His next Charge is a dreadful one: Such Principles as make void all use of Civil Charity and Moral Justice to our Neighbours. He lays it in the very laft Section of the Prefervative, Concerning Proteftant Mif-representations of Popery. Wherein I fhewed, how vain and filly this charge was, and he has not one word to fay in defence of it. Among other things I obferved, that these men, who complain fo much of Mif-reprefenting, endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Church of Rome look as like Proteftant Doctrines, as ever they can, as if there were little or no difference between them.The truth is, the chief Mystery in this late Trade of Representing and Mif-reprefenting is no more but this, to joyn a Proteftant Faith with Popish Practices, to believe as Proteftants do, and to do as Papifts do. This I gave fome few inftances of out of the Representer, and fhewed that their Faith, as he Reprefented it, came very near and in some cases was the very fame with the Proteftant Faith, but their Practice was Popifh. How is this contrary to Civil Charity and Moral Honesty? He fays it is this, When a man's exterior Actions are naturally capable of a good and pious meaning, and he ever and clearly declares, that it is his, yet to faSten upon him another oppofite defign and meaning. But how does this concern me, who faften no meaning at all upon their Actions, but only barely relate, what they profefs to believe, and what they practice. He inftances in two, and let all the World judge, who makes void Civil Charity and Moral Honefty, He, or I.

To infinuate, fays he, that a Catholick thinks the Virgin. Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ, he tells you, that he fays Ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Nofter; whereas all that I fay is, He (the Papift Represented) believes it damnable, to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Eleaven than Christ, which is Proteftant Doctrine.

But yet

yet he prays to her oftner than either to God or Chrift; Jays ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Nofter; which is a Popifh Devotion. Is here any breach of Moral Honesty in this is not all this true? do I put any fenfe or interpretation upon this action? I believe all men will think, that this does more than infinuate, what a belief they have of the power of the Virgin; and this the Jefuite was fenfible of, and therefore fays, that I infinuate it, but I will leave it as I did at first, to what judgment all indifferent men will make of it.

In the next place, he fays, I charge the Catholicks with worshipping the vifible Species in the Eucharift: Hear my words again; He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry, and most damnable to worship any Breaden God; which is Spoke like a Proteftant: but yet be pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament, which is done like a Papift. Here is nothing about worshipping the vifible Species in the Eucharift; but whatever is the Sacrament, they worship, and must do so by the Doctrine of their Church; if they can make a Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, without the visible Species, then according to their Do&trine, they need not worship the vifible Species, if they can't, they muft, for they must adore the Sacrament; and if the Sacrament fhould prove to be Bread and Wine, not the natural Body and Blood of Chrift,and it is ftrange, if it should not, then I need not tell them what they worship. But thofe matters have been debated often enough of late.

He concludes with an advice to Proteftants, urging the Argument against Scriptures, which I had before done against Fathers. Amongst Christians, there is not one in an hundred thousand, who understand all Scripture, and it is morally impoffible they should; and therefore certainly there must be an easier and shorter way to understand Christian

Religion,

Religion than this, or else the generality of Mankind, even profeft Chriftians, are out of poffibility of Salvation. Igrant of every word of it to be true, if understanding all Scripture, as he puts it, were neceffary to Salvation; but the only eafier and fhorter way is to understand so much of the Scripture as is neceffary to Salvation, and let him when he pleases, if he dare venture the Blafphemy of it, prove that this is morally impoffible to the generality of Mankind, e ven of profeft Chriftians.

A

A

VINDICATION

OF THE

SECOND PART

OF THE

Prefervative against POPERY.

H

Ere our Jefuite gives me a great many hard Words, but nothing of Argument; He talks tragically of Calumnies and Milreprefentations, how much he proves of it, unless a bold Accufation must pass for a Proof, I dare leave to every ordinary Reader, who will compare my Book with his. He is much off of his byafs here, for I did not difpute directly against any Popish Doctrines, but ufed fuch collateral Arguments, as are very evident and convincing to ordinary Readers, but fo much out of the road, that the Jefuite could find nothing in his Common-place Book about it, and therefore does not pretend to answer any one Section of my Book; but yet out of every Section he picks fome fingle Sayings, and if he meets with an Argument, that he cannot answer, he takes fome few words of it, and calls it Galumny and Mifreprefentation; the only way I have to write fuch an Answer to him, as may be fit to be read, is to give a fhort Abstract of each Section of my Book, and to take notice, where thofe Paffages come in, which he calls Galumnies and Mifreprefentations.

SECT.

61

4 Matth. 10,

Preferv. Con

d. p. 61.

I

SECT. I.

Concerning Idolatry.

Shewed the great Defign of our Saviour was more perfectly to extirpate all Idolatry. To this purpose he has more perfectly inftructed us in the Nature of God. To this end he confines all Religious Worship to God alone. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and bim only fhalt thou ferve. It is his answer to the Devil, when he tempted him to fall down and worship him; but he gives fuch an answer, as excludes all Creatures, not only good, but bad Spirits from any fhare in Religious Worship. For he does not deny to worship him meerly because he was the Devil, but because we muft worship none but God. Which is as good a reafon against the Worship of the moft glorious Angels, as of the Devil himself. This he calls a Mifreprefentation, and to make it so, first very fillily mifrepresents my words, and fays, that I charge the Church of Rome, that he doth not pay to God alone, that degree of WorShip, which the tempting Devil demanded of Christ. But I fay not one word there about the Church of Rome, tho' the application was obvious and he made it for me: but then I do not blame them, that they do not pay that degree of Worship to God, which the Devil demanded of Christ; which was but an inferior degree of Worship, and therefore not proper for the Supreme Deity; but that they pay any degree, how inferior foever, of Religious Worship to Saints and Angels, or any other Being befides God, for that is the import of our Saviour's Answer to the Devil, and answers the pretence of the Church of Rome, that fhe does not give latria, or that Soveraign Worship, which is due to the Supreme God, but only dulia, or an Inferior Worfhip to Saints and Angels; whereas our Saviour's Argument proves,that no degree of Worship is to be given to any but God. He fays farther, p. 64. That Christ, by refusing himself all WorShip to God's Enemy the Devil, teaches us to pay none at all to God's Saints and Angels, is an inference that no one but Dr. Sherlock was ever able to make. Then it feems, I have the honour of inventing a good Argument, which this Jefuite dares not attempt to answer: let him fhew me if he can, that to Worship

none