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
other Sciences such as those that both parts of a contradiction cannot be true of the same thing and that of every thing either the one or the other part of a contradiction is true These are such principles of which Aristotle saith it is folly in any man to go about to demonstrate them any otherwise than by shewing the absurdity of him that denyeth them They are such Themistius saith which every man hath by nature and without which he cannot be supposed to learn any thing and these are called self-evident and indemonstrable principles and Axioms which need no more than the bare representation of them to the mind as that the whole is greater than a part If you take away equal things from equal the remainder is equal For whatever depends upon Induction or needs any medium to prove it more than the bare perception of terms was never by any Philosopher accounted an indemonstrable and self-evident principle Much less were Identical propositions taken for first principles by any man that ever understood what principles were as it were very easie to prove if there were occasion for it I have but two things to add concerning this kind of Certainty 1. That the Certainty of our own Beings is equal to this Certainty of Principles It being a thing of natural and immediate evidence For the very doubting as well as thinking proves the certainty of the being of that which doubts And where there is such evident perception as of first principles and our own beings the assent is as necessary as for the ballance to incline where the greatest weight lyes 2. That self-evident principles have very little influence upon our knowledge of other things and therefore a late Philosopher observes that even that fundamental principle that it is impossible the same thing should be and not be at the same time is of little or no Vse for finding out of Truth And supposing the first principle of the certainty of our own Beings to be granted the Cartesians which no man who thinks can deny them yet I do not see how the truth of other things conveyed by our senses can be drawn from thence the one being an absolute certainty the other only depending on a supposition which carryes not equal evidence along with it which is the next kind 2. A certainty by sense or upon supposition that we are not so framed as not to be deceived in the most plain and clear perceptions of sense This is that I suppose they mean by Physical Certainty It implyes no contradiction we should be so deceived and consequently it is short of the first kind of Certainty But withall the supposition is so just and reasonable that such a mans understanding may be justly questioned who questions the plain evidence of sense as to light and day and bodies c. And all mankind in spight of their most subtle arguments do trust their senses and Epictetus well said that if he and two or three more were servants to a Sceptick they would make him hang or starve himself if he did not change his opinion And Galen saith the evidence of sense needs no demonstration for all those things which are evident to sense are to be believed for themselves 3. A Certainty by Reason or of deducing something not known from that which is known Which is so evident in Mathematical demonstrations that no man who understands the terms and attends to the proof can forbear his assent Aristotle did attempt to bring the way of reasoning in other things to Mathematical certainty which was the great design of his Logick To this end he begins with the explication of simple terms and so he proceeds to propositions and then to the joyning of two of these so together that from thence a third thing may follow by vertue of some middle term wherein they agree But because the conclusion may not necessarily follow where the manner of reasoning was true therefore in order to demonstration he supposes two sorts of principles 1. Axioms or common principles received by all that understand them 2. Positions which are twofold 1. Suppositions or Postulata 2. Definitions But after all he grants that only such things are capable of Demonstration which have a certain and immutable cause And he puts a difference between a necessary conclusion and a demonstration The one depending on the Form of Syllogism the other upon the necessity of the Cause But in demonstrative Syllogisms Aristotle doth not require some degree of necessity but the highest when the connexion between the Subject and Predicate is so great that one cannot be defined without the other so that Logical Demonstration must be of an inseparable property and by the most immediate and necessary cause But very few things in the world are capable of such demonstrations by reason of our ignorance of the essential properties and immediate causes of things and those Instances which are brought either by Aristotle or his Commentators are about such things where demonstration was least needful and tend very little to the improvement of our knowledge 4. A Certainty which supposes some Moral principles and proceeds upon them Such as these That every Intelligent being acts for some end That it is not the interest of mankind to deceive one another That there are some things fit to be chosen and others to be avoided That circumstances vary the nature of Actions That where comparisons are made the greatest good and the least evil are to be chosen Such as these I call Moral Principles which have self-evidence in them to