most important Topick of all for the proof of the Saints knowing the Prayers of their Suppliants I mean the holy Scripture and if he produces any place there to prove they hear when we speak to them I will so far forth yield up the cudgels to him as to acknowledge a civil calling to them or desiring them to do this or that for us that is really in their power to effect may not be absurd The place he cites is Matth 22. 30. The Saints are as the Angles of God in Heaven says he and of the Angels it is written See ye despise not one of these little ones for I say unto you their Angels in Heaven 〈◊〉 see the face of my Father which is in Heaven Matth. 18. 10. And again There shall be joy in Heaven upon one sinner that repenteth Luke 15. 7. To the latter I Answer first if it were the priviledge of Angels through the excellency of their own nature to know at what distances soever they are at when men prayed to them why was the Invocation of Angels laid asleep all the time of the Mosaical Law and why spoken against by the very Gospel or what warrant has the Church of Rome to invoke Saints more then the Iews to invoke Angels But moreover I Answer to that of Matth. 18. 10. The sense of the Angels in Heaven always seeing the face of Christs Father which is in Heaven is not that by enjoying the sight of God they obtain thereby a terrestrial Omnipercipiency and see and hear all things transacted here on Earth but the phrase of seeing the face of Christs Father in Heaven signifies that they are those Angels that also Minister and wait before God and are Assistents at the Divine Schechina or that inimitable glory whereby God reveals himself to the Angels and blessed Spirits and gives Oracles for the ministration of his Kingdom The Angels I say that assist holy men on Earth are of so great excellency that they are in Heaven part of the Satellitium that always wait on God who is in Heaven which also implies that they are one while on Earth another while in Heaven aâ—cending and descending to negotiate the affairs of the Church receiving Oracles and commands from the Divine Schechina But instead of these Oracles of importance if the Divine Schechina should tell St. Peter or St. Paul or St. Apollonia and the rest of the Saints ever when any pray to them in such infinite distinct places and some great numbers put together praying to some or other of the Saints let any indifferent man judge how incongruous it is It is sufficient in the mean time that no such terrestrial Omnipercipiency is to be proved in the Angels from this Text. Nor do's Luk. 15. 7. imply any such thing For the Angels ascending and descending as Iacob saw them in his Divine Vision on the ladder that reached from Earth to Heaven those that ascend from Earth tell them in Heaven of the good news of converted sinners and so this Text implies no such terrestrial Omnipercipiency as my Adversary would insinuate But then in the last place suppose this terrestrial Omnipercipency were competible to the Angels it does not follow from Mat. 22. 30. that the Saints already enjoy it For the entire Text runs thus For in the Resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the Angels of God in Heaven But I hope my Adversary will not with Hymeneus and Philetus affirm the Resurrection is past and if not so he must acknowledge even from this Text himself produces that this Angelical priviledge of the Saints in seeing all things in the face of God is yet to come if there were at all any such Angelical priviledge The last thing he alledges for this Point is the weakness of our Objections from the Modes of this Omnipercipiency of the Saints because Potest constare de re quando non constat de modo rei But I answer à posse ad esse non valet consequentia If we had indeed the like assurance of the thing it self That one particular Saint invocated by never so many and at never so far distant places at once did hear the Prayers of all those Suppliants as we have of the Divinity of Christ and the Triunity of the God-head then though I could not reach the particular Mode how it was yet I would believe it But when all manner of Modes producible of a thing seem absurd and incredible and in the mean time there is no assurance of the Reality of the thing it self it argues great levity of mind to give belief to such a thing that it at all is And it is not meer levity in things of such great Importance as the Rights of God and the danger of Idolatry but an irreligious and giddy Temerity Which I pray God keep all men from In the mean time it is very apparent that his attempts against my eighth tenth twelfth and fifteenth Conclusions are frustraneous and that they stand as firm as ever he haying neither proved that we may invocate the Saints we being uncertain whether they hear us or no nor yet proved it certain that they do hear us which were the two Methods whereby he could have undermined these four Conclusions And therefore they standing firm still it is manifest from his own supposal that the other seven viz. the sixth seventh eleventh thirteenth fourteenth eighteenth and twenty fourth stand firm and unshaken also We proceed now to his Answers to the remaining Conclusions in the order I find them His Answer to the ninth Conclusion Against this Conclusion he argues thus Incurvation of the body according to my sixteenth Conclusion is one of the Actions or Gestures which God did chuse in the setting out the Mode of his own Worship Ergo Incurvation towards or in reference to any Creature is Idolatry But now says he if this be true Abraham who used this Incurvation to Men and Angls Gen. 18. and 23. and the beloved Disciple of Iesus who reiterated the like Incurvation towards the Angel Apoc. 22. 