different Act. If the same act then there is a double worship and but one Act for there is an absolute worship of the person of Christ and a relative worship of the Image and let it be relative or what it will it is a real Act of worship and so there must be two Acts and yet it is but one Act. For is the Image or Cross worshipped or not If it be worshipped there must be an act of worship terminated on it and how can there be an act of worship terminated upon it if the same act passeth from the Image to the Prototype These are unintelligible subtleties and only invented to confound mens understandings as to the true and distinct notion of Divine Worship and to blind their minds in the practice of Idolatry Farther if this be a difference only de modo loquendi as T. G. saith then the very same act may be proper and improper absolute and relative per se and per accidens For so T. G. saith that it is one Act in substance but it is absolute as terminated on the person of Christ relative as on the Cross proper in one sense improper in the other per se in the former sense per accidens in the later Which Catharinus thought to be no less than ridiculous Lastly there is nothing in the world but may be worshipped with Latria by the help of these distinctions For a Divine presence in the creatures is really a far better ground of worship than a bare fiction of the mind that the Image and the thing represented are all one But of this we have discoursed already R. P. To tell you plainly my mind I never liked this giving Latria to Images my self but it being a common doctrine in our Church we ought to say as much for it as we can but I am only for an inferiour worship to be given to them and so is T. G. if I do not much mistake his meaning P. D. Let us then consider this inferiour worship as distinct from Latria and concerning this I shall prove that it neither answers the reasons given by Councils nor the practice of the Roman Church 1. Not the reasons given by the Councils of Nice and Trent For which I desire but these two postulata 1. That Images are to have true and proper worship given to them which is expressely determined by those Councils 2. That the Reason of this Worship is nothing inherent in the Image but something represented by it Which is affirmed by those Councils From hence I argue thus To worship Christ only before an Image is not to give proper worship to the Image which the Councils require to be given Therefore either the Image is to be worshipped for it self which were Idolatry by your own confession or Christ is to be worshipped in and by the Image R. P. Christ is to be worshipped in and by the Image P. D. Then you give Christ the worship due to him or not R. P. The worship due to him P. D. But the Worship due to Christ is proper Latria therefore you must give proper Latria to Christ as worshipped in and by the Image R. P. True but we give it to the Image of Christ otherwise than to his Person for we worship him absolutely and the Image respectively and for his sake P. D. That is it which I would have that there is no worshipping an Image on the account of representation but you must fall into the doctrine of relative Latria R. P. But may not I shew respect to the Cross for Christs sake without giving the same worship to the Cross that I do to Christ P. D. That is not the question but whether you may worship Christ in and by the Cross representing his Person without giving that worship which belongs to the person of Christ For either you worship the Cross for it self which you confess to be Idolatry or you worship Christ as represented by it if you worship Christ you must give him the worship which belongs to him and that can be no other than Latria Which not only appears by the doctrine but by the practice of your Church in the worship of the Cross. Which I prove by the second particular viz. 2. Inferiour worship doth not come up to the practice of your Church because your Church in praying to the Cross speaks to it as if it were Christ himself O Crux ave spes unica c. as Aquinas observes and many other of your Divines who never own any Prosopopoeia but do say that the Cross is truly worshipped with that worship which belongs to the person of Christ on the account of representation And can you imagine so many of your most eminent Divines would have put themselves to so much difficulty in defending a Relative Latria if they could have defended the practice of your Church without it But they saw plainly the Church did own such a worship to the Cross and when occasion was offered did declare it as in the place cited out of the Pontifical by Dr. St. which it would never have done if it had not been agreeable to its sense R. P. But this is but one single passage and will you condemn a whole Church for that P. D. Not if the sense of the Church were otherwise fully expressed against it but here we have shewed that passage to be very agreeable to the reason of worship given by your Councils and to the solemn practice of your Church in adoration of the Cross and therefore that passage ought to be looked on as a more explicite declaration of the sense of the Church For let me ask you if the Church of Rome had been against Latria being given to the Cross whether in a book of such publick and constant use as the Pontifical is it should be left standing when the Book-menders are so busie in your Church that scarce an Index of a Father can escape them nor such sentences as seem to thwart their present doctrine Of which take this Instance You remember what stir T. G. made about Gregory Nyssen's oration upon Theodore now the same person disputing against the Arians saith that no created thing is to be worshipped by men this sentence Antonius in his Melissa had put down thus that we are only to worship that being which is uncreated This Book happened to come under the Spanish Index of Cardinal Quiroga do you think he would suffer it to stand as it did No I assure you Deleatur dictio solummodo saith he satis pro imperio Away with this Only Why so was it not in the Author No matter for that It is against the practice of the Church out with it More such instances might be produced but I appeal to your self whether after such care hath been taken to review the Pontifical by Clement 8. and the publishing of it with so much Authority such a passage would have been suffered to remain if it had been
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
the Poets attribute to Jupiter in express terms Clemens saith are spoken with great decorum of God and at the same time he grants that they meant God by their Jupiter what then follows but that although they used the name Jupiter yet under that name they spake those thinks of God which were very agreeable to him No saith T. G. this is not his meaning but that they spake those things concerning their Jupiter which being applied to the true God would be spoken with great gravity and decency Which in plain terms is that they attributed the perfections of God to the Arch-devil which was very ill done of them one would think and horrible blasphemy but however saith T. G. these things may be said to be spoken with great gravity and decency concerning God because if you take them from the Devil and apply them to God they are decent expressions Let us suppose James Naylor riding through the streets of Bristol assuming to himself the title of the Son of God and some of his followers crying Hosanna to the Son of David would T. G. say this were spoken with decency aâ—d gravity because it would be so if it were rightly applied to his Son Christ Jesus T. G. doth not seem here to consider wherein the decency of speech lies for there is the greatest indecency nay blasphemy in the misapplication of the best titles and most glorious attributes And were there no other reason to convince me of the sense of the Fathers in this matter this alone were sufficient that if T. G.'s hypothesis were true all those great things which the Heathens spake of their Jupiter were most abominable blasphemies for the Divine Perfections were attributed to the chief of Devils And if to attribute the miraculous works of God to the Devil be the sin against the Holy Ghost what then is it to give to the Devil all the perfections of God himself And yet if T. G. say true the Fathers must believe that the most learned and wise of the Heathens did so when they spake of the Wisdom and Power and Goodness of their supreme Jupiter and if they did believe they were guilty of such horrible blasphemy would they so often quote approve extol these sayings as they do Would they not rather have reproved censured condemned them for them as the most intolerable reproaches of the Divine Nature Would they have born such things in Plato Euripides or any other Philosopher or Poet For to call a Stone a Stock a dead Man a God to attribute life sense understanding to meer matter were tolerable blasphemies in comparison with making the Devil to be the supreme Governour of the world to be One and All to be infinite Wisdom as well as Power and yet all these must be thus given to the Devil by the wisest Poets and Philosophers which the Heathens