any man that understands the terms And whatever doth necessarily follow from these principles may be justly called a Moral Demonstration 5. A Certainty which supposes an immediate Divine Assistance to preserve the mind from errour and this is Infallible Certainty For the mind of man being of it self lyable to mistake in its apprehension and judgement of things nothing can preserve it from a possibility of errour but immediate assistance from God who cannot be deceived and will not deceive These things being premised we are now to enquire what kind of Certainty that is which we have concerning the principles of Religion 1. For the principles of Natural Religion You are to consider what kind of Adversary Dr. St. had to deal with viz. one who pleaded for an infallible Certainty as that infallibility doth imply Divine Assistance as necessary in order to an obligation to Assent Against this Dr. St. objects that the main foundations of all Religion which are the Being of God and immortality of the soul were not capable of this kind of Proof Because this very notion of Infallibility doth suppose that which he would prove viz. that there is a God who must give this assistance But at the same time he yields that we have as great evidence and certainty as humane nature is capable of of such a Being as God is from the consideration of his
SEVERAL CONFERENCES Between a Romish Priest A Fanatick Chaplain AND A DIVINE OF THE Church of England Concerning the IDOLATRY OF THE CHURCH of ROME Being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. LONDON Printed by M. W. for H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard and at the White Hart in Westminster Hall 1679. Imprimatur Guil. Jane R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã sac domest May 6. 1679. THE PREFACE THE following Discourses contain a full and distinct Answer to the late Dialogues of T.G. wherein the Reader may perceive what an easie Victory Truth when it stands its Ground will obtain over Wit and Subtilty When the man who fell in the Olympick Games endeavoured by his Eloquence to perswade the spectators he was never down it is possible he might meet with some weak and others partial enough to believe him but the Judges could not but smile at their folly who did not discern the difference between the firmness of the ones standing and the others artificial rising the one might shew more art and dexterity but the other had more strength or some other advantage I shall leave the Reader to judge in these combats who maintains his Ground best and who seeks chiefly to avoid the dis-reputation of losing it He that keeps close to his Adversary declines no difficulty uses no reproachful language or disingenuous dealing hath certainly greater assurance of the Goodness of his Cause and more hopes to prevail than he that studies for shifts and evasions avoids the strongest arguments and flyes out into impertinent cavils and personal reflections which are great signs that the man is conscious of the badness of his Cause and despairs of success by any other means And the Author of these Discourses desires that his Adversary and himself may stand or fall according to these measures As to the manner of writing here used viz. by way of Dialogue it is that which his Adversary led him to and possibly where the decency of it is well observed it may make Controversie go down more pleasantly than otherwise it would For there appears more life and vigour in a Discourse carried on by several persons of different humours and opinions than in one continued deduction of Reason And the Author declares he intended no reflection on any sober party of men among us in the representation made of the Army-Chaplain who bears the third Part in the Conferences but only to shew the advantage the Popish Party takes from the weak and peevish exceptions which some men have made against the Church of England and how they insinuate themselves into them on the account of their prejudices against it and have made use of their indiscreet zeal to compass their own ends Which is so far from being a Romance or Fiction that besides the footsteps which may be yet traced of these transactions by the means and instruments which were imploy'd about them we find that one of the most busie â—actors of the Roman Church whâ—n he most confidently denyed the other parts of the late horrid design did not stick to avow and own this that they did hope to prevail at last by joyning their strength with the obstinate Dissenters in procuring a General Toleration which was all the Visible Design they were carrying on when these Discourses were written Since which the face of things hath been so much alter'd among us and the times appear'd so busie and dangerous that it was thought more adviseable to respite the publishing of these Controversial Discourses till mens minds were a little calmed lest the Author of them should seem guilty of the impertinent diligence of Archimedes viz. of drawing lines in the Dust when the enemy was ready to destroy us Had the Author had any occasion to have run away from the Argument under debate between him and his Adversary he did not want a fair opportunity in the present state of things to have put him in mind of something very different from an Irenicum But he desired me to acquaint the Reader that he does so perfectly abhor this impertinent and disingenuous way of writing especially about matters of Religion that he could neither be provok'd