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
tied to offer incense to God and yet they esteemed it Idolatry to offer incense to any Creature therefore it is not necessary to the nature of Idolatry that the Act of Worship be such as we are tied to give unto God it being sufficient that it is an act of Religious Worship and the giving of any such to a creature is Idolatry and without this it is impossible to defend the Martyrs of the Primitive Church which all Christians are bound to do 2. As to particular Acts of Divine Worship though they are always unlawful to be given to any thing besides God yet we are not tyed after the same manner to perform them to him For 1. Some Acts of Worship are natural and always equally agreeing to the Majesty of God such as Prayer and Invocation Dependence on his Goodness and Providence Thanksgiving for Mercies received and all internal Acts of Worship which result from the relation we stand in to God and the apprehensions we ought to have of his Perfections as Fear from his Power Submission from his Providence Faith and Trust in him from his Truth and Wisdom Love from his Goodness c. All these are necessary Acts of worship and proper to God 2. Some Acts of worship are appropriated to him when they are due but they are not alwayes due such as making vows and swearing by his name Although we are not tied to perform these at any certain times yet whenever they are done they must be done to God alone 3. Some acts are not necessary to be done to God at all and yet it is unlawful to do them to any other And of this kind are the offering Sacrifices and burning Incense which were strictly required under the Law but that dispensation expiring after the coming of Christ the obligation to those Acts was wholly taken away and yet it was Idolatry to use them to any thing besides God because they were Acts of Religious Worship and therefore if to be performed at all they were so due to him that they could not without Idolatry be applied to any besides him And thus I hope I have a little helped your understanding about these appropriate Acts of Divine Worship R. P. But the force of the ceremonial Law being taken away whatever is not obliging by the Law of Nature or some express declaration of the will of Christ is left at liberty for the Church to use conformably to the light of nature and the design of Christs Doctrine P. D. All this I yield But that which I insist upon is that fundamental precept of worship as declared by Christ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve R. P. But do you think that Christ hath made a re-establishment of those Acts in the new Law which were before peculiar to God as Sacrifice Incense c. for then Christians will be as much bound by this precept to give them to God as not to give them to any other But if they are not re-established how doth it follow that because they were appropriated to God by the Law therefore now that Law is taken away they are forbidden to any other besides God P. D. I do not say that Christ did intend a re-establishment of those Acts of Worship which were peculiar to the Law of Moses but I do say that Christ by this Precept as explained by himself doth make it utterly unlawful to perform any act of Religious Worship to any but God alone And if this be all you have to prove the Mass of Equivocations False Suppositions and Self-contradictions in Dr. St.'s Discourse of appropriate Acts of Divine Worship it had been more for T. G.'s honour to have passed over this with as much silence as he did many other places which he found too hard for him R. P. Suppose this argument were good it proves nothing against us who neither give any act absolutely appropriated to God to any else besides him nor any other in the manner it is appropriated to him P. D. If you perform any act of Religious Worship either to Saints or Images this Discourse must concern you because the Law against the worship of Images is still in force among Christians and our Saviours general Rule doth forbid all external Acts of Religious Worship being applied to any besides God R. P. Nay supposing those external acts of worship to be now due to God by his Law the giving them to any besides himself will not be to give to the creature the worship due to God unless it be done with an intention to give them to a creature as esteemed worthy of Divine Honour For that is the definition of real Idolatry P. D. Then the Mandarins in China who performed all external acts of adoration in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirits secretly directing their intention to a Crucifix were not guilty of Idolatry notwithstanding the Decree of the Congregation at Rome For they did not perform those acts with an intention to give the worship to the Tutelar Spirits as esteemed worthy of Divine Honour Then the Thurificati of the Primitive Church who through fear offered incense could not be charged with Idolatry nor Marcellinus though he sacrificed in the Temple of Vesta when he only complied with Dioclesian But did not T. G. blame the Philosophers for an exteriour profession of Idolatry What is that I beseech you Is it Idolatry or not Doth not T. G. grant that there ought in reason to be some peculiar external acts appropriated to the worship of God as most agreeable to his incommunicable excellencie Why so I pray Is it not because Gods incommunicable excellency requires an external worship peculiar to it self And if so is it not to give the worship due to God to something else to apply those acts which are peculiar to himself to any thing besides him This debate in truth comes to this point at last whether there ought to be any such thing as a peculiar external worship of God or not For if external worship be due to him and such worship be due to him alone for his incommunicable excellencie then the giving external worship to a creature must be giving to it what is due only to God And to resolve the nature of Idolatry into the inward intention is all one as if one should say that Adultery were to lie with another mans Wife with an intention to cuckold her Husband but if a man did it out of love to her Person it were no adultery Why is there not an external act of Idolatry as well as of perjury theft murder and the like Where doth the Scripture give the least intimation that the nature of Idolatry is to be taken from the inward intention when the Law is express against the outward action and all men are charged with Idolatry who were guilty of the external acts without running into the thoughts and designs of their hearts Nay your own
