taken for the supreme God because in Lystra a City of Lycaonia S. Paul and Barnabas refused the worship the people would have given to them as to Jupiter and Mercury Among the Grecian Colonies what wonder is it if the Grecian Jupiter was worshipped and who ever said that he was not a false God But after all this suppose they did mean the great and original Jupiter the maker of the world had not S. Paul and Barnabas reason to turn them from the vanities of their worship when they found them so ready to give divine honours to two men whom they fancied to appear in the likeness of their Gods by doing a sudden and unexpected miracle And if it were lawful by the light of nature to give divine worship of an inferiour degree to mankind what made the Apostles so concerned to run in among them and to rent their clothes and to cry out We are men of like passions with you Therefore all that strain of T. G.'s Rhetorick whereby he endeavours to return Dr. St.'s arguments upon himself from this place hath no manner of strength or pungency in it But what saith T. G. to Dr. St.'s other argument from Scripture viz. that S. Paul to the Romans doth say that which is known of God was manifest among the Heathens that his Eternal Power and Godhead were so far discovered that they were left without excuse in their gross Idolatry How could this be if their supreme God whom they worshipped were only an Arch-devil Or doth T. G. suppose that they did own one true God but gave all their worship to the Devil And since the name of Jupiter was used to express alwayes the chief God whom they did own and by such characters as could only agree to the true God is it any wayes likely they should never intend to worship him under that name When Dr. St. hath shewed from Dio Chrysostom that by Jupiter they meant the first and greatest God the supreme Governour of the World and King over all rational beings R. P. I do not find T. G. takes any notice of the other argument from Scripture but he applyes himself to the Fathers P. D. But what saith he to the Testimonies Dr. St. produced of the Writers of his own Church a full Jury of them who frankly acknowledge that the Heathens did own and Worship one supreme God R. P. I suppose he thought none of the rest worth answering but he finds great fault with the testimony out of Aquinas P. D. This is a rare way of answering Dr. St. produced twelve several Authors of good reputation T. G. takes no notice of eleven of them and because he makes some cavils at the twelfth he would have this pass for an answer to them all R. P. But the Dr. loseth his credit so much in that that we need not to examine the rest P. D. Why so It is possible a man through haste or inadvertency or as T. G. expresseth it through a casual undulation of the visual rays may for once mistake but doth it follow that he must do it for twelve times together But I have not yet found any cause for these clamours and I suppose there may be as little as to this Testimony I pray tell me where lyes it R. P. T. G. makes a great many words about it but the short of the charge is this that what Aquinas spoke of some of the Philosophers viz. the Platonicks who acknowledged one supreme God from whom they said all those others whom they called Gods did receive their being Dr. St. interprets as spoken of the Generality of the Heathens who are there said to acknowledge a multitude of Gods properly so called P. D. I know not whether to express greater shame or indignation at this disingenuous dealing There needs no other answer but to set down Aquinas his words and to leave the Reader to construe them Hac autem veritate repelluntur Gentiles Deorum multitudinem confitentes quamvis plures eorum unum Deum summum esse dicerent à quo omnes alios quos Deos nominabant creatos esse asserebant c. Can any thing be plainer from these words than that those Gentiles are refuted who held a multitude of independent Deities although the greater number of them of whom is it not of the Heathens he spake of before and where is there one word of Platonists or Philosophers in the whole sentence do acknowledge one supreme God of whom all others whom they called Gods did receive their being What can be more evident from these words than that although some among the Heathens might hold a multitude of independent Deities yet the greater number did not The single question here is whether plures Gentilium doth signifie the greater number of Gentiles or the small number of Platonists who are not once mentioned But besides this Dr. St. produces another Testimony out of the same Book of Aquinas where he makes three several schemes of the Heathen Worship viz. 1. Of those who held one First principle but thought Divine Worship might be given to inferiour Beings 2. Of those who supposed God to be the soul of the world 3. Of those who worshipped animated Images If the other had been the general opinion of the Heathen he would have ranked it in the first place viz. of those who gave Divine Worship to many independent Deities but he doth not so much as mention it where it had been very proper to do it And it is plain from this Testimony of Aquinas that it is Idolatry to give Divine Worship to any Creatures although of never so great excellency R. P. Let us come to the Fathers I beseech you for my fingers itch to be at them for I see T. G. hath taken more than ordinary pains to prove that the