of the Church or Pope to constitute Articles of Faith We need not adde that this power is attributed to the Bishops of Rome by Turrecremata Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona Petrus de Ancorano and the famous Abbot of Panormo that the Pope cannot only make new Creeds but new Articles of Faith That he can make that of necessity to be believ'd which before never was necessary That he is the measure and rule and the very notice of all credibilities That the Canon Law is the Divine Law and what-ever Law the Pope promulges God whose Vicar he is is understood to be the promulger That the souls of men are in the hands of the Pope and that in his arbitration Religion does consist which are the very words of Hostiensis and Ferdinandus ab Inciso who were Casuists and Doctors of Law of great authority amongst them and renown The thing it self is not of dubious disputation amongst them but actually practis'd in the greatest instances as is to be seen in the Bull of Pius the fourth at the end of the Council of Yrent by which all Ecclesiasticks are not only bound to swear to all the Articles of the Council of Trent for the present and for the future but they are put into a new Symbol or Creed and they are corroborated by the same decretory clauses that are us'd in the Creed of Athanasius that this is the true Catholick Faith and that without this no man can be saved Now since it cannot be imagined that this power to which they pretend should never have been reduc'd to act and that it is not credible they should publish so inviduous and ill sounding Doctrine to no purpose and to serve no end it may without further evidence be believed by all discerning persons that they have need of this Doctrine or it would not have been taught and that consequently without more adoe it may be concluded that some of their Articles are parts of this New Faith and that they can therefore in no sense be Apostolical unless their being Roman makes them so To this may be added another consideration not much less material that besides what Eckius told the Elector of Bavaria that the Doctrines of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers though not by Scripture they have also many gripes of Conscience concerning the Fathers themselves that they are not right on their side and of this they have given but too much demonstration by their Expurgatory Indices The Serpent by being so curious a Defender of his Head shewes where his danger is and by what he can most readily be destroyed But besides their innumerable corruptings of the Fathers Writings their thrusting in that which was spurious and like Pharaoh killing the legitimate Sons of Israel though in this they have done very much of their work and made the Testimonies of the Fathers to be a Record infinitely worse than of themselves uncorrupted they would have been of which divers Learned Persons have made publique complaint and demonstration they have at last fallen to a new trade which hath caus'd more dis-reputation to them than they have gain'd advantage and they have virtually confess'd that in many things the Fathers are against them For first the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catholick Authors but with this clause iique ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se indicem expurgatorium habebunt quem eundem neque aliis communicabunt neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt that they should keep the Expurgatory Index privately neither imparting that Index nor giving a Copie of it to any But it happened by the Divine Providence so ordering it that about thirteen years after a Copie of it was gotten and published by Iohannes Pappus and Franciscus Iunius and since it came abroad against their wills they finde it necessary now to own it and they have Printed it themselves Now by these expurgatory Tables what they have done is known to all Learned Men. In S. Chrysostom's Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no Merit but what is given us by Christ and yet these words are in his Sermon upon Pentecost and the former words are in his first Homily upon that of S. Iohn Ye are my friends c. The like they have done to him in many other places and to S. Ambrose and to S. Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press at Lyons shewed and complain'd of it to Iunius that he was forc'd to cancellate or blot out many sayings of S. Ambrose in that Edition of his works which was printed at Lyons 1559. So that what they say on occasion of Bertram's book In the old Catholick Writers we suffer very many errors and extenuate and excuse them and finding out some Commentary we fain some convenient sense when they are oppos'd in Disputations they do indeed practise but esteem it not sufficient for the words which make against them they wholly leave out of their Editions Nay they correct the very Tables or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors insomuch that out of one of Frobens Indices they have commanded these words to be blotted The use of Images forbidden The Eucharist no sacrifice but the memory of a sacrifice Works although they do not justifie yet are necessary to Salvation Marriage is granted to all that will not contain Venial sins damne The dead Saints after this life cannot help us Nay out of the Index of S. Austin's Works by Claudius Chevallonius at Paris 1531. there is a very strange deleatur Dele Solus Deus adorandus that God alone is to be worshipped is commanded to be blotted out as being a dangerous Doctrine These