which was to prove that there is no one external act of adoration which is proper to Latria or the worship peculiar to God And are not Lugo's words plain and full to this purpose R. P. That cannot be denied but he takes adoration in the stricter sense P. D. Let him take it in what sense he will doth he not speak of the adoration proper to Latria or the worship peculiar to God And doth not Latria take in any peculiar act of Divine Worship And if there be no external act of adoration peculiar to God doth it not follow that there is no peculiar act whereby you express your inward submission to God in all things for that Lugo saith is the strict sense of adoration he there means And doth not this fully prove what Dr. St. brought this Testimony for R. P. But the Church of Rome doth hold sacrifice to be peculiar to God P. D. And doth not Dr. St. say as much For his words are that you confess that sacrifice is so peculiar to God that it ought not to be offered to any else but not as an Act of Latria saith Cardinal Lugo for there is no act of adoration that is so but upon another account as it signifies Gods absolute Dominion over us as to life and death and that we ought to lay down our own lives when he calls for them Which is to make sacrifice a significant ceremony peculiar to God expressing his Soveraignty but not an immediate act of worship peculiar to him for of that kind he saith there is none And therefore according to him your Church hath no one external act of Divine Worship so proper to God that it may not be offered but to him alone And from hence it appears that Lugo did not take adoration meerly for that act of Religious Worship which is performed by the motion of the Body as T. G. suggests but for whatsoever act that may tend to express the submission of our souls to God of which sort he denies any to be peculiar to Gods worship And what can be more contrary to that which T. G. admits for a Law of Nature viz. that man ought to use some external acts to testifie his submission to God and therefore there ought to be some peculiar external acts appropriated to the worship of God as most agreeable to his incommunicable excellency I could not but rejoyce to see T. G. own so reasonable a principle and I desire no other as to the meer light of Nature to prove your Idolatry For if this be a principle of Natural Religion then Idolatry even by the light of Nature lies in applying appropriate acts of Divine Worship to any but to God himself for since his excellency is incommunicable and the submission we owe to God peculiar to him and that submission ought to be expressed by external acts all which T. G. grants then all those who do use such acts to any besides God are guilty of giving the worship due to God unto a Creature For God hath not only a right to our inward submission but to the acknowledgement of it which cannot be done but by external acts and which is observable as to this matter the honour of God as to his incommunicable excellencies with respect to mankind as a body doth not lie in the bare Acts of the Mind but in the external performance of Religious Worship to him For if it be necessary that Gods Authority be owned in the world it is necessary it be done by visible acts of Worship which ought to be so appropriated to him that any one who discerns them may see the difference put between God and all his Creatures For herein lies the manifestation of that inward sense we have of Gods incommunicable excellencies when we set apart times and places and offices of Religious Worship by which we declare our submission to God as our Creator and Governor of the World And the confounding this distance between God and his Creatures is the great sin of Idolatry from whence Aquinas and others conclude it to be a sin of the highest nature and including blasphemy in it because it robs God of the honour due to him for his incommunicable excellencies R. P. What do you mean by this appropriating acts of worship to God Do you mean all of them so absolutely appropriated to God that it is not lawful upon any account to give them to any other And then the Quakers will be the only good Christians in the world or only some of them and not others as kneeling and prostrating but not bowing and then you must tell us what makes the discrimination P. D. I mean that which all mankind meant when they set apart times and places and offices for Divine Worship and every man by the help of his mother wit knew the difference between going to serve God and going to Market I say then as Dr. St. did that the circumstances do sufficiently discriminate Acts of a Religious and of a Civil Nature R. P. May not the Churches declaration that such acts are intended only for inferiour Worship towards Images or Saints make a sufficient discrimination between such acts and those which are appropriated to God P. D. If you suppose the whole power of determining Acts of Divine Worship to lie in your Churches Breast you had asked a very material question but in this case there is a Law of God antecedently prohibiting such acts being given to any besides God himself and this Law was so understood by the Christian Church when the Christian Religion put men upon suffering Martyrdom on that principle that all Religious Worship was appropriated to God because Christ had said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve R. P. Who is so blind as not to see that this prohibition fell upon the external act as determined to be a sign of Religious Worship by the circumstances in which it was required P. D. And what then I pray for doth it not equally fall upon all external acts where the circumstances do determine them to be signs of Religious Worship Which is all I desire R. P. Doth not this justifie the Quakers in denying to give any external honour to a Creature P. D. So far from it that it shews the folly of their doctrine which arose from not being able to distinguish acts of Religious and Civil Worship R. P. But Dr. St. allows some kind of Religious Worship to be given to a Creature P. D. Not any which is Religious in its nature or by circumstances but that which might be so called being required by the Rule of Religion as civil worship is R. P. But he allows religious respect to places and religious honour to Saints and then why not those acts we give to Images and Saints on the same accounts P. D. Because the circumstances do declare those are not acts of religious worship