8. were Idolaters And therefore my Conclusion cannot be true that is laden with so great an absurdity This is the main of his Argument The Reply In Answer to which I desire the Reader to peruse my sixteenth Conclusion My words are these That the erecting of a Symbolical presence with incurvations thither ward c. I do not say that simple Incurvation is one of the Actions or Gestures which God did chuse to set out the Mode of his own Worship by for Incurvation of the body in general is neither Religious nor Civil but may be either as all men know but that it is Incurvation toward a sâ—mbolical Presence which God appropriated to himself as a Religious Mode of Worship due to himself onely Simple Incurvation is permitted and has been used without any scandal to God or Man both unto Men and Angels Now neither Abrahams nor St. Johns
and uninterrupted can contract and extend it self within moderate bounds But to imagine Christs Body in Heaven by extending it self from thence to the Earth upon every consecration of the Host continuedly so to become present where it was not is to make him even perpetuallâ— in a manner to have a monstrously big and mishapen Body stretched out into parts God knows how many Thousand miles long which any judicious minde and of a quick sense cannot but hugely abhor from thinking on But this being not He must either come down from Heaven upon the Consecration and Annihilation of the Bread leaving Heaven quite for the time and ever and anon travail on Earth and so swiftly as to be in many places at once and some many Thousand miles distant one from another which how absurd it is has been often intimated which also seems to clash with Acts 3. 21. Or else as it were taking leave of himself in Heaven and parting from himself and yet leaving himself behind he comes down to supply the room of the annihilated Bread Orlastly he is present in the room of the said Bread without at all passing from Heaven to Earth Both which seem altogether impossible and unconceivable For how can one and the same Body go from a place and yet leave it self entirely behind in the said place and so as it were divide it self entirely from it self Or how is it possible it should be found in two distant places without passing at least as great a space as that which lyes directly betwixt These things are clearly and perfectly impossible And if they were not yet are they quite beside the cushion this Answer balking the doctrine of Transubstantiation established by the Council of Trent So plain is it every way That neither this nor his former Answer enervates any thing the force of my Argument which proves that Transubstantiation implies that the same thing is and is not at once And therefore this Argument together with all the former against Transubstantiation notwithstanding all the Assaults of my Adversary remaining so manifestly strong and invincible let the impartial Reader judge whether I have cryed Victory before my time or behaved my self any way in down-bearing words Hector-like as he says and not rather like a true Trojan or to speak more properly in so weighty a Cause like a sincere Christian speaking the Truth from my very heart as I find it in the innate and indeleble characters writ by Gods own finger in the understandings of all Men that will open their eyes to Read them even those indubitable first principles of Physicks Metaphysicks Mathematicks and Logick and the common sense of all mankind learned and unlearned So far am I from those Arts and sleights of Men who managing a wrong Cause do swagger and vapour to set off a falsâ—ood Truth needs no such ill Artifices of wit My Adversary indeed swaggers much here in bearing us in hand that the difficulties of the Trinity are equal or greater then these of Transubstantiation and so harpes again on the same string but to this I have sufficiently Answered above and yet it may be I may touch upon it again in the close of my next Reply His Answer to the eight Paragraph touching Costerus the Jesuite My Antagonist does altogether decline saying any thing to my seventh Paragraph which I desire my Reader considerately to peruse and observe the great judgement and discretion of my Opponent in so doing But to that about Costerus in this eighth Paragraph he Answers thus Here is saith he the ground of Costerus his concession That if the true Body of Christ be not in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Church of Rome in that point is in such errour and Idolatry as never was seen or heard of Namely because Christ then had dealt unworthily with his Church in leaving them to fall into such Idolatry by occasion of his own words and by consequence would not be the true Christ And therefore the adoration of the Eucharist would be not onely a mistake as to the Circumstance but also as to the Object there being no such adorable Object in the world as a true Christ according to this supposition and so the Cultus Latriae would be exhibited to a meer Creature And adds That if Transubstantiation can be proved a meer Figment he will willingly grant as much as Costerus to the full This is the main of his Answer and the full strength thereof The Reply This is an adventurous Answer indeed which hazards the Divinity of Christ nay the making him an Impostor and all the Churches of Christendom single Idolaters at least and themselves double Idolaters who then