his argument is the stronger for the distinction between them For although no prayers be made to Confutius no divine power be supposed to be in him as in the Tutelar Spirits yet because he had a Temple in every City with his Image in it and all other external Rites of adoration used as genuflections wax-candles incense and oblations such as your Church useth to Images without prayers yet these are condemned as Idolatrous And although the Cardinals might not then reflect on the consequence of this resolution as to their own practices yet I cannot but admire at the Wisdom of that Providence which once directed Caiaphas to speak a great Truth beside his intention that so overruled the Congregation of Cardinals to condemn their own Idolatry under the name of Confutius For if the using those external acts of adoration towards the Image of Confutius be Idolatry why shall it not be so where prayers are added as they are in your Church to the Images set up in your Churches Let T. G. tell me wherein the Nature of that Idolatry lay which consisted in external Acts of adoration without any opinion of Confutius being a God truly and properly so called 3. That external Acts are capable of Idolatry however the intention of the mind be directed For although the Cardinals believed the Crucifix to be a proper object of Divine Worship yet they condemned those Acts as Idolatrous which were directed to it in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirits And upon the whole matter I think no impartial Reader will believe that T. G. hath said any thing to purpose upon this matter and that he had better left those few leaves still vacant than have filled them with such an insignificant Postscript and he hath no reason to thank his Friend for putting him upon laying open so much the Weakness of his Cause For from hence it farther appears that the Modern Idolaters will likewise be excused if the nature of Idolatry doth consist as T. G. saith in Worshipping many Gods truly and properly so called R. P. But you are mistaken if you think T. G. placeth the Nature of Idolatry wholly in this for he saith that the Heathens were guilty of Idolatry in worshipping Nature instead of God either the several parts of the Vniverse as Sun Moon and Stars c. understanding the Fire by Jupiter the Air by Juno c. or the Soul of the World as the Stoicks did whereby the Heathens did as T. G. often repeats it from Vossius relicto Deo in Naturae Veneratione consistere forsaking God stay in the worship of the Creatures and for this he quotes Athanasius S. Augustine and Athenagoras P. D. It is sufficient for Dr. St.'s design if the worship of Images and of intellectual Beings under one supreme God were Idolatry among the Heathens for then it must remain so among Christians as well as Murder and Adultery are the same whereever they are found But since you have proposed it I shall consider with you how far the worship of the Creatures in general is Idolatry But I have some few questions to ask you about this sort of Idolatry 1. Whether you think the Heathens Idolatry did lye in worshipping meer matter as God Or 2. In worshipping God as the soul of the world and the several parts of it with respect to him Or 3. In acknowledging a Creator but giving all the worship to the Creatures R. P. In all these according to their several opinions P. D. Do you really think any of them did worship meer matter without life sense or understanding for God For either they did believe some other God or not if they did how is it possible they should not worship that which could hear and understand and help them and worship that which could do none of these If they did not believe any other God they were Atheists and not Idolaters For are not those Atheists who acknowledge no other God but meer matter i. e. no God at all For so Vossius himself saith those who held meer matter to be God verbo Deum fatebantur re negabant did only seem to believe a God whom they really denyed For what kind of God saith he was that which had neither sense nor reason R. P. It was Idolatry then to worship the parts of the world with a respect to God as the Soul of it which as T. G. saith in his Postscript is to make a false God P. D. There are two things which deserve to be considered as to this matter 1. In what sense making God the soul of the world is setting up a false God 2. How far the Gentiles could be charged with Idolatry who worshipped the parts of the world with respect to God as the soul of it R. P. Do not you think making God the soul of the world is setting up a false God P. D. I pray tell me what you mean by the soul of the world For either you mean the natural series of Causes or the more subtil and active parts of matter diffused through the Vniverse without Mind and Vnderstanding or you mean an Intelligent Being which by Wisdom and Providence orders and governs the world but