saith then without all question they gave their most Soveraign worship to the Devil And when he pleads so earnestly that all the Gods of the Heathens were Devils under whatsoever name or title they worshipped them what injury can T. G. think it to his Hypothesis to say that the Heathen Idolatry did consist in giving Soveraign worship to the Devil Besides Dr. St.'s words do not imply that according to T. G. the Heathens did not give Soveraign worship to other things but that they did it eminently to the Devil which must needs follow if the Supreme God among them was no other than an Arch-Devil as T. G. then asserted and now endeavours more at large to prove R. P. Therefore waving this I come to the main point whether the Heathen Jupiter were the true God or an Arch-Devil P. D. You are just like the Author of a late Scurrilous Pamphlet called Jupiter Dr. St. 's Supreme God c. who would fain reduce the whole Question of Idolatry to this single point without considering either the occasion of this Question or the main arguments used by Dr. St. or the very scope and design of his Discourse But he is so pitiful a trifler that he deserves no notice at all That we may proceed more clearly in this Debate we ought first to attend to the principal Question which was whether Idolatry be consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being And the reason of this Question was because those who did plead the most plausibly in excusing your Church from Idolatry went upon this principle that supposing men preserved in their minds the notion of one Supreme Being it is impossible they should give to a creature that honour which was due to God alone To overthrow this Dr. St. undertook to shew that this principle would equally excuse the Heathen Idolatry since both the ancient and modern Heathens did own one Supreme God And if this be granted him it matters not to the main design of his Discourse whether it were Jupiter or not And it is a wonder to me since the man in T. G.'s Dialogues who argues against Dr. St. professes himself a Disciple of Mr. Thorndike he should never take notice of this principle nor once go about to defend it But since T. G. acknowledges that the Heathens had a notion of one Supreme Being ingraffed in their minds by nature the point then in debate is on what account they were charged with Idolatry and whether that will not reach to the practices of the Roman Church i. e. whether their Idolatry lay in worshipping the Creature and not the Creator or in giving Divine Worship though of different degrees to the Creature and the Creator And here lies the main strength of this controvesie and supposing Dr. St. were mistaken as to the sense of the Fathers about Jupiter yet if the true notion of Idolatry be proved to consist in giving the same Divine Worship to God and his Creatures his parallel will be sufficient to make good the charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome Yet since T. G. seems to lay so much weight upon the Fathers sense concerning Jupiter I am content to examine them together with you but in the first place let us consider what the Scripture saith to this point for as I remember Dr. St. began with that then he proceeded to your own Writers and at last brought in the Testimonies of Fathers and I see no reason we should go off from this method R. P. Since you will have it so I will begin with the Scripture and Dr. St. pretends to prove Jupiter to be the Supreme God from those words Acts 17. Whom ye ignorantly worship him I declare unto you P. D. Consider I pray the question between Dr. St. and T. G. viz. whether it were the true God or an Arch-devil and Dr. St. argues in these words Did St. Paul mean the Devil when he said whom you ignorantly worship him I declare unto you Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach the Devil to the world Yet he preached him whom they ignorantly worshipped What saith T. G. to this R. P. From this very Inscription To the unknown God he notably proves it could not be understood of Jupiter who was a known God and St. Paul could not be said to come to preach their Jupiter to the Athenians when he expresly tells them he came to declare to them a God whom they did not know P. D. To this I answer that the Athenians had so confounded the notion of the supreme God with that of the Poetical Jupiter and the Peoples fancies were so stained and polluted with those vulgar representations of Jove which they learnt from the Poets and Painters that the Apostle rather chose to preach the true God to them from the inscription to the unknown God than from any Altars that were inscribed Jovi Opt. Max. Because the People would have imagined if St. Paul had made choice of any usual inscription to a Deity worshipped in common with the rest that he must in consequence allow the nature and kind of their Worship For they joyned Jupiter and the rest of