that worships the Hoft, believes our Lord Chrift, to be the only True God, hypoftatically united to our Flesh and Blood. Which being present in the Eucharift, in fuch a Manner as it is not prefent every where; there is due Occafion to give it that Worship in the Eucharift, which the God-Head in our Manhood is to be worfhipped with, upon all due Occafions.

So of Images, Chap. 19. p. 127. To the Images of Saints, fays he, There can be no Idolatry, fo long as Men take them for Saints, that is God's Creatures. Much lefs to the Images of our Lord. For it is the Honour of our Lord, and not of his Image. And, p. 128. The fecond Council of Nicea teacheth not Idolatry, by teaching to honour Images: Tho it acknowledge, that the Image itself is honoured; when it need not. For indeed, and in truth, it is not the Image, but the Principal that is honoured by the Honour that is faid to be done to the Image, because it is done before the Image. Mr. Thorndike, in his Juft Weights and Measures. London, An. 1662.

Again, this Charge of Idolatry, is as Uncharitable, as it is Falfe. For, as the fame Proteftant Divine fays very well, Ibid Chap. 2. 1. 9. He that takes the Pope for Antichrift, and the Papifts for Idolaters, can never weigh by his own Weights, and mete

by

by his own Measures, till he hate Papifts more than Jews or Mahometans, who cannot be Idolaters. Is not he, that runs from Rome with this Opinion, in Danger to forget the Proverb, Ita fugias, ne preter Cafam, and run by the Door of God's Church? Whence he concludes, p. 11. Let not them [who fuppofe the Pope to be Antichrift, and the Papifts Idolaters] lead the People by the Nofe, to believe, that they can prove their Suppofition, when they

cannot.

7thly. The Vindicator affures us, p. 56. It cannot be denied, that both Papists and Reform'd join'd together in one Communion for a confiderable Part of Queen Elizabeth's Reign. And I remember Mr. Colliers has fomething to the fame Purpose. But Since neither Party has changed their Publick Doctrine fince that Time, they must have been very ignorant Papifts (if there were any fuch) that thought they did not deny their Religion by

that Communion.

8thly. It was no Excefs of Charity in him, to afcribe, as he does so often, whatever our Divines fay in Favour of the Churches Authority (which the Scripture attefts) to a facrilegious Defire of Concealing the Corruptions of it. And the Truth is the fame, as if a Deift should tell him, that Christians only magnify the Authority of Scripture, to give fome Countenance to the abfurd Fables

of

of Sampfon and Goliath. This is the Deists Language, not mine. Tho' perhaps no Reformation of Faith yet, had ever more plaufible Arguments against the Definitions of the Un-reform'd Church, whofe Communion it left; than Libertines and Deists urge against fome avowed Parts of Canonical Scripture. This, if true, may both account for the Growth of Deifm in our Nation (an abominable Sect, and unknown to it before the pretended Reformation) and may also prove, that Reformation of the Churches Faith, has a natural Tendency to the Overthrow of Religion. But let the Ground of this (I mean the Comparative Weakness of Reformers Arguments) be falfe, if you please. Tis not any Point of Catholick Faith; and therefore I need not infist upon it. Befides, by Reafon of falfe Preventions, even Truth fometimes may (like the Eucharist, receiv'd unworthily) be of pernicious Confequence. Not that Truth can ever be to blame, but that it may be prefs'd in undue Circumstances. This feems to be the Import of those facred Words, Joh. 16. v. 12. I have yet many Things to fay unto you, but you cannot bear them now: And St. Mat. 7. v. 6. Give not that, which is Holy, unto the Dogs Neither caft ye your Pearls before the Swine, leaft they trample them under their Feet, and turn again, and rent you. A Parallel between the Objections

of

w

of Reformers and thofe of Deists, might eaBut becaufe, if drawn out at fily be made. Length and in lively Colours, tho' it should contain nothing but Truth, it might perhaps be found prejudicial to fome Chriftians of weaker Capacity (who may now be faved by the Fear and Love of God, join'd with invincible Ignorance) I would rather have my Hand cut off, than make it.

V. He grants, p. 118. the Parts of the New Teftament were not all immediately receiv'd, there having been fome Difpute (then fome of them, it seems, had been doubted of in the Church) about the Epiftles of St. James and Jude, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, that to the Hebrews, and the Revelation. But, Firft, fays he, that there was so, was J. Toland's Objection. 2dly. Thofe Pieces were gainfaid by we know not whom, but γνωρίμων τοῖς πολλοῖς receiv'd by the Generality, according to Eufebius, lib. 3. cap. 25. 3dly. They were all receiv'd, as foon as the Churches had full Communication with one another, by the Convention of Councils: Which for fmall Books, containing nothing that is Singular, was foon enough. 4thly. According to Tertullian, lib. de Præfcr. c. 36. The Original Epiftles of the Apostles were read in their Churches in his Time. 5thly. He objects Du Pin.

To

To these I need not trouble myself for an Anfwer; fince the Vindicator has freely granted, that the Parts of the New Testament were not all immediately receiv'd after the First Century, there having been fome Difpute about the Epiftles, &c. However, I reply to the 1st. That, if THAT THERE WAS SOME DISPUTE, as the Vindicator grants there was about the Epiftles, &c. was J. Toland's Objection, this can no more turn Truth into Falfhood; than it can be a Difparagement to the Eleventh and Twelfth Verfe of the Ninety-first Pfalm, that it was the Objection of one much worse than Toland. But, after all, Toland's Objection, as it is related by him, is not the fame.

To the 2d. Befides that, the Vindicator knows who rejected them; he would do well to inform us, 1. That Eufebius fpeaks there of all the Deutero Canonical Parts of the New Testament; 2dly. That rois mooie must neceffarily fignify the Generality; as it is here tranflated.

To the 3d. The Churches, in Conftantine's Time, had certainly free Communication by Convention of Councils; and it is no less certain, that fome of the mention'd Difputes remain'd after it. The Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation, are neither Small Books, nor fuch as contain nothing that is Singular: And yet, if we may condefcend to believe St. Jerome in his