not only affirms the modern Church of Rome to be too like to Paganism in the adoration of Images but condemns the praying to Angels as the Idolatry condemned by the Council of Laodicea as Dr. St. shewed from his M S. notes upon Bellarmine To these Dr. St. added in his General Preface the Testimonies of Archbishop Bancroft Bishop Montague Pet. Heylin and Mr. Thorndike which three last were the very persons T. G. did appeal to and the last of them did declare that the practice of Idolatry was such in the Roman Church that no good Christian dare trust his soul in the communion of it which is all one as to say they must be guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry R. P. But T. G. saith they only reprove some practices as Idolatrous or at least in danger to be such but Dr. St. acknowledges that they excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry although not all who live in the communion of it P. D. Doth he indeed say so or is this another piece of T. G.'s fineness His words are these And although it may be only an excess of charity in some few learned persons to excuse that Church from Idolatry although not all who live in the Communion of it and then produces the seventeen Testimonies to shew he did not differ from the sense of the Church of England or the eminent defenders of it ever since the Reformation and do you think that among his Testimonies he would produce any whom he thought to free the Church of Rome from Idolatry no certainly but I suppose that clause referred to Mr. Thorndike and some few others and as to Mr. Thorndike he afterwards produced the passage before mentioned out of some papers written by him a little before his death What saith T. G. to that R. P. Not a word more but I find he makes use of Mr. Thorndikes name on all occasions as if he favoured our side against the Church of England and Dr. St. And the man who manageth the Dialogue against him is brought in as one of Mr. Thorndikes principles I pray tell me was not he a man in his heart of our Church and only lived in the external communion of yours P. D. D. St. hath given a just character of him when he calls him a man of excellent Learning and great Piety and since so ill use is made of his name in these disputes and such dishonour done to his memory I shall but do him right to let you understand what his judgement was of the Church of Rome which he delivered in a paper to a Lady a little before his death from whom it came immediately to my Hands and is the same paper Dr. St. doth refer to 1. The truth of the Christian Religion and of the Scripture is presupposed to the Being of a Church And therefore cannot depend upon the Authority of it 2. The Church of Rome maintains the Decrees of the present Church to be Infallible which is false and yet concerns the salvation of all that believe it Therefore no man can submit to the Authority of it 3. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time did not make void the baptism of those Sects which did not baptise in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost But that Baptism is void and true baptism necessary to salvation Therefore the Church of Rome may err in matters of salvation 4. The Church of Rome may err in Schism following the wrong cause If you except only things necessary to salvation to be believed This shews that infallibility only in things necessary to salvation is not enough It is destructive to salvation to follow the wrong cause in Schism Instance The Schism with the Greek Church for appeals to Rome For there is evident Tradition to the contrary 5. The Church of Rome enjoyns Apocryphal Scriptures to be esteemed Canonical Scriptures But this injunction is contrary to Tradition and Truth and concerns the salvation of all that receive it 6. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews for Canonical Scripture as now it doth and as in truth it is Therefore the Church of Rome may err in declaring the Authority of Scripture 7. The Church of Rome doth err in teaching that attrition is turned into contrition by submitting to the power of the Keys But this errour is destructive to the salvation of all that believe it Therefore it may err in matters necessary to salvation That it is an errour Because of the condition of remission of sins which is before the being of a Church and therefore cannot depend on the Authority of the Church 8. The Church of Rome injoyneth to believe Transubstantiation and to profess that which is false For there is Scripture and Tradition for the presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist but neither Scripture nor Tradition for transubstantiation viz. for abolishing the Elements But the Church of Rome injoyns to believe it Therefore it enjoyns to believe that for which there is neither Tradition nor Scripture Witness the Fathers that own the Elements after Consecration 9. The Council of Trent enjoyneth to believe that Christ instituted a new Passeover to be sacrificed as well as represented commemorated and offered in the Eucharist de Sacrific Missae cap. 1. which is false For the Sacrifice of Christs Cross is commemorated represented and offered as ready to be slain in and by the Eucharist but not slain and therefore not sacrificed in it and by celebrating it And therefore when it is said there c. 11. quod in Missa Christus incruentè immolatur if it be meant properly it is a contradiction for that which hath blood is not sacrificed but by shedding the blood of it if figuratively it signifies no more than that which I have said that it is represented commemorated and offered as slain And therefore all parts agreeing to this the Church of Rome requiring more is guilty of the Schism that comes by refusing it For the propitiation of the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the propitiation of Christs Cross purchased for them that are qualifi'd 10. The Council of Trent commends the Mass without the Communion cap. 6. wherein it erreth For the Communion being the restoring of the Covenant of Baptism after sin the want of it without the desire of it is to be lamented not commended as destructive of the means of salvation 11. There is neither Scripture nor Tradition for praying to Saints departed or any evidence that they hear our prayers Therefore it evidences a carnal hope that God will abate of the Covenant of our Baptism which is the condition of our salvation for their sakes 12. To pray to them for those things which only God can give as all Papists do is by the proper sense of their words downright Idolatry If they say their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God How dare any
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