withall is so united to it as the Soul is to the Body If you mean the former I say all such who held it were really Atheists and only differed in the way of speaking from those who worshipped meer matter for let them call God the soul of the world never so much they mean no more than that there is no other God but the Power of Nature If you mean an Vnderstanding Being Governing the World whose essence is distinct from matter but yet is supposed to be so united to it as the Soul is to the Body then I pray tell me in what sense you make him to be a false God and how it comes to be Idolatry to worship the parts of the world with respect to him R. P. S. Augustin proves against Varro that God was not the Soul of the World if there were any such thing but the Creator and Maker of it and he shews that this opinion is attended with impious and irreligious consequences P. D. I do not go about to defend the opinion but I hope I may ask wherein the Idolatry lay of worshipping one God under this notion as he animated the world and the several parts of it R. P. In worshipping the several parts of the world with Divine Worship not with a respect to the Body but to God as the Soul of it for therein Aquinas placeth their Idolatry P. D. Is relative Latria Idolatry R. P. Why do you ask me such an impertinent question P. D. Nothing can be more pertinent for this is meer relative Latria R. P. It was Idolatry in them but yet not so in us when we worship the Crucifix with respect to Christ. P. D. You may as well say Lying with another mans Wife was Adultery in them but not
proposals he makes about tempering Episcopacy they were no other than what King Charles 1. and Mr. Thorndike had made before him and doth T. G. think they designed to ruine the Church of England And as long as he declared this to be the design of his Book both at the beginning and conclusion of it suppose he were mistaken in the means he took must such a man be presently condemned as one that aimed at the ruine and destruction of the Church R. P. But T. G. saith he tendred it to consideration after Episcopacy was resetled by Law P. D. That is as true as others of his suggestions The Book was Printed while things were unsetled and was intended to remove the violent prejudices of the dissenting party against Episcopal Government and I have heard did considerable service that way at least in a Neighbour Kingdom and it happened to be reprinted afterwards with the same Title it had before But what then Do not Booksellers look on Books as their own and do what they please with them without the Authors consent or approbation Hath he ever Preached or Written any Doctrine since contrary to the sense of the Church of England Hath he made any party or faction to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church Hath he not conformed to its Rules observed its Offices obeyed his Superiours and been ready to defend its Cause against Adversaries of all sorts And can malice it self after all this fasten such a calumny upon him that he is a secret enemy to the Church of England and designs to ruine and destroy it I remember a poor Englishman in Amboyna being cruelly tormented by the Dutch and finding nothing he could say would perswade his Tormentors to release him and he said any thing that he thought would prevail with them at last he prayed God that he might tell them Probable Lies I would advise T. G. the next time he goes a Mole-catching to find out Probable Plots otherwise he will lose all the reputation of an Informer and Discoverer But I can hardly tell whether his Plot or his Proofs were the worse for as there appears no likelihood in the Plot so there is no evidence in the Proofs There being nothing pretended since the Irenicum but this charge of Idolatry and that hath been sufficiently cleared already by shewing that it doth not subvert the Authority of the Church of England R. P. Let us now if you please proceed to the other dangerous consequences of this charge as they are mustered up by T. G. One is That it overthrows the Article of the Holy Catholick Church P. D. That is something indeed what doth it take away an Article of the Creed Nay then it is time to look about us But how I pray R. P. I will tell you how If the Church hath been guilty of Idolatry 1. Then she hath required and enjoyned Idolatry for many hundreds of years parallel to the Heathens 2. Then Mahomet had more wisdom and power to carry on his design than the Son of God for his followers have been preserved from it by the grounds he laid above a thousand years 3. Then our Fore-fathers had better been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity as they were P. D. I deny every one of these consequences For our present dispute is only about the Church of Romes being guilty of Idolatry and from thence 1. it doth not follow that the whole Christian Church must require Idolatry if