England and in her separation from Rome p. 168 A passage in the Irenicum cleared p. 170 How far Idolatry consistent with owning the fundamental Articles of Faith p. 175 T. G.'s shuffling about the sense of the second Commandment p. 186 Third Conference About the Nature of Idolatry p. 195 AN abstract of the Design of Dr. St.'s general Discourse of the Nature of Idolatry p. 196 Of the manner of T. G.'s answering it p. 200 The postulata granted by him p. 203 Many material omissions in T. G.'s Answer p. 205 Of the Patronus Bonae Fidei and the service he doth the Papists p. 208 The disparity between bowing towards the Altar and the Worship of Images at large cleared p. 211 Of the difference between Reverence to sacred Places and Worship of Images p. 215 The arguments of the Patronus Bonae Fidei against bowing towards the Altar answered p. 222 The supposition of Transubstantiation doth not make it more reasonable p. 227 Of Idolatry in the nature of the thing p. 233 Of the Sinfulness of Idolatry antecedently to a positive Law p. 235 T. G.'s principles justifie the Worship of God in any Creature p. 242 Relative Worship condemned by the Primitive Church p. 248 As great danger in the worship of Images as of Gods Creatures p. 252 T. G.'s trifling about Meletetiques and Mystical Theology p. 255 The incongruity of Worshipping Christ by a Crucifix p. 257 Of the Nature and Kinds of Certainty p. 258 Why the certainty of Religion called Moral p. 265 Several sorts of Certainty of the Christian Faith p. 266 Of the impossibility of falshood in it p. 268 Dr. St.'s charge of Idolatry reaches to definitions of Councils and practises generally allowed p. 270 The parallel about bowing towards the Altar farther answered p. 273 His Fidelity in citations justified against T. G.'s cavils p. 276 The citation of Lugo defended p. 277 The parallel between Reverence to sacred places and things and the Worship of Images fully disproved p. 284 The Citation of Greg. Nyssen entred upon p. 286 The parallel between the Arian and Romish Idolatry defended p. 288 T. G.'s exceptions against it answered p. 293 Greg. Nyssen's Testimony cleared p. 303 The difference of the practice of Invocation of Saints in the Church of Rome from the addresses in the fourth Century shewed in several particulars p. 306 T. G.'s answer to the Council of Laodicea examined p. 314 The testimony of Arnobius rightly cited by Dr. St. p. 325 Of relative Latria being given to Images p. 327 Of inferiour Worship as distinct from Latria and neither of them shewed to clear the Church of Rome from Idolatry p. 337 Fourth Conference About the Parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry p. 349 T. G.'s notion of Heathen Idolatry p. 350 How far Jupiter's being the Supreme God relates to the main Controversie p. 351 In what sense Jupiter might be called an Unknown God p. 354 S. Augustin makes the true God to be truly worshipped by the Athenians p. 357 T. G.'s exceptions answered p. 359 The distinction between Jupiter of Greet and the supreme Jupiter p. 365 The place of Rom. 1.19 20. not answered by T. G. p. 369 Aquinas his Testimony cleared p. 371 The state of the Controversie about the Fathers p. 373 Justin Martyr no friend to T. G.'s hypothesis p. 377 Athenagoras at large cleared p. 379 A threefold Jupiter among the Fathers p. 380 Theophilus Antiochenus not to T. G.'s purpose p. 387 Tertullian vindicated p. 388 Clemens Alexandrinus p. 400 Minucius Felix p. 405 Other Testimonies rejected as impertinent p. 415 T. G.'s Accounts of Heathen Idolatry examined p. 419 First In taking their Images for Gods at large disproved p. 420 2. In worshipping many false Gods that likewise disproved p. 429 T. G.'s arguments answered p. 431 The absurd consequences of this notion of Heathen Idolatry p. 440 T. G.'s pittiful evasions as to the modern Idolaters p. 443 3. In worshipping the Creatures instead of God the Nature of that Idolatry enquired into p. 457 Worshipping the Creatures with respect to God as Soul of the world justifiable on the the same grounds with adoration of the Host. p. 461 Why it is Idolatry to give all external worship to the Creatures p. 467 A twofold hypothesis of Heathen Idolatry p. 470 The parallel as to the Church of Rome defended p. 473 Of Appropriate Acts of Divine Worship p. 478 What errour of judgement the act of Idolatry implyes p. 491 Lugo's Testimony cleared p. 495 Whether the Church hath power to discriminate Acts of Worship p. 499 How far circumstances discriminate Acts of Civil and Religious Worship p. 501 Whether the Church of Rome doth appropriate any Act of external adoration to God p. 522 That the very Sacrifice of the Mass is offered in honour of Gods Creatures and consequently is not appropriated to the honour of God p. 526 Dr. St. doth not differ from the Divines of the Church of England about the Sacrifice of the Mass. p. 540 How far the Sacrifice of the Mass may be said to be the Act of the People p. 542 ERRATA PAge 108. Line 11. dele not p. 161. l. 21. dele not p. 215. l. 7. r. savouring p. 232. l. 13. r. declares p. 234. l. 4. r. as so Sacred p. 246. l. 15. for no r. do p. 261. l. 4. for not so r. so p. 308. l. 17. for Fallo r. Fullo p. 319. l. 1. for Idolatry r. Idolaters p. 334. l. 7. for I not r. I do not p. 511. l. 5 6. for matters r. matter First Conference Concerning the sense of the Church of England about the Idolatry of the Church of Rome Rom. P. YOU are well met at this Auction of Books I have been present at many of them beyond Sea but I never was at one in England before How go the prices of Books here Fan. Ch. Very dear methinks by the Books I have bought but I find they are so catched up by our Brethren that if we will have them we must pay dear for them R. P. May I know what they are Sir F. C. Only some few choice pieces which I have picked out of this great Catalogue such as Nepthali or the Groanings of the Church of Scotland Cooks Monarchy no Creature of Gods making but the things I most value are the Pamphlets such as Sermons before the Long Parliament in several volumes And a rare Collection of Authors about Liberty of Conscience R. P. Are there so many Books to be had about Liberty of Conscience F. C. Yes a great many have written for and against it R. P. Who are they who have written for it F. C. To tell you the truth some of the same who wrote against it heretofore but they are now more enlightned as those who wrote against Separation when time was are now the greatest advocates for it For there are some providential Truths which vary according to circumstances Do not we see the Papists who were