The faith of Rome was not more spoken of in the Apostles dayes than its errours and corruptions have been since R. P. These are general words name me one of those errours and corruptions P. D. For this time I will name the publick and allowed Worship of your Church which after all your shifts and evasions I cannot excuse from Idolatry R. P. How is that Idolatry God forbid I did not expect this charge from a Divine of the Church of England I was prepared to receive it from my old Fanatick acquaintance here he would have thundered me with the Texts of Antichrist and the Whore of Babylon and have quoted half the Book of the Revelations against me before this time if we had not espyed you in the Room But I perceive though your Artillery may be different your charge is the same I pray tell me how long is it since you of the Church of England have maintained this charge For I have been often told that only one late Defender of your Church hath advanced two new charges against the Church of Rome viz. Fanaticism and Idolatry and that the true Sons of the Church of England disown them both P. D. Whoever told you so hath deceived you but it is not the only thing they have deceived you in I never yet saw so much as a tolerable Answer to the Charge of Fanaticism And for that of Idolatry the Authour you mean hath proved beyond contradiction that it hath been managed against the Church of Rome by the greatest and most learned Defenders of the Church of England and the most genuine sons of it ever since the Reformation R.P. But have not you seen what T. G. hath said to all that and how he hath shewed that his Witnesses were incompetent P. D. I have both seen and considered all that T. G. hath said and compared it with Dr. Stillingfleets Reply in the General Preface to his Answers And I must declare to you that if the sense of a Church may be known by the concurrent sense of her most eminent Divines or by her most Authentick Acts as by the Book of Homilies Forms of Prayer and Thanksgivings Rubricks Injunctions the Judgement of Convocation even that of MDCXL Dr. St. hath made it evident that the charge of Idolatry is agreeable to the sense of the Church of England R. P. You thought T. G. would have quitted this Post upon Dr. St's second charge but you are mistaken in him for I have brought over a Book of Dialogues from Paris wherein T. G. undertakes again to prove this to be only the Charge of Fanaticks and not of the Church of England nor of the Genuine Sons of it F. C. It is true we whom you call Fanaticks do charge the Church of Rome or rather the Synagogue of Antichrist with Idolatry for Is it not said And they Worshipped the Beast But you must know for your comfort that we do likewise charge the Church of England with it For what are all their bowings and kneelings and crossings but vain imaginations and the Worship of them is as bad as the Worship of Images And do not they make an Idol of the Common Prayer P. D. This is not fair Gentlemen but one at once I beseech you As to your charge of the Church of England I shall be ready to answer it when you can agree to bring it in I now desire to know what evidence T. G. brings to prove the Charge of Idolatry not to be agreeable to the sense of the Church of England Hath he brought other Homilies other Injunctions other Rubricks other Convocations or at least other Divines generally received and owned for the Genuine Sons of this Church who have from time to time freed the Church of Rome from Idolatry and looked upon the charge not only as unjust but pernicious and destructive to the Being of a Church Nay can he produce any one Divine of the Church of England before the Convocation MDCXL that ever said any such thing or did wholly acquit the Church of Rome from this charge If not let him not think we have a new Church made after another model and upon new principles or that those can be esteemed the genuine Sons of it who contradict the sense of the Church ever since the Reformation If there be any such among us they ought first to be proved to be true Sons of our Church before their testimony be allowed which if I be not mistaken will be much harder than to prove the Charge of Idolatry to be agreeable to the sense of it But what method doth T. G. take in this matter R.P. T. G. like a wary man disputes in Masquerade For he doth not think fit to appear in his own Person but he brings in a Conformist and a Non-conformist arguing the point And the Conformist speaks T. G.'s sense in acquitting the Church of Rome and the Non-conformist vindicates Dr. St. and makes a pitiful defence of him P.D. It was very wittily done And the Scene was well enough laid if the plot were only to represent Dr. St. as a secret enemy to the Church of England as I suppose it was But to what purpose are all those personal reflections and some repeated over and over with so much appearance of rancour and ill will as doth not become a man of any common ingenuity Can the Catholick Cause be maintained by no other Arts than these Methinks T. G. might have let the little Whifflers in Controversie such as the Authour of the Address to the Parliament and of that precious Pamphlet called Jupiter Dr. St's supreme God c. to have made a noise at they know not what crying out upon him as an enemy to the Church of England because he defends her cause to their great vexation and as a friend to Pagan Idolatry because he hath laid open the folly of yours These are such weak assaults as expose your cause to the contempt of all wise men who expect reason should be answered with reason and not with calumnies and reproaches which in my apprehension Dr. St. ought to rejoyce in as the marks of victory for while they have any other ammunition left no enemies will betake themselves to dirt and stones When I read through the First Part of T. G.'s Dialogues and observed how industriously he set himself to bespatter his Adversary and raked all the Kennels he could for that purpose especially that of the Patronus bonae Fidei c. I could not but think of an animal which being closely pursued and in great danger gets himself into the most convenient place for mire and dirt and there so layes about him with his Heels that no one dares to come near him It was certainly with some such design that T. G. hath at last taken sanctuary in a bog hoping his Adversary will never pursue him thither But notwithstanding this project of his we will try whether in spite of his heels we cannot bring him
to reason Therefore I pray let us set aside all rude and unbecoming reflections and calmly consider how T. G. proves that the Charge of Idolatry is not agreeable to the sense of the Church of England R. P. Hold Sir You are a little too nimble T. G. saith his Intention was only to shew that Dr. St. had not sufficiently proved it to be the sense of the Church of England from the Testimony he then produced whatsoever he might or could do from other Acts or Authours of that Church And he elsewhere saith that T. G. did not dispute ex professo whether it were the sense of the Church of England that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry or no nor whether Dr. St. dissented from the sense of his Church but what he undertook to shew was no more than that two parts of the Authours there cited by the Dr. were Puritans or Puritanically inclined by the confession of other Divines of the Church of England and therefore according to Dr. St 's own measures if they were good their Testimonies ought to be looked on as incompetent to prove what he asserted and for the other six that what they charged with Idolatry was not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome but some things which they conceived to be great abuses in the practice of it And this he saith is the true state of that Controversie P.D. If it be so I cry T.G. mercy For I thought he designed to prove this charge of Idolatry not to be agreeable to the sense of the Church of England But you say T. G. now denies it and if I were