their Gods together the Body of their Worship consisting of an acknowledgment of one as Supreme viz. Jupiter and of the rest as worshipped together with him and so their worship being a complex thing it was more agreeable to the Apostles design which was to destroy their Idolatry not to make use of that notion of God which was corrupted by their Idolatries but to take advantage from the Inscription to the unknown God so to declare his Nature as to confute their Idolatrous Worship as he doth in the following verses Jupiter therefore as he was the Head of the Heathen Worship and as he stood in conjunction with their other Deities was a known God amongst them and solemnly worshipped by the Athenians but as by Jove was understood the Eternal Mind as the only proper object of Divine Worship and therefore ought not to be worshipped with mens hands nor to be joyned with his Creatures so he was an unknown God For they had no other knowledge of a Supreme God than as of one who admitted others into a participation of the same Worship with himself And there were these two things which made those Gentiles disown the God of the Jews who agreed with them in the acknowledgement of one Supreme God who made the world 1. That he would be worshipped by no Images or representations of himself 2. That he would admit no inferiour beings to have any share in Divine Worship but all such were accounted Idolaters by the Jewish Laws who according to the Eastern Customs worshipped any other as Mediators or inferiour Deities From hence the Heathens accounted the God of the Jews an unknown and unsociable Deity there being no representations made of him nor any others to be joyned in worship with him therefore Dion Cassius calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
of patience P. D. Not I assure you when I meet with any thing that deserves it R. P. Here comes our Fanatick Friend to refresh you a little What is the matter man why so sad have you met with an ill bargain at the Auction F. C. No no. I got a Book last night hath taken me up till this time and truly I have read something in it which fits much upon my Spirit R. P. What is it if we may ask you F. C. It is no comfort either to you or me R. P. If I be concerned I pray let me know F. C. You know last night we heard them at Rutherford and Gillespee I came in time enough for Gillespee's Miscellany Questions a rare Book I promise you And by a particular favour I carried it home with me and looking upon the Contents I found the Seasonable Case viz. About Associations and Confederacies with Idolaters Infidels or Hereticks and he proves them to be so absolutely unlawful from Scripture and many sound Orthodox Divines that for my part he hath fully convinced and setled me and I thought it my duty to come and to tell you so R. P. Well we will let alone that discourse at present we are at our old trade again and I was just coming to a seasonable question for you viz. Whether you have not as much reason to separate from the Church of England as the Church of England had from the Church of Rome F. C. Who doubts of that P. D. I do Sir nay more I absolutely deny it F. C. What matter is it what you say or deny You will do either for a good preferment Have not you assented and consented to all that is in the Book of Common Prayer and what will you stick at after P. D. Consider Sir what it is to judge rash judgement I wonder men that pretend to Conscience and seem so nice and scrupulous in some things can allow thmselves in the practice of so dangerous a sin If you have a mind to debate this point before us without clamour and impertinency I am for you F. C. You would fain draw me in to dispute again would you No such matter there is your man he will manage our Cause for us against you of the Church of England I warrant you R. P. I am provided for it For T. G. desires of Dr. St. for the sake of the Presbyterians Anabaptists and other separated Congregations to know why the believing all the ancient Creeds and leading a good life may not be sufficient to Salvation unless one be of the Communion of the Church of England P. D. A very doughty question As though we were like you and immediately damned all persons who are not of the Communion of our Church We say their separation from us is very unjust and unreasonable and that there is no colour for making their case equal with ours as to the separation from the Church of Rome R. P. I will tell you of a man who makes the case parallel it is one Dr. St. in his Irenicum and T. G. produces many pages out of him to that purpose P. D. To save you the trouble of repeating them I have read them over and do think these Answers may serve for his vindication 1. That in that very place he makes separation from a Church retaining purity of Doctrine on the account of some corrupt practices to be unlawful and afterwards in case men be unsatisfied as to some