nor tempted to it no not by so great and fresh an Example as he had all along before his eyes May that Wise and Gracious God who hath hitherto defeated the cruel and malicious designs of our Churches enemies still preserve it under the shadow of his Wings and continue it a praise in the Earth THE CONTENTS First Conference Concerning the sense of the Church of England about the Idolatry of the Church of Rome THE Introduction to it page 1 An account of T. G.'s late Dialogues p. 10 Of the genuine Sons of the Church of England according to T. G. p. 11.19 Of his intention about the sense of the Church of England in this matter p. 15 Of the nature of the Testimonies produced by Dr. St. p. 20 The argument from the Homilies defended p. 22 This charge of Idolatry proved to be no heat in the beginning of the Reformation p. 26 The argument from the Rubrick for kneeling at the Communion at large considered p. 34 No colour for Idolatry in kneeling at the Eucharist p. 35 T. G.'s sense of the Rubrick examined p. 46 Of material and formal Idolatry p. 52 How far the Real presence is held by our Church p. 56 Bertram's Book not the same with that of Joh. Scotus p. 63 Of the Stercoranists p. 64 Of Impanation p. 65 Of a Corporeal Presence p. 68 Of B. Abbots being a Puritan p. 74 How far the Church of Rome is chargeable with Idolatry p. 79 Mr. Thorndike vindicated from suspicion of Popery by a M S. of his own writing here published p. 85 Arch-Bishop Whitgifts Testimony cleared p. 93 Of the distinction between parts and circumstances of Worship p. 100 How far the charge of Idolatry is agreeable to the Articles of our Church p. 103 Second Conference About the Consequences of the Charge of Idolatry p. 113 THE Introduction concerning the restauration of Learning being the true occasion of the Reformation p. 115 Of the validity of Ordination on supposition of the charge of Idolatry p. 121 Authority goes along with the power of Orders by the principles of the Roman Church p. 125 Of the indelible Character p. 129 The distinction between the power of Order and Jurisdiction examined p. 134 Of excommunication ipso facto on the charge of Idolatry p. 141 Dr. St. proved to have no design to undermine the Church of England p. 145 The design of his Irenicum cleared p. 148 How far the Being of a Church and the possibility of salvation consistent with the charge of Idolatry p. 151 A large Testimony of B. Sanderson's to that purpose p. 153 No necessity of assigning a distinct Church in all Ages p. 158 No obligation to Communion with the Roman Church p. 161 No parity of reason in separating from the Church of
taken for the supreme God because in Lystra a City of Lycaonia S. Paul and Barnabas refused the worship the people would have given to them as to Jupiter and Mercury Among the Grecian Colonies what wonder is it if the Grecian Jupiter was worshipped and who ever said that he was not a false God But after all this suppose they did mean the great and original Jupiter the maker of the world had not S. Paul and Barnabas reason to turn them from the vanities of their worship when they found them so ready to give divine honours to two men whom they fancied to appear in the likeness of their Gods by doing a sudden and unexpected miracle And if it were lawful by the light of nature to give divine worship of an inferiour degree to mankind what made the Apostles so concerned to run in among them and to rent their clothes and to cry out We are men of like passions with you Therefore all that strain of T. G.'s Rhetorick whereby he endeavours to return Dr. St.'s arguments upon himself from this place hath no manner of strength or pungency in it But what saith T. G. to Dr. St.'s other argument from Scripture viz. that S. Paul to the Romans doth say that which is known of God was manifest among the Heathens that his Eternal Power and Godhead were so far discovered that they were left without excuse in their gross Idolatry How could this be if their supreme God whom they worshipped were only an Arch-devil Or doth T. G. suppose that they did own one true God but gave all their worship to the Devil And since the name of Jupiter was used to express alwayes the chief God whom they did own and by such characters as could only agree to the true God is it any wayes likely they should never intend to worship him under that name When Dr. St. hath shewed from Dio Chrysostom that by Jupiter they meant the first and greatest God the supreme Governour of the World and King over all rational beings R. P. I do not find T. G. takes any notice of the other argument from Scripture but he applyes himself to the Fathers P. D. But what saith he to the Testimonies Dr. St. produced of the Writers of his own Church a full Jury of them who frankly acknowledge that the Heathens did own and Worship one supreme God R. P. I suppose he thought none of the rest worth answering but he finds great fault with the testimony out of Aquinas P. D. This is a rare way of answering Dr. St. produced twelve several Authors of good reputation T. G. takes no notice of eleven of them and because he makes some cavils at the twelfth he would have this pass for an answer to them all R. P. But the Dr. loseth his credit so much in that that we need not to examine the rest P. D. Why so It is possible a man through haste or inadvertency or as T. G. expresseth it through a casual undulation of the visual rays may for once mistake but doth it follow that he must do it for twelve times together