ever had Nay farther their best and most understanding men who are most commended by the Fathers themselves must be the greatest blasphemers of all others and be thought so by the Fathers at the same time when they magnifie their sayings for the Wisdom Gravity and Decency contained in them This is so gross so wild so absurd an imagination as could hardly enter into any mans head who had any manner of esteem for the Fathers And I would advise T. G. rather to let the Fathers quite alone than to fix such absurdities upon them R. P. Methinks you are grown very warm of a sudden but I have another Father to cool you and he is Minucius Felix P. D. He is but a Paterculus a very diminutive Father as T. G. speaks however I hope he is able to speak for himself R. P. He saith the impure Spirits lurking in the consecrated statues gained to themselves the Authority and Esteem of a Deity that was there present P. D. And what then How often must you be told that the question is not whether the Devils were not assisting in the practice of Idolatry which Dr. St. never questioned either by presence in consecrated Images or by assuming divine honours under the names of Deified men but this doth not come up to the question in hand which is whethers the Fathers did not believe they did intend to worship the supreme God under the name and Titles of Jupiter O. M. I will make this plain to you that if possible you may understand the difference of these questions You know what boasts are made in your Church of the Miracles wrought by our Lady of such and such a place as of Mointague Hall Loretto c. what do you mean by this but that such Images which are there of her did effect them not by the power of the Wood or Stone but of some spiritual power which was present in or about them suppose now a person who hath heard of the coming of Satan with signs and lying wonders should believe that the evil spirits did endeavour to retrieve Idolatry in the Christian World after the way by which they advanced it in the Heathen World and so concludes that they work these pretended miracles might not such a one say that impure spirits lurk in your consecrated Images and there receive Divine Worship under the names of Saints and Angels and yet at the same time believe that you worship one supreme God R. P. But here the case is different for Minucius saith that Saturn and Serapis and Jupiter mark that confess themselves to be Devils P. D. Two wayes Jupiter might be a Devil and yet not prejudice Dr. St.'s assertion 1. As he assumed the honours given to the Poetical Jupiter who was really a Prince of Creet but the Poets by attributing to him the villanies of many others as to the ravishing of women c. had made him one of the greatest monsters of Wickedness that ever was and therefore it was no wonder the Devil should be worshipped under his name not intentionally but terminatively in as much as all this worship ended in the service of the Devil who was alwayes very active to subdue the minds of men to the Folly and Wickedness of Idolatry 2. As he was busie about consecrated Images even to the supreme Jupiter Thus although the Greeks and Romans might set up Images with Scepters and Globes and Thunderbolts in their hands on purpose to declare that they intended to worship the supreme God by them yet this way of worship being so disagreeable to the Divine Nature and Perfections God might justly suffer the impure Spirits to be active in those very Images which were consecrated to himself and they might by this means run away with that honour which they intended to give to the Divine Majesty But the Question still remains whether notwithstanding all this the Heathens did not design to worship the supreme God under the name of Jove and nothing of this nature doth shew that the Fathers believed the contrary and as to Minucius Felix Dr. St. had produced a material passage out
Worship of Images which have their full strength and force supposing nothing were intended beyond bare representation What think you of the Christian Church condemning the Carpocratians for worshipping an Image of Christ Did they believe Christ incorporated in that Image too Or did Epiphanius believe him to be so in the Image on the Veil or the Council of Elvira in the Pictures upon Walls By all which we see what numbers of arguments the Fathers used against the Worship of Images which have no relation at all to the believing their Images to be Gods Besides several other arguments they used which would lose their force upon this supposition as those taken from the meanness of subjecting our selves to vile and senseless Images and all the enforcements drawn from the matter and form of them which would have no great strength if this had been the general belief of the Heathens that the God whom they worshipped was incorporated in the Image and therefore why might not he be worshipped thereby as well as God incarnate in humane nature notwithstanding all the vileness and contemptibleness of our Flesh 2. As to the difference between them and you about the Divinity of Images I do grant that your Church doth in terms declare against it And so in probability would a Council of the Wiser Heathens have done as appears by the Testimonies of Celsus Julian Maximus Tyrius and many others But when men attribute such divine effects as miraculous cures to Images what can they believe but there is some Divinity either in or about them And when this is assigned as the reason of the Worship of such an Image as at Loretto or Mointague or elsewhere and of the mighty resort thither on that account what is this but to believe such Divinity to be in or about them which doth inhance the peoples Devotion to them And this was the general perswasion of the Heathens not that there was an Hypostatical union between the Deity and the Image by incorporation but that there was a vertual and powerful presence of the Deity in and about the Image by reason of its Dedication And upon this account of a more peculiar presence of the Deity after consecration and because Divine Worship was given to them it was that the Heathen Images were called Gods According to Minucius his account of the Image-God Quando igitur hic nascitur ecce funditur fabricatur scalpitur nondum Deus est ecce plumbatur construitur erigitur nec adhuc Deus est ecce ornatur consecratur oratur tunc postremo Deus est cum homo illum voluit dedicavit From which it appears it was solemn dedication and divine worship which made the Heathen Images to be looked on as Gods And on these accounts the Scripture as well as Fathers call the Heathen Idols by the name of Gods in the places produced by T. G. As when they are said to be molten Gods Lev. 19.4 And the Gods of the Nations are Idols Isa. 44.16 17 c. Where St. Hierom observes that the residue thereof is made a God when the maker worships what he has made and begs for help from the work of his own hands And in this sense I grant the Heathens did make their Images Gods and so do all those who give Divine Worship to them R. P. But Dr. St. seems to say that there never were any such fools in the World who worshipped their Images as Gods which T. G. proves abundantly from plain and express words of Scripture P. D. By the very same I have mentioned already and which in the former sense Dr. St. never denied All that he saith is this As though there ever had been such Fools in the world to say there was no other God besides their Images and as I remember he quotes Maimonides saying there were none such But if T. G. can find out such Fools in the world by my consent he shall have the begging of them R. P. T. G. grants there were some of the wiser Heathens who did not worship their Images as Gods but the Deities represented by them against these the Fathers prove at large that they were but men whom they commonly worshipped and some of the worst of men P. D. Wherein did the nature of this Idolatry lye In worshipping bad men instead of good or in giving divine worship to any men R. P. You are so troublesome that you will not let a man shew his skill in the Fathers but you interrupt him with such idle questions P. D. I have a mind to bring you to our business for nothing is more easie than to tell long stories of the Heathen Idolatries out of the Fathers I must press you again to tell me wherein the nature of this Idolatry consisted R. P. I shall desire you as you are a lover of Truth to answer me ingenuously but this one question which I take to be very material towards the true understanding the nature of Idolatry viz. whether you do not think that the Heathens at least the generality of them did not acknowledge and worship more Gods than one P. D. I will answer you as freely as you can desire provided you answer me another question which I take to be as material viz. whether the generality of the Heathens did not worship Deified men R. P. What need you ask that when I have told you already T. G. takes a great deal of pains to prove it from many Testimonies of the Fathers as I was about to have shewed when you interrupted me because the places of their birth were known and their Sepulchres extant c. P. D. I pray remember this and now ask what questions you please R. P. I see you have no mind to answer but T. G. proves that the generality of the Heathens did believe them whom they publickly worshipped to be truly and properly Gods and not only in name or by way of participation P. D. But have you forgotten already what you so lately told me that T. G. proved that the generality of the Heathens did worship Deified-men and that these were their Gods viz. Jupiter Saturn Juno Aesculapius c. I pray consider were these their Gods or not R. P. Doubtless they were for T.G. hath plainly demonstrated it from the Fathers P. D. And were those who were only Deified-men truly and properly Gods and not by way of participation R. P. I confess you stagger me surely T. G. did not lay these two assertions together that the Heathen Gods were originally men and yet were truly and properly Gods but he proves this later assertion that I am sure of P. D. So you were but just now of the former however these contradict each other let us hear his proofs of this later which is not so true as the former R. P. First The whole Christian world till Dr. St. did ever condemn the Heathens of Polytheism P. D. And so doth he