conditions of communion he denies it to be lawful to erect New Churches because a meer requiring conformity in some suspected rites doth not make a Church otherwise sound to be no true Church or such a Church from which it is lawful to make a total separation which is then done when men enter into a new and distinct Society for worship under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church Rules different from those of the Church they separate from And now let your Fanatick Friend judge whether this man even in the dayes of writing his Irenicum did justifie the practices of the separated Congregations which he speaks expressely against F. C. No truly We are all now for separated Congregations and know better what we have to do than our Fore-Fathers did Alas what comfort is there in bare Nonconformity For our people would not endure us if we did not proceed to separation He that speaks against separation ruins us and our Cause P. D. So far then we have cleared Dr. St. from patronizing the Cause of the separated Congregations 2. He saith that as to things left undetermined by the Law of God in the Judgement of the Primitive and Reformed Churches and in matters of Order Decency and Government every one notwithstanding what his private judgement may be of them is bound to submit to the determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Can any thing be said plainer for Conformity than this is by the Author of the Irenicum R. P. But how then come in those words produced by T. G. P. D. I will tell you he supposes that some scrupulous and conscientious men after all endeavours used to satisfie themselves may remain unsatisfied as to the Lawfulness of some imposed Rites but dare not proceed to positive separation from the Church but are willing to comply in all other things save in those Rites which they still scruple and concerning these he puts the Question whether such bare-nonconformity do involve such men in the guilt of Schism And this I confess he resolves negatively and so brings in that long passage T. G. produces out of him I now appeal to your self whether T. G. hath dealt fairly with Dr. St. in two things 1. In not distinguishing the case of separation from that of bare nonconformity only in some suspected Rites and in producing these words to justifie the separated Congregations 2. In taking his judgement in this matter rather from his Irenicum written so long since than from his late Writings wherein he hath purposely considered the Difference of the Case of those who separate from the Church of England and of our separation from the Church of Rome R. P. But hath he done this indeed and did T. G. know it P. D. Yes very well For it is in that very Book the Preface whereof T. G. pretends to answer in these Dialogues and he doth not speak of it by the by but discourseth largely about it Is this fair dealing But the Irenicum served better for his purpose as he thought and yet he hath foully misrepresented that too R. P. But yet Dr. St. must not think to escape so for he hath searched another Book of his called his Rational Account and there he finds a passage he thinks in favour to Dissenters from the Church of England and which undermines the Church of England P. D. Therefore the Church of Rome is not guilty of Idolatry R. P. Have a little patience
Persons of the Father and Holy Ghost are too R. P. You may account this an absurdity but we account it none at all yea some of our Divines have said If the Holy Trinity were not every where yet it would be in the Eucharist by vertue of this Concomitancy P. D. I do not now meddle with your opinions I only consider the Patronus bonae Fidei and his Brethren who do look on these as absurdities and yet are so foolish to say that our worshipping God towards the Altar is more absurd than your worshipping Christ on the Altar on supposition of Transubstantiation But why worse than Egyptian Idolatry I beseech you R. P. The Egyptians saith he pretended some colour for their Idolatry as than an Ape or a Cat or a Wolf c. had some participation of the Divinity but those that bow down to a Wooden Table are themselves stocks with much more to that purpose P. D. Is such a man to be endured in a Christian Common-wealth not to say a Church for excommunication he regards not who parallels the adoration given only to the Divine Majesty as our Church professeth with the Worship of an Ape or a Cat or a Wolf c Nay he makes the Egyptian Idolatry more reasonable than our Worship of God The only thing that can excuse him is Rage and Madness and therefore I leave him to his Keeper But I pray tell me was it meer kindness to the Church of England which made T. G. to produce all these passages at full length out of the Patronus bonae Fidei Or out of pure spite to Dr. St. by so often repeating the passage of his being delinitus occaecatus And why in such a place where he pretends