Fathers make the Heathens supreme God to be an Arch-devil but it is necessary in the first place to state the question aright P. D. I think so too R. P. T. G. hath taken some pains to do it to prevent misunderstanding For he takes notice of four several questions which may relate to this matter 1. Whether the Heathens did not acknowledge one Supreme God which he yields and produces several Testimonies of the Fathers to that purpose 2. Whether the Heathens did not pretend that they understood this Supreme God by Jupiter and accordingly gave him the titles due to the Supreme God This T. G. denies not to be fully proved by Dr. St. but he saith all these Testimonies are impertinent 3. Whether the Fathers do not acknowledge that this was pretended by the Heathens This T. G. accounts impertinent too For saith he they might cite some sayings of the Heathen to that purpose and yet be of a contrary judgement themselves But the point in debate between the Dr. and T. G. is this 4. Whether it were the Fathers own sense that Jupiter was the Supreme God P. D.
thought the greatest enemies to toleration in the world now plead most vehemently for it and are even angry with us for not acting sufficiently in this cause against the Church of England But because I take you for a friend by your enquiring after these Books I must tell you it is yet a disputable point among us how far we may joyn with Antichrist to promote the interest of Christ And some insist on that place to prove the unlawfulness of it Be ye not unequally yoked others again prove it lawful because it is said Yet not altogether with the Fornicators of this world or with Idolaters whence they observe that they may joyn with them in some things or for some ends but not altogether i. e. they must not joyn with them in their Idolatries but they may against the Church of England R. P. This is too publick a place to talk of these matters in but may we not withdraw into the next room for I have a great mind to set you right in this main point of present concernment And if the Papists should be found not to be Idolaters a great part of your difficulty is gone Do you think it is not fit for you to be better informed in this matter when a thing of so great consequence depends upon it as your deliverance from the persecution of the Church of England which you know we have all sighed and groaned for a long time It is in vain for any of you to expect favour from thence as long as she is able to stand For if the Bishops were never so much inclined to it how could they possibly give ease to you without destroying themselves And since the dissenting parties are so different among themselves in their light and attainments it is impossible to please any one party without displeasing all the rest Comprehension is a meer snare and temptation to the Brethren being a design to prefer some and to leave the rest in the lurch Let us all joyn our strengths together to pull down this Church of England and then though there be a King in Israel every one may do what seemeth good in his own eyes F. C. I doubt you are not well seen in Scripture for the Text is In those dayes there was no King in Israel and every one did what seemed good in his own eyes whence you may observe a special hint by the by that Toleration agrees best with a Common-wealth But this to your self and you might justly wonder at this freedom with you but that I remember you many years ago when you and I preached up the Fifth Monarchy together in the Army Those were glorious dayes Ah the Liberty we then enjoyed Did we then think the good old Cause would ever have ended thus Well! It is good to be silent in bad times But methinks you and I however may retire and talk over old stories and refresh our memories with former out-goings together For here is little at present for us to do R. P. Whereabouts are they now in the Catalogue F. C. Among the Fathers those Old-Testament Divines What lights have we seen since their dayes We need not trouble our selves about them But I observe the Church of England men buy them up at any rate What prices do they give for a Justin Martyr or Epiphanius or Philo who they say was a meer Jew How must they starve their people with the Divinity of these men How much of the good Divinity of the late times might they have for the money We cannot but pity their blindness But I see we cannot be here so private as we wished for yonder sits a Divine of the Church of England who I suppose is the person who bought so many Fathers at the last Auction as though he had a mind to write against the Papists R. P. Sit you by a while and we will talk of our matters another time I have been much abroad since you and I were first acquainted and have lately brought over a new Book from Paris You shall see how I will handle him and if you put in upon occasion you shall find by this experiment what success our united forces would have against the Church of England F. C. Do you begin and you shall see how I will second you when occasion offers it self R. P. Sir I perceive the Divines of the Church of England do buy up the Fathers very much at Auctions I wonder that any who read the Fathers can be for the Church of England Pr. Div. And I do more wonder at you for saying so For therefore we are for the Church of England because we read both Scripture and Fathers R. P. To what purpose is all this charge and pains if there be an