as Dr. St. I would thank him for it For would any man say this that thought it could ever be proved to be against the sense of the Church of England And what could have been more material to his purpose than this if it could have been done Well fare T. G.'s ingenuity for once that finding it impossible to be done he now denies that he ever attempted the doing it But the first question in a fray is how fell they out we shall better judge of T. G.'s design by the occasion of it Dr. St. affirmed that in the charge of Idolatry he did not contradict the sense of the Church of England Did he or did he not If he did not Dr. St. was in the right if he did why did not T. G. shew it But after this yielding up the main point in effect it is easie to prove that T. G. did design to shew as well as he could that the charge of Idolatry was against the sense of the Church of England but finding it would not do he now disowns it For 1. Doth not T. G. appeal to the Articles of the Church of England for the most authentick declaration of her sense and because the Church of Rome is not there charged with Idolatry doth he not hence dispute ex professo that it was against her sense To what purpose was that ingenious Criticism of being rather repugnant to the word of God which he interprets as though the composers of our Articles had done their endeavour to find a command against the Worship of Images but could not What do you think of this argument what did T. G. intend to prove by it Is it not as clear as the Sun that it was to shew that the charge of Idolatry was against the sense of the Church of England Why then is T. G. ashamed now of it and denies he had any such design There must be some more than ordinary cause of a mans denying what he once so openly avowed to do Nay in these very Dialogues after repeating his former words T. G. saith Thus clearly hath T. G. evinced the sense of the Church of England in this matter Say you so and yet never designed to dispute ex professo whether it were the sense of the Church of England or not Who is it I pray hath the knack of saying and unsaying of affirming and denying the very same thing in a few leaves or did T. G. never intend any such thing but the Church of England of her own accord knowing T. G.'s good affections to her stept into the Court and declared her sense Have we not the best natured Church in the world that is so kind to her enemies and expresseth her sense to be on their side whether they will or not Our Church then is like the Countrey mans River which comes without calling alas what need T. G. dispute ex professo what her sense is she offers her own Testimony and desires to be heard in the dispute whether T. G. will or not Let any man judge by these words what T. G.'s design was then whatever he thinks fit to own now 2. He shews that if it had been the sense of the Church of England in the Articles that the Church of Rome were guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of Images Adoration of the Host or Invocation of Saints all those who denyed it would have incurred excommunication ipso facto as appears by the Canons What was T. G.'s design in this if it were not to prove the charge of Idolatry to be against the sense of the Church of England Is this only to shew the Witnesses Dr. St. produced to be incompetent What a benefit it is for a man to forget what he hath no mind to remember And then to deny as stoutly as if the thing had never been done 3. Is it not T. G. who in terms asserts that Dr. St. betrayed his Church in advancing such a medium as contradicts the sense of that Church mark that It is true he adds if it be to be taken from the sentiments of those who are esteemed her true and genuine Sons Was it T. G.'s design then not to dispute what was the sense of the Church of England nor whether Dr. St. dissented from it I will not meddle with that whether T. G. be a competent judge who are the true and genuine Sons of the Church of England No doubt in his opinion those who come nearest the Church of Rome are such and advance such speculations as lay the charge of Schism at her own door But true Sons are no more for laying division to the charge of their Mother than the true Mother was for dividing the Son Those are certainly the most genuine Sons of our Church who own her doctrine defend her principles conform to her Rules and are most ready to maintain her Cause against all her enemies And among these there is no difference and there ought to be no distinction But if any frame a Church of their own Heads without any regard to the Articles Homilies and current doctrine of our Church and yet will call that the Church of England and themselves the only genuine Sons of it I do not question T. G. and your Brethren would be glad to have them thought so to lessen our number and impair
found it above a hundred years before in the Liturgie of Edw. 6. To which T. G. answers That the various fate of this Rubrick first in not being annexed till the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. and being cast out again in the year 1562. and then admitted again almost a hundred years after is no eviction to him that the charge of Idolatry is the dogmatical doctrine of the Church of England P. D. If this were all the declaration our Church had made of her sense and the intention of this Rubrick were only to declare this point of Idolatry there were some probability in what T. G. suggests But I have shewed already how fully our Church hath declared her sense about Romish Idolatry by other wayes and the design of this Rubrick was not to express her sense of Idolatry so much as to give satisfaction to those who scrupled the lawfulness of kneeling For which cause it was first put in and afterwards not thought necessary to be continued when persons were better satisfied about the intention of our Church But when after long disuse and violent prejudices the dissenters were grown unacquainted with the design and intention of our Church there was the same reason for inserting it again which held at first for putting it in And what now hath T. G. gained by this observation If it had been as he imagined what he had gotten in one point he had lost in another for then it would appear that there was no such heat in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths dayes if they were willing to leave out such a declaration of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome at that time when Q. Elizabeths Title was the most disputed at Rome so that from hence appears the vanity of T. G.'s former observation and how far they were from taking things into our Liturgie out of spite to the Pope nay so far were they from this that in the first year of Q. Elizabeth that petition in the Letany was left out which had been inserted by Henry 8. and continued in both Liturgies of Edw. 6. From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities Good Lord And this he might have found in the same Historian And was not the title of Head of the Church taken by her Father and Brother so qualified and explained then as might prevent any occasion of quarreling at it by the most captious persons Do these passages look like doing things on purpose to provoke and exasperate and out of pure spite to the Pope or like putting in things on purpose to heighten the differences when