as the travellers did to Polus in Erasmus or that it is clear or manifest of it self and that it is not so he saith appears by the pains and wayes he takes to find it out P. D. This is yet a degree lower By clearly and expresly Dr. St. means that which is so to an unprejudiced mind For there is nothing so plain but men may cavil at it Not the Being of God not the certainty of our senses not the differences of Good and Evil not the coming of the Messias not the Truth of the Scriptures But will T. G. say that none of these are clear because men are put to pains and several wayes to prove them If therefore Dr. St. hath shewed that all the evasions of the force of the second Commandment are meer cavils and would take off as well the force of any other Commandment if men thought themselves as much concerned to do it I think he hath proved the sense of the Commandment to be clear and express against the Worship of God by an Image And for his Friend Polus you know it doth not look well in conversation for a man to repeat his own Jests But you named a third passage T. G. repeats out of his former Book What is that I pray R. P. That concerns Dr. St.'s first way of finding out the sense of the Law For he saith the Law doth only expresly forbid bowing down to the Images themselves as the Heathens did but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by them and upon this he upbraids Dr. St. that spending above a hundred pages about the sense of the second Commandment he neither endeavours to remove the contradictions nor to answer the arguments of T. G. P. D. Then truly he deserved pity and to have his Friends come in to help him they are such wonderful contradictions and mighty arguments But Dr. St. hath at large proved 1. That the Heathens did not take the Images themselves for Gods in a large discourse to that purpose and consequently this command was not express against the Heathen Idolatry in T. G.'s sense of it 2. That the Fathers did understand this Commandment to be expresly against the Worship of God by an Image in another large discourse which he concludes with those words of S. Ambrose Non vult se Deus in lapidibus coli God will not be worshipped in Stones And is this nothing to the answering T. G.'s arguments 3. That the Worship of God before the Ark and the Cherubims the only argument of T. G. doth not reach to the Worship of God by Images and this in another set discourse 4. That God did afterwards explain his own Law by condemning the Worship of himself by Images in the case of the Golden Calf and the Calves of Dan and Bethel and he punctually answers T. G.'s objections And after all this Is it not great tenderness and modesty in T. G. to say that Dr. St. only Criticizeth upon T. G. 's exceptions and doth neither remove the contradictions nor answer the Arguments of T. G. I never yet saw plainer evidence of a forlorn Cause than these things give By this taste I begin to fear when we come to the charge of Idolatry we shall find very little new or material However being thus far engaged I am resolved God willing to attend you quite through his late Dialogues and if you please at our next meeting we will enter upon the charge of Idolatry and I will undertake to make good the charge and I shall expect from you T. G.'s answers R. P. I will not fail and I pray Brother Fanatick let us have your company for I have a terrible charge against the Church of England for bowing to the Altar F. C. I shall be glad to hear that with all my heart THE Third Conference About the Nature of Idolatry P. D. WE are now entring upon a weighty business and therefore without any preface to it I begin Dr. St. in his late Defence hath undertaken to clear the Nature of Idolatry by considering two things 1. Whether it were consistent with the acknowledgement of one supreme God 2. Wherein the Nature of that Divine Worship lyes which being given to a Creature makes it Idolatry 1. To clear the former he considered who those are which by common consent are charged with Idolatry and from thence he supposed the best resolution of the question might be gathered and those were 1. the Ancient Heathens 2. Modern Heathens 3. the Arrians And concerning these he proved that they did all acknowledge one supreme God and consequently the Notion of Idolatry could not consist in the Worship of many independent Deities 1. As to the Ancient Heathens 1. From the Testimony of Scripture 2. From their own Writers in the Roman Church of whom he names twelve considerable ones 3. From the Fathers and there he shews from a multitude of plain Testimonies that the state of the Controversie about Idolatry between the Fathers and Heathens was not about a supreme God which was acknowledged on both sides but whether Divine Worship were to be given to any Creatures on the account of any supposed excellency in themselves or relation to God And so he draws the History of this controversie through the several Ages of Justin Martyr Athenagoras Clemens of Alexandria Origen Cyril S. Augustin c. In short through all those who did with greatest reputation to Christianity manage this Cause against the Heathen Idolaters 2. As to modern Heathens two wayes 1. From the Testimony of your own Writers concerning the Brachmans Chineses Tartars Americans Africans Goths and Laplanders 2. From the Testimony of the Congregation of Cardinals in a remarkable case about Idolatry in China wherein their resolution was desired 3. As to the Arrians he proves from Athanasius Gr. Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Epiphanius Cyril Theodoret S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin that the Arrians were unanimously charged with Idolatry although they did acknowledge but one God and supposed the greatest created excellencies to be in Christ and believed the Worship of Christ tended to the honour of the Father 2. As to the Nature of Divine Worship He proceeds in this method 1. To shew what Worship is which he distinguishes from honour the one relating to bare excellency the other to Superiority and Power which distinction he proves from the most eminent School Divines 2. What Divine Worship is viz. such a subjection of our selves to God as shews his peculiar Soveraignty over us from whence he proceeds to manifest That there are some peculiar external Acts of Divine Worship which he proves 1. From the Nature and design of Religious Worship and here he enquires into the distinction of Civil and Religious Worship which he saith as other moral actions is to be taken from the circumstances of them and from hence came the institution of solemn rites for Religious Worship And the best
