto Christ; that were bred in, brought up in, inur'd to, and fast set­led unto Idolatry in Image-worship. There­fore they spoke against them with some tartness and inveighing sort, lest haply by conversing with, or neighboring upon Pagans, or thro' former use of being mis-led by those Pagans, the Novel and tender Shoots of Christianity might receive hurt, and learn to worship Idols, as those Pagans did.’ In which words this Author plainly declares, that tho' there was not the pub­lic use of Images in the first Ages; yet the ad­mittance of them afterwards into Churches was no Innovation, as our Answerer pretends; but the practising of a thing, which in all the pre­cedent Ages had been just and lawful, but not ex­pedient, for the reasons here assign'd by him. Which thing the same Author has thus clearly de­liver'd in the foregoing Chapter, where speak­ing of the use of Images: Before St. Gregory, says he, I know no such confest employment for them. He was the first that gave such public approbation unto them DECLARATORILY, tho' it was TRƲE DOCTRIN IN IT SELF, before he ever profess'd it such. Can any thing be more clearly express'd? Is it not evidently here ac­knowledg [...]d by a Church of England Divine, that the Use of Images, as approv'd and allow'd by Pope Gregory, who was for giving Reverence and Respect unto them, as this Author confesses in the same Chapter, was a True Doctrin in it self; tho' it was never professedly declar'd before this [Page 33] time? And yet our Answerer, unacquainted it seems with the Doctrin of his own Church, and with the Circumstances of the Primitive Church, comes here with the full Cry of Innovation, gi­ving the World and me a needless trouble of sta­ting this Controversie, which has been so long ago decided, as to this Point, by a Divine of his own Church. But alas, some Men, who have for a long time from their Castle of Priviledge, with a Noisy, but Empty Controversie, peevishly declaim'd against all sorts of Adversaries; and there boastingly triumph'd, where they know no body dar'd contradict or question them, vain­ly think they may do the like in Print, and that they may as easily impose upon all Readers, as upon their Hearers. And I desire our Answer­er to consider, how far he is here concern'd, who thus dares to venture abroad, with these Raw and Ʋnconnected Notions.

But the Answerer is resolv'd however, to con­vince his Reader of the Unlawfulness of Images; and in order to this tells him, as before, that the Antient Heretics were Friends to Images. I wont ask here; Why then do's the Church of England use them in her Places of Worship? But, I'll tell him in his own Words, that this is a Silly Artifice; and that every thing is not to be condemn'd, which was us'd by such a sort of People. He knows, I hope, that the Antient Heretics us'd the Bible too, as likewise Preaching and Churches, and yet sure all these are not to be rejected upon this score. I have here shew'd him already out [Page 34] of his own Authors, who first declaratorily esta­blish'd the use of Holy Images, giving Reverence and Respect unto them; and that this was a True Doctrin in it self, before he ever profess'd it: And what matter then, if some Heretics admitted of the same, who are wont to abuse even the best of things, as the Answerer says, the Gnostics did, pa. 57. who rankt Christ's Image with those of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle. As to what he says before, pag. 53. that Pope Gregory I. and II. contradict each other in this Point, he would do well to explicate this fuller in his next; for Pope Gregory II. is no more for Adoration of Images, than Gregory I. as appears in that Letter of his to Leo Isaurus cited in Nubes Testi­um, pa. 183. Where writing to the Emperor: You charge us, says he, with the Adoration of Stones, and Walls, and Pictures. But 'tis not so as you affirm, O Emperor! What we do is only to refresh our Memory, to raise our minds to Heaven,—and not, as you urge, to Worship them as Gods; no, God forbid, we place no hope in them. How then do's he contradict Gregory I. while he's no more for Worshiping Images than he was? But he that has Forehead enough to charge me with a Notion of Invocating of Images, as he do's, pa. 66. when I have no such Word or Hint, must not be call'd to an account for every thing he says.