T. G. himself confesses they left out this Rubrick and it is evident they did leave out some of the most provoking expressions R. P. I see you cannot bear the charge of intemperate heat on the beginning of the Reformation P. D. I cannot bear such an unreasonable and unjust imputation as this is and I have a particular esteem for the Wisdom Learning and Piety which was shewed in the Ecclesiastical part of our Reformation But how doth T. G. take off the charge of Idolatry in this Rubrick R. P. He saith he takes the meaning of it not to be the denying adoration to be due in regard of Christs Body being present spiritually but truly in the Sacrament but only that no adoration ought to be done to any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood as the word Corporal is taken to signifie the natural manner of a bodies being present For which he gives these reasons 1. Because those words in the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. No adoration ought to be done to any real or essential being of Christs natural flesh and blood are now changed into any corporal presence of Christ natural flesh and blood 2. Because the Protestant Divines do yield the real presence of Christs Body for which he quotes Bishop Taylor and Bishop Cosins and he desires Dr. St. so to explain these words as not to undermine the constant doctrine of the Church of England concerning the real presence and leave us nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it P. D. I am so much his Friend that at this time I will undertake this task for him First We must consider the words of the Rubrick 2. How this sense of it can be reconciled with the real presence as owned by the Church of England 1. For the meaning of the Rubrick We are to consider that the Rubrick denies adoration to be intended either unto the Sacramental bread and wine or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood And after it gives two distinct reasons for denying adoration to either of these 1. To the Sacramental bread and wine for this reason because they remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians 2. To the corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood because the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one You see here are two plainly distinct reasons given for denying adoration to the elements and to the Natural Body of Christ. The former is said to be Idolatry the latter to be absurd and unreasonable it being repugnant to the truth of Christs body to be in more places than one at one time So that the sense of the Rubrick lyes in these two propositions 1. That it is Idolatry to give adoration to the elements remaining in their natural substances 2. That it is absurd to believe Christs natural body to be present because then it must be in more places than one which is repugnant to the truth of a body These things to my apprehension are the plain and natural sense of this Rubrick R. P. But we do not give adoration to the Sacramental elements but to the Body of Christ. P. D. I do believe I can prove that you give adoration to the Sacramental Elements as they make up one entire object of adoration with the body of Christ but that is not my present business which is to shew the sense of our Church which lyes in these particulars 1. That the Sacramental Elements do remain in their natural substances after consecration 2. That to adore them so remaining is Idolatry and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians No one questions the former to be the sense of our Church the only question lyes in the later whether that be Idolatry or no It is no question that to give divine adoration to any creature is Idolatry and it is so acknowledged on all sides the only question then can be whether the substance of bread and wine be a creature or not and this is no question with any man in his wits therefore to give adoration to the substance of bread and wine is Idolatry No demonstration
order in the Church of God it is enough to make things lawful if they are not forbidden Let us now compare this saying with what he calls the Fundamental principle of Separation that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what he hath expresly commanded and can any thing be more contradictory to this than what Dr. St. layes down as a principle in that very page of his Irenicum that an express positive command is not necessary to make a thing lawful but a non-prohibition by a Law is sufficient for that Where then lay T. G.'s understanding or ingenuity when he mentions such a great change in the Dr. as to this principle when he owned the very same principle even in that Book and that very page he quotes to the contrary T. G. doth presume good Catholick Readers will take his word without looking farther and I scarce ever knew a Writer who stands more in need of the good opinion of his Reader in this kind than T. G. doth As I shall make it fully appear if you hold on this discourse with me for I have taken some pains to consider T. G.'s manner of dealing with his Adversary But this is too gross a way of imposing upon the credulity of Readers yet this is their common method of dealing with Dr. St. When they intend to write against him then have you Dr. St. 's Irenicum hoping to find matter there to expose him to the hatred of the Bishops and to represent him as unfit to defend the Church of England If this takes not then they pick sentences and half-sentences from the series of the discourse and laying these together cry Look ye here is this a man fit to defend your Church that so contradicts himself thus and thus when any common understanding by comparing the places will find them either falsely represented or easily reconciled In truth Sir I think you have shewed as little learning or skill or ingenuity in answering him as any one Adversary that ever appeared against your Church and especially when T. G. goes about to prove that he contradicts himself or the sense of the Church of England R. P. But I pray tell me if this charge of Idolatry were agreeable to the sense of the Church of England why the Articles of the Church do only reject the Romish Doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration of Images not as Idolatry but as a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God For I perceive this sticks much with T. G. and from hence he concludes Dr. St. to contradict the sense of it who is the Champion of the Church of England P. D. I perceive T. G. kept this for a parting blow after which he thought fit to breath a while having spent so many spirits in this encounter but methinks his arm grows feeble and although his fury be as great as ever yet his strength is decayed And in my mind it doth not become a man of his Chivalry so often to leave his Lance and to run with open mouth upon his Adversary and to bite till his Teeth meet For what mean the unhandsome reflections he makes on all occasions upon his being the Champion of the Church of England and the Church of Englands having cause to be ashamed of such a Champion and of his putting him in mind of his duty as the Champion of the Church not to betray the Church he pretends to defend Where doth he ever assume any such title to himself or ever entred the lists but on the account of obedience or upon great provocation The name of Champion savours