only to give an account of Dr. St.'s vain and endless Discourses doth he bring in this at large Is it only for his comfort to let him see there is one body at least in the world more foolish and impertinent than he We have seen enough of what T. G. ought not to have done let us now see what he saith Dr. St. ought to have done R. P. The first thing to be done in a Dispute is to settle the state of the Controversie upon its true Grounds by laying down the true notion of the matter in debate therefore Dr. St. ought in the first place to have given us the true Notion of Idolatry in the nature of the Thing and then to have shewn that notion to have agreed to the honour and veneration which the Church of Rome in her Councils declares may be given to the Images of Christ and the Saints but he chose rather to dazle the eyes of the Reader with the false lights of meer external Acts the obscure practice even of wiser Heathens and the clashing of School-Divines P. D. Now I hope we are come to something worthy of consideration I like the method of proceeding very well And I like Dr. St.'s Book the better because I think he pursued the right method beginning first with the Nature of Idolatry and Divine Worship and then coming to the first Particular of Image-worship which he hath handled with great care and exactness in respect of your Councils as well as your Practices and School-Divines R. P. It is true he proposed well at first but like a Preacher that hath patched up a Sermon out of his note-book he names his Text and then takes his leave of it For what he was to speak to was Idolatry in the nature of the thing independently of any positive Law whereas he speaks only of an Idolatry forbidden by a positive Law but if there be no Idolatry antecedent to a positive prohibition the Heathens could not be justly charged with Idolatry P. D. In my mind he did not recede from his Text at all but pursued it closely but you are uneasie at his Application and therefore find fault with his handling his Text. What could a man speak to more pertinently as to Idolatry in the Nature of the thing than to consider what that is which is acknowledged to be Idolatry both in the Heathens and Arrians What that was which the Primitive Church accounted Idolatry in them What opinons those have of God whom the Roman Church do charge with Idolatry Wherein the Nature of Divine Worship consists not only with respect to positive commands but the general consent of mankind Did he not expresly argue from the Reason and design of solemn Religious worship abstractly from positive Laws Did he not shew from many Testimonies that the Heathens did look on some peculiar Rites of Divine worship as Sacred and Inviolable that they chose rather to dye than to give them any but a Divine Object It is true after this he enquires into the Law of God and what acts of worship he had appropriated to himself and was there not great Reason to do so Are we unconcerned in the Laws God made for his worship In my apprehension this was the great thing T. G. had to do to prove that Gods Law about worship was barely ceremonial and only respected the Jews but that we are left to the Liberties of the Law of Nature about Religious worship but he neither doth this nor if he had done it had he overthrown Dr St.'s Book For he proves in several places that the Heathens had the same distinctions of soveraign and inferiour worship absolute and relative which are used in the Roman Church and if these do excuse now they would have excused them who by Scripture and the consent of the Christian Church are condemned for Idolatry And judge you now whether Dr. St. took leave of his Text whether he did not speak to Idolatry in the Nature of the thing R. P. But he saith the Heathens could not understand the nature and sinfulness of Idolatry if not from some Law of God which is in effect to clear the Heathens from Idolatry till that Law was delivered to them whereas S. Paul saith they had a Law written in their hearts whereby they might understand it and Dr. St. ought to have shewn wherein the deordination and sinfulness of Idolatry did consist antecedently to any positive prohibition and till this be done he can make no parallel between the Heathen Idolatry and that of the Roman Church P. D. I am glad to find any thing that looks like a difficulty which may give an occasion of farther thoughts about this weighty matter and of clearing the Doctors mind concerning it Herein I shall endeavour to explain these two things 1. How far Dr. St. doth make the nature and sinfulness of Idolatry to depend on the Law of God 2. Wherein the sinfulness of Idolatry doth consist abstractly from a positive Law 1. How far he makes the sinfulness of it to depend on a positive Law 1. He supposes Natural Religion to dictate these things 1. That God ought to be solemnly worshipped 2. That this worship ought to be