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
There was in the World before Julius Caesar some Civil Society in which it was necessary for a man to live for his own preservation but this was not the Roman Empire for that rose up after him therefore it was the Roman Common-wealth But doth not this imply that there was no other Civil Society in the world wherein a man could preserve himself but the Roman Common-wealth But I will put the case a little farther home after Britain was made a Province it became a Member of the Roman Empire and depended so much upon the strength and Arms of Rome that it was not able to defend it self it being sore distressed by enemies and in danger of Ruine sends to Rome for help there it is denyed and the Britains forced to look out for help elsewhere Now after T. G.'s way of reasoning the Britains must return to the Romans because once they had been members of the Roman Empire The case is alike in the Church the time was when the Western Church was united under one Head but by degrees this Head grew too heavy and laid too great a load on the members requiring very hard and unreasonable conditions from them upon this some of the members seek for relief this is denyed them they take care of their own safety and do what is necessary to preserve themselves The Head and some corrupt members conspiring denounce excommunication if they do not presently yield and submit These parts stand upon their own rights and ancient priviledges that it was not an Vnion of submission but association originally between several National Churches and therefore the Church of Rome assuming so much more to it self than did belong to it and dealing so tyrannically upon just complaints our Church had Reason to assert her own Freedom and to reform the abuses which had crept either into her doctrine or practice And that this was lawful proceeding it offered to justifie by Scripture and Reason and the Rules of the Primitive Church Now the question of Communion as it was stated between T. G. and Dr. St. comes to this whether any person being baptized in this Church ought in order to his salvation to forsake the communion of it for that of the Church of Rome And this being the true state of it I pray where lies the force of the argument Dr. St. yields communion with some Church to be necessary and what follows the communion of the Church of England is so to one baptized in it why must any such leave it for that of the Church of Rome Yes saith T. G. there was a distinct Church before Luther whose communion was necessary to salvation and what then what have we to do with Luther we are speaking of the present Church of England which was reformed by it self and not by Luther Why is it necessary to leave this Church in which persons are baptized and not in that before Luther Here lyes the main hinge of the Controversie to which T. G. ought to speak and not to run to a Church before Luther The Church of England was the Church of England before the Reformation as well as since but it hath now reformed it self being an entire body within it self having Bishops to govern it Priests and Deacons to administer Sacraments to preach the Word of God to officiate in the publick Liturgie in which all the Ancient Creeds are read and owned the question now is whether salvation cannot be had in the communion of this Church or all persons are bound to return to the Church of Rome This is the point if T. G. hath any more to say to it R. P. T. G. urgeth farther Nothing can render the communion of the Roman Church not necessary to salvation but either Heresie or Schism not Heresie because she holds all the essential articles of Christian Faith not Schism because then Dr. St. must assign some other distinct Church then at least in being from whose Vnity she departed P. D. A right Doway argument one would take T. G. for a young Missioner by it it is so exactly cut in their Form But it proceeds upon such false suppositions as these 1. That Communion with the Roman Church as such i. e. as a Body united under such a Head was necessary to salvation which we utterly deny and it can never be proved but by shewing that Christ appointed the Bishop of Rome to be Head of the Church which is an argument I do not find that now adays You are willing to enter upon being so thread-bare and baffled a Topick 2. That no Doctrines but such as are contrary to the Articles of the Creed can be any reason to hold off from the Communion of a Church but we think the requiring doubtful things for certain false for true new for old absurd for reasonable are ground enough for us not to embrace the Communion of a Church unless it may be had on better terms than these 3. That no Church can be guilty of Schism unless we can name some distinct Church from whose Vnity it separated whereas we have often proved that imposing unreasonable conditions of Communion makes the Church so imposing guilty of the Schism Surely T. G.'s stock is almost spent when he plays the same game so often over These are not such terrible arguments to be produced afresh as if they had never been heard of when there is not a Missioner that comes but hath them at his fingers end R. P. But the Roman Church was once the true Church Rom. 1. and the Christian world of all Ages believed it to be the only true Church of Christ but it cannot be proved not to be the true one by an evidence equal to that which once proved it true therefore we are bound to be of the communion of that Church P. D. O the vertue of sodden Coleworts How often are they produced without shame To be short Sir 1. We deny that the Church of which the Pope is Head was ever commended by St. Paul or in any one Age of the Christian World was owned by it to be the only true Church which is very much short of the whole Christian World of all Ages 2. Since the evidence is so notoriously faulty about proving the Roman Church to be the only true Church a small degree of evidence as to its corruptions may exceed it and consequently be sufficient to keep us from returning to its communion But what doth T. G. mean by repeating such stuff as this Which I dare say Dr. St. only passed by on account of the slightness and commonness of it they being arguments every day brought and every day answered And if he had a mind to see Dr. St.'s mind about them he might have seen it at large in his Defence of Archhishop Laud And do you think it fair for him every Book he writes to produce afresh every argument there which hath received no Answer R. P. I perceive you begin to be out
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
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
observes what the common people do to imagine that they place no Sanctity Vertue or Divinity in their Images When they walk so many miles barefoot to a certain Image of our Lady when they creep upon their bare knees towards it when they make formal supplications to the Images with as much Ceremony as if the persons they represent were present when they look with so much submission and devotion towards them when they come with such mighty expectations of relief and help from them when they tell stories of so many miracles which have been wrought by them nay when their learned men who should have more wit or honesty write Books on purpose to heighten these follies and madnesses of the People Can you with any face say there is not so much danger in the worship of Images as in the worship of the Creatures I did not expect after what Dr. St. had represented in this matter T. G. should have given so wretched an answer as this For if this were all to keep men from the Relative worship of Creatures I dare affirm that most of the Fathers arguments against this sort of Idolatry were very weak and feeble and that they did not reach the Philosophical and contemplative men but only the dull and stupid vulgar that there was nothing of real Idolatry in their worship of the Creatures but only danger to the common people and scandal to the weak Name me that Christian who through all the Primitive Church ever let fall an expression to this purpose It was Idolatry downright Idolatry they charged them with in the worship of the Creatures and not any meer scandalous complyance with the ignorant vulgar If this had been all they meant for all that I can see the Work of the Apostles and Primitive Christians had been to have informed them only of the True God whom they were to worship in the Creatures and if all the People were once throughly informed of this all the ancient Rites of worship might have continued They might have still baked Cakes to the Queen of Heaven and worshipped the whole Host of Heaven they might have continued their Devotion to the Earth and Fire and Trees and Fountains if they did but direct their worship through them to God What mean all those sayings of Fathers all those Canons of Councils wherein this very manner of Worship was condemned for Idolatry as Dr. St. hath in part shewed Speak out Gentlemen and let us know what you think of the Primitive Church which so freely condemned this Relative Worship but never imagine that we will be guided by your modern Schools or the Doctrine of your Church in these things against the consent of the whole Primitive Christian Church whose Fathers you must condemn as Children and whose Martyrs you must look on as Fools if your doctrine of Relative worship be allowed For most of those who suffered Martyrdom might have escaped if they had allowed these principles of Relative worship no more being required of them but to do as the rest did to burn a little incense in obedience to the Laws to make some customary libations before the Emperours Images to make the common supplications at the Temples of Vesta or Ceres or any other of the Gods which the Philosophers understood of the several parts of the world and might they not have done all these things and referred the worship ultimately to the True God I do not think this so trifling a matter as T. G. makes it but I think the honour of Christianity and of the Primitive Martyrs deeply concerned in it and I wish you not to maintain your Fooleries upon such principles as reflect dishonour upon Christianity it self R. P. Methinks the speaking Trumpet hath roused you and put you into a fit of furious zeal P. D. No Sir I do assure you It is the honour I have for Christianity which hath made me speak thus warmly for I am very unwilling to have the primitive Christians to suffer as Fools and as weak Brethren R. P. But T. G. saith from Vossius That the Gentiles concluded Nature it self to be God and the parts of it also to be Deities and that they forsook God and staid in the worship of Nature P. D. Some persons not inferiour to Vossius for learning or judgement in these matters do suppose it to be a great mistake in him to make the Gentiles worship inanimate nature for a true God which say they is in plain terms to make them Atheists For then they must own nothing but meer matter in the world And to what purpose men should worship an inanimate senseless being it is very hard to understand it is therefore much more probable that they did own some inferiour Deities over the several parts of the world and one Supream which passed through all whom they did worship in and by his Creatures But I am not now to give an account of the Pagan Idolatry of which we shall have occasion to discourse afterwards That which I insist upon is that those who had a right notion of God might upon the principles of relative worship have justified themselves in doing the same things which the Heathens did provided their intentions were directed aright and consequently that there was no necessity of taking away the Heathen Rites as Idolatrous in reference to the parts of the world but only of acquainting them more fully with the Notion of God and the nature of Relative Worship R. P. But T. G. still stands to it that there is more danger in worshipping the Creatures than in the worship of Images because the Creatures are not so apparently representative of God as an Image is of the Person represented by it which carries the thoughts presently and effectually to him But the other needs a great deal of discourse to discover the analogy they bear to the Creator and the dependence they have of him for their very being yet so that from the greatness and beauty of the Creatures the Maker of them may proportionably be seen P. D. To this Dr. St. gave a full answer when he said that in an object of worship we are not so much to consider the quickness of representation as the perfections represented Although therefore an Image may carry ones mind sooner to the thing represented than the Creatures yet the one is so infinite a disparagement to the Divine Nature in comparison of the other that there is far greater danger upon T. G.'s principles in one than in the other I will make this plain to you by this instance Suppose the Image of a venerable old man with Pontifical Habits set up to represent God Almighty as hath been usual in the Church of Rome and one man worships God by this another he looks upon the Sun as a wonderful Work of God and he worships God as manifesting himself in the Sun the Question now is whether there be more danger in worshipping God by an
Image or by the Sun I say by an Image For 1. T. G. confesses that Images are unlawful objects of Worship which are conceived to be proper likenesses of the Divinity now I appeal to your self whether men are not more apt to take the Image of a man for a likeness of the Divinity than any of Gods Creatures Besides 2. Images do not represent any thing that deserves our worship but only lineaments and figures the work of Painters and Carvers but the Creatures represent to our minds infinite power wisdom and goodness which are the greatest Motives of Divine Worship For as Dr. St. hath said the least work of Nature infinitely exceeds the greatest of Art in curiosity beauty strength proportion and every thing that can discover Wisdom and Power 3. The presence of God in an Image is only by a fiction of the mind a man fancying the true Object of Worship to be really present but in the Creatures there is a real Divine Presence And where there is greater reason for worship there is surely the less danger 4. If the greater excellency of the Creature make the danger greater then as Dr. St. argued where there is less excellency there is less danger and consequently there must be less danger in worshipping the Inanimate Creatures than Animate and Bruits than Men and mere Moral Men than Saints because the danger must increase as the excellency doth and consequently the Egyptians were more excuseable in their worship than you And by this reason there was less danger in worshipping the Tail of the Asse our Saviour rode upon than St. Peter or his pretended Successor 5. There is less danger of Worship where the representation is more divine and spiritual than where it is more gross and corporeal but the representation of God is much more divine and spiritual by his Creatures than by Images And therefore Cardinal Lugo said if a Wooden Image may be worshipped for the sake of the exemplar much more such a lively Image of God as man is And thus upon this principle of Relative Worship all the several sorts of Idolatry which were used among the Heathens may be revived and set up with as fair pretences at least as image-Image-worship R. P. T. G. saith If Dr. St. can discern God so easily in his Creatures as a mans mind is carried from the Image to the Prototype he believes he is one of the most admirable Persons in the Meletetiques in the whole World P. D. What is this but trifling in weighty matters I would allow T. G. as much scope for his wit as he would desire provided it become the gravity of the subject What is there in these Meletetiques but what is the duty of every good man to see God in his works which all persons do who are not Atheists And is this a thing to be exposed to scorn and derision R. P. But T. G. takes it for that part of Mystical Theology which inessences the soul with God P. D. Alas for his ignorance that he cannot distinguish between natural and mystical Theology I always took the seeing the great evidences of Gods Power Wisdom and Goodness in his Creatures to be Natural Theology and is it not possible to discover God in his works without inessencing the Soul with God This is too mean and low for T. G. surely you father this upon him For I can hardly believe this and many other passages you mention to be written by him or else T. G. hath helped me to another piece of Meletetiques for I discover him much better in his Works than I did before but with no great advantage either as to his Wisdom or Goodness R. P. You may satisfie your self if you please that I do not wrong him for here 's the Book and in the next page he compares Dr. St. with one who said Christ might be better represented by a Cow than a Crucifix and another who said he detested the Image of Christ Crucified P. D. For what good end was Dr. St. joyned with these supposing the stories true which I hardly believe hath he ever said any such thing or that tended that way It is the worship he writes against and not the bare representation of Christ Crucified T. G. was not to seek for Dr. St.'s mind in this matter for these are his words I do not say there is as great incongruity in representing the humane nature of Christ as there was in representing the infinite nature of God but I say there is as great incongruity still in supposing an Image of whatsoever it be can be the proper object of Divine Worship For the humanity of Christ is only capable of receiving adoration from us as it is hypostatically united to the Divine Nature and if the humane nature of Christ be not what then is the Image of it What union is there between the Divine Nature and a Crucifix All that can be said is that imagination supplyes the Union and Christ is supposed to be present by representation But 1. this overthrows all measures and bounds of Worship and makes it lawful to worship any creature with respect to God 2. It contradicts the argument of S. Paul for then God may be worshipped with the work of mens hands 3. 