too much of vanity and ostentation whereas he only shewed how easily the Cause could be defended when his superiours first commanded such a stripling as he then was to undertake the defence of it But I shall set aside these reflections and come to the point of our Articles and therein consider 1. What T. G. objects 2. What Dr. St. answered 3. Which way the sense of the Articles is to be interpreted T. G. looks upon it as a notable observation that the Compilers of the 39 Articles in which is contained the doctrine of the Church of England sufficiently insinuate that they could find no such command forbidding the Worship of Images when they rejected the adoration of Images not as Idolatry but only as a fond thing vainly invented nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture but as rather repugnant to the word of God which qualification of theirs gives us plainly to understand that they had done their endeavours to find such a command but could meet with none To which Dr. St. gives this answer that the force of all he saith lyes upon the words of the English translation whereas if he had looked on the Latin wherein they give account of their doctrine to foreign Churches this Criticism had been lost the words being immo verbo Dei contradicit whereby it appears that rather is not used as a term of diminution but of a more vehement affirmation And what saith T. G. I pray to this R. P. T. G. repeats his own words at large and then blames the compilers of the Articles for want of Grammar if they intend the word rather to affect the words that follow P. D. But what is all this to the Latin Articles which Dr. St. appealed to for explication of the English And for the Love of Grammar let T. G. tell us whether there be not a more vehement affirmation in those words immo verbo Dei contradicit Either T. G. should never have mentioned this more or have said something more to the purpose For doth he think our Bishops and Clergy were not careful that their true sense were set forth in the Latin Articles And their sense being so peremptory herein and contrary to T.G. is there not all the reason in the world to explain the English Articles by the Latin since we are sure they had not two meanings This is so plain I am ashamed to say a word more to it R. P. But T. G. is very pleasant in describing the arguments Dr. St. brings to prove the Articles to make the worship of Images Idolatry because it is called Adoration of Images and said to be the Romish Doctrine about adoration But after the Cat hath plaid with the Mouse as long as he thinks fit leaping and frisking with him in his claws at last he falls on him with his Teeth and hardly leaves a bone behind him After he hath muster'd his arguments and drawn them out in rank and file and made one charge upon another for the pleasure of the Reader he then gives him a plain and solid answer viz. by the words Romish doctrine concerning adoration of Images may be understood either the Doctrine taught in her Schools which being but the opinions of particular persons no man is bound to follow or
the doctrine taught in her Councils which all those of her communion are bound to submit to If the Doctrine which the Church of England chargeth be that which is taught by some of her School Divines which he takes to be her true meaning this is also denyed at least by those very Divines who teach it to be Idolatry If by the Romish Doctrine be meant the Doctrine of Councils owned by the Church of Rome concerning worshipping and adoration of Images then herein she is vindicated from Idolatry by Eminent Divines that have been esteemed true and genuine Sons of the Church of England P. D. And doth this mighty effort come to this at last What pity it is T. G. had no better a Cause he sets this off so prettily and dazels the eyes of his beholders with the dust he raises so that those who do not narrowly look into his feats of activity would imagine him still standing when he is only endeavouring to recover a fall For 1. By Adoration of Images our Church doth not mean that which their School Divines call adoration of Images as they distinguish it from Veneration of them but it means all that Religious Worship which by the allowed Doctrine and practice of the Roman Church is given to Images And this is just the case of the Council of Francford concerning which I hear T. G. saith not one word in his last Book and I commend him for it the Western Bishops condemn adoration of Images very true saith T. G. and his Brethren but all this was a bare mistake of the Nicene Council which never approved adoration of Images but only an inferiour Worship but Dr. St. hath shewed that the Francford Council knew of this distinction well enough and notwithstanding their denying it the Western Church did not judge that the worship which they gave to Images was really adoration whether they called it so or not Just so it is with the Church of England in reference to the Church of Rome this distinguishes adoration from inferiour Worship but our Church owns no such distinction and calls that Religious worship which they give to Images adoration and supposing it were really so Dr. St. saith their own Divines yield it to be Idolatry i. e. the Church of England calls their worship of Images adoration or giving Divine Worship to a Creature but their Divines do yield this is Idolatry and therefore the Church of England doth charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry But how subtilly had T. G. altered the whole force of the argument by taking adoration not in the sense of our Church but of their School-Divines and then telling us that even those School-Divines who teach adoration of Images deny it to be Idolatry And whoever expected they should confess themselves guilty But what is this to the sense of the Church of England where doth it allow such a distinction of Divine worship into that which is superiour and inferiour or that which is proper to God and that which is not 2. By Romish Doctrine the Church of England doth not mean the doctrine of the School-divines but the Doctrine received and allowed in that Church from whence the Worship of Images is required and practised Such kind of Worship I mean as is justified and defended in common among them without their School-distinctions such worship as was required here in the Recantation of the Lollards as Dr. St. observes I do swear to God and all his Seynts upon this Holy Gospel that fro this day forward I shall worship Images with praying and offering unto them in the Worship of the Seynts that they be made after such Worship as was required here by the Constitutions of Arundel A. D. 1408. with processions genuflections thurifications deosculations oblations burnings of Lights and Pilgrimages which are called Acts of Adoration and this Constitution was a part of the Canon Law of England which all persons were then bound to observe or else might be proceeded against as Lollards And this is that which Dr. St. insists upon was the thing condemned by the Articles of our Church viz. the Worship of Images which was required and practised here in England And what reason have we to run to School-Divines for the sense of matters of daily practice as the worship of Images was before the Reformation And so I conclude if this be all T. G. in so long time hath had to say