Persons of the Father and Holy Ghost are too R. P. You may account this an absurdity but we account it none at all yea some of our Divines have said If the Holy Trinity were not every where yet it would be in the Eucharist by vertue of this Concomitancy P. D. I do not now meddle with your opinions I only consider the Patronus bonae Fidei and his Brethren who do look on these as absurdities and yet are so foolish to say that our worshipping God towards the Altar is more absurd than your worshipping Christ on the Altar on supposition of Transubstantiation But why worse than Egyptian Idolatry I beseech you R. P. The Egyptians saith he pretended some colour for their Idolatry as than an Ape or a Cat or a Wolf c. had some participation of the Divinity but those that bow down to a Wooden Table are themselves stocks with much more to that purpose P. D. Is such a man to be endured in a Christian Common-wealth not to say a Church for excommunication he regards not who parallels the adoration given only to the Divine Majesty as our Church professeth with the Worship of an Ape or a Cat or a Wolf c Nay he makes the Egyptian Idolatry more reasonable than our Worship of God The only thing that can excuse him is Rage and Madness and therefore I leave him to his Keeper But I pray tell me was it meer kindness to the Church of England which made T. G. to produce all these passages at full length out of the Patronus bonae Fidei Or out of pure spite to Dr. St. by so often repeating the passage of his being delinitus occaecatus And why in such a place where he pretends only to give an account of Dr. St.'s vain and endless Discourses doth he bring in this at large Is it only for his comfort to let him see there is one body at least in the world more foolish and impertinent than he We have seen enough of what T. G. ought not to have done let us now see what he saith Dr. St. ought to have done R. P. The first thing to be done in a Dispute is to settle the state of the Controversie upon its true Grounds by laying down the true notion of the matter in debate therefore Dr. St. ought in the first place to have given us the true Notion of Idolatry in the nature of the Thing and then to have shewn that notion to have agreed to the honour and veneration which the Church of Rome in her Councils declares may be given to the Images of Christ and the Saints but he chose rather to dazle the eyes of the Reader with the false lights of meer external Acts the obscure practice even of wiser Heathens and the clashing of School-Divines P. D. Now I hope we are come to something worthy of consideration I like the method of proceeding very well And I like Dr. St.'s Book the better because I think he pursued the right method beginning first with the Nature of Idolatry and Divine Worship and then coming to the first Particular of Image-worship which he hath handled with great care and exactness in respect of your Councils as well as your Practices and School-Divines R. P. It is true he proposed well at first but like a Preacher that hath patched up a Sermon out of his note-book he names his Text and then takes his leave of it For what he was to speak to was Idolatry in the nature of the thing independently of any positive Law whereas he speaks only of an Idolatry forbidden by a positive Law but if there be no Idolatry antecedent to a positive prohibition the Heathens could not be justly charged with Idolatry P. D. In my mind he did not recede from his Text at all but pursued it closely but you are uneasie at his Application and therefore find fault with his handling his Text. What could a man speak to more pertinently as to Idolatry in the Nature of the thing than to consider what that is which is acknowledged to be Idolatry both in the Heathens and Arrians What that was which the Primitive Church accounted Idolatry in them What opinons those have of God whom the Roman Church do charge with Idolatry Wherein the Nature of Divine Worship consists not only with respect to positive commands but the general consent of mankind Did he not expresly argue from the Reason and design of solemn Religious worship abstractly from positive Laws Did he not shew from many Testimonies that the Heathens did look on some peculiar Rites of Divine worship as Sacred and Inviolable that they chose rather to dye than to give them any but a Divine Object It is true after this he enquires into the Law of God and what acts of worship he had appropriated to himself and was there not great Reason to do so Are we unconcerned in the Laws God made for his worship In my apprehension this was the great thing T. G. had to do to prove that Gods Law about worship was barely ceremonial and only respected the Jews but that we are left to the Liberties of the Law of Nature about Religious worship but he neither doth this nor if he had done it had he overthrown Dr St.'s Book For he proves in several places that the Heathens had the same distinctions of soveraign and inferiour worship absolute and relative which are used in the Roman Church and if these do excuse now they would have excused them who by Scripture and the consent of the Christian Church are condemned for Idolatry And judge you now whether Dr. St. took leave of his Text whether he did not speak to Idolatry in the Nature of the thing R. P. But he saith the Heathens could not understand the nature and sinfulness of Idolatry if not from some Law of God which is in effect to clear the Heathens from Idolatry till that Law was delivered to them whereas S. Paul saith they had a Law written in their hearts whereby they might understand it and Dr. St. ought to have shewn wherein the deordination and sinfulness of Idolatry did consist antecedently to any positive prohibition and till this be done he can make no parallel between the Heathen Idolatry and that of the Roman Church P. D. I am glad to find any thing that looks like a difficulty which may give an occasion of farther thoughts about this weighty matter and of clearing the Doctors mind concerning it Herein I shall endeavour to explain these two things 1. How far Dr. St. doth make the nature and sinfulness of Idolatry to depend on the Law of God 2. Wherein the sinfulness of Idolatry doth consist abstractly from a positive Law 1. How far he makes the sinfulness of it to depend on a positive Law 1. He supposes Natural Religion to dictate these things 1. That God ought to be solemnly worshipped 2. That this worship ought to be
other Sciences such as those that both parts of a contradiction cannot be true of the same thing and that of every thing either the one or the other part of a contradiction is true These are such principles of which Aristotle saith it is folly in any man to go about to demonstrate them any otherwise than by shewing the absurdity of him that denyeth them They are such Themistius saith which every man hath by nature and without which he cannot be supposed to learn any thing and these are called self-evident and indemonstrable principles and Axioms which need no more than the bare representation of them to the mind as that the whole is greater than a part If you take away equal things from equal the remainder is equal For whatever depends upon Induction or needs any medium to prove it more than the bare perception of terms was never by any Philosopher accounted an indemonstrable and self-evident principle Much less were Identical propositions taken for first principles by any man that ever understood what principles were as it were very easie to prove if there