infallible Church P. D. Therefore to good purpose because there is no one Church infallible R. P. Is there not a Catholick Church P. D. Do you think I have forgotten my Creed R. P. Which is that Catholick Church P. D. Which of all the parts is the whole Is that your wise question Do not you know the Christian Church hath been broken into different Communions ever since the four General Councils and continues so to this day What do you mean by the Catholick Church R. P. I mean the Church of Rome P. D. Then you ask me which is the Church of Rome but what need you ask that since you know it already R. P. But the Roman Church is the Catholick Church P. D. You may as well say London is England or England the World And why may not we call England the World because the rest of the world is divided from it as you the Roman Church the Catholick Church because the other Churches are separated in Communion from it R. P. I mean the Roman Church is the Head and Fountain of Catholick Doctrine and other Churches are pure and sound as they do agree with it P. D. Your proposition is not so self-evident that the bare knowing your meaning must make me assent I pray first prove what you say before I yield R.P. Was not the Church of Rome once a sound and Catholick Church P. D. What then so was the Church of Jerusalem of Antioch and Alexandria and so were the seven Churches of Asia Were all these Heads and Fountains too R. P. But S. Paul speaks of the Church of Rome P. D. He doth so but not much to her comfort for he supposes she may be broken off through unbelief as well as any other Church R. P. Doth not S. Paul say that the Roman faith was spoken of throughout the World P. D. What then I beseech you doth it follow that faith must alwayes continue the same any more than that the Church of Philadelphia must at this day be what it was when S. John wrote those great commendations of it These are such slender proofs that you had as good come to downright begging the Cause as pretend to maintain it after such a manner
Works which being neither from Mathematical Demonstrations nor supernatural infallibility he called Moral Certainty Which he might do from these grounds 1. Because the force of the Argument from the Creatures depends upon some Moral Principles Viz. From the suitableness and fitness of things to the Wisdom of an Intelligent and Infinite Agent who might from thence be inferred to be the Maker of them It being unconceivable that meer matter should ever produce things in so much beauty order and usefulness as we see in every Creature in an Ant or a Fly as much as in the vast bodies of the Heavens 2. Because they do suppose some Moral Dispositions in the persons who do most readily and firmly assent to these Truths For although men make use of the highest titles for their arguments and call them Infallible Proofs Mathematical Demonstrations or what they please yet we still see men of bad minds will find something to cavil at whereby to suspend their assent which they do not in meer Metaphysical notions or in Mathematical Demonstrations But vertuous and unprejudiced minds do more impartially judge and therefore more readily give their assent having no byas to incline them another way Although therefore the principles be of another nature and the arguments be drawn from Idea's or series of Causes or whatever medium it be yet since the perverseness of mens will may hinder the force of the argument as to themselves the Certainty might be called Moral Certainty 2. As to the Christian Faith So he grants 1. That there are some principles relating to it which have Metaphysical Certainty in them as that Whatever God reveals is impossible to be false or as it is commonly expressed though improperly is infallibly True 2. That there is a rational Certainty that a Doctrine confirmed by such Miracles as were wrought by Christ and his Apostle must come from God that being the most certain Criterion of Divine Revelation 3. That there was a Physical Certainty of the truth of Christs Miracles and Resurrection from the dead in the Apostles who were eye-witnesses of them 4. That there was an Infallible Certainty in the Apostles delivering this doctrine to the world and writing it for the benefit of the Church in all Ages 5. That we have a moral Certainty of the matters of Fact which do concern the Doctrine the Miracles and the Books of Scripture which is of the same kind with the certainty those had of Christs Doctrine and Miracles who lived in Mesopotamia at that time which must depend upon the credibility of the Witnesses who convey these things which is a Moral Consideration and therefore the Certainty which is taken from it may be properly called Moral Certainty Of which there being many degrees the highest is here understood which any matter of fact is capable of And now I pray tell me what reason hath there been for all this noise about Moral Certainty R. P. T. G. owns that the Dr. in other places doth acknowledge a true certainty of the principles of Religion but he saith he can say and unsay without retracting with as much art and ease as any man he ever read P. D. I had thought unsaying had been retracting But Dr. St. saith as much in those very places T. G. objects against as in those he allows Only T. G. delights in cavilling above most Authors I have ever read R. P. But doth not Dr. St. allow a possibility of falshood notwithstanding