instances may serve instead of multitudes which might be brought of their corrupting the witnesses and razing the records of antiquity that the errors and Novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so easily reprov'd Now if the Fathers were not against them what need these arts Why should they use them thus Their own expurgatory indices are infinite testimony against them both that they do so and that they need it But besides these things we have thought it fit to represent in one aspect some of their chief Doctrines of difference from the Church of England and make it evident that they are indeed new and brought into the Church first by way of opinion and afterwards by power and at last by their own authority decreed into Laws and Articles Sect. II. FIrst we alledge that this very power of making new Articles is a Novelty and expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and we prove it first by the words of the Apostle saying If we or an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you any other Gospel viz. in
an act of the Soul There is neither affection nor understanding notice or desire The heart sayes nothing and asks for nothing and therefore receives nothing Solomon calls that the Sacrifice of fools when men consider not and they who understand not what is said cannot take it into consideration But there needs no more to be said in so plain a case We end this with the words of the Civil and Canon Law Iustinian the Emperor made a Law in these words We will and command That all Bishops and Priests celebrate the Sacred Oblation and the Prayers thereunto added in holy Baptism not in a low voice but with a loud and clear voice which may be heard by the faithful people that is be understood for so it follows that thereby the mindes of the hearers may be raised up with greater devotion to set forth the praises of the Lord God for so the Apostle teacheth in the first to the Corinthians It is true that this Law was rased out of the Latine Versions of Iustinian The fraud and design was too palpable but it prevail'd nothing for it is acknowledged by Cassander and Bellarmine and is in the Greek Copies of Holoander The Canon Law is also most express from an Authority of no less than a Pope and a General Council as themselves esteem Innocent III. in the great Council of Lateran above MCC years after Christ in these words Because in most parts within the same City and Diocess the people of divers Tongues are mixt together having under one and the same faith divers Ceremonies and Rites we straitly charge and command That the Bishops of such Cities and Diocesses provide men fit who may celebrate Divine Service according to the diversity of ceremonies and languages and administer the Sacraments of the Church instructing them both by word and example Now if the words of the Apostle and the practise of the primitive Church the sayings of the Fathers and the Confessions of wise men amongst themselves if the consent of Nations and the piety of our fore-fathers if right reason and the necessity of the thing if the needs of the ignorant and the very inseparable conditions of holy prayers if the Laws of Princes and the Laws of the Church which do require all our prayers to be said by them that understand what they say if all these cannot prevail with the Church of Rome to do so much good to the peoples souls as to consent they should understand what in particular they are to ask of God certainly there is a great pertinacy of opinion and but a little charity to those precious souls for whom Christ dyed and for whom they must give account Indeed the old Toscan Rites and the Sooth-sayings of the Salian Priests Vix Sacerdotibus suis intellecta sed quae mutari vetat Religio were scarce understood by their Priests themselves but their Religion forbad to change them Thus anciently did the Osseni Hereticks of whom Epiphanius tells and the Heracleonitae of whom S. Austin gives account they taught to pray with obscure words and some others in Clemens Alexandrinus suppos'd that words spoken in a barbarous or unknown Tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are more powerful The Jewes also in their Synagogues at this day read Hebrew which the people but rarely understand and the Turks in their Mosques read Arabick of which the people know nothing But Christians never did so till they of Rome resolved to refuse to do benefit to the souls of the people in this instance or to bring them from intollerable ignorance SECT VIII THe Church of Rome hath to very bad purposes introduc'd and impos'd upon Christendom the worship and veneration of Images kissing them pulling off their hats kneeling falling down and praying before them which they call giving them due honor and veneration What external honor and veneration that is which they call due is express'd by the instances now reckon'd which the Council of Trent in their Decree enumerate and establish What the inward honor and worship is which they intend to them is intimated in the same Decree By the Images they worship Christ and his Saints and therefore by these Images they pass that honor to Christ and his Saints which is their due that is as their Doctors explain it Latria or Divine worship to God and Christ. Hyperdulia or more than service to the blessed Virgin Mary and service or doulia to other canoniz'd persons So that upon the whole the case is this What ever worship they give to God and Christ and his Saints they give it first to the Image and from the Image they pass it unto Christ and Christs servants And therefore we need not to enquire what actions they suppose to be fit or due For whatsoever is due to God to Christ or his Saints that worship they give to their respective Images all the same in external semblance and ministry as appears in all their great Churches and publick actions and processions and Temples and Festivals and endowments and censings and pilgrimages and prayers and vows made to them Now besides that these things are so like Idolatry that they can no way be reasonably excused of which we shall in the next Chapter give some account besides that they are too like the Religion of the Heathens and so plainly and frequently forbidden in the Old Testament and are so infinitely unlike the simple and wise the natural and holy the pure and the spiritual Religion of the Gospel besides that they are so infinite a scandal to the Jews and Turks and reproach Christianity it self amongst all strangers that live in their communion and observe their rites besides that they cannot pretend to be lawful but with the laborious artifices of many Metaphysical notions and distinctions which the people who most need them do least understand and that therefore the people worship them without these distinctions and directly put confidence in them and that it is impossible that ignorant persons who in all Christian countries make up the biggest number should do otherwise when otherwise they cannot understand it and besides that the thing it self with or without distinctions is a superstititious and forbidden an unlawful and unnatural worship of God who will not be worshipped by an Image we say that besides all this This whole Doctrine and practice is an innovation in the Christian Church not practis'd not indured in the primitive ages but expresly condemned by them and this is our present undertaking to evince The first notice we find of Images brought into Christian Religion was by Simon Magus indeed that was very Antient but very heretical and abominable but that he brought some in to be worshipped we find in Theodoret and S. Austin S. Irenaeus tells That the Gnosticks of Carpocrations did make Images and said that the form of Christ as he was in the flesh was made by Pilate and these Images they
a strange spirit of contradiction or superstition or deflection from the Christian Rule greatly prevailing in the Church of Rome it were impossible that this practise should be so countenanc'd by them and defended so to no purpose with so much scandal and against the natural reason of mankind and the very Law of Nature it self For the Heathens were sufficiently by the light of nature taught to abominate all Pictures or Images of God Sed nulla effigies simulachraque nulla Deorum Majestate locum sacro implevere timore They in their earliest ages had no Pictures no Images of their gods Their Temples were filled with Majestie and a sacred fear and the reason is given by Macrobius Antiquity made no Image viz. of God because the Supreme God and the mind that is born of him that is his Son the eternal Word as it is beyond the Soul so it is above nature and therefore it is not lawful that sigments should come thither Nicephorus Callistus relating the Heresie of the Armenians and Iacobites sayes they made Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost quod perquam absurdum est Nothing is more absurd then to make Pictures or Images of the Persons of the Holy and Adorable Trinity And yet they do this in the Church of Rome For in the windows of their Churches even in Country Villages where the danger cannot be denied to be great and the scandal insupportable nay in their books of devotion in their very Mass-books and Breviaries in their Portuises and Manuals they picture the Holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces in a knot to the great dishonour of God and scandal of Christianity it self We add no more for the case is too evidently bad but reprove the errour with the words of their own Polydore Virgil Since the world began never was any thing more foolish than to picture God who is present every where SECT X. THe last instance of Innovations introduc'd in Doctrine and practice by the Church of Rome that we shall represent is that of the Popes universal Bishoprick That is not only that he is Bishop of Bishops superior to all and every one but that his Bishoprick is a plenitude of power and as for other Bishops of his fulness they all receive a part of the ministry and sollicitude and not onely so but that he only is a Bishop by immediate Divine dispensation and others receive from him whatsoever they have For to this height many of them are come at last Which Doctrine although as it is in sins where the carnal are most full of reproach but the spiritual are of greatest malignity so it happens in this Article For though it be not so scandalous as their Idolatry so ridiculous as their superstitions so unreasonable as their doctrine of Transubstantiation so easily reprov'd as their half Communion and Service in an unknown tongue yet it is of as dangerous and evil effect and as false and as certainly an Innovation as any thing in their whole conjugation of errors When Christ founded his Church he left it in the hands of his Apostles without any prerogative given to one or eminency above the rest save onely of priority and orderly precedency which of it self was natural necessary and incident The Apostles govern'd all their authority was the sanction and their Decrees and writings were the Laws of the Church They exercis'd