'T is contrary to the sense and practice of the Primitive Church which interpreted the second Commandment to hold against all Images set up for woâ—ship as well those proper to Christians as others among Jews or Gentiles Why did not T. G. rather answer these arguments than make odious comparisons of him with Viret and Beza But there is a reason for all things if a man can hit on it R. P. But T. G. wonders Dr. St. should discover God so easily in his Creatures while he saith elsewhere the Creatures can give no greater than Moral Certainty of the Being of God himself P. D. It was well thought upon and deserves an answer because T. G. is not the only person who hath cavilled at this If Dr. St. by Moral Certainty doth mean only a bare probability there were some colour for the objection but in the very place to which T. G. referrs he asserts the highest degree of actual certainty and that which he calls Moral Certainty he saith is a firm rational and undoubted certainty Why then may not Dr. St. discover God in his Creatures since he asserts so great an assurance of Gods being their Creatour R. P. But why then doth he call it Moral Certainty P. D. It is meer cavilling when a mans mind is understood to be quarrelling at his terms especially if they be such as others have used before him and seem most agreeable to the nature of the Evidence For we may conceive these several sorts of Certainty 1. A Certainty of Principles which is that I suppose they call Metaphysical Certainty For that was the proper Office of Metaphysicks to establish certain general principles which might be of Vse to all
second Council of Nice and is justified by the modern Divines of the Church of Rome from the general practice of their Church 2. In giving the Worship of Latria to Images which was condemned by the Council of Nice and notwithstanding is defended by multitudes of Divines in the Roman Church from the allowed practice in the Worship of the Cross both before and after the Council of Trent After which he enquires at large into the publick Offices and commended Devotions of that Church in respect to Images and from thence he proves that 1. As to Consecration of Images for worship 2. As to the Rites of Supplication to them 3. As to pompous procession with them the modern Church of Rome doth not fall short of the practice of Pagan Rome And do you think all this is not applying the notion of Idolatry home to the Roman Church When 1. He shews by the principles of the second Council of Nice the modern practices of the Church of Rome are chargeable with Idolatry 2. That the practices agreeable with that Council were charged with Idolatry by the Western Church in the Council of Francford not from any mistake of their meaning but because they looked on the Worship then decreed to be proper adoration R. P. But T. G. saith If the Worship defined by the Council of Nice were inferiour Worship and not Latria as Dr. St. confesseth then nothing can be clearer than that it was not the Worship due to God and consequently the Church of Rome cannot be chargeable with Idolatry from any thing contained in that decree P. D. Will T. G. never understand the difference between the intention of the person and the Nature of the Act They might declare it to be only inferiour Worship but the Council of Francford took it to be proper adoration which was due only to God And if that Councils Judgement must stand all those in the Church of Rome who give Latria to the Cross must be guilty of Idolatry R. P. Doth not the Church of England allow bowing to the Altar which if the Altar had any sense would think were done to it as T. G. saith he was certainly informed of a Countrey fellow who being got near the Altar in his Majesties Chapel thought all the Congies had been made to him and so returned Congy for Congy And if bowing may be used out of Religious respect to the Altar why not kneeling or prostration or fixing our eyes in time of Prayer or burning Incense or Lights before the Images of Christ and his Saints but how can Dr. St. purge the Church of England from Idolatry in that practice when he saith that any Image being made so far the object of Divine Worship that men do bow down before it and he supposes the same will hold for any other creature it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment P. D. What would T. G. have done had it not been for this practice of bowing towards the Altar when yet he cannot but know that the practice of it is not enjoyned by our Church for the Canon leaves it at liberty If the Church of Rome did the same about the Worship of Images the parallel would hold somewhat better But the Church of Rome declares Religious Worship is to be given to Images and our Church declares that none is to be given to the Altar and doth not this make an apparent difference If the Countrey fellow standing without the rails fancied the Congies made to himself what would he have done if he had stood within an Image of our Lady and seen all the Courtship that had been used towards her by some of her devoted servants and slaves when he beheld the bare knees bleeding the tears trickling the breast knocking the eyes scarce lifted up to shew the greater reverence and humility towards the Image what could he have thought but that he was shut up within the bowels of the Goddess they worshipped Whereas if the Countrey fellow had gone up into the Court and seen the ancient servants make their Reverences after dinner in the Presence chamber he would soon have been better informed if some of the old Courtiers had told him it was the ancient Custome of the Court to make their Reverences in all Chambers of Presence and from thence when they went into his Majesties Chapel they used the same custome out of Reverence to God Almighty whose Presence-chamber they accounted the Chapel to be What is all this to giving Religious Worship to the Altar wherein the force of all T. G. saith must lye R. P. But you do bow before the Altar as we do before Images P. D. I utterly deny that For your Church declares bowing before Images without an intention to worship the Images is next to Heresie if we are to take the sense of your Councils from their own words and the explication of Divines You explode their Doctrine who say that we are only to worship God before them And is there no difference between the Acts of these two men as to Images themselves The one declares that he looks on no Religious worship as due to an Image but it serves him only to put him in mind of him who is the proper object of Worship and he never intends by any Act of his to worship the Image it self another saith the Church requires Images to be worshipped and for my part I think my self bound to do what the Church requires and therefore it is my intention to give Worship not barely to the object represented but to the very Image it self although it be on the account of its representation And the latter Dr. St. hath shewed to be the only allowed sense in the Church of Rome and the other rejected either as heretical or next to it Which T. G. never so much as once takes notice of But however this doth not reach our case for we believe the second Commandment to be still in force which is express and positive against all worship of Images and bowing down to them but that which was lawful among the Jews notwithstanding that precept viz. to Worship God towards the Mercy Seat is still lawful among Christians viz. to Worship God alone but towards the Altar And thus I hope T. G. will at last be brought a little better to understand the sense of our Church in this practice and how far it is from being a parallel with your Worship of Images R. P. T. G. finds great fault with Dr. St. 's citation out of Card. Lugo about submission to Images because he left out aliquis and potest dici and I tell you he makes a huge outcry about it and fills up several pages with it P. D. Doth he truly It was a great sign he wanted matter to fill up his book But I pray on what occasion was this passage brought in It may be that will give us some light
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.
