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
Worship but an occasional and rare thing and done upon supposition as if he had been alive and then present among them And that the practice of these men who seemed most to make addresses to Saints in the fourth Century did differ from the invocation of Saints in your Church I shall make appear by these particulars 1. Invocation of Saints is made a solemn part of Religious Worship in the Church of Rome For which we do not run to some extravagant expressions of your Preachers nor barely to the Ave Maries they use in their Pulpits of which no single instance can be produced out of Antiquity but to the publick solemn Authorized Offices of your Church And although you may say the Church is not answerable for the indiscretion of Preachers or the Figures of Poets yet certainly she is for all standing and allowed Offices of Divine Worship And this is that we charge you with that by this you make Religious Worship of the Creatures a part of your constant and solemn worship Even in the Masse it self you begin with confession to God and to his Creatures which Athanasius accounted so great an impiety to joyn God and his Creature together in an Act of Worship and afterwards pray to them And although in the plain Canon of the Masse you pretend there is scarce any or but twice or thrice a direct invocation of the Saints yet upon occasional and anniversary Masses such Invocation is very frequent as in the Masses of the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin which are many in the year the Masse for Women with Child the Masses of the Apostles the Angel Michael and many Saints which it were tedious to repeat It would be endless to give an account how much of your Breviaries Houres Litanies and private Offices of Devotion is stuffed out with formal addresses to Saints If you but cast your eye on any of the Offices of the B. Virgin you cannot question the truth of this Now I pray tell me where you meet with any like this in Antiquity you may pick up some flourishes of Orators or Poets in the fourth Century but what are these to the standing Offices of the Church which are the standard of Divine Worship Name me any one Liturgy of the Church which is Authentick that had the name of aâ—y Saint or Creature in it by way of Invocation before the time of Petrus Fallo who is no Author to be gloried in And of him indeed Nicephorus saith that he first brought the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin into the Prayers of the Church Before his time the Fathers utterly deny there was any Invocation of Saints in the Prayers of the faithful as Dr. St. hath evidently proved from St. Augustin and methinks T. G. should have said something or other to it and not think this poor single Testimony of Gregory Nyssen would overthrow all 2. The Invocation of Saints in your Church is direct and formal not meerly by way of desire to pray for them but to bestow blessings upon them Of which Dr. St. hath produced several late Instances in Books of Devotion now in use here in England to which many more might be added if it were needful And it is a wonder to me that any man who hath looked into the Offices of the B. Virgin can make the least doubt of this And considering the Titles given her in the Roman Church it were a disparagement to her not to pray directly to her for blessings For if she be the Fountain of Grace and Mercy the Mother of Consolation the Safety of all that trust in her the Dispenser of Graces to whom she pleases the Queen of Heaven to whom all Power is committed the Mediatrix between her Son and us as she is stiled in the Roman Church why may not men pray as directly to her as to Christ himself As long as these and many other Titles are owned in their Prayers in their Sacred Hymns in their Commentators on Scripture and not meerly in their Poets and Orators Why doth T. G. go about to deceive the world in making it believe that all their Invocation is only praying to pray for them Which is all that is pretended to be used in the Ancient Church And Cassander thinks they were rather wishes and desires than prayers for which he gives a very good reason viz. that there was a condition expressed by them such as that of Greg. Nazianzen in his Oration on his Sister Gorgonia If thou hast any regard to our affairs and if this be part of the reward of holy Souls to be sensible of things done below receive this Office of Kindness from me Which shews they had no confidence or assurance that the Saints in Heaven did understand our affairs and therefore all expressions of this kind in them were rather Wishes than Prayers And even Greg. Nyssen in this Oration upon Theodore supposes that unless he came down from above where-ever he was whether in the Aethereal Region or Celestial or Angelical and were actually present among them he could not understand the honours that were done him nor the addresses they made to him And when they did express such an uncertainty as this at the same time they made these Addresses towards the Conclusion of their Orations after the manner of Oratours it is plain they are to be understood rather for Rhetorical Wishes than formal Invocations Now let any man compare this doubtfulness of the Ancients with the confidence expressed in the Church of Rome when they declare it to be de Fide that the Saints do hear them although the manner be not and then judge whether their practises can be of the same kind 3. The Invocation of Saints in your Church doth imply inward submission to a Creature and therefore goes very much beyond the addresses of the Ancients There are three things which prove this Inward submission to a Creature in the Invocation of Saints 1. Inward Devotion to them 2. An acknowledged superiority over them 3. An intention to give them Divine Worship 1. Inward Devotion For even mental Prayers to Saints are allowed by the Council of Trent as Dr. St. told T. G. of which he takes no notice and yet quarrels with him for two other passages in the same place Must we impute this to a casual Vndulation of the visual rayes as T. G. very finely expresseth it I am afraid there was some other cause for it For since that Council allows internal prayers to Saints it must not only certainly suppose their knowledge of the heart but a due submission of our souls to them which inward Prayer doth import And therefore suppliciter invocare tam voce quà m mente which are the words of the Council of Trent doth not only imply formal Invocation but internal submission both which do belong to suppliants 2. An acknowledged Superiority over them which appears by that Authority and Government which they attribute to them