about this matter viz. above four years since Dr. St.'s General Preface was Published he hath very unreasonably charged him with dissenting from the Church of England in this Charge of Idolatry F. C. I hope you have done for this time and if you catch me again losing so much time in hearing Fending and proving about the Church of England I will give you leave to call me Fanatick If you have any thing more of this kind talk it out your selves if you please I expected to have had some comfortable talk with my old Friend about Liberty of Conscience and how many precious hours have you lost about the Church of England This will never do our business If you please my good Friend you and I will meet in private at such a place to morrow P. D. Nay Sir let me not be excluded your company since I am so accidentally faln into it and have but patience to hear us talk out these matters since we have begun them For I hear your Friends Friend T. G. hath said some things wherein your Cause is concerned F. C. I do intend for the Auction again to morrow and if I can easily get the Books I look for I will bear you company otherwise go on with your Discourse and I will come to you when I have made my Adventures It is possible I may meet with some of them to night for I hear them at Rutherford and Gillespee and our Divinity follows just after the Scotch Which was well observed by the Catalogue-maker For the Covenant bound us to reform according to the pattern of the Church of Scotland R. P. You intend then to meet here again to morrow at three of Clock to pursue our Conferences about these matters I will not fail you and so adieu The end of the first Conference THE Second Conference About the consequences of the charge of Idolatry P. D. HOw long have you been at the Auction R. P. Above an hour for I had a great desire to see how the Books were sold at them P. D. And I pray what do you observe concerning the buying of Books here R. P. I find it a pretty humoursome thing and sometimes men give greater rates for Books than they may buy them for in the Shops and yet generally Books are sold dearer here than in any part of Europe P. D. What reason can you give for that R. P. One is that the Scholars of England allow themselves greater Liberty in Learning than they do in foreign parts where commonly only one kind of
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
repentance be saved Ans. It is answered that Ignorance in point of Fact so conditioned as hath been shewed doth so excuse à toto that an Action proceeding thence though it have a material inconformity with the Law of God is yet not formally a sin But I do not so excuse the Idolatry of our Fore-fathers as if it were not in it self a sin and that without repentance damnable But yet their Ignorance being such as it was nourished by Education Custom Tradition the Tyranny of their Leaders the fashion of the Times not without shew also of Piety and Devotion and themselves withal having such slender means of better knowledge though it cannot wholly excuse them from sin without repentance damnable yet it much lesseneth and qualifieth the sinfulness of their Idolatry arguing that their continuance therein was more from other prejudices than from a wilful contempt of Gods Holy Word and Will And as for their Repentance it is as certain that as many of them as are saved did repent of their Idolatries as it is certain no Idolater nor other sinner can be saved without repentance But then there is a double difference to be observed between repentance for Ignorances and known sins the one must be particular the other general the one cannot be sincere without forsaking the other may which he inlarges upon and then concludes Some of our Fore-fathers then might not only live in Popish Idolatry but even dye in an Idolatrous Act breathing out their last with their lips at a Crucifix and an Ave Mary in their thoughts and yet have truly repented though but in the General and the croud of their unknown sins even of those very sins and have at the same instant true Faith in Jesus Christ and other Graces accompanying salvation R. P. But hath not Christ promised that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against his Church P. D. This Dr. St. hath already answered thus Against what Church The whole Christian Church whoever said they could or how doth that follow The Church of Constantinople or the Church of Jerusalem Have not the Gates of the Turk been too strong for them The Church of Rome The Gates of Hell do certainly prevail against that if it doth unchurch all other Churches that are not of its communion And why may not Idolatry prevail where Luciferian Pride and Hellish Cruelty and desperate Wickedness have long since prevailed Hath Christ made promises to secure that Church from Errour which hath been over-run with all sorts of Wickedness by the confession of her own members and friends R. P. But T. G. saith that Dr. St. ought to have assigned us some Church distinct in all Ages from all Heretical and Idolatrous Congregations which Christ hath preserved alwayes from Heresie and Idolatry P. D. Why so Unless he had first yielded that Christ had promised to preserve such a distinct Congregation of Christians which he never did But he shewed the feebleness of that kind of arguing from particulars to generals as though all the promises made to the Church must fail if the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry R. P. But I will prove that Dr. St. ought to assign such a distinct Church because he saith that a Christian by vertue of his being so is bound to joyn in some Church or Congregation of Christians therefore there must be such a Church at all times to joyn with P. D. I answer 1. Dr. St.'s answer doth imply no more than this that a Christian is bound to joyn with other Christians in the Acts of Gods publick Worship but withal he adds immediately that he is bound to choose the communion of the purest Church which doth suppose a competition between two Churches where a person may embrace the Communion of either as the Church of England and the Church of Rome So that where there are distinct Communions the best is to be chosen 2. Supposing no Church to be so pure that a mans Conscience can be fully satisfied in all the practices of it yet he may lawfully hold Communion with that Church he is baptized in till the unlawful practices become the condition of his Communion As here in England the conditions of Communion are different as to Clergy-men and Lay-men if the latter be satisfied in what concerns them they have no reason to reject Communion themselves for what concerns others 3. Where any Church doth require Idolatrous Acts as conditions of Communion that Church is the Cause of a separation made for a distinct Communion So that there is no necessity of assigning a distinct Church in all Ages free from heresie and Idolatry since men may Communicate with a corrupt Church so they do not Communicate in their corruptions and when they come to that height to require this they make themselves the Causes of the Separation which is made on the account of Heresie or Idolatry R. P. Still that promise sticks with me that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church and are not Heresie and Idolatry the two Posts of those Gates P. D. If you turn over that promise never so