I have little more to consider in this Letter of the Answerer, besides his great Kindness and Af­fection to the Heathens, who, with his Good [Page 35] Friend Dr. Stillingfleet, is so favorable to them, as in a manner to excuse them from Idolatry, so the better to fix this Crime upon the Papists: Tho' the Doctrin of the Papists, in this Point, is so like what the Church of England teaches, that (as is shewn above) there's little difference betwixt them, besides about School Terms and Words. The World knows the good understan­ding there was between Sultan Solyman and Mar­tin Luther, and how friendly the Followers of this New Prophet were taught to be to the Turks; but why our English Reformers upon Martin Lu­ther should be at this day so kind to the Heathens, must be left to every one to guess. The Answer­er assures the Person of Quality, pa. 11. to whom he writes, that to charge the Heathens with Worshiping Stocks and Stones as Gods, is to Mis­represent them. And yet how many times has this very thing been instill'd into the Peoples Heads, as True of the Papists, which now, as we are inform'd, is a Misrepresentation, when af­firm'd of the Pagans? Are not the Pagans here deeply indebted to these Church of England Men, in their owning them to be Misrepresented, whilst the same Abomination is so liberally charg'd up­on the Papists, and yet no Misrepresentation there, if you'l believe 'em? This is to make the Papists worse than Heathens; and without either Re­spect to Duty or Good manners, to advance even now that Plot-Divinity, which was Preach'd by a Doctor before the House of Commons, April 11. 1679. Who setting out Popery in such colors, as [Page 36] might be most effectual to excite that Assembly to the Drawing of Blood, after several Dread­ful Characters, at last pa. 30. thus concludes; Nay, says he, it is a Religion, that will engage you in a more Unnatural Idolatry, than ever the Pagans were guilty of. Is not this a rare Character of one Christian from another? Nay from Church of England Christians too, such who pretend to so much Charity and Moderation above their Neigh­bors; and yet to cast forth so much Gall and Ve­nom, that could be expected from none, but ano­ther Julian, or a Lucian? But I take no advantage here, I consider this was deliver'd in a time of an Epidemical Madness; and what wonder, if the Pulpits did not escape the Contagion? But why at this time of the day should this Lecture be read to the People? Is not the Plot out of some People's heads yet? Is the Infection so lasting? But what shall we say; the Enclosure of some Men's Religion, is only to be against Popery. They raise a monstrous Notion in their own Brains; and while they expose this to the People, they make the Innocent suffer for their Delusion. They'l joyn hands with the Turk or the Pagan, so they can but make a Devil of the Papist. And in this some of their Furioso's are so blindly rash, that they care not how Antichristian they make their own Church, so they can but set out the Pa­pists for Idolaters. For here I desire any serious Man to consider, if the Papists were thus really Idolaters, as bad or worse than the Heathens, as these Men suggest, what Advantage would this be to [Page 37] the Church of England? What kind of Church must the Church of England be, who has no Ordi­nation, Succession, or Authority of Preaching, but what she has receiv'd from these Idolaters? What kind of Church must she be, whilst she owns her self and These Idolaters to be Parts of the same Church? What kind of Church must she be, whilst she acknowledges, that all her Members for a Thousand Years before Henry 8. were in Communion with these Idolaters; and in all Ex­ternal Rites and Worship, were comprehended in the Papacy? Must not she have been a very Dissembling and Adulterous Church; whilst be­lieving internally the True and Pure Faith of Christ, she did for so many years externally practise all the supposed Superstitions and Idolatries of the Church of Rome, which she judg'd to be most Wicked and Damnable? Is not this an ad­mirable Character of a Pretended Church of Christ, to have play'd the Hypocrit for so many Ages, committing Adultery with the Supposed Whore of Babylon, and partaking in all her pre­tended Abominations? What greater Blow could an Enemy give to the Church of England, than some of her Divines do thus with their own hands, who, like Spiritual Janizaries, destroy their own Mother Church of which they are Members? For is it not evident, that whilst they endeavor to make the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry, they prove their own Church for so many years to have been Idolatrous, to have been a Dissem­bling Church, a Church denying Christ and his Re­ligion, [Page 38] a Church for Temporal Respects committing many Idolatries and Superstitions, and consequent­ly, no Church at all?

And what more Forcible Argument need any Dissenters to justifie their Separation from the Church of England? For since the greatest part of those things upon which the Dissent is founded, are such as have been instituted and commanded by the Church of Rome, why shou'd they re­ceive them from the Church of England, whilst these same Church-Guides, who press the Obser­vance, take so much pains to prove those from whom they receiv'd them, to be Idolaters, and a sort of Christians worse than Heathens? What reason has any Man to joyn in such a Form of Wor­ship and Divine Service, when he is assur'd, that Those from whom the greatest Part is borrow'd, are Idolaters? Why should any be tied to such Ceremonies, if those that instituted them were I­dolaters? 'Tis but Rational for every Man to think, that if the Papists are so Stupid, so Sottish, so Ridiculous, such Idolaters, so worse than Hea­thens, as every little Church-Divine is pleas'd to render them, that the Church of England, who retains so much of their Service and Ceremonies, must of necessity be so far like them in Sottishness, Ridiculosity, Idolatry and Heathenism; and the on­ly way to become a Pure Christian, must be to shake off, even that which She has retain'd. This is a very Obvious reasoning; and I don't question, has so powerfully wrought upon the minds of In­finite Numbers, and widen'd the Separation to that [Page 39] degree, that the very Crime of the Church of Eng­land in her Bitter and Ʋnjust Invectives against the Papists, has by a just hand of God prov'd her Punishment; whilst her endeavors to alienate the Peoples minds from Popery, has embitter'd them even against her self, and been so fatal to her, that by the same means she has made People no Papists, she has made them Dissenters from her own Communion, and rais'd to her self almost as many Enemies, as she inteded against the Church of Rome. Our Answerer, has lent a helping hand in this Point; I do not mean here by his Peevish, Scandalous Pulpit Invectives; but in this his pre­tended Answer to this Part of Nubes Testium; whilst he has scarce any one Argument, but what is levell'd as much against his own Church (if that be really his, which he pretends) as against the Papists: Tho' in reality, to any Intelligent Rea­der, there is but very little against either: The whole being made up of Vulgar Sophisms, Wordy Disputes, and Arguing at Rovers: But the Au­thor is to be excus'd; the Whole is nothing more than a Letter: And every body knows, that a Letter, however proper it may be to the Per­son, to whom 'tis directed, is many times very Absurd, when 'tis divulg'd and made Common; wee'l excuse therefore the Writer, but really he is to blame that Publish'd it.