a common jurisdiction and divided it according to the needs and emergencies and circumstances of the Church In the Council of Ierusalem S. Peter gave not the decisive Sentence but S. Iames who was the Bishop of that See Christ sent all his Apostles as his Father sent him and therefore he gave to every one of them the whole power which he left behind and to the Bishops Congregated at Miletum S. Paul gave them caution to take care of the whole stock of God and affirms to them all that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops and in the whole New Testament there is no act or sign of superiority or that one Apostle exercised power over another but to them whom Christ sent he in common intrusted the Church of God according to that excellent saying of S. Cyprian The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was endowest with an equal fellowship of honour and power and they are all Shepheards and the flock is one and therefore it ought to be fed by all the Apostles with unanimous consent This unity and identity of power without question and interruption did continue and descend to Bishops in the primitive Church in which it was a known doctrine that the Bishops were successors of the Apostles and what was not in the beginning could not be in the descent unless it were innovated and introduc'd by a new authority Christ gave ordinary power to none but the Apostles and the power being to continue for ever in the Church it was to be succeeded to and by the same authority even of Christ it descended to them who were their successors that is to the Bishops as all antiquity does consent and teach Not S. Peter alone but every Apostle and therefore every one who succeeds them in their ordinary power may and must remember the words of S. Paul We are Embassadors or Legates for Christ Christs Vicars not the Popes Delegates and so all the Apostles are called in the Preface of the Mass quos operis tui Vicarios eidem conâ—ulisti praeesse Pastores they are Pastors of the Flock and Vicars of Christ and so also they are in express terms called by S. Ambrose and therefore it is a strange usurpation that the Pope arrogates that to himself by Impropriation which is common to him with all the Bishops of Christendom The consequent of this is that by the law of Christ one Bishop is not superior to another Christ gave the power to all alike he made no Head of the Bishops he gave to none a supremacy of power or universality of jurisdiction But this the Pope hath long challenged and to bring his purposes to pass hath for these six hundered years by-gone invaded the rights of Bishops and delegated matters of order and jurisdiction to Monks and Friers insomuch that the power of Bishops was greatly diminished at the erecting of the Cluniac and Cistercian Monks about the year ML but about the year MCC it was almost swallowed up by privileges granted to the begging Friers and there kept by the power of the Pope which power got one great step more above the Bishops when they got it declared that the Pope is above a Council of Bishops and at last it was turn'd into a new doctrine by Cajetane who for his prosperous invention was made a Cardinal that all the whole Apostolick or Episcopal power is radical and inherent in the Pope in whom is the fulness of the Ecclesiastical authority and that Bishops receive their portion of it from
blasphemy a book was written by Iohn Huss about the time of the Council of Constance But these things are too bad and therefore we love not to rake in so filthy Chanells but give onely a generall warning to all our Charges to take heed of such persons who from the proper consequences of their Articles grow too bold and extravagant and of such doctrines from whence these and many other evil Propositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently do issue As the Tree is such must be the Fruit. But we hope it may be sufficient * to say That what the Church of Rome teaches of Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible and implies contradictions very many to the belief of which no faith can oblige us and no reason can endure For Christs body being in heaven glorious spiritual and impassible cannot be broken And since by the Roman doctrine nothing is broken but that which cannot be broken that is the colour the taste and other accidents of the elements yet if they could be broken since the accidents of bread and wine are not the substance of Christs body and blood it is certain that on the Altar Christs body naturally and properly cannot be broken * And since they say that every consecrated Wafer is Christs whole body and yet this Wafer is not that Wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs body or else Christ hath two bodies for there are two Wafers * But when Christ instituted the Sacrament and said This is my body which is broken because at that time Christs body was not broken naturally and properly the very words of institution do force us to understand the Sacrament in a sense not natural but spiritual that is truly sacramental * And all this is besides the plain demonstrations of sense which tells us it is bread and it is wine naturally as much after as before consecration * And after all the natural sense is such as our blessed Saviour reprov'd in the men of Capernaum and called them to a spiritual understanding the natural sense being not onely unreasonable and impossible but also to no purpose of the spirit or any ways perfective of the soul as hath been clearly demonstrated by many learned men