much you will prove no more from it than the continuance of a Christian Church in the World with a capacity of salvation to the members of it And this we do not deny but it doth not prove that any particular Church shall be preserved in all Ages free from Heresie and Idolatry For whatever may be consistent with the salvation of the members of a Church may be consistent with the Gates of Hell not prevailing against it but Heresie and Idolatry may be consistent with the salvation of the members of a Church Because there are so many cases assigned by Divines wherein sins of Ignorance and Errour are consistent with salvation I say then that Christs Promises do prove a possibility of salvation in all Ages of the Christian Church but they do not prove the indefectibility of any distinct Church R. P. But why doth Dr. St. say the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church of Rome when himself acknowledges it to be a true Church as holding all the essential points of faith P. D. As though a man could be damned for nothing but for denying the Articles of his Creed It is in respect of Pride Cruelty and all sorts of Wickedness as well as Idolatry that he saith the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it R. P. Well! But T. G. for all that proves that all Christians are bound by vertue of their Christianity to joyn in communion with the Church of Rome P. D. Doth he so It is a great undertaking and becoming T. G. But how R. P. First There was in the world before Luther a distinct Church whose communion was necessary to salvation but this was not the Protestant for that came in after Luther therefore it was the Roman P. D. This is very subtle reasoning yet it is possible we may find out something like it
Divines of the Roman Church do allow that there ought to be some peculiar external Acts of Divine Worship which he likewise proves from the infinite distance between God and his Creatures and from the remarkable Testimonies of the Heathens to that purpose 2. From Gods appropriating some external Acts of Worship to himself wherein he speaks to two things 1. What those Acts are which God hath appropriated to himself of which he reckons up six 1. Sacrifice 2. Religious adoration 3. Erection of Temples and Altars 4. Burning of Incense 5. Solemn Invocation 6. Vows 2. How far Gods appropriating these Acts doth concern us Which he thus resolves 1. It is granted there must be some peculiar Acts. 2. God is the best Judge of them 3. What he hath once appropriated cannot be made common till his Will be declared 4. Christ hath made no alteration herein by his Law 5. The Apostles suppose the same notion of Idolatry to continue still 6. The Jews did esteem it Idolatry to use those acts of Worship towards any Creature Where he shews that Idolatry may be committed as many wayes as Worship may become due to God 3. From the sense of the Christian Church which hath condemned those for Idolatry who have applyed these appropriate Acts of Worship to any thing besides God 3. How the applying the Acts of Religious Worship to a Creature makes that Worship Idolatry Where he explains 1. What real honour we do allow to the Saints on the account of their excellencies 2. What Worship we deny to them 1. Inward submission of our souls in prayer dependence and thanksgiving 2. External and solemn Acts of Religious Worship which are given to Saints in the Church of Rome and he proves from unquestionable Testimonies of Antiquity that the Fathers did deny to be given to them And so he concludes that Discourse with a full and clear explication of a Testimony of S. Augustin against Invocation of Saints This is a brief Abstract of the design of Dr. St.'s discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry whose parts are too well considered and put together to be blown down with a puff or two of Wit Let me now hear how T. G. hath acquitted himself in this matter which we shall the better judge of by having this Scheme before us R. P. I perceive you expect T. G. should have followed Dr. St.'s method and have answered him part by part but he was wiser than so for he charges him with three things 1. That he makes vain and endless and unnecessary discourses 2. That he ought to have laid down the true notion of Idolatry from the nature of the thing which he hath not done 3. That he hath unfaithfully reported the words and sense of Authors After which he disproves the parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry P. D. This last if you please we will reserve to another Conference for I believe the other three will hold us long enough I pray begin where T. G. doth R. P. First He complains much of the Bulk of the Book and brings in a kind of a Taylors bill of the number of pages Imp. of T. G.'s notion of Idolatry p. 183. It. Of the Nature of Divine Worship p. 164. It. Of the Controversie about Images between Christians and Heathens p. 140. It. Of Images in the Christian Church p. 180. odd It. Of the sense of the second Commandment p. 113. It. Of Instances and facings and linings p. 96. Sum. tot p. 877. Was not this enough to put any man out of humour P. D. No doubt when he considered he was to pay it all And I do believe what he saith that he was very uneasie when he read it and like the Laconian in Boccalini who was condemned to read over Guicciardines War of Pisa and desired rather to be condemned to the Gallies For there is nothing more troublesome to a man than to see that he owes more than he is ever able to pay R. P. But T. G. shews how much of the Bill might have been cut off P. D. The shortest way had been to have thrown all into the Fire as no doubt he would have done if it had been in his Power and that had been the most effectual Discharge to Dr. St. 's charge of Idolatry But do you think it is a good answer to an Indictment to say it consisted of too many lines R. P. T. G. saith he ought to have proceeded more Mathematically P. D. How so R. P. By laying down only these four Postulata 1. That Idolatry may consist with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being 2. That God ought to be worshipped according to his own appointment 3. That the Wiser Heathens pretended they did not look on their Images as Gods but as Symbols of that Being to which they gave divine Worship 4. That for the four first Centuries there was little or no use of Images in the Temples and Oratories of Christians Which as far as I understand T. G. he was willing to have granted him P. D. Are you sure of that If these things be fairly granted they will go a great way toward the resolution of the present Question But I pray let me understand how far and in what sense R. P. For the first that Idolatry may consist with the acknowledgement of one supreme Being I perceive T. G. puts this limitation to it at least as Idolatry is taken by Dr. St. for the giving external Acts of Worship due only to God to a Creature P. D. Let us then lay up this at present that real Idolatrous Worship is consistent with the acknowledgement of one supreme God which may be of use to us in this debate R. P. For the second T. G. saith that it is no where denyed but is supposed by him when he saith that if God have forbidden himself to be worshipped after such a manner the giving him such worship will be dishonouring of him though the Giver intend it never so much for his honour much more then the giving acts of worship appropriated to him to another P. D. This is very kind For then if it appear that God hath forbidden the Worship of himself by an Image it follows that no intention of the person can excuse such worship from Idolatry R. P. For the third concerning the practice of the wiser Heathens T. G. allows the Dr. to make his best of it P. D. Then there may be Idolatrous worship of Images where the Images themselves are not made the objects of Worship and consequently if such worship be forbidden in the second Commandment that cannot be understood only of bowing down to the Images themselves R. P. For the fourth he saith since the Church hath a power in decreeing Rites and Ceremonies it had been no prejudice to his Cause if it had been longer before the Use of Images was brought into Churches P. D. If the Church had looked on the worship of Images as an