were occasion for it I have but two things to add concerning this kind of Certainty 1. That the Certainty of our own Beings is equal to this Certainty of Principles It being a thing of natural and immediate evidence For the very doubting as well as thinking proves the certainty of the being of that which doubts And where there is such evident perception as of first principles and our own beings the assent is as necessary as for the ballance to incline where the greatest weight lyes 2. That self-evident principles have very little influence upon our knowledge of other things and therefore a late Philosopher observes that even that fundamental principle that it is impossible the same thing should be and not be at the same time is of little or no Vse for finding out of Truth And supposing the first principle of the certainty of our own Beings to be granted the Cartesians which no man who thinks can deny them yet I do not see how the truth of other things conveyed by our senses can be drawn from thence the one being an absolute certainty the other only depending on a supposition which carryes not equal evidence along with it which is the next kind 2. A certainty by sense or upon supposition that we are not so framed as not to be deceived in the most plain and clear perceptions of sense This is that I suppose they mean by Physical Certainty It implyes no contradiction we should be so deceived and consequently it is short of the first kind of Certainty But withall the supposition is so just and reasonable that such a mans understanding may be justly questioned who questions the plain evidence of sense as to light and day and bodies c. And all mankind in spight of their most subtle arguments do trust their senses and Epictetus well said that if he and two or three more were servants to a Sceptick they would make him hang or starve himself if he did not change his opinion And Galen saith the evidence of sense needs no demonstration for all those things which are evident to sense are to be believed for themselves 3. A Certainty by Reason or of deducing something not known from that which is known Which is so evident in Mathematical demonstrations that no man who understands the terms and attends to the proof can forbear his assent Aristotle did attempt to bring the way of reasoning in other things to Mathematical certainty which was the great design of his Logick To this end he begins with the explication of simple terms and so he proceeds to propositions and then to the joyning of two of these so together that from thence a third thing may follow by vertue of some middle term wherein they agree But because the conclusion may not necessarily follow where the manner of reasoning was true therefore in order to demonstration he supposes two sorts of principles 1. Axioms or common principles received by all that understand them 2. Positions which are twofold 1. Suppositions or Postulata 2. Definitions But after all he grants that only such things are capable of Demonstration which have a certain and immutable cause And he puts a difference between a necessary conclusion and a demonstration The one depending on the Form of Syllogism the other upon the necessity of the Cause But in demonstrative Syllogisms Aristotle doth not require some degree of necessity but the highest when the connexion between the Subject and Predicate is so great that one cannot be defined without the other so that Logical Demonstration must be of an inseparable property and by the most immediate and necessary cause But very few things in the world are capable of such demonstrations by reason of our ignorance of the essential properties and immediate causes of things and those Instances which are brought either by Aristotle or his Commentators are about such things where demonstration was least needful and tend very little to the improvement of our knowledge 4. A Certainty which supposes some Moral principles and proceeds upon them Such as these That every Intelligent being acts for some end That it is not the interest of mankind to deceive one another That there are some things fit to be chosen and others to be avoided That circumstances vary the nature of Actions That where comparisons are made the greatest good and the least evil are to be chosen Such as these I call Moral Principles which have self-evidence in them to any man that understands the terms And whatever doth necessarily follow from these principles may be justly called a Moral Demonstration 5. A Certainty which supposes an immediate Divine Assistance to preserve the mind from errour and this is Infallible Certainty For the mind of man being of it self lyable to mistake in its apprehension and judgement of things nothing can preserve it from a possibility of errour but immediate assistance from God who cannot be deceived and will not deceive These things being premised we are now to enquire what kind of Certainty that is which we have concerning the principles of Religion 1. For the principles of Natural Religion You are to consider what kind of Adversary Dr. St. had to deal with viz. one who pleaded for an infallible Certainty as that infallibility doth imply Divine Assistance as necessary in order to an obligation to Assent Against this Dr. St. objects that the main foundations of all Religion which are the Being of God and immortality of the soul were not capable of this kind of Proof Because this very notion of Infallibility doth suppose that which he would prove viz. that there is a God who must give this assistance But at the same time he yields that we have as great evidence and certainty as humane nature is capable of of such a Being as God is from the consideration of his
Works which being neither from Mathematical Demonstrations nor supernatural infallibility he called Moral Certainty Which he might do from these grounds 1. Because the force of the Argument from the Creatures depends upon some Moral Principles Viz. From the suitableness and fitness of things to the Wisdom of an Intelligent and Infinite Agent who might from thence be inferred to be the Maker of them It being unconceivable that meer matter should ever produce things in so much beauty order and usefulness as we see in every Creature in an Ant or a Fly as much as in the vast bodies of the Heavens 2. Because they do suppose some Moral Dispositions in the persons who do most readily and firmly assent to these Truths For although men make use of the highest titles for their arguments and call them Infallible Proofs Mathematical Demonstrations or what they please yet we still see men of bad minds will find something to cavil at whereby to suspend their assent which they do not in meer Metaphysical notions or in Mathematical Demonstrations But vertuous