make the inferiour and relative worship of a Creature to be Idolatry notwithstanding Greg. Nyssens Oration upon Theodore R. P. I am like T. G. who hates a great Book upon one subject so do I a long discourse upon one argument methinks Greg. Nyssen hath taken up a great deal of our time and I have something more yet to say to you before we part P. D. I pray let me hear it and I suppose it will admit of a quicker dispatch R. P. It is upon the same head of the Doctors fidelity in quoting Authors and it concerns the passage in Arnobius in which T. G. charged him with cogging in the word Divinity in the singular number instead of adorable Deities in the Plural and Dr. St. answers with a protestation that he translated these words nihil numinis inesse simulachris which he saith are but two lines above the words T. G. charges him with P. D. And how I pray doth T. G. clear himself for in my mind he is most concerned to vindicate himself R. P. He doth it very well for he denyes not those words to be there which Dr. St. translated but he saith he ought not to have translated the words of Arnobius to the Heathens but the words of the Heathens to Arnobius since his design was to prove the Heathens did not worship the Images themselves for Gods P. D. A pitiful shift T. G. charged Dr. St. with cogging in the word Divinity in the singular number Dr. St. shews it was so used but two lines before those words which T. G. cites and those were the words he translated Now saith T. G. those were the words of Arnobius to the Heathen what then doth he not confute them in something which they held if he proves nihil numinis inesse simulachris must not they hold aliquid numinis c. so that it comes all to one But to put this out of all doubt if T. G. had looked a little farther he might have found these very words of the Heathens Illud etiam dicere simulachrorum assertores solent surely these are the Heathens non ignorasse antiquos nihil habere numinis signa What doth T. G. think now Had he not better look more about him before he makes such rude and impertinent clamours about Dr. St.'s insincerity in quoting Authors Of which you may judge by this one Instance where himself is so notoriously faulty and yet from hence he concludes what a sad account of Citations we are like to have from him R. P. What say you to Dr. St.'s obsâ—rvations of the Council of Trent about the Worship of Images P. D. Have you ever been a hunting of Squirrels R. P. Why do you ask me such an impertinent question P. D. Not so impertinent as you think for the Squirrels leaping from bough to bough forwards and backwards is just like T. G.'s answer to Dr. St.'s Book For he makes nothing of leaping a hundred or two hundred pages forwards and backwards as the humour takes him However let us hear what he hath to say to those observations For I remember very well what the design of them was viz. that though the worship of Latria was owned before it by many Divines to be given to Images and that were against the decree of the Council of Nice yet the Council of Trent allows all external acts of adoration of Images gives no intimation against this kind of Worship and since it many of the most eminent Divines of your Church have justified the giving Latria to Images and that from the words of this Council R. P. But T. G. saith those very Divines do not mean by Latria proper Divine Worship which is due to God and terminated upon him but that the Act being in their opinion one in substance to the Prototype and the Images it is terminated absolutely upon the Person of Christ for himself and falls upon the Image after an inferiour manner as a thing only relating to him and purely for his sake for which reason some call it relative Latria others secundary others improper others Analogical others per accidens and the dispute in effect is rather de modo loquendi than of the thing it self P. D. To clear this matter we must consider 1. That the Council of Nice doth deny Latria to be given to an Image 2. That the Divines of the Roman Church do say that the practice of the Church cannot be defended in the Worship of the Cross without giving Latria to it 3. That the Council of Trent when just occasion was given declares nothing against this for although it referrs to the Council of Nice yet when it gives the reason of worship it doth it in such terms that many of your Divines say must infer the worship of Latria to be given to them R. P. What if it doth saith T. G. since it is only a dispute about words and all agree that the worship proper to God signified primarily by the word Latria is not to be given to Images P. D. That must be a little better considered For do you think it is possible to give the worship proper to God to an Image or not If it be not why did the Council of Nice declare against it if it be tell me in what Acts that Worship of Latria doth consist R. P. It is when men give proper divine honour to an Image P. D. What is this proper divine honour for you are not one step forwarder by this answer I see I must come to particulars Were the Gnosticks and ancient Hereticks to blame in their Worship of Images or not R. P. No doubt they were for they stand condemned by the Church for that worship they gave to Images P. D. Wherein did their fault lye R. P. In giving Divine Honour and Worship to the Image P. D. Did not they worship the Image of Christ R. P. And what then P. D. Then their fault lay in giving divine Worship to the Image of Christ R. P. Yes proper divine Worship P. D. What was that proper divine worship was it absolute or relative R. P. Absolute P. D. Then it was giving divine worship to an Image of Christ without respect to Christ which is either non-sense or a contradiction Is it possible to give divine worship to an Image of a person without respect to the person Men may worship a piece of Wood or a Stone without respect to a person but to worship that which represents and on that account because it represents without any respect to what it represents is a contradiction therefore the worship of an Image as such is a relative worship and proper Latria as given to an Image is relative Latria R. P. But men may give absolute divine worship to an Image for may not a man joyn in his mind the Image and person represented as one object of Worship and so give proper divine worship to both considered as one P. D. I thank you
〈◊〉 a God who could neither be described nor represented If we believe Georgius Syncellus this Altar and Inscription To the Vnknown God was but lately set up at Athens whence St. Paul might have the greater reason to take notice of it and from thence to declare how unsuitable their Worship was to the true God And therefore St. Paul when he supposes the True God to be the unknown God among them speaks not in respect of his Eternal Being for even T. G. confesseth the Heathens had the notion of one Supreme God ingrafted in their minds by nature but in respect of his way of Worship without Images or Inferiour Deities For so he pursues his discourse by arguing from his perfections against that way of Worship which was in use among them Whereas if he had supposed them wholly ignorant of one Supreme God his first and most necessary work had been to have proved there was such a one but this he supposes as a thing well enough known in General by them but not worshipped by them as he ought to be God that made the world and all things therein seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth dwelleth not in Temples made with hands nor is worshipped with mens hands c. If St. Paul had supposed them ignorant of a Supreme God ought he not first to have proved that there was a God who made the world c. But since there was no dispute about that he shews the incongruity of their way of Worship to the Perfections of his Nature St. Augustin proves from this place Whom ye ignorantly worship him I declare unto you that the True God was truly though ignorantly worshipped by the Athenians For saith he what did St. Paul preach to them but that the same God whom they ignorantly and unprofitably worshipped out of the Church they should worship wisely and savingly in the Church One God saith he is worshipped ignorantly without the Church and yet he is the same God as it is the same faith which is without charity out of the Church for it is one God and one Faith and one Catholick Church Non in quâ solâ unus Deus colitur sed in quâ solâ Unus Deus piè colitur Not in which alone One God is worshipped but in which alone One God is piously worshipped The fault then of the Athenians lay in their manner of the Worship of the True God and not in the total neglect of it or in Worshipping an Arch-devil instead of him R. P. T. G. doth not deny that they had some confused notion of a supreme God but he saith that he whom they worshipped under the notion of Jupiter was an Arch-devil P. D. It appears by S. Augustin that they worshipped the same God while they were Heathens and when they became Christians but after a different manner And as to Jupiter Dr. St. observes that S. Paul quotes the saying of Aratus For we are his Off-spring which words are spoken of Jupiter by the Poet and applyed to the True God by the Apostle and surely he did not mean that we are the Devils Off-spring but from thence he infers that we are the Off-spring of God so that if S. Paul may be credited rather than T. G. their Jupiter was so far from being the Arch-devil that he was the true God blessed for evermore R. P. To this T. G. answers that it is no