But I have not yet found any cause for these clamours and I suppose there may be as little as to this Testimony I pray tell me where lyes it R. P. T. G. makes a great many words about it but the short of the charge is this that what Aquinas spoke of some of the Philosophers viz. the Platonicks who acknowledged one supreme God from whom they said all those others whom they called Gods did receive their being Dr. St. interprets as spoken of the Generality of the Heathens who are there said to acknowledge a multitude of Gods properly so called P. D. I know not whether to express greater shame or indignation at this disingenuous dealing There needs no other answer but to set down Aquinas his words and to leave the Reader to construe them Hac autem veritate repelluntur Gentiles Deorum multitudinem confitentes quamvis plures eorum unum Deum summum esse dicerent à quo omnes alios quos Deos nominabant creatos esse asserebant c. Can any thing be plainer from these words than that those Gentiles are refuted who held a multitude of independent Deities although the greater number of them of whom is it not of the Heathens he spake of before and where is there one word of Platonists or Philosophers in the whole sentence do acknowledge one supreme God of whom all others whom they called Gods did receive their being What can be more evident from these words than that although some among the Heathens might hold a multitude of independent Deities yet the greater number did not The single question here is whether plures Gentilium doth signifie the greater number of Gentiles or the small number of Platonists who are not once mentioned But besides this Dr. St. produces another Testimony out of the same Book of Aquinas where he makes three several schemes of the Heathen Worship viz. 1. Of those who held one First principle but thought Divine Worship might be given to inferiour Beings 2. Of those who supposed God to be the soul of the world 3. Of those who worshipped animated Images If the other had been the general opinion of the Heathen he would have ranked it in the first place viz. of those who gave Divine Worship to many independent Deities but he doth not so much as mention it where it had been very proper to do it And it is plain from this Testimony of Aquinas that it is Idolatry to give Divine Worship to any Creatures although of never so great excellency R. P. Let us come to the Fathers I beseech you for my fingers itch to be at them for I see T. G. hath taken more than ordinary pains to prove that the Fathers make the Heathens supreme God to be an Arch-devil but it is necessary in the first place to state the question aright P. D. I think so too R. P. T. G. hath taken some pains to do it to prevent misunderstanding For he takes notice of four several questions which may relate to this matter 1. Whether the Heathens did not acknowledge one Supreme God which he yields and produces several Testimonies of the Fathers to that purpose 2. Whether the Heathens did not pretend that they understood this Supreme God by Jupiter and accordingly gave him the titles due to the Supreme God This T. G. denies not to be fully proved by Dr. St. but he saith all these Testimonies are impertinent 3. Whether the Fathers do not acknowledge that this was pretended by the Heathens This T. G. accounts impertinent too For saith he they might cite some sayings of the Heathen to that purpose and yet be of a contrary judgement themselves But the point in debate between the Dr. and T. G. is this 4. Whether it were the Fathers own sense that Jupiter was the Supreme God P. D.
indifferent Rite there had been some reason for what T. G. saith But the force of what Dr. St. said lay not meerly in their having no Images in Churches in the Primitive times but in the Reasons given by the Primitive Christians against the Worship of them From whence he hath at large proved that the Primitive Christians did look on the Worship of Images as utterly unlawful by the Law of God although the Object represented did deserve Worship And this I take to be one of the most material Discourses in Dr. St.'s Book to the present Controversie and which he lays the greatest weight upon For he insists upon these several particulars 1. That they judged such a representation of God by Images to be unsuitable to his Nature for which he produceth the Testimonies of Clemens Alexandr Justin Martyr Athenagoras Origen S. Hierom S. Augustin and others 2. That they looked on the Worship of Images as repugnant to the Will of God as being contrary to the second Commandment which did oblige Christians 3. That to suppose that they looked on the worship of Images as a thing indifferent is to charge the Primitive Christians with great hypocrisie 4. That the Christian Church continued to have the same opinion about the worship of Images after the Pagan Idolatry was suppressed 5. That it was no just excuse in the sense of the Primitive Church that they worshipped a true object or gave only an inferiour worship to the Images for the sake of those represented by them 6. That Ignorance and Superstition first brought in the worship of Images which was still condemned by the best Divines of the Church 7. That the Worship of Images came to be established in the Church by very indirect means such as Treason calumnies lyes and burning and suppressing all Books against it 8. That when it was established by the second Council of Nice it was vehemently opposed by the Western Church at the