against the fond hypothesis of the Church of Rome in this Article Sect. VI. OUr next instance of the novelty of the Roman Religion in their Articles of division from us is that of the half Communion For they deprive the people of the chalice and dismember the institution of Christ and praevaricate his express law in this particular and recede from the practise of the Apostles and though they confess it was the practise of the primitive Church yet they lay it aside and curse all them that say they do amiss in it that is they curse them who follow Christ and his Apostles and his Church while themselves deny to follow them Now for this we need no other testimony but their own words in the Council of Constance Whereas in certain parts of the World some temerariously presume to affirm that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds of bread and wine and do every where communicate the Laity not onely in bread but in wine also Hence it is that the Council decrees and defines against this error that although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine yet this notwithstanding And although in the primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds Here is the acknowledgement both of Christs institution in both kinds and Christs ministring it in both kinds and the practise of the Primitive Church to give it in both kinds yet the conclusion from these premises is We command under the pain of Excommunication that no Priest communicate the people under both kinds of bread and wine The opposition is plain Christs Testament ordains it The Church of Rome forbids it It was the primitive custom to obey Christ in this a later custom is by the Church of Rome introduc'd to the contrary To say that the first practise and institution is necessary to be followed is called Heretical to refuse the later subintroduc'd custom incurres the sentence of Excommunication and this they have pass'd not onely into a Law but into an Article of Faith and if this be not teaching for doctrines the commandments of men and worshipping God in vain with mens traditions then there is and there never was and there can be no such thing in the World So that now the question is not whether this doctrine and practise be an INNOVATION but whether it be not better it should it so Whether it be not better to drink new wine than old Whether it be not better to obey man than Christ who is God blessed for ever Whether a late custom be not to be preferr'd before the antient a custom dissonant from the institution of Christ before that which is wholly consonant to what Christ did and taught This is such a bold affirmative of the Church of Rome that nothing can suffice to rescue us from an amazement in the consideration of it especially since although the Institution it self being the onely warranty and authority for what we do is of it self our rule and precept according to that of the Lawyer Institutiones sunt praeceptiones quibus instituuntur docentur homines yet besides this Christ added preceptive words Drink ye all of this he spake it to all that receiv'd who then also represented all them who for ever after were to remember Christs death But concerning the doctrine of Antiquity in this point although the Council of Constance confess the Question yet since that time they have taken on them a new confidence and affirm that the half Communion was always more or less the practice of the most Ancient times We therefore think it fit to produce testimonies concurrent with the saying of the Council of Constance such as are irrefragable and of persons beyond exception Cassander affirms That in the Latine Church for above a thousand years the body of Christ and the blood of Christ were separately given the body apart and the blood apart after the consecration of the mysteries So Aquinas also affirms According to the ancient custom of the Church all men as they communicated in the body so they communicated in the blood which also to this day is kept in some Churches And therefore Paschasius Ratbertus resolves it dogmatically That neither the flesh without the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated because the Apostles all of them did drink of the chalice And Salmeron being forc'd by the evidence of the thing ingenuously and openly confesses That it was a general custom to communicate the Laity under both kindes It was so and it was more There was anciently a Law for it Aut integra Sacramenta percipiant
the Authority of the Divine Scriptures But the Church of Rome does otherwise invents things of her own and imputes spiritual effects to and men are taught to go in wayes which Superstition hath invented and Interest does support But there is yet one great instance more of this irreligion Upon the Sacraments themselves they are taught to rely with so little of Moral and Vertuous Dispositions that the efficacy of one is made to lessen the necessity of the other and the Sacraments are taught to be so effectual by an inherent vertue that they are not so much made the instruments of Vertue as the Suppletory not so much to increase as to make amends for the want of Grace On which we shall not now insist because it is sufficiently remar'kd in our reproof of the Roman Doctrines in the matter of repentance SECT XII AFter all this if their Doctrines as they are explicated by their practice and the Commentaries of their greatest Doctors do make their Disciples guilty of Idolatry there is not any thing greater to deter men from them than that danger to their Souls which is