that doth unless T. G. had proved that all other Churches are equally involved in the same guilt which he never attempted 2. It doth not follow that Mahomet was wiser than Christ for if you compare the grounds laid for Divine Worship by Christ and Mahomet I say that Christ did shew infinitely more Wisdom in them than so vile an Impostor and it is a shame for any Christian to suggest the contrary but if T. G. speaks of Power to carry on his design then it must suppose that Mahomets Power hath preserved the Mahumetan Religion so long free from Idolatry although Christ hath not which must imply the greatness of Mahomets Power in Heaven and so it borders upon blasphemy 3. It doth not follow that our Fore-fathers had better been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity For they had incomparably greater advantages towards their salvation than either Turks or Pagans and such circumstances might accompany their practice of Idolatry as might make it not to hinder their salvation But I shall give you a full answer to this in the words of Bishop Sanderson who is another competent witness if any more were needful that Dr. St. doth not in the charge of Idolatry contradict the sense of the Church of England We have much reason to conceive good hope of the salvation of many of our Fore-fathers who led away with the common superstitions of those blind times might yet by those general truths which by the mercy of God were preserved among the foulest over-spreadings of Popery agreeable to the Word of God though clogged with an addition of many superstitions and Antichristian Inventions withal be brought to true faith in the Son of God unfeigned Repentance from dead Works and a sincere desire and endeavour of new and holy Obedience This was the Religion that brought them to Heaven even Faith and Repentance and Obedience This is the true and the Old and the Catholick Religion and this is our Religion in which we hope to find salvation and if ever any of you that miscall your selves Catholicks come to Heaven it is this Religion must carry you thither If together with this true Religion of Faith Repentance and Obedience they embraced also your additions as their blind Guides then led them prayed to our Lady kneeled to an Image crept to a Cross flocked to a Mass as you now do these were their spots and their blemishes these were their hay and stubble these were their errours and their Ignorances And I doubt not but as S. Paul for his blasphemies and persecutions so they obtained mercy for these sins because they did them ignorantly in misbelief And upon the same ground we have cause also to hope charitably of many thousand poor souls in Italy Spain and other parts of the Christian world at this day that by the same blessed means they may attain mercy and salvation in the end although in the mean time through ignorance they defile themselves with much foul Idolatry and many gross superstitions Obj. But the Ignorance which excuseth from sin is Ignorantia facti according to that hath been already declared but theirs was Ignorantia juris which excuseth not And besides as they lived in the practice of that Worship which we call Idolatry so they dyed in the same without repentance and so their case is not the same with S. Pauls who saw those sins and sorrowed for them and forsook them but how can Idolaters living and dying so without
the most noted Philosophers he hath this remarkable expression Exposui opiniones omnium fere Philosophorum quibus illustrior gloria est Deum unum multis licet designasse nominibus I have set down the opinions of almost all the famous Philosophers who all set forth one God though under many names And lest any should fall into T. G.'s extravagant imagination that this was not a consent in the same Being but as to a meer Vnity of Power though lodged in the Devil himself he adds these words Vt quivis arbitretur aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos Let T. G. construe this to his sense if he can for his heart Would any man in the World who believed the Heathens supreme God to be the Devil have said either that the Christians now were Philosophers or the Philosophers then were Christians i. e. that those who asserted that God and those who said the Devil were supreme Governour of the world were of the same opinion Which is so foolish so ridiculous an assertion that I wonder to find T. G. resolve to maintain it And I now desire you or any man to judge whether the half dozen Fathers T. G. hath produced before Origen can amount to a Covie of One. I have exercised great patience in examining these testimonies and not after T. G.'s way turned off all the rest because one was defective and if you have any more that speak to the point I am content to give you all the satisfaction you can desire provided they prove more than that in general the Gentiles sacrificed to Devils which was