Council of Francford and that this Council of Nice was never owned in the Western Church for a General Council till the Reformation began And now I pray was it possible for T. G. to overlook all these things or was it fair to pretend to answer Dr. St.'s Book wherein all these things are and yet to pass them over as if they had never been written If this be the way of making Just Discharges I am afraid T. G.'s credit cannot hold out long for this is not after the rate of five shillings in the pound and for all that I see Dr. St. may take out the Statute against him However I shall consider what he pretends to Discharge and if his payment be not good in that neither his Word will hardly be taken for any Just Discharge more I pray go on R. P. For the fifth Chapter Of the sense of the second Commandment T. G. saith if God hath there expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image as Dr. St. affirms there needed no more than to expose the Law as in a Table in Legislative Gothick as it is done by him p. 671. with the addition only of a Finger in the Margent to point to the Words for every one that runs to read them P. D. And must this pass for an Answer to Dr. St.'s Discourse about the sense of the second Commandment I am really ashamed of such trifling in a matter of so great importance I know not whether it were the Legislative Gothick or no or a Finger on the Wall but something or other about that Commandment hath so affrighted you in the Church of Rome that you dare not let it be seen in your Ordinary Books of Devotion As for the cavil about expresly I have answered it already R. P. For his last Chapter T. G. saith there needed no more than to say that the Church of England doth not allow any Worship to be given to the Altar P. D. Is it possible for T. G. to think to fob us off with such answers as these barely to tell his Adversary he might have spared this and the other Discourse R. P. But T. G. saith this is the most material thing in that Chapter P. D. Say you so Was the wise Council of Nice so immaterial a thing that it must now be quite abandoned and no kind of Discharge be so much as offered to be made for it Was there nothing material in what concerns the charge of Contradictions Paradoxes School-disputes c. And all the other Instances waved to come to this of Bowing to the Altar there must be some Mysterie in this and I think I have found it the Patronus bonae Fidei inveighs bitterly against this as worse than Egyptian Idolatry and reproaches Dr. St. upon account of his defending it and T. G. finds it much easier to reproach than to answer R. P. The truth is this Patronus bonae Fidei doth T. G. Knights service For when he hath no mind to appear himself he serves him for a Knight of the Post who runs blindfold upon any thing that may discredit the Church of England two or three such rare men would ease us of a great deal of trouble For T. G. takes between five and six pages together out of him in this place besides what he hath taken up at interest upon other occasions P. D. Is this the Just Discharge to borrow so much out of the Fanatick stock Setting then aside what is brought over of the old Account which had been reckoned for before and how very many material things are never entred which he was accountable for and how much he hath borrowed upon the Bona Fides of the Fanatick Historian all the rest will amount to a very pitiful Discharge But since no better payment can be had let us at least examine this For this Bona Fides is a kind of Republican Publick Faith which no body will trust twice not so much as for Bodkins and Thimbles F. C. Hold Sir You love alwayes to be rubbing upon old Sores have you forgot the Act of Oblivion You know we dare not speak what we think of those times now and is that fair to accuse when we dare not answer Mind your own business defend the Church of England if you can in that Idolatrous practice of bowing to the Altar I alwayes thought what it would come to when Dr. St. went about the charge of Idolatry upon the principles of the Church of England I knew he could never defend himself but upon good Orthodox Fanatick principles as you call them Now Sir you have him at an advantage joyn your force and T. G.'s with that of the Patronus bonae Fidei and if the Geese follow the Fox close you will keep him from ever stirring more P. D. I thank you for your good Will to the Cause and that is all I fear from you you only add to the number and help to preserve the Roman Capitol by
your noise R. P. You shall not escape thus what say you to bowing to the Altar is not that as great Idolatry as worship of Images P. D. Do you not remember the answer Dr. St. hath already given to this objection R. P. I tell you I read none of his Books and know not what he hath written but as I find it in T. G. P. D. What is that R. P. Have I not told you already that the Church of England doth not allow any worship to be given to the Altar P. D. And is not that to the purpose For dare any of you say so of the Church of Rome in respect of Images R. P. But T. G. saith this is not the meaning of the Canon which Dr. St. produces for he saith the Canon only implyes that they give no Religious worship to it but they do not deny any kind of worship to be given to it and Dr. St. himself grants that there is a Reverence due to Sacred Places P. D. Now your bolt is shot I hope I may have leave to say something both in behalf of the Canon and Dr. St. 1. For the Canon I say as