wonder a Heathen Poet should apply the attributes of the true God to Jupiter and the name of Jupiter to the true God as being the name of that Deity which was supreme among them but S. Paul takes the Poets words by way of Abstraction from Jupiter and applyes them to the true God leaving out all mention of Jupiter and changing his name which he would not have done if their Jupiter was the true God P. D. I pray tell me one thing did S. Paul only intend to fill up his discourse with the end of a Verse as some Writers do with Omne tulit punctum c. or did he intend it by way of argument to convince the Athenians R. P. S. Paul surely did not affect Pedantry and therefore it must be argumentative P. D. If that be granted consider the force of the argument in T. G.'s sense of S. Pauls words For in him we live and move and have our Being as certain also of your own Poets have said For we are also his Off-spring For as much then as we are the Off-spring of God c. S. Paul proves that we have our life motion and subsistence from God from the words of Aratus For we are his Off-spring Either Aratus did speak of the same God whom S. Paul speaks of or not if not where lyes the force of the argument if he did then S. Paul allows Aratus his Jupiter to be the Supreme God Whosoever reads the Verses in Aratus cannot imagine he should mean any else and the Greek Scholiast there saith by Jupiter he meant the God that made the World And Dr. St. produced the Testimony of Aristobulus the Jewish Philosopher to the same purpose viz. that under the name of Jove his design was to express the true God R. P. T. G. doth not deny that Aratus might apply the name of Jupiter to the true God and the attributes of the true God to Jupiter but he saith it doth not follow that S. Paul because he cited him thought their Jupiter to be the true God P. D. Suppose then S. Paul was of T. G.'s mind and that their Jupiter was an Arch-devil and see what admirable reasoning he attributes to S. Paul We have all our dependence upon God as certain of your own Poets have said speaking of him who was really an Arch-devil For we are his Off-spring If an Athenian had asked S. Paul whose Off-spring doth Aratus say we are Gods or the Devils If Jove meant by Aratus was no other than an Arch-devil how doth this prove us to have our dependence on God for life and motion If he were the true God then I grant it follows and the Jupiter meant by Aratus must be the supreme God If Aratus doth give the name of Jupiter to the true God then he that was meant under that name was the true God and S. Paul bringing this sentence to prove a main point of Divinity must allow him that was called by the name of Jupiter to have been the true God And if T. G. doth yield that the Poet did apply the name of Jupiter to the true God he gives up the cause for that is all which Dr. St. contends for and surely it is not possible for T. G. to imagine the true God and an Arch-devil to be the same And supposing that Dr. St. had such a faculty as he mentions of changing the Devil himself into God it seems much more desirable than that of T. G. of changing the true God into an Arch-devil R. P. But doth not S. Paul say
in You. I pray shew the difference R. P. You would fain bring me back again to the worship of Images but you shall not For I say their Idolatry lay in worshipping God as united to the parts of the world and giving Divine Worship to them on that Account P. D. Will you stand to this R. P. Why not P. D. Then I will prove worshipping the Host to be Idolatry on the same grounds For in both cases there is a supposition really false but which being true would justifie the Act of Worship and if notwithstanding that supposition that God is the Soul of the world the worshipping of God as so united is Idolatry then the worship of the Host notwithstanding the supposition of Christs Body being united to the species is Idolatry too they being both acts of adoration given to those objects which in themselves deserve no worship but yet are adored upon such a supposition which being true would justifie the performance of them R. P. You are much mistaken in your parallel For as T. G. well observed in the worship of the Host the Act of adoration is not formally terminated upon the bread supposing it to remain but upon God but we conceive the bread not to be there at all but in place thereof the only true and Eternal God And whatever is taken for an object of worship the understanding must affirm either truly or falsly to be but Catholicks whether mistaken or not in the belief of Transubstantiation do not in their minds affirm the bread to be but not to be because they believe it to be converted into the body of Christ. But they who worshipped the parts of the world with a respect to God as the Soul of it did however believe those to have a real Being and not to be turned into the substance of God P. D. All that this proves is that you do not take the Bread it self for God no more did they who worshipped the parts of the world as members of that Body to which God was united as the Soul take those parts for God But in both cases there is a supposition equal to justifie the Worship if true and if notwithstanding this supposition the Heathens were guilty of Idolatry why are not you upon a far more unreasonable supposition than that If Christs Body be present in the Eucharist you say you may worship it as there present so say they if God be the Soul of the world we may lawfully worship the several parts of it But you say whatever is an object of worship must be supposed to be whereas you suppose the bread not to be but to be converted into the Body of Christ which alters not the case for the question is not about the bare being or not being of the thing but of the being or not being of a fit object of worship I will make the matter plain to you by this Instance One of the most common Idolatries of the Heathen world was the worship of the Sun they who did worship it did suppose it to be a fit object for worship but they who looked on the Sun as a meer creature could not think so therefore to make any creature a fit object for worship there must go a farther supposition viz. of the Divinity being in it or united to it Now the main point lyes here whether on supposition that the substance of the Sun doth not remain it would not be Idolatry but on supposition that it doth remain it would be Idolatry I pray then answer me would it be Idolatry or not to worship the Sun suppose a man believed the very substance of the Sun to be turned into the Divinity R. P. No surely For that is our own case P. D. How comes it then to be Idolatry supposing the Divinity united to the substance of the Sun R. P. In one case we may be supposed to worship a thing which is but in the other we cannot be supposed to worship that which at the same time we believe not to be P. D. If it be Idolatry to worship that as God which is not God then the worship of the Host may be Idolatry though you suppose the bread not to be For to suppose that not to be which really is doth no more alter the case than to suppose that to be God which is not for that is to suppose that not to be a Creature which is For the worshippers of any parts of the World might profess as solemnly as you do about the Bread that if they did believe the Sun to be a meer creature they should abhorr the thoughts of worshipping it but believing it either to be God it self or at least that the Godhead is united to it why are not they as excusable as those who declare they abhor the thoughts of worshipping the Bread but they believe it not to be Bread but the Body of the Son of God R. P. But T. G. observes that the formal term of Idolatrous worship is an undue object viz. a Creature instead of the Creator but Catholicks in case of a mistake would have no other formal object in their minds but the Creator himself P. D. As though the nature of Idolatry did consist in the worship of a Creature knowing it to be a meer Creature Might not the Heathens have said they had no other formal object of adoration in their minds but God but supposing him united to the parts of the world they might worship them on his account as well as those of the Church of Rome give adoration to that which appears to be meer bread If they who worship the Sun on the account of the Divinity which is in it or united to it be yet guilty of Idolatry because though on supposition the Divinity were so united the worship would be lawful yet the supposition being false they are guilty of Idolatry why then should not those be equally guilty of it who worship a Divinity as present under the species of bread if the substance of bread doth still remain for then the worship however intended falls upon a meer creature as it did in the former case R. P. Those who worshipped the Sun did suppose the substance of the Sun still to remain but Catholicks do not suppose the substance of bread to continue but in place thereof do worship the only true and Eternal God P. D. It is true they did suppose the substance of the Sun to remain but they did not intend to terminate their worship on that substance but on the Divinity united to it and to suppose that not to be bread which is really bread doth no more excuse from Idolatry than supposing that not to be a meer creature which really is no more But to drive this matter home to you I will ask a farther Question Were those Idolaters who worshipped the parts of the world as a part of the substance of God himself so that he is One and All R.