imminent over them upon that account Their worshipping of Images we have already reprov'd upon the account of its novelty and innovation in Christian Religionâ— But that it is against good life a direct breach of the second Commandment an Act of Idolatry as much as the Heathens themselves were guilty of in relation to the second Commandmant is but too evident by the Doctrines of their own Leaders For if to give Divine honour to a Creature be Idolatry then the Doctors of the Church of Rome teach their people to commit Idolatry For they affirm That the same worship which is given to the Prototype or Principal the same is to be given to the image of it As we worship the Holy Trinity and Christ so we may worship the Images of the Trinity and of Christ that isâ— with Latriâ— or Divine honour This is the constant sentence of the Divines The Image is to be worshipped with the same honour and worship with which we worship those whose Image it is said Azorius their great Master of Casuistical Theology And this is the Doctrine of their great S. Thomas of Alexander of Ales Bonaventure Albertus Richardus Capreolus Cajetan Coster Valentia Vasquez the Jesuits of Colein Triers and Meniz approving Costers opinion Neither can this be eluded by saying that though the same Worship be given to the Image of Christ as to Christ himself yet it is not done in the same way for it is terminatively to Christ or God but relatively to the Image that is to the Image for God's or Christ's sake For this is that we complain of that they give the same worship to an image which is due to God for what cause soever it be done it matters not save onely that the excuse makes it in some sense the worse for the Apology For to do a thing which God hath forbidden and to say it is done for God's sake is to say that for his sake we displease him for his sake we give that to a Creature which is God's own propriety But besides this we affirm and it is of it self evident that whoever Christian or Heathen worships the image of any thing cannot possibly worship that image terminatively for the very being of an image is relative and therefore if the man understands but common sense he must suppose and intend that worship to be relative and a Heathen could not worship an image with any other worship and the second Commandment forbidding to worship the likeness of any thing in Heaven and earth does onely forbid that thing which is in Heaven to be worshipped by an image that is it forbids onely a relative worship For it is a contradiction to say this is the image of God and yet this is God and therefore it must be also a contradiction to worship an image with Divine worship terminatively for then it must be that the image of a thing is that thing whose image it is And therefore these Doctors teach the same thing which they condemn in the Heathens But they go yet a little further The Image of the Cross they worship with Divine honour and therefore although this Divine worship is but relative yet consequently the Cross it self is worshipped terminatively by Divine adoration For the Image of the Cross hath it relatively and for the Crosses sake therefore the Cross it self is the proper and full object of the Divine adoration Now that they do and teach this we charge upon them by undeniable Records For in the very Pontifical published by the Authority of Pope Clement the VIII these words are found The Legats Cross must be on the right hand because Latria or Divine honour is due to it And if Divine honour relative be due to the Logates Cross which is but the Image of Christs Cross then this Divine worship is terminated on Christs Cross which is certainly but a meer Creature To this purpose are the words of Almaiâ— The Images of the Trinity and of Christ and of the Cross are to be adored with the worship of Latria that is Divine Now if the Image of the Cross be the intermedial then the Cross it self whose Image that is must be the last object of this Divine worship and if this be not Idolatry it can never be told what is the notion of the Word But this passes also into other real effects And well may the Cross it self be worshipped by Divine worship when the Church places her hopes of salvation on the Cross for so she does says Aquinas and makes one the argument of the other and proves that the Church places her hopes of salvation on the Cross that is on the instrument of Christs Passion by a hymn which she uses in her Offices but this thing we have remark'd above upon another occasion Now although things are brought to a very ill state when Christians are so probably and apparently charg'd with Idolatry and that the excuses are too fine to be understood by them that need them yet no excuse can acquit these things when the most that is or can be said is this that although that which is Gods due is given to a Creature yet it is given with some difference of intention and Metaphysical abstraction and separation especially since if there can be Idolatry in the worshipping of an Image it is certain that a relative Divine worship is this Idolatry for no mau that worships an Image in that consideration or formality can make the Image the last object Either therefore the Heathens were not Idolaters in the worshipping of an Image or else these mâ—n are The Heathens did indeed infinitely more violaâ—e the first Commandment but against the second precisely and separately from the first the transgression is alike The same also is the case in their worshipping the consecrated Bread and Wine Of which how far they will