all this pretence of Certainty P. D. Whatever is true is impossible to be false and the same degree of evidence any one hath of the truth of a thing he hath of the impossibility of the falshood of it therefore he that hath an undoubted certainty of the truth of Christianity hath the same certainty that it is impossible it should be false And because possibility and impossibility are capable of the same distinctions that Certainty is therefore according to the nature and degrees of Certainty is the possibility or impossibility of falshood That which is Metaphysically certain is so impossible to be false that it implyes a contradiction to be otherwise but it is not so in Physical Certainty nor in all rational Certainty nor in Moral and yet whereever any man is certain of the truth of a thing he is proportionably certain that it is impossible to be false R. P. This only relates to the person and not to the Evidence Is there any such evidence of the Existence of a Deity as can infallibly convince it to be absolutely true and so impossible to be false P. D. I do not doubt but that there are such evidences of the Being of God as do prove it to any unprejudiced mind impossible to be otherwise And T. G. had no reason to doubt of this from any thing Dr. St. had said who had endeavoured so early to prove the Being of God and the Principles of Christian Faith before he set himself to consider the Controversies which have happened in the Christian Church T. G. therefore might well have spared these reflections in a debate of so different a nature but that he was glad of an opportunity to go off from the business as men are that know they are not like to bring it to a good issue R. P. T. G. confesseth this is a digression but he promises to return to the matter and so he does I assure you for he comes to the second thing which he saith the Dr. ought to have done viz. to have shewed how the Notion of Idolatry doth agree to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils P. D. It is a wonder to me you should think him defective in this when he shews that there are two things from whence the sense of the Roman Church is to be taken 1. From the Definitions of Councils 2. From the practice of the Church 1. From the Definitions of Councils And here he entred upon the consideration of what that worship was which was required to be given to Images and shewed from the words of the Council and from the Testimony of the most eminent Divines of the Roman Church that it was not enough to worship before Images and to have an intention to perform those external Acts but there must be an inward intention to worship the Images themselves and that the contrary doctrine was esteemed little better than downright Heresie 2. From the Practice of the Church For he shews many of your best Divines went upon this principle that God would not suffer his Church to err and therefore they thought the allowed practice of the Church sufficient for them to defend those things to be lawful which they saw generally practised And from hence he makes it appear that the Church of Rome hath gone beyond the Council of Nice in two things 1. In making and worshipping Images of God and the B. Trinity which was esteemed madness and Pagan Idolatry in the time of the
and wicked men are averse both from God and Heaven though they walk barefoot and make the richest presents to the true God But how doth this prove they did not intend to worship the true God there Although withal their worship even in the Capitol was Idolatrous worship both as to the Image of Jupiter and the conjunction of other Gods with him therefore whatever their intention was as to the worship of Jupiter O. M. their supplications might well be displeasing to the true God and on that account they might be said to be averse from God and Heaven R. P. I have another testimony of Tertullian still good which if I mistake not will put you hard to it It is in his Apologetick We are esteemed not to be Romans but injurious to them because we do not worship the God of the Romans 'T is well he is the God of all whether we will or no. But among you it is lawful to worship any thing but the true God as if he were not the great God of all whose no are all What could be said more express to remove that abominable pretence of the Doctors that the God of the Romans was the true God P. D. I see no reason in the world for your accounting the Doctors pretence abominable unless he justified the way of worship then used which he confesseth to be abominable both in the old Romans and others who too much imitate their Idolatries Observe that Tertullian speaks of their worship which being Idolatrous the Christians had just reason to refuse joyning with the Romans in it From hence they were accused for worshipping another God from him whom the Romans worshipped and Tertullian before mentions the several suspicions which they had concerning the God of the Christians some said it was the head of an Ass some the Cross some the Sun and some set forth a ridiculous picture with the ears of an Ass a Book and a Gown and called this the God of the Christians Tertullian upon this declares that the Christians worshipped the God that made the world and none else or as he said to Scapula the God whom all men know by Nature And in that very Chapter from whence those words are cited he saith it was the common opinion among the Romans