Worship not onely a meer Man but the symbolical presence of a meer Man which is double Idolatry by Conclusion 19th Chap. 2. but this is a cunning though a very evil fetch of my Adversary meerly to elude the Testimony of Costerus viz That the Divinity of Christ standing and he still acknowledged the true Christ â—et the Adoration of the Eucharist is Idolatry unâ—â—s Transubstantiation be true Which most certainly is the sense of Costerus in that place Chap. 12. N. 10. nor did he dream of any such consequence as my Adversary pins upon him as if he meant that then Christ would not be the true Christ if Transubstantiation were not true and that thence the Idolatry would proceed But I will set the whole argumentation of Costerus before my Readers eyes and let him judge whether his Argument be such as my Adversary pretends If in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the true Body of Christ be not contained Christ dealt unworthily with his Church whom throughout the world for 1500 years together he has by occasion of his own words left in such errour and Idolatry as was never in the whole world seen or heard of And then follows that which I have cited in this eighth Paragraph For the errours of those c. which makes up the whole Argument Where I Observe First that there is not the least men ion or intimation That Christ would not be Christ if his words This is my Body did not signifie properly but â—iguratively but rather firmely supposing him to be Christ he would not do any thing so unworthy of his own Office and Dignity as to use words in such a way as should occasion the Church to plunge into so foul Idolatry for so long a time acknowledging that it would be Idolatry though he were the true Christ but that he being so would not use such words but in their proper sense that he might not occasion that Idolatry I say in the first place there is no such thing in this place of Costerus as my Antagonist puts upon him And then secondly I affirm That no man in his wits could be so devoid of either Reason or Piety as to say in good earnest That if these words of Christ This is my Body be to be understood figuratively and not
to the contrary none of these holy Souls being given to such follies as to have their Pictures drawn while they were alive See my Mystery of Iniquity Part 1. Book 1. chap. 14 But being it is extremely improbable but an Image should be like some or other that are either now alive or have lived on the earth since the beginning of the world according to this first supposition this Honour or religious Worship intended to Christ the blessed Virgin or any other Saint will not onely miss them but certainly fall on some other who in stead of being Saints haply are or have been very vile and wicked persons 6. But besides no â—aints are worshipped before they be in Heaven nor indeed are properly Saints till then and the Glories in their Pictures that are about their Heads shew plainly that they intend to represent the Saints in their present condition of Glory in Heaven Whence it is plain that the Images are nothing like them they are made for For how can these Images of brass or stone or wood or any other materials bear the Image of a seearate Soul which all the Saints are for the present And what likeness can there be betwixt the glorious body of â—hrist Heavenly and spiritual and an Image of any terrestrial matter No more than betwixt a piece of Dirt or Soot and the Sun or bright Morning-star And which is most of all to be considered what terrestrial Image can possibly represent him that is truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man and is not the Object of our Adoration but as he is this Divine Complexum as well of the Divinity as the Humanity But what Statuary can carve out the Effigies of the Deity So that the pretense of this Reference of the Honour to the Prototype in this first sense thereof is very weak and vain Nor though there were this natural Reference would it follow that we are to honour them this way it being so plainly forbid and there being better ways then this viz. the commemorating and imitating their Vertues 7. And for that second sense it is indeed disinvolved of those former Difficulties but greater here occurr For as touching our Saviour Christ forasmuch as his pretended Image is but his symbolical Presence the doing of Divine Worship towards it is again plain Idolatry as appears by that Example of the Israelites who worshipped the golden Calf in reference to Iehovah as appears plainly in the Story Exod. 32. 4 5. And for the blessed Virgin and the rest of the Saints that Incurvation toward their symbolical Presences is flat Idolatry is manifest from the eighth ninth and tenth Conclusions of the first Chapter and the fifth nineteenth and twentieth of the second of this Treatise And indeed thus to make the Images of the Saints so called onely their symbolical Presences and so to Worship them before these Images is an attributing Divine Honour to them For this naturally does declare that they have at least a terrestrial Omnipresency which no invisible Power which we know has but onely God But to make a low Obeisance to an absent person God knows how many millions of miles off is still a more forced and ridiculous thing And therefore the saluting of the Saints thus at their symbolical Presences or Images and in the mean time acknowledging them to be in sâ—de Beatorum which they do and must do unless they exclude them Heaven is to acknowledge one Soul to fill Heaven and Earth with its presence which