peculiar to the Divine Nature in regard of his Soveraignty over us and the infinite distance between him and his Creatures 3. That the giving this solemn worship which is due to God to any Creature is the invading the Rights of his Soveraignty Thence he shews from Aquinas that worship is not given to God because he needs it but that the belief of one God may hereby be confirmed in us by external and sensible Acts which cannot be done unless there be some peculiar Acts of his Worship And external worship is a profession of internal acts being expressive of our minds as well as words Thence he determines that Idolatry is a sin of the highest nature because it invades Gods peculiar Rights and implyes blasphemy in it because it takes away from God the peculiarity of his dominion Are not these arguments drawn from the nature of the thing and not meerly from a positive Law 2. Notwithstanding these dictates of natural Reason concerning the worship of God yet he supposes mankind to have been so corrupted as to have lost the sense of the sinfulness of giving divine worship to creatures Which he saith they did chiefly on a threefold supposition 1. That God committed the Government of the world under him to some inferiour Deities Or 2. That God was the soul of the world and therefore the worship given to the parts of it did redound to him Or 3. That external adoration was below him and that the service due to God was that of our minds and the other might be given to Creatures 3. That God saw it necessary to revive the peculiarity of his worship by his Law given in the Decalogue which although given to the Jews was of an eternal and immutable nature being not built on any reason peculiar to them but common to all mankind and on this account the Christian Church did look on the same Law as obliging all Christians as the Doctour hath proved in several places before cited 4. That when the Apostles went abroad to reclaim the world from Idolatry they made use of no other notion of it than what was received among the Jews and by the Reasons on which the Law of God was founded they convinced the world of that sin of Idolatry which by the corruption of mankind and the custom of the world they had lost the sense of And this was plainly the meaning of Dr. St.'s words to any unprejudiced mind as appears by laying these things together which are all contained in the same discourse If we say the Gentiles had lost the sense of other sins as it is evident they had and the Apostles made use of the Law of God to convince them doth it hence follow that the sinfulness of those things did barely depend upon a positive Law And therefore the notion of Idolatry may be said to be new not as though it were not against the principles of Natural Religion but because they had lost the sense of them so the Law of Moses was a new Law though it revived the Law of Nature in its moral precepts the doctrine of Christ was a new doctrine to the world although most agreeable to the principles of natural reason 2. The sinfulness of Idolatry according to natural Religion consists in these things 1. In taking away the due sense of the Distance between God and his Creatures which is a violation of the Rights of his Soveraignty and consequently it is crimen laesae Majestatis Divinae or Treason against the Divine Majesty 2. In neglecting to give God the worship which was proper to him And this was the consequent of Idolatry and not as though the Nature of Idolatry did lye barely in not giving to God the worship due to him as T. G. seems to suggest but when men did accustome themselves to the worship of Idols they grew so fond of their own inventions that they had five Ave Maries for one Pater Noster and so the worship of God came to be almost lost in the croud of Deities which they joyned with him 3. In worshipping bad Spirits instead of good ones which craftily insinuated themselves among the Idolaters under the pretence of Inferiour Deities For so the people still believed them to be good Spirits and their learned men defied all those who said they worshipped any other as Dr. St. hath shewed yet the Christians proved they were evil because they received that worship from them which the good ones would not do 4. In disparaging the Divine Nature by making Images to represent him which suggested mean thoughts of God to their minds lessening the apprehensions of the Greatness of his Majesty and hoping to please God by worshipping such representations of him Which he thought so dishonourable to himself that he forbids it by a severe Law and punished the transgressours of it and from hence the Christian Church hath accounted the same thing unlawful to them because so dishonourable to God 5. In taking away that dependence upon God which he expects from his Creatures For when they suppose that God hath committed the care of these things to any inferiour beings they are apt to make