never denied R. P. T. G. produces the Testimonies of Eusebius Athanasius S. Cyprian S. Chrysostom S. Hierom and others P. D. To what purpose R. P. To prove that they were wicked spirits who delighted in their worship and Sacrifices P. D. Who ever denyed this Will T. G. quote the Fathers from one end to the other to prove that all men are sinners Name me those who seem to speak to the poinâ— and I will answer them R. P. You cannot deny that Arnobius Lactantius and S. Augustin do speak to the point about Jove being worshipped as the supreme God will you hear them P. D. Yes what have you to say more about them R. P. Arnobius saith that Jupiter O. M. to whom the Capitol was Dedicated was not the true omnipotent God and Lactantius makes Jupiter the King of those Celestial Gods which the evil spirits feigned P. D. Are not these the two persons whom Dr. St. goes about to excuse for applying the Poetical Fables to Jupiter O. M. R. P. That is a fine way of defending the Fathers to take the parts of the Heathens against them as Dr. St. doth P. D. He never doth it as to the main of the cause as to any of them which were to take the part of Idolatry against Christianity which in my opinion others are far more lyable to the guilt of than he nor doth he charge any of them with wholly mistaking the state of the Question but he instanceth in two Rhetoricians who must be excused in many other things as it were easie to shew and he saith of them that they could not forbear giving a cast of their former imployment in this matter And when Dr. St. saith we ought not to charge the Heathens with more than they were guilty of doth T. G. think we ought but I am of another opinion though we should grant their supreme God to be a Devil for we ought to give the Devil his due R. P. But what say you to S. Augustin whom Dr. St. represents as the most baffled by the Heathens in this point Is not this kind of procedure more suitable to the design of Julian than of the Reformation P. D. Cannot a man write against your Idolatry but he must be another Julian i. e. a man cannot write like a Christian but he must be an Apostate Are you the only Christians in the world and your peculiar doctrines the only Christianity If it be it is a Christianity which the Christian Church never knew in its best Ages a Christianity never taught by Christ nor his Apostles but for S. Augustin I do not find that Dr. St. thinks him in the least baffled in this matter but being a learned and ingenuous man he saith that he quitted the argument from the Poetical Fables concerning Jupiter and reduced the controversie to its true point about the Idolatry committed in the worship of inferiour Deities But what an itch of calumniating had seized T. G. when he could not hold from paralleling Dr. St. with Julian meerly for giving an account of the state of the Controversie about Idolatry as it was managed by S. Augustin R. P. This leads us into another weighty subject viz. on what account the Fathers charged the Heathens with Idolatry P. D. I grant it is so and tends very much to the right understanding the nature of it And what account doth T. G. give of it R. P. I assure you T. G. shews himself to be a man very well versed in the Fathers and seems to have them at his Fingers ends nay he hath such great plenty of them that they serve him not only for freight but for ballast too filling his Margent as well as his Book with them and had he not studied brevity he might have outdone the Dr. himself in being Voluminous P. D. No doubt of it if he had a mind to produce all that the Fathers say on the subject of Heathen Idolatry but let us pare off all impertinencies which tend only to amuse and confound a Reader and keep close to our subject Tell me on what account T. G. saith the Fathers did charge the Heathens with Idolatry R. P. I suppose it may be reduced to these following 1. In worshipping their Images for Gods 2. In worshipping a multitude of false Gods 3. In worshipping the Creatures and not the Creator And as to every one of these he shews how false Dr. St.'s parallel is of the Heathen Idolatry and the worship practised and allowed in our Church P. D. I pray begin with the first of these and let us hear what account T. G. gives of the Heathen Idolatry in the Worship of Images R. P. The Images he saith were erected to the memory of dead men whom the people out of flattery or affection had placed in Heaven but evil Spirits as it were incorporated themselves in those Images and by working strange things about those who worshipt them they gained the reputation of Gods and consequently the Images were held to be Gods and worshipped as such P. D. I am far from being satisfied with this account of the Heathen Idolatry in the Worship of Images For when a man pretends to give an account of a thing there are three things he ought to regard First that it be full Secondly that it be