any wayes repugnant to the sense of the Church R. P. But T. G. saith the Terms of Communion with the Church are not the Opinions of her School-Divines but the Decrees of her Councils P. D. And what then Did Dr. St. meddle with the School-Divines any otherwise than as they explained the sense of Councils or the practice of the Church And what helps more proper to understand these than the Doctrine of your most learned Divines T. G. will have one Mr. Thorndike to speak the sense of the Church of England against the current Doctrine of the rest as Dr. St. hath proved yet he will not allow so many Divines of greatest Note and Authority to explain the sense of the Church of Rome Is this equal dealing R. P. T. G. saith That for his life he cannot understand any more the Idolatry of worshipping an Image than the Treason of bowing to a Chair of State or the Adultery of a Wives kissing her Husbands Picture and that the same subtilties may be used against these as against the other and therefore notwithstanding the disputes of School-Divines honest nature informed with Christian Principles will be security enough against the practice of Idolatry in honouring the Image of Christ for his sake P. D. What is the matter with T. G. that for his life he can understand these things no better after all the pains which hath been taken about him Hath not the difference of these cases been laid open before him Do not your own Writers confess that in some cases an Image may become an Idol by having Divine Worship given to it Is this then the same case with a Wives kissing her Husbands Picture Doth not this excuse the Gnosticks worship of the Image of Christ as well as yours If there may be Idolatry in the worship of an Image we are then to consider whether your worship be not Idolatry Especially since both parties charge each other with Idolatry those who will have it to be Latria and those who will not And I do not see what honest nature can do in this case however assisted unless it can make the worship of Images to be neither one nor the other I see T. G. would fain make it to be no more than bare honour of an Image for the sake of Christ but this doth not come up to the Decrees of Councils the general sense of Divines and the constant practice of your Church If ever worship was given to Images you give it by using all Acts of Adoration towards them R. P. But suppose the King had made an Order that due honour and respect should be given to the Chair of State ought not that to be observed notwithstanding the disputes which might arise about the nature of the Act P. D. To answer this we must suppose a Command from God that we must worship an Image of Christ as we do his Person but here it is just contrary The Reason of the second Command being owned by the Christian Church to hold against the worship of Images now as well as under the Law But those in the Church of Rome who do charge each other with Idolatry without supposing any such command do proceed upon the nature of the Worship which must either be Divine Worship which one party saith is Idolatry being the same which is given to God or an inferiour Religious Worship which the other party saith must be Idolatry being an expression of our submission to an inanimate thing And for my life I cannot see what answer T. G. makes to this R. P. T. G. saith the Rules of the Church are to be observed in this case as the Rules of the Court about the Chair of State P. D. What! are the Rules of the Church to be observed absolutely whether against the Law of God or not Which is as much as to say at Court that the Orders of the Green-cloth are to be observed against his Majesties pleasure But not to insist on that I say in this case the Rules of the Church help nothing for they who do follow the Rules of the Church must do one or the other of these and whichsoever they do they are charged with Idolatry And therefore Dr. St. had great reason to say Where there is no necessity of doing the thing the best way to avoid Idolatry is to give no worship to Images at all R. P. What will become of the Rules of the Church saith T. G. if men may be permitted to break them for such Capriches as these are P. D. Are you in earnest Doth T. G. call these Capriches Idolatry is accounted both by Fathers and Schoolmen a crime of the highest nature and when I am told I must commit it one way or other by your Divines if I give worship to Images is this only a Capriche R. P. Will not the same reason hold against bowing to the Altar bowing being an act of worship appropriated to God P. D. Will the same reason hold against bowing out of Reverence to Almighty God which I have told you again and again is all our Church allows in that which you call bowing to the Altar I see you are very hard put to it to bring in this single Instance upon every turn against the plain sense and declaration of our Church If this be all T. G. upon so long consideration hath to say in this matter it is not hard to judge who hath much the better Cause R. P. I pray hold from triumphing a while for there is a fresh charge behind wherein you will repent that ever you undertook to defend Dr. St. it is concerning the unjust parallel he hath made between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry P. D. I see no cause to repent hitherto And I hope I shall find as little when I come to that THE Fourth Conference About the Parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry R. P. HAVE you considered what T. G. saith concerning the parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry and doth not your heart fail you as to the defence of Dr. St. which you promised to undertake P. D. No truly The more I have considered it the less I fear it R. P. What think you of the notion of Idolatry he chargeth on T. G. viz. that it is the giving the Soveraign Worship of God to a Creature and among the Heathens to the Devil as if the Idolatry of the Heathens consisted only in worshipping the Devil whereas it appears from the words Dr. St. cites out of him that he charged the Heathens with Idolatry in worshipping their Images for Gods and the Creatures for Gods although withal they worshipped evil Spirits and T. G. contends that their Supream God was an Arch-Devil P. D. Is this such a difficulty to be set in the Front I suppose it is only to try whether I will stumble at the threshold If the Supreme God whom the Heathens worshipped was an Arch-devil as T. G.