Dr. St. did that it denyes any worship to be given to the Altar for it makes the adoration to be immediately made to the Divine Majesty without respect to the Altar either as the Object or Means of Worship which I prove 1. From the Introduction For can any words be more express than those in the Introduction For as much as the Church is the House of God dedicated to his holy Worship not to that of the Altar and therefore ought to mind us both of the Greatness and Goodness of his Divine Majesty not of the sacredness of the Altar certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof not only inwardly in our hearts but also outwardly with our Bodies must needs be pious in it self profitable unto us and edifying unto others If the intention of the Canon had been to have given any worship to the Altar the Introduction must have related to that and not to the Divine Majesty 2. From the Recommendation we therefore think it meet and behooveful and heartily commend it to all good and well-affected People members of this Church that they be ready to tender unto the Lord not to the Altar the said due acknowledgement by doing Reverence and Obeysance both at their coming in and going out of the said Churches c. according to the most ancient Custom of the Primitive Church in Purest times and of this Church also for many years of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth 3. From the express disowning the giving any Religious worship to the Communion Table Which is not meant of an individuum vagum but of this Act of Adoration which is the Religious worship here spoken of and thereby no kind of worship is intended to the Altar but only to God And which is more plain yet by what follows that it is not done out of an opinion of the Corporal Presence of Christs Body on the Table or in the Mystical Elements but only mark that for the advancement of Gods Majesty and to give him Alone not the Altar together with him that honour and glory which is due unto him and no otherwise Can any words be plainer than these They want only Legislative Gothick and a Finger in the Margent for T. G. to understand them 4. Archbishop Laud who certainly understood the meaning of this Canon pleads only for the worship to be given immediately to God himself God forbid saith he that we should worship any thing but God himself and he adds if there were no Table standing he would worship God when he came into his House And he calls it still Doing Reverence to Almighty God but only towards his Altar and he saith the People did understand this fully and apply the worship to God and to none but God 5. When the introducing this was made one of the Articles of his Charge by the Commons his Answer was That his bowing was only to worship God not the Altar and I hope it is no offence or treason to worship God in the Kings own Chapel or to induce others to do the like 6. I do not find any of our Divines who pleaded most for it do contend for any more than worshipping God towards the Altar and not giving any worship to the Altar the arguments they used were for determining the local circumstance of worship and not for making the Altar the object of it And the difference between these two Dr. St. hath at large cleared R. P. But cannot we say that we only worship God before an Image and do not give any Religious worship to the Image and then the case is parallel P. D. You may say so and you sometimes do to deceive ignorant people but you cannot say it truly For 1. Your Councils have determined that Religious worship is to be given to Images our Canon saith it is not to be given to the Altar therefore the case is far from being parallel And Dr. St. hath fully proved that the Nicene Council did require Religious worship to be given to Images and Anathematizes all who do it not And utterly rejects those that say they are to be had only for memory and out of some kind of Honour or Reverence for nothing but Religious worship would satisfie them And the Acts of that worship are expressed to be not only bowing but prostration kissing oblation of Incense and Lights and Dr. St. hath elsewhere shewed that all the Acts of worship which the Heathens did perform to their Images in old Rome are given to Images in modern Rome 2. Those in the Church of Rome who have only contended for the worship of God before the Image have been condemned by others as savouring of Heresie who say it is a matter of Faith in the Roman Church that Images are to be worshipped truly and properly and that the contrary opinion is dangerous rash and sovouring of Heresie which is likewise proved at large by Dr. St. R. P. But doth not Dr. St. himself allow a Reverence due to Sacred places P. D. He doth so But do you observe the difference he puts between that and Worship I will endeavour to make his distinct notion of these things plain to you First He distinguishes between Honour and Worship 1. Honour he makes to be the Esteem of Excellency Either Inward only in the mind Either Outward in acts suitable to that estimation And this Excellency may be twofold 1. Personal 2. Relative 1. Personal and that threefold 1. Civil in regard of humane Society as that of Abraham to the Children of Heth. 2. Moral on account of moral Excellencies either Natural or Acquired 3. Spiritual in regard of supernatural Graces And that may be given two wayes 1. To the Persons as present which is Religious Respect as that of Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel Dan. 2.46 Of Abraham