is that vast Privilege of God Almighty onely and therefore this Worship to them is gross Idolatry as supposing such a Perfection in them as is no-where but in God Besides what was intimated before that let this Reference be what it will there being an Incurvation or Prostration before Images whether they be mere Symbols or exact Representations it must be ipso facto â—dolatry by the seventh Conclusion of the first Chapter From whence it follows that the Saints are not honoured by this worshipping of their Images but hideously reproached it supposing them to be pleased and gratify'd with that which is an abomination to the Lord and a gross transgression of his express Commands It implies I say that they are ambitious vain glorious and rebellious against God And therefore they that the most vehemently oppose this way of honouring of them by Images and Invocations are the most true and faithfull Honourers of them they so zealously vindicating them from the great Reproaches these others cast upon them So far are they from being guilty herein of any Rudeness or Clownishness against the Saints of God CHAP. VII His Answer to the first part of the second Paragraph There was no Answer to be given to the first Paragraph it being merely the setting down what the Council of Trent defines about the worshipping of Images But to the first part of the second Paragraph his Answer is this Here the Doctor says he gives us a learned Antithesis betwixt the Commandment of God and Decree of this Council But how weak frivilous and Pharisaical this Antithesis is I have sufficiently declared in my Answer to the second and seventh Conclusions of the first Chapter This is his whole Answer to this part of the Paragraph The Reply AS to that he says it is a learned Antithesis I Reply That it is a plain conspicuous and obvious Antithesis so obvious that it has caused your Church to hide the second Commandment from the sight of the Vulgar To the ill language you give me I Reply nothing but that of the Apostle 1 Pet. 3. 9. Not railing for railing And for your pretended Answer to the second and seventh Conclusions of my first Chapter I refer my Reader to my Reply to it and appeal to his judgement if it be not satisfactory His Answer to the second part of this second Paragraph He uses long ambages and circuits in his Answer to this second part but the main matter occurs in the the end of his Answer which is this That I ought to have proved that which I call the second to be a Commandment really distinct from the first And that the understanding is not the same whether we divide the Precepts of the first Table into three or into four Commandments This he absolutely omitting to do saith he his charge proves a mere Calumny and bearing false witness against his neighbour And so while he pleads for his second he very uncharitably breaks his ninth Commandment The Reply The whole frame of his Answer if I had taken it from the beginning to the end is so weak and slight that I half suspect he was invited to it merely for that last conceits sake to break ajest betwixt the second and ninth precept upon his Adversary For first though I should admit the understanding would be the same though the first Table were divided but into three Commandments so no words of the first Table were left out nay though the first Table were
In which there is not onely a similitude of Signification but of real and personal likeness But this was onely to bring in that sly saâ—ing He who honours man as he is the image of God honours God in his Image Whenas there is no man honours man in reference to God as you pretend to honour the Image of Christ terminating your Worship in him But we do civil honour onely to men and in bowing to them onely signifie our inclination and readiness to do them all good offices of love service and in the mean time acknowledge there is that in them that is worthy of civil honour and esteem And lastly I say as to the pretense of specifick similitude of Figure it signifies no more as to the intended honour of an Individual then if there were no similitude at all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For not to signiâ—ie one determinate thing is to signifie nothing as Aristotle says But by vertue of the direction of our intention we may make any thing signifie any thing To the second I Reply That if the Case the Doctor puts be more than poâ—â—â—ible then it is probable or possible so that he yields what I would have But I will not yield him that he has brought a fit instance or that he has spoke right in that Instance For neither were these Cherubims â—ntended for the symbolical presence of Angels but of God nor was any honour done to the Cherubims or their Prototypes although here again he slily would infuse this poyson of Idolatry into his ignorant Party though with a reproach to God and Moses His Answer to the sixth Paragraph To the first part of this Paragraph he Answers That the Images of the Saints represent them such as they were upon Earth onely with an additional mark of a Crown or Lawrel to signifie their triumphant state in Glory And then That an Image may be like to a separate Soul as well as to an Angel or Cherubim he would infer from that Opinion of the Platonists who make separate Souls invested with aereall or aethereal Vehicles as well as the Angels To the second he Answers that if a terrestrial Image cannot represent that Person who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man then neither can a terrestrial eye represent him and so the Apostles whilest