Authors cannot deny that there is an external Idolatry as well as internal and where the outward acts are Idolatrous we ought to presume there was an implicit and indirect intention and no more is necessary to make an act Idolatrous than a voluntary inclination to do it This is therefore a meer subterfuge and can never satisfie a mans Conscience nor excuse the Roman Church from Idolatry R. P. But T. G. grants that supposing such an appropriation of external acts to remain in force to apply such acts to a creature may and ought in reason to be interpreted to be real Idolatrous worship because Idolatry is a sin directly opposite to Religion as a false worship to a true one P. D. What is it then but to cavil about words to deny that to be real Idolatry which at the same time he confesses ought to be interpreted to be so For since we cannot judge of mens intentions but by their actions when we dispute about the Idolatry practised in any Church we can be understood only of that which lies open to our judgement and that can be only the external act And since T. G. grants that the thing which the Dr. means is confessed by your selves to be inconsistent with salvation there is nothing further necessary to be done but to debate whether you are guilty of that sin or not in applying appropriate acts of Divine Worship to a Creature R. P. But doth not Dr. St. himself shew from Card. Tolet that Idolatry doth suppose an error in the mind in judging that to deserve divine honour which doth not P. D. I grant it but that only shews what practical judgement doth precede a voluntary act of Idolatry as it is distinguished from an involuntary compliance In this later case persons are really guilty as to the external act as a man that takes away his Neighbours goods out of fear of his own life is really guilty of theft although the fear he was in may lessen the wilfulness of it so in Idolatry when committed through the power of a sudden passion is a sin of the same kind with other Idolatry but not so wilful and deliberate a sin But in case of wilful Idolatry there must be a practical judgement determining the will to the act of Idolatry If you ask me what that judgement is whether true or erroneous I say it is an erroneous judgement for it determines the giving divine worship to that which doth not deserve it Not as though Idolatry implied the believing that to be truly and properly God which is not which T. G. would infer from thence but it implies only the practical judgement determining the will to give Divine Worship to that which really deserves it not As for instance suppose an Image of our Lady to stand before two persons the one declares against the Worship of it though he may be forced to do it he is guilty of real but involuntary Idolatry taking involuntary as to the free inclination of the Will the other readily and spontaneously falls down upon his knees before it and says his prayers to the Image as gravely and devoutly as if the B. Virgin were present both these do concur in the same external act of worship but from a very different judgement the one judges it fit to comply for his own safety the other judges the thing fit to be done but it is not necessary that he judges the Image to be the B. Virgin her self but that he ought to give such worship to her Image so that judging divine worship to belong to that which doth not really deserve it is all the erroneous judgement necessary to a wilful act of Idolatry and if this be any kindness to T. G. much good may it do him R. P. But T. G. saith that from hence it follows that it is not real Idolatry to worship an Image with divine worship unless it be done out of an erroneous judgement as to a thing that deserves Divine Honour P. D. No such matter for from hence it only follows that in a wilful act of Idolatry there must be a practical judgement determining the act of Divine Worship to an Image though it deserves it not So that this doth not refer to the manner of applying the external act to the object as deserving divine honour but only the antecedent judgement that the act of divine worship be given to such an object R. P. Again T. G. saith that from hence it follows that the case of the Heathens and ours is different because their Idolatry proceeded upon an erroneous belief of a creatures deserving Divine Honour when it doth not but we do no such thing P. D. Cannot T. G. understand the difference between an erroneous belief and an erroneous practical judgement I do not deny that the Heathens had a very erroneous belief in many particulars and so have other Idolaters too But the question now is what error of judgement that is which the wilful act of Idolatry doth suppose and I say it requires no more than an error in the practical judgement determining the will to give Divine Worship to that which doth not deserve it And herein I see no difference between the Heathens Idolatry and yours R. P. But let us now set aside the strict notion of Idolatry and consider whether the Church of Rome be guilty of damnable sin in the manner of their worship which must either be in not giving to God the worship due to him or by giving the worship due only to him to his Creatures P. D. The later is that which Dr. St. chiefly insists upon although he saith your Divines are to blame in the first particular because they reserve no one act of external adoration as proper to God and to be performed by all Christians and for this he quotes the resolution of Cardinal Lugo R. P. I wonder you would mention that citation of Lugo since T. G. saith the Dr. is so unhappy in his citations and the Jesuits will say that he evidently abuses both his Authority and his Eminency P. D. I have had so much experience of T. G.'s intolerable disingenuity in this matter that I durst venture an even wager which is the way T. G. proposes often in his Dialogues for ending such disputes that Dr. St. hath not miscited Cardinal Lugo R. P. T. G. saith that Cardinal Lugo doth not deny sacrifice to be an external act of worship proper to God for his words are qui non potest offerri nisi soli Deo as may not be offered but to God alone but he saith that sacrifice is not properly an act of adoration in the strict sense but of another kind distinct from it P. D. Those are not Lugo's words but licet non possit offerri nisi soli Deo yet I shall not insist upon that For that which sufficiently clears Dr. St. is the consideration of his design in bringing those words of Lugo