that there was one God higher and more powerful than all the rest of perfect Wisdom and Majesty for the greatest part saith he did make this scheme of Divinity that the chief Power lay in one God to whom the rest were only ministerial and subservient I am afraid T. G. will allow my sense of these words no more than he is wont to do Dr. St.'s I will therefore give you Tertullians own words Nam sic plerique disponunt Divinitatem ut imperium summae Dominationis esse penes unum officia ejus penes multos velint Which words are of mighty weight and consequence in this matter towards the right understanding Tertullians meaning Here we see from whence Aquinas had his plures eorum and in what sense it must be understood From hence it appears that the Generality of the Heathens did not assert a multitude of independent gods nor were charged with Idolatry on that account And to let us see whom they meant by this supreme God he produces in the next words the place of Plato mentioned by Athenagoras of the great Jupiter in Heaven with his Army of Gods and Demons R. P. But Tertullian saith the Christians did not worship the God of the Romans and the Romans would not suffer them to worship the true God how could this be if they did own and worship the true God P. D. I will tell you The God of the Romans was he who was worshipped after an Idolatrous manner in the Capitol and elsewhere the Christians chose rather to to dye than to worship God after this manner the Romans would permit no other kind of Worship than their own and when the Christians refused to joyn in their worship they could not believe let them say what they would that they worshipped that God whom all men know by the light Nature The God of the Romans is the God worshipped after the Roman manner as the God of the Jews of the Turks and of the Christians is the God worshipped according to those several Laws although he be the same God in himself the Maker and Governour of the World This place then doth imply no more than that the Roman Religion as it stood at that time and the Christian were inconsistent but it doth not follow from hence that the Romans did not intend to worship the Supreme God under the title of Jupiter O. M. R. P. Before we leave Tertullian I have something more to say to you concerning him it is about a passage of his Book ad Scapulam cited by Dr. St. where he endeavours to prove that the Heathens Jupiter was the Supreme God by a miracle wrought upon the Heathens supplications to him under the name of Jove P. D. Are you sure that Dr. St. ever meant any such thing R. P. T. G. quotes his words God saith he shewed himself to be the powerful God by what he did upon their supplications to him under the name of Jove P. D. But doth not Dr. St. expresly say that it was upon the prayers of Christians that miracle was wrought R. P. Yes T. G. takes notice of that and from thence proves that he wilfully corrupted Tertullians text and makes a very Tragical business of it Methinks I see the great Dionysius with his Birchen Scepter walking round him telling him of his faults and then one or two lashes but lest his pain should be too soon at an end he takes off his hand and walks the other turn with a stern and Magisterial Countenance bidding others beware and telling them what an example he will make of him he laies on again with such a spring in his arm and so many repeated strokes that I even pity the poor Doctor and I could not think Dionysius himself could have expressed more severity on such an occasion but I consider it is against an Heretick and it is necessary sometimes to let you see how sharp we can be P. D. You need not to tell us that but we had need to keep out of your lash as long as we can for we expect no great kindness from you if ever we fall under it But why should T. G. think that Dr. St. designed to corrupt Tertullians sense in that place when himself had before owned that the miracle was wrought by the prayers of the Christians He would never have done this if he intended the other I do confess the words as they lye are capable of that construction T. G. puts upon them but in common ingenuity they ought to be understood according to his own former sense of them unless the force of the argument lay in the other sense which I do not perceive it
clear and distinct Thirdly that it be general But I shall shew you that this account fails in all those particulars and withall that it doth not clear the Image worship of the Roman Church 1. That it is not full because it supposes all their Idolatry as to Images to lye in taking the Images of Deified men for Gods on the account of the presence of evil Spirits in them But I find another reason alledged out of the Fathers against the Worship of Images by Dr. St. which T. G. takes no notice at all of viz. that Image Worship was very unsuitable to the Divine Nature as well as repugnant to the Will of God and although the latter reason may seem to hold only for those who received the Scriptures yet the former doth extend to all mankind For he shews from the Fathers that Zeno the Stoick Antisthenes Xenophon Numa and others condemned the Worship of Images on this account because they were a disparagement of the Divine Nature And for this he produces the Testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus Justin Martyr Athenagoras Origen Lactantius and many others Is this account true or false if false