living did never see that Person who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man which is no less then blasphemy as implying that that Person called Iesus Christ whom the Apostles dayly beheld with their eyes was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man The Reply To the first I Reply That unless my Adversary here suppose what he can never make good that they have the true effigies of the Saints such as they were upon Earth he is never the near as to this first curiosity whether he phancy them represented such as they were on Earth or such as they are now in Heaven But being Religious Worship is not due to them till they be canonized to represent them such as they were on Earth is to represent them in Order to Religious Worship such as they were before they were capable of Religious Worship And the Lawrel and Crown he talks of those are not on their Images or Statues but onely a Glory over their Heads in their Pictures so far as I remember of which the genuine signification is That that picture stands for them such as they are now in glory and there is the same sense of their Statues and of their Pictures Moreover his supposal is false and contrary to his own Assertion before when he asserts that the Images of Cherubims or Angels are like in Figure to the Angels themselves as if there were Ox-headed and Lyon-headed Angels And lastly suppose we should be so courteous as to grant him the doctrine of the Platonists that Souls separate have aereal or aethereal Vehicles what would this advantage him they allowing no settled Figure to them And if there were an humane Figure allowed when we have no knowledge what was their individual terrestrial Figure how shall we know what is their aereal or aethereal And though the Figure was known what terrestrial matter can express that lively enravishing spiritual beauty that is in those lucid Vehicles So that though the Figure were 〈◊〉 the form which is the life of the Figure would be quite lost and be nothing near so like the separate Soul as the dead carcass of the greatest beauty on Earth after four days lying in the grave would be to the said party when alive So that my Adversary in his Answer to this first part seems to indulge to humours and fetches of wit rather than to reason soberly and so as to prove a personal likeness betwixt the Saints and their Images And this in like sort may be said of his Answer to the second part which is indeed an odd unexpected fetch of wiâ— but hugely rude and harsh that would pretend to fix on my Argument the horrid crime of blasphemy when it is in truth the asserting the transcendent excellency of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ not the denying of it which were an hainous piece of blasphemy against the Son of God indeed I say therefore that when I ask what terrestrial Image can possibly represent him that is truely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man that no mans mind that is not very extravagant could ever phancy that I meant any other Image then what is external to our sight which that in our eye is not Again it is manifest that I mean it of some Image that represents the absent and invisible Humanity of Christ by reason of its absence and not such an Image as a Parelion or a Paraselene are that do not represent the Sun or Moon but by vertue of the presence of those Luminaries Nor did tâ—e Image of Christ in the eyes of the Apostles or other men represent Christ any otherwise then by 〈◊〉 of his Presence But it is plain to any that will not cavil that I understand my own words of such Images as represent the absent as the Statue of Caesar of Virgil and the like And then lastly I flatly deny that the Image of an external Object in the eye is terrestrial For the Image is not in the nervous bottom of the eye but butts onely upon it as the Images let in upon white paper through a Hole in a dark room That Image is not fixed nor subjected in the paper but in the ethereal matter that touches the paper And so the Image is in the ethereal matter that touches the bottom of the eye not in the bottom of the eye it self But ethereal matter is not terrestrial and therefore this no terrestrial Image Unto all which I add That it does not follow but that though the Image in the eye call it terrestrial or ethereal had not the adequate or principal power of representing Christ God-man to the Apostles when he was on Earth yet the presence of
our Saviour and the Divine graces of his Person shooting through that Image into the Souls and hearts of the beholders faith being wrought in them by the spirit of God according to his eternal purpose as it is written No man cometh to me unless my Father draw him they might behold him and give that Testimony that St. Iohn does of him Iohn 1. The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld the glory of him as the glory of the onely begotten Son of God full of grace and truth But for others that saw the humane Presence of him who is truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though they could not discern him to be such or to be the Messias so far as they saw it chiefly to be imputed to his humanity being present and not to the Image in the eye which but for his Presence could not represent him to the Soul But I hope the wicked and unbeliever noâ— discovering his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not at all argue him not to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God-man And now if the Image impressed by the very presence of Christ had not