their addresses to them more frequently because of a vicinity of Nature to them and to depend upon them for help in time of need which takes off that entire trust in God which is most agreeable to his Wisdom Goodness and Providence 6. In giving divine worship to vile and wicked men instead of God This was an aggravation of Idolatry and increased the sinfulness of it although the nature of Idolatry doth not lye in giving divine worship to bad men but to any Creatures And in this particular lay the abominable sinfulness of the Poetical Idolatry among the Greeks and Romans which was in this respect worse than of the most barbarous Nations we ever read of 7. The more vile the practices the more mean the submissions the more gross the errours of Idolaters were the greater was the sinfulness of Idolatry Hence the filthy and obscene Actions of the Eastern Greek and Roman Idolatries the mean submissions and the gross errours of the Egyptian Idolatries heightned the sinfulness of them These are the main things wherein the sinfulness of Idolatry did consist abstractly from any positive Law You see how freely I give them to you upon such an invitation and much good may they do you If Dr. St. had thought T. G. had desired any such thing from him I do believe he would have added not only a seventh but an eighth Chapter for his sake on such a subject as this which it is so easie to inlarge upon But I stop for fear T. G. should think I am only patching up a Sermon out of Note-books yet I think I have not taken leave of my Text. R. P. Did you ever hear of the speaking Trumpet P. D. What hath the speaking Trumpet to do with Idolatry I am afraid I waked you out of some
at least as to the generality But afterwards he takes heart and sayes roundly that the Fathers evermore charge the Arians for giving absolute Divine Worship to Christ although they believed him to be of a different nature from the Supreme God which he hopes is far enough from the Doctors relative or inferior Worship But I am very far from being satisfied with this Answer For I pray tell me wherein lies the difference between Soveraign Worship and Inferiour In Acts of the Mind or in External Acts R. P. In Internal doubtless on T. G.'s principles who makes External Acts to signifie according to the determination of the Church P. D. What are those Internal Acts wherein the Worship of the Supreme God consists R. P. A due esteem of his excellency and suitable affection to it P. D. Must not this due esteem distinguish him from all Creatures R. P. Yes surely for otherwise it can be no due esteem the distance being infinite between God and his Creatures P. D. Can a man then have an equal esteem of God and a Creature which he acknowledges to be made by him R. P. Certainly not P. D. Then it must be unequal according to the difference of uncreated and created excellencies R. P. Yes P. D. Then the Worship must be unequal and that which is given to a Creature must be inferiour worship R. P. But T. G. saith they might believe true Divinity to be in him as the Heathens did of their lesser Gods P. D. True Divinity What is that when they believed him to be a Creature did they take him for an uncreated creature For that can be no true Divinity which is not uncreated and yet you confess they owned Christ to be a Creature What nonsense and contradiction would T. G. cry out upon if Dr. St. had ever said any such thing R. P. Might not they believe Christ to be assumed as Consort in the Empire and so absolute Divine Honour to be due to him P. D. What do you mean by this absolute Divine Honour For I have already proved it must be inferiour Worship R. P. I do suppose absolute Divine Honour is that which is given to a Being on the account of its own excellency and relative from the respect it hath to another P. D. But whether absolute or relative it is proper Divine Honour you mean And doth not that imply an esteem of proper divine excellency and is not that proper to God alone and uncreated How then can this absolute Divine Honour be given to a Created Being R. P. How did the Gentiles to their false Gods P. D. Just as the Arians for they made distinctions in their worship as will appear when we come to that subject R. P. What do you make then this worship of the Arians to be P. D. An Inferior and Relative Worship for they supposed they worshipped God when they gave those Acts of Worship to Christ which were agreeable to the excellencies that were in him R. P. But 2. Those Acts were such as by the consent of the Church were understood to be due only to God incarnate P. D. Here we are to know both what these Acts were and what power the Church hath to impose a signification upon them R. P. T. G. names these 1. Worshipping and serving him with Latria 2. Putting their trust in him as Mediator of Redemption 3. Invoking him as the Judge of the quick and the dead c. P. D. What means this c. I