Mr. L. tell us, as he does in his Index, S. 23, that an Infallible Guide, is no Security, unless we were Infallible too Will he stand to what he fays, pag. 90, that this was the Cafe in our Saviour time? Or, if Chrift was no Infallible Security, to every particular Chriftian that faw his Miracles, and believed in him, (which, if a lefs Man had faid it, than Mr. L. might have feem'd to border upon Blafphemy) is an Infallible Scripture no Security to any one, that is not Infallible?

A like Inftance of my Lord's Profoundnefs, is pag. 104, where he grants, that the Catholick Church is the particular Church of Rome, as Head of the par

น

all other ticular

and Principle of Unity is all the Town Church of

in Eng lands But his Lordfhip was not fo Acute as to ing the Cafee, that, by this Definition, he pafs'd a Bill sholick of Exclufion both against himself, and against Church, the Church in Communion, with the See of Rome. a fame Yet, I find Mr. L. flipt unhappily

Abfurdity, pag. 3, This [S. Peter's and the Pope's
Supremacy will not Rome, fays he, the
Mother-Church. may call ber Supreme, Abfolute,
You
Univerfal any thing but the Mother-Church. That
is, you may fay Canterbury is all England, if you
pleafe: but you cannot fay, that he is the Me-
tropolis, Or Mother-Church.

mited bus
8. BUT we have a greater, and, I fear, a more
willful Miftake, pag. 130, where having faid
what he thought fit to Lower the Honour of the

now lug s.542 ABO

(") A Late Pope made so great a Difference between the Church and Court of Rome, that being told, by his Reforming the Manners of the City, he would destroy the Court; be

Answer'd, Præftat Curam, quam Religionis & Ecclefia curiam Catholicæ Statum everti, Nat Alexy in Pio

1

Gə

B.

Of an Ho- B. Virgin Mary, he affures us, There is an Honour nour given of an Extraordinary Nature, paid to her at the Head to the Bleffed of all the Saints in the Office of the Mafs there before Virgin, in the Confecration, the Elements are offerred up to God the Mafs. in Memory of the Paffion, Refurrection, and Afcenfion of Jefus Chrift, and for the Honour "of the B. Virgin Mary, &c. First, This Honour is for far from being of an Extraordinary fofar Nature, that, in S. Auguftin's time, That is, in the IV. and V.Century, it was given to all Saints; efpecially to the Martyrs.) For the Priest, fays S. Auguftin, Sacrificeth to God, and not to them, tho he Sacrificeth in memory of them. Because he is God's Prieft, and not theirs. Secondly, The words are and for the Honour of the B. Virgin Mary, of S. John Baptift, of the H. Apoftles S. Peter and S. Paul, and all the Saints. But if Mr. L. had mention'd thefe, his Jeft had been spoil'd, of fetting Her and the Almighty near upon the Level. Which he does in the very next Words.

DID Chrift then, fays he, Suffer, Rife, and Afcend for her Honour? No, Sir. Nor doth the Prayer importit. You told us juft now, it hath a quite different Senfe. The Elements you fay, are offer'd; not to her indeed, nor to the Saints, but only to God, tho we remember their Vertues, and defire they may Interceed for me, which is doubtlefs an Honour to them. But are the Etements either the Afcenfion, the Refurrection, or the Paffion of Chrit? To make these pass with his Lordship for the fame thing; we must have

(1) Lib 22. de Civitate Dei. cap. 10. Deo quippe Sacerdos non ipfis facrificat, quamvis in memoriâ facrificet corum. Quja Dei Sacerdos eft, non illorum;

but

but an indinerent Opinion of his Head-piece.
But let us hear the Argument, which is certain-
ly of a very Extraordinary Nature. V
THE Elements, fays he, are offer'd up to God

5

for the Honour of the B.Virgin Mary Did Christ then Suffer, Rife, and Afcend for her Honour ? It was for the Honour and Glory of God indeed, but to thrust her in or any of the Saints,to fhare in this looks a little too Familiar; and putting them, at least Her, near upon the Level with the Almighty; fince more could not be faid to him (Then, it feems, they were quite upon the Level. Yet truly much more could be laid to him, and was in this very Prayer; in which the Elements are faid to be offer'd to him, and not to her :) And here we may see a good Reafon,why God would not have any Religious Worship paid to thefe, nor any of his Kingdom, for he faw that there would be Encroaching Nay, that they id 10 might come, at last, to be advanced above God himself. As it has been faid, That Chrift did nothing which S. Francis did not do; yea, that he met to did more than Chrift himself. Whofoever faid this, gost let him anfwer for it. But, First, Two things were done by Chrift, and S. Francis did neither of them; which are, Making the World, and Redeeming of it. Secondly, Chrift did not fer his Followers above himself,tho' he faid, S. Febri 14. ver. 12, He that believeth in me, the Works that I do, fhall he do alfo; and greater than thefe fhall he do