not the natural Power of representing that Divine Complexum God-man according to both the natures how far short shall Images of wood or stone or what ever materials be from representing him being absent In the mean time it is apparent how rash and inhumane my Antagonist is to charge me with blasphemy upon such slight and toyish pretenses as he is pleased to take up and every way so weak and insignificant I have insisted on this longer than was needfull But I was invited so to do because my Adversary here seems to have intended to make a show of induing his confutations of this seventh Chapter with so great Triumph when indeed he has one nothing at all he having not taken notice of the close of this â—ixth Paragraph that declares and proves that though there were this natural reference of Images to their Prototypes by reason of personal similitude of Figure yet it would be Idolatry to Worship them Vpon the seventh Paragraph Which I do more-fâ—lly inculcate in the beginning of the last part of this seventh Paragraph And in the first and second part thereof copiously demonstrate that though these Images have the similitude of Signification onely as he loves to call it and not of Figure yet it is Idolatry over and over again to Worship them Which Hypothesis he chiefly or rather onely adheres to and has sported and playd away his time in superfluously and weakly trifling against the first part of my Dilemma is if he would make good the similitude of Figure betwixt the Images and Prototypes when he seems to believe neither any truth nor necessity of it but onely to make a show of confuting this seventh Chapter when he has left the latter end of the sixth Paragraph and this whole seventh untouched which is the main drift of all namely to shew that whether the Images have any similitude with their Prototypes or no yet it is Idolatry to Worship them and that therefore the Council of Trent has no subterfuge in this regard to excuse themselves from the charge of Idolatry in appointing the honour they appoint to them CHAP. VIII The Doctrine of the second Council of Nice touching the Worship of Images to which the Council of Trent refers that it is grosly Idolatrous also 1. BUT now as for the other Reason of these Tridentine Fathers whereby they would support their Determination in this point Viz. the Authority of the second Council of Nice held about the year 780 to omit that long before this time the Church had become asymmetral which yet is a very substantial Consideration I shall only return this brief answer The God of Israel which is the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ has given this express command to his Church for ever Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image thou shalt not bow down to it nor worship it But the second Council of Nice says Thou mayst and shalt bow down to to the Image of Christ of the blessed Virgin and of the rest of the Saints Now whether it be fit to believe and obey God or men judg ye I might add farther men so silly and frivolous in the defense of their Opinions so false and fabulous in the Allegations of their Authorities and the recitall of miraculous Stories as Chemnitius has proved at large in his Examen of the Council of Trent 2. I will give an Instance or two Mat. 5. 15. No man lighteth a candle and putteth it under a bushell therefore the Images of the Saints are to be placed on the Altars and Wax-candles lighted up before them in due honour to them Again Psalm 16. But to the Saints that are on the Earth But the Saints are in Heaven say they therefore their Images ought to be on the Earth c. As for the Miracles done by Images as their Speaking the Healing of the sick the Revenging of the wrong done to them the distilling of roâ—id drops of balsame to heal the wounded sick or lame their Recovering water into a dry Well and the like it were too tedious to recite these Figments But that of the Image of the Virgin to whom her Devotionist spake when he took leave of her and was to take a long Journey intreating her to look to her Candle which he had lighted up for her till his return I cannot conceal For the Story says the same Candle was burning six months after at the return of her Devoto An example of the most miraculous Prolonger that ever I met withall before in all my days Such an Image of the Virgin would save poor Students a great deal in the expense of Candles if the thing were but lawfull and feasible 3. From these small hints a man may easily discover of what Authority this second Council of Nice ought to be though they had not concluded so point-blank against the Word of God But because that Clause in this Paragraph of the Council I have recited Id quod Conciliorum praesertim verò secundae Nicaenae Synodi c. may as well aim at the determination of what these Fathers mean by that debitus honor reverentia which they declare to be due to the Images of Christ and the Saints as confirm their own Conclusion by the Authority of that Nicene Council we will take notice also what a kinde of Honour and Reverence to Images the Nicene Council did declare for and in short it is this That they are to be worshipped and adored and to be honoured with Wax-candles and by the smoaking of Incense or Perfumes and the like Which smells rankly enough in all conscience of Idolatry as Grotius himself upon the Decalogue cannot but acknowledge But this is not all The Invocation of Saints their Mediation and propitiating God for us for adoring their Images â—ealing of Diseases and other Aids and Helps besides