am afraid here is something beyond the trick about Gregory Nyssen which lies under this Dragons Tayl. Are these all which Dr. St. mentioned R. P. I know not that if you know more I am sure to hear of it P. D. You are not mistaken for Dr. St. had shewed at large 1. That external adoration was one of those things which the Fathers charged the Arians with Idolatry for giving to Christ supposing him to be a Creature from Peters forbidding Cornelius and the Angel St. John because this is only proper to God from the plain testimonies of Athanasius Epiphanius and St. Cyril 2. That invocation of Christ as a Mediator of Intercession was condemned as Idolatry in the Arians Athanasius supposes it inconsistent with Christianity to joyn Christ if he were a creature in our prayers together with God 3. That they made no such distinction of worshipping and serving with Latria as T. G. insinuates For he shews from the Testimonies of Athanasius and even Gregory Nyssen St. Cyril and Theodoret that the very worship which they condemn for Idolatry is called Doulia by them And therefore these are meer shifts and evasions which do not remove the difficulty at all I deny not but they did put their trust in Christ for Salvation and expect his coming to judge the quick and the dead but I say these were but expressions suitable to the apprehensions they had of his excellencies above any other Creatures but still inferiour to Gods and the Fathers did not charge them with Idolatry meerly for these Acts but for the other likewise mentioned before R. P. But T. G. hath a reserve still behind viz. that it is in the Churches Power to determine the signification of external Acts of Worship what belongs to Soveraign or proper Divine Worship and what to inferiour worship that at that time the Church might take those for Acts of Divine Worship which afterwards by consent of the Church came only to signifie inferiour Acts of Worship when applied to Creatures and therefore the argument cannot hold from that time to after Ages P.D. I think you have hit upon T. G.'s meaning and in truth it is the only thing to be said in the case For if Idolatry be a thing in the Churches Power to determine it is the only way in the world for the Church of Rome to free her self supposing that power to be lodged in her but if it should happen that the Law of God the consent of Nations the Reason of Divine Worship and the Practice of the Primitive Church have determined Idolatry antecedently to the power of the present Church what a case are you then in The guilt of Idolatry must lie heavily upon you and if it be so great a sin as your own Schoolmen determine you have a great deal to answer for notwithstanding all the tricks and evasions of T. G. But why doth not T. G. make the external Acts of Theft Adultery Murder and Perjury as much under the Churches power as those of Idolatry But I forbear now supposing that we shall meet with this useful notion again before we end this debate R. P. You are mistaken if you think T. G. had no other answer to give For he saith they could not be understood of that worship which our Church gives to Saints because they acknowledge an inferiour worship due to the Saints for which he quotes St. Austin Gregory Nazianzen St. Hierom and Gregory Nyssen P. D.
Idolatry And what saith T. G. to that R. P. Truely he had forgotten to speak to it but a Friend of his putting him in mind of it he hath added something by way of Appendix about it to shew how unnecessary it was to speak to it P. D. All in good time but it was well the Printer informed him of two or three vacant leaves too or else we might have wanted those rare observations But why so unnecessary to answer an argument of that consequence which to my apprehension hath effectually overthrown this hypothesis of T. G. that Idolatry lies in the esteem and worship of many Gods truely and properly so called for if that were the general supposition that Idolaters went upon that there was one Supreme and many inferiour Deities as Dr. St. hath proved of the Arabians Persians Brachmans who are shewed to have no other esteem of the inferiour Deities than you have of your Saints and that they give only a relative worship to them and to their Images and of the very Tartars and West-Indians and Northern Idolaters how then can T. G. hope to make it appear to any man of common sense that the nature of Idolatry lies in the worshipping many independent Gods If T. G. were sent upon a Mission to them I would fain know by what arguments he could convince any of these of Idolatry T. G. charges them with Idolatry for worshipping many Gods truely and properly so called they deny it and say they worship only one Supreme and others in subordination to him what hath T. G. further to say Will he tell them he knows better what they do than they do themselves I say therefore it is impossible upon T. G.'s principles to