and unprejudiced minds do more impartially judge and therefore more readily give their assent having no byas to incline them another way Although therefore the principles be of another nature and the arguments be drawn from Idea's or series of Causes or whatever medium it be yet since the perverseness of mens will may hinder the force of the argument as to themselves the Certainty might be called Moral Certainty 2. As to the Christian Faith So he grants 1. That there are some principles relating to it which have Metaphysical Certainty in them as that Whatever God reveals is impossible to be false or as it is commonly expressed though improperly is infallibly True 2. That there is a rational Certainty that a Doctrine confirmed by such Miracles as were wrought by Christ and his Apostle must come from God that being the most certain Criterion of Divine Revelation 3. That there was a Physical Certainty of the truth of Christs Miracles and Resurrection from the dead in the Apostles who were eye-witnesses of them 4. That there was an Infallible Certainty in the Apostles delivering this doctrine to the world and writing it for the benefit of the Church in all Ages 5. That we have a moral Certainty of the matters of Fact which do concern the Doctrine the Miracles and the Books of Scripture which is of the same kind with the certainty those had of Christs Doctrine and Miracles who lived in Mesopotamia at that time which must depend upon the credibility of the Witnesses who convey these things which is a Moral Consideration and therefore the Certainty which is taken from it may be properly called Moral Certainty Of which there being many degrees the highest is here understood which any matter of fact is capable of And now I pray tell me what reason hath there been for all this noise about Moral Certainty R. P. T. G. owns that the Dr. in other places doth acknowledge a true certainty of the principles of Religion but he saith he can say and unsay without retracting with as much art and ease as any man he ever read P. D. I had thought unsaying had been retracting But Dr. St. saith as much in those very places T. G. objects against as in those he allows Only T. G. delights in cavilling above most Authors I have ever read R. P. But doth not Dr. St. allow a possibility of falshood notwithstanding all this pretence of Certainty P. D. Whatever is true is impossible to be false and the same degree of evidence any one hath of the truth of a thing he hath of the impossibility of the falshood of it therefore he that hath an undoubted certainty of the truth of Christianity hath the same certainty that it is impossible it should be false And because possibility and impossibility are capable of the same distinctions that Certainty is therefore according to the nature and degrees of Certainty is the possibility or impossibility of falshood That which is Metaphysically certain is so impossible to be false that it implyes a contradiction to be otherwise but it is not so in Physical Certainty nor in all rational Certainty nor in Moral and yet whereever any man is certain of the truth of a thing he is proportionably certain that it is impossible to be false R. P. This only relates to the person and not to the Evidence Is there any such evidence of the Existence of a Deity as can infallibly convince it to be absolutely true and so impossible to be false P. D. I do not doubt but that there are such evidences of the Being of God as do prove it to any unprejudiced mind impossible to be otherwise And T. G. had no reason to doubt of this from any thing Dr. St. had said who had endeavoured so early to prove the Being of God and the Principles of Christian Faith before he set himself to consider the Controversies which have happened in the Christian Church T. G. therefore might well have spared these reflections in a debate of so different a nature but that he was glad of an opportunity to go off from the business as men are that know they are not like to bring it to a good issue R. P. T. G. confesseth this is a digression but he promises to return to the matter and so he does I assure you for he comes to the second thing which he saith the Dr. ought to have done viz. to have shewed how the Notion of Idolatry doth agree to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils P. D. It is a wonder to me you should think him defective in this when he shews that there are two things from whence the sense of the Roman Church is to be taken 1. From the Definitions of Councils 2. From the practice of the Church 1. From the Definitions of Councils And here he entred upon the consideration of what that worship was which was required to be given to Images and shewed from the words of the Council and from the Testimony of the most eminent Divines of the Roman Church that it was not enough to worship before Images and to have an intention to perform those external Acts but there must be an inward intention to worship the Images themselves and that the contrary doctrine was esteemed little better than downright Heresie 2. From the Practice of the Church For he shews many of your best Divines went upon this principle that God would not suffer his Church to err and therefore they thought the allowed practice of the Church sufficient for them to defend those things to be lawful which they saw generally practised And from hence he makes it appear that the Church of Rome hath gone beyond the Council of Nice in two things 1. In making and worshipping Images of God and the B. Trinity which was esteemed madness and Pagan Idolatry in the time of the
with respect to particular places and things Whereby they make the Saints not bare Intercessours but Tutelar Deities and they invocate them as such T. G. saith they do not make them Authours of those Blessings not Originally and Independently but subordinately and Ministerially they do And if this be not Idolatry no worship of the inferiour Deities among the Heathens was so Lipsius was no Fool when he made the B. Virgin a Tutelar Deity and the Popes surely understand their own Religion when they Canonize particular Saints to be Patrons of such places which may be seen in some of the latest Canonizations As of S. Rosa that admirable Saint of Peru and others 3. An intention to give Divine Worship to them For what else can be meant by that eminent kind of adoration which Bellarmine saith doth belong to them that Divine worship which Azorius saith you give to the Saints and Serrarius saith many of the wisest persons among you say that Latria and Doulia proceed both from the same vertue of Religion that is they are of the same kind So that this is not meerly the Superstition of the Vulgar but the Judgement of the wisest among you if Serrarius his Judgement may