why is it not proved to be so if true why is it not allowed Is this fair or honest dealing in pretending to answer and not taking notice of the main objections or to give account of the Fathers opinions of this matter and to say not one word to all this But it is one thing to write an Answer to a Book and another to write a Book which must pass for an Answer 2. This account is not clear and distinct For it doth not express whether it were Idolatry or not to worship Images where there was no incorporation supposed of evil Spirits nor doth it shew how it could be Idolatry on that supposition I do not deny that there was such an opinion among the Heathens that Spirits might possess Images and be incorporated with them but I say this was a particular opinion and not the general belief For Hermes from whom S. Augustin gives the most exact account of this hypothesis from the Asclepian Dialogue looks upon it as a Divine and peculiar art of drawing invisible Spirits into Images in such a manner as to animate them and thereby making Gods Which he saith is the most wonderful of all wonders that it should be in mens power to make Gods Not by producing the Divine Being but by so uniting it to the Image as to make that a fit object for divine worship But you of the Church of Rome pretend to do as much as this comes to with five words and somewhat more for you pretend to annihilate a substance which they did not but as to the main wonder yours is of the same nature viz. so to unite the Divinity to the species of Bread and Wine as to make them together a fit object for divine worship And therefore T. G. doth not at all clear the nature of Idolatry as to Images by such an Hypothesis which doth justifie the Worship of Images upon his own grounds For this principle being supposed that God was really incorporated in the Image it was as lawful for them to Worship that Image as for you to Worship the Host. If you say those were evil Spirits and not the true God that doth not clear the matter For we are not now disputing whether they were good or bad Spirits which were in those Images but on what account they were charged with Idolatry in the Worship of Images If it were for worshipping their Images as Gods on the account of one of their Gods being incorporated in the Image this I say is no account at all on T. G.'s principles for then such an Image was as fit an object of worship on their supposition as the adoration of the Host is on yours So that this is rather a clearing the Worship of Images from the charge of Idolatry among the Heathens than giving any account of it all the Idolatry in this case lying in the worship of Evil Spirits and not in the Worship of Images 3. This Account is not general as to the Heathens For many and those the most learned among them declared that they did not take their Images for Gods as Dr. St. proved in his First Book not barely from the Testimonies of the Heathens but from the Fathers too which passages he repeated and urged against T. G. in his Defence And among others he produced the Testimony of Eusebius speaking of the Heathens in general who saith they did not look on their Images as Gods and of him T. G. saith that no man understood the Heathens Principles better And yet after all this T. G. hopes to have it pass for a good account of the Heathens Idolatry as to Images that they took their Images for Gods 4. This Account doth not clear the practice of your Church in the Worship of Images R. P. There I am sure you are mistaken For do we take our Images for Gods And T. G. well observes that when the Fathers spake against the Worship of Images from their vileness and impotency they did not found their arguments meerly on the matter of the Images and the Art of the Artificers but upon these two conditions conjoyntly taken viz. that they were held to be Gods and yet were made of such materials whereas we do not believe our Images to be Gods nor worship them as such as the Heathens did For the Council of Trent declares that it believes no Divinity in them for which they ought to be worshipped P. D. This is the utmost which can be said in your Defence and to shew you how far this is from clearing your Worship of Images I shall consider 1. The force of the Fathers arguments 2. The difference of the Heathens opinions from yours as to the Divinity of Images And if their arguments be such as equally hold against your practises and your answers do not really differ from theirs then the parallel will hold good between your Idolatry and theirs in this particular 1. For the force of the Fathers arguments the thing to be considered is whether they held only in conjunction with believing their Images to be Gods What connexion was there between this Hypothesis and the disparagement which Images did imply to the Divine Nature For this was wholly on the account of representation and this is the great argument the Fathers insist upon The infinite distance between God and the Work of mens hands the disproportion that dull and senseless matter however Carved and Adorned doth bear to a Divine Majesty that no Image of God ought to be worshipped but what is what he is i. e. his Eternal Son the light of Nature teaching men that it was greater purity of Worship greater reverence to the Deity less danger of errour to mankind to worship God without an Image are all arguments used and pressed by the Fathers against the