convince these Heathens of Idolatry But there is another thing I think very material in this Discourse concerning the modern Idolaters which is T. G. insinuates that although some few of the wiser sort of Heathens might understand the difference between the Supreme God and inferiour Deities yet the generality of the People did not and so might easily worship many Gods properly and truly so called whereas by this Discourse it appears that the difference between the supreme and inferiour Deities was a thing known and received among the most rude and barbarous Nations And it is no great civility towards the Greeks and Romans to imagine them to be more sottish Idolaters than the Tartars and West-Indians I will confess freely to you that I think there was not a more absurd and impious Scheme of Divinity extant in the most barbarous parts of the world that are come to our knowledge than the Poetical Theology of the Greeks and Romans if it be understood literally and therefore the common people who had the Poets in mighty esteem lay under great disadvantages but yet the Poetical Fables being rejected by their Laws as well as by their Wise Men and the Poets themselves confessing one Supreme God but above all the natural sense of Conscience did keep up the Notion of one God among the People who was Lord over all insomuch that upon any solemn occasions they made their appeal to him as the Fathers observe Lactantius saith not only the Wise but all sorts of People confessed the unity of God even those who seemed to assert the multiplicity of Gods truely and properly so called for these are his words Quod quia intelligunt isti assertores Deorum ita eos praeesse singulis rebus ac partibus dicunt ut tantum unus sit Rector eximius Jam ergo caeteri non Dij erunt sed satellites ac ministri quos ille unus maximus potens omnium officiis his praefecit ut ipsi ejus imperio ac nutibus serviant Let T. G. construe this to the confusion of his Hypothesis that the Heathen Idolatry lay in the worship of many Gods truely and properly so called when even Lactantius saith the contrary so expresly Those cannot be Gods truely and properly so called who are under the command of another and this is Lactantius his own argument Ergo Dij non sunt quos parere uni maximo Deo necessitas cogit And this truth he saith of the Vnity of God is so plain that no man can be so blind not to discover so clear a light Seneca in his Exhortations quoted by Lactantius calls the inferiour Gods the servants to the Supreme Ministros Regni sui Deos genuit and the difference between them and the holy Angels he places in this that these would not be called Gods nor be worshipped as Gods the former we see S. Augustin makes nothing of so that the true ground why the Heathens attributed Divinity to them was because they gave to them Divine Worship which the Christians utterly refused The same Lactantius saith in general of the Romans that in any great distress they made their application to the supreme God and prayed to him and expected help from him and begg'd relief from others per ejus Divinum atque unicum Numen and these beggars surely were some of the common sort of people from whence it follows that the generality of the Heathen even among the Romans did not esteem and worship many Gods properly so called R. P. But methinks You seem to have forgotten T. G. 's Appendix about the modern Idolatry as well as he had to write about it till he was put in mind by a friend P. D. I am not very apt to believe T. G. could forget so material a part of the Doctours Book but there was some other reason for passing it over which it is not hard to conjecture But I thank you for putting me to ask you why he thought it so unnecessary to speak to it R. P. First because the Doctour reduces their worship to one of these two principles either that God hath committed the Government of the World to inferiour Deities or that God is the soul of the World now T. G. having proved that those who do hold the latter principle are guilty of Idolatry and those who hold the former of the exteriour profession of it in concurring with the Vulgar in the external practice of their Idolatry it would have been but actum agere to repeat the same things over again P. D. This is scarce a tolerable shift For the great force of that discourse lay in two things 1. The almost universal consent of Idolaters that there was one supreme God against T. G.'s hypothesis of many Gods truly and properly so called 2. That all these were charged with Idolatry by the Roman Church and therefore according to the sense of that Idolatry could not lye in worshipping many independent and absolute Deities But the prettiest shift is that he had condemned the Platonists for the exteriour practice of Idolatry in concurring with the Vulgar and therefore he need not speak to whole Nations who agreed in that principle of Worship and yet are