2

Mr. Loit feems, cannot digeft a Religious" Worfhip of Saints. And if, by Religious, he means a Supreme Honour, or Worship, we are all of his Mind. However we keep, fays he, p. 135. particular Holidays for the Apoftles, St. John the Baptift, St. Stephen, &c. We have one day for all the Saints in general, and another for St. Michael

-mo

-bost

Com

mand

Michael and all Angels. Thus we honour them.
And, if keeping Holidays be any part of Chri-
Stian Devotion (as it Undoubtedly is) this is
what we mean by a Religious Honaur. So that
Mr. L. hath only the Credit of quarrelling with
the Word; whilft he grants, the Thing. Bi-
fhop Boffuet, in his Expofition of Faith, approved
by Pope Innocent XI and Printed at London,.
anno 1685, has this Title of his third Section, p.
3- Religious Worship, is terminated in God alone.
And p.4 The Church teaches us, that
if the
Honour which he renders to the B. Virgin, and
to the Saints may, in fome Senfe, be called Religious,
it is for its neceffary Relation to God. So that Mr.
L.hathit in his Choice whether he will call it
Religious or not.

9-His faying, p. 120, That our Church hath Of biding hid the Second Commandment from the People, the Second and diguided the Tenth inta Two, to keep up the number that the People might think they ftill have ment,from the Ten Commandments, and that it is thus in the the People. Catechism ad Parochos sis left without Proof, and will, fcarce be able to defend it felf. For there is nothing trueinlit. find cnobarb

1. Iris certain, thefe words, Thou shalt not make toothy self any Graven thing, &c. are part of the Commandments. But, whether they be a feparate Commandment, or only Part of the Fix, is a Queftion of no great Impor tance. Neither fide is clearly determin'd in Scripture. And (+) St. Auguftia is of Opinion, to de ers SW CHOW TO Juerol in

() Queft. 71. in Exodum: Quæritur, decem Præcepta Legis quemadmodum dividenda fint. Herum quatuor fint afque ad Præceptum de Sabbato, quæ ad iplum Deum pertinent fex autem reliqua, quorum Primum eft Honora Patrem & Matrem, quad Hominem pertineant:

that

that what Proteftants call the Two firft Com mandments, are only One; that, Honour thy Father and Mother, is not the Fifth, but only the Fourth Commandment and what Proteftants call the Tenth, is in Mofes's Tables the Ninth and Tenth. Because the forbidding of Idols, feems to be an Explication only of the foregoing words, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. This Reafon, and St. Auguftin's Authority, convinc'd the Mafter of Sentences, and St. Thomas of Aquin and with them the reft of the School-Divines. And is the true Caufe, why the Authors of fome of our Catechifms have left it out for Shortnefsfake. But that either They or the Church (which never thought it worth her while, either to Examine or Decide the Question) did this, to hide the Doctrine of it from the People, is a grofs Calumny as is alfo the Dividing of the Tenth, to make up the Number. In the Catechifm ad Parachos, the firft Commandment is deliver'd

An potius, illa tria fint, & ifta feptem? Qui enim dîcunt illa quatuor effe; feparant quod dictum eft, non erunt tibi Dii alli præter me, &, Non facies tibi Idolum: unum autem volunt effe, Non Concupifces uxorem Proximi tui, &, Non concupifces domum Proximi tui. Qui verò illa tria effe dicunt; unum volunt effe quicquid de uno colendo Deo præcipitur, ne aliquid aliud præter illum pro Deo colatur hæc autem extrema Præcepta in duo dividunt; ut aliud fit, Non concupifces uxorem Proximi tui, & aliud, Non concupifces domum Proximi tui, &c. Mihi tamen videtur congruentius accipi tria illa, & ifta feptem, Et revera quod dictum eft, Non erunt tibi Dii alii præter me; hoc ipfum perfectius explicatur, cum prohibentur colenda figmenta. Eodem modo diftinguit Præcepta Decalogi Enarrat. 1. in Pfal. 32. Epift. 119. ad Fanuarium, cap. 11. Et lib. de Decem Chordis, cap.5.6.

thus,

"