be taken I will not dissemble what B. Forbs observes that some of the School-men do make the Invocation of Saints not to slow from the vertue of Religion but another of their own making called singularis observantia But this is only a trick found out to avoid the imputation of Idolatry which they thought would fall justly upon them if they made the Worship to be of the same kind although of a different degree since nothing can be plainer in Antiquity than that all truly Religious Worship belongs only to God and cannot be given to a Creature without the guilt of Idolatry For even in the same Age wherein Greg. Nyssen lived the Council of Laodicea declared the Invocation of Angels to be Idolatry so Theodoret expresseth the sense of that Council who certainly understood the meaning of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are his words which he makes to be all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that praying to them is that part of divine worship which was condemned for Idolatry being given to Angels R. P. T. G. saith This was a practice of nominating Angels which he saith cannot with any shew of probability be understood of that worship which the Holy Catholick Church gives to Holy Angels P. D. Good Sir his Reason for to my apprehension it comes as home to the practice of the Church of Rome as may be R. P. 1. Because the Council speaks of such as excluded our Lord Jesus Christ making private Assemblies which words Dr. St. conveniently omitted P. D. Did he so let us hear them at length That Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God and go aside to invocate Angels or make unlawful Conventicles If any one be found practising this secret Idolatry let him be accursed because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God and betaken himself to Idolatry The Council speaks this of a sort of Christians who yet were guilty of Idolatry in praying to Angels therefore praying to Angels is Idolatry R. P. Yes such praying to Angels as Theodoret speaks of upon account that the Law was delivered by them or that God being invisible and incomprehensible cannot be approached but by the Angels P. D. Will T. G. stand to it that this is Idolatry then it must be Idolatry in the nature of the thing or by some positive Law if the latter we see the Council of Laodicea accounts it equal Idolatry among Christians as before if the former then praying to a Creature is Idolatry in the Nature of the Thing which is a very fair concession and I suppose the Church of Rome will con him no thanks for R. P. But it is Idolatry on those accounts I mentioned P. D. On what I pray Because the Law was delivered by them How is that possible on T. G.'s principles when they were only Gods Ministers therein and so praying to Gods Ministers in Heaven is Idolatry how then will praying to Saints escape R. P. But Theodoret adds they brought us salvation thereby P. D. Only Ministerially and this alters not the case R. P. But suppose they thought access to God was only by them P. D. What then that might prove them no Christians but doth it prove them Idolaters Suppose they were Jews must they therefore needs be Idolaters R. P. But T. G. saith good Angels are not to be worshipped but in subordination to Christ the Head nor their prayers to be desired as efficacious for us but through his merits P. D. And what follows therefore leaving out Christ is Idolatry Doth T. G. talk at this rate and hope to excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry For I still ask what it was which made their Worship of Angels Idolatry Leaving out of Christ might make it Judaism or Heathenism but how comes it to be Idolatry R. P. I think you will never be satisfied P. D. Not with such answers I assure you R. P. Baronius saith Theodoret was mistaken and that this Canon is to be understood of Heathen Idolatry and that the Oratories of Michael which Theodoret saith were built by those Idolaters were in truth built by very good Catholicks P. D. This is plain dealing and Baronius saw well enough there was no way to justifie the Church of Rome but by condemning Theodoret but I leave it to any mans consideration whether Theodoret whose distance was not great either in Age or Place did not better understand the meaning of this Council and the practises of those times and places than Baronius and whether his judgement be not rather to be taken than that of a man who turns every stone to avoid a difficulty which he saw could no otherwise be answered R. P. 2. How can this be the meaning of the Council of Laodicea when it declares for the honouring and celebrating the Feast-days of the Martyrs P. D. Doth T. G. call this a second Reason Where lyes the consequence The Council of Laodicea was for honouring the Feast-dayes of the Martyrs therefore the praying to Angels is not condemned by it for Idolatry As though there were no way of celebrating their Festivals but by praying to Saints and Angels When T. G. proves that meeting at their Memories on their Anniversary dayes and praising God for them and rehearsing their Acts was no keeping their Festivals without praying to them he will do something towards making this look like a Reason In the mean time let the Reader consider whether praying to Saints was practised by Greg. Nyssen when praying to Angels about the same time by the Council of Laodicea is condemned for Idolatry But this is not all which I have to say for if Gregory Nyssen's practice doth excuse the modern Invocation of Saints from Idolatry I desire
any wayes repugnant to the sense of the Church R. P. But T. G. saith the Terms of Communion with the Church are not the Opinions of her School-Divines but the Decrees of her Councils P. D. And what then Did Dr. St. meddle with the School-Divines any otherwise than as they explained the sense of Councils or the practice of the Church And what helps more proper to understand these than the Doctrine of your most learned Divines T. G. will have one Mr. Thorndike to speak the sense of the Church of England against the current Doctrine of the rest as Dr. St. hath proved yet he will not allow so many Divines of greatest Note and Authority to explain the sense of the Church of Rome Is this equal dealing R. P. T. G. saith That for his life he cannot understand any more the Idolatry of worshipping an Image than the Treason of bowing to a Chair of State or the Adultery of a Wives kissing her Husbands Picture and that the same subtilties may be used against these as against the other and therefore notwithstanding the disputes of School-Divines honest nature informed with Christian Principles will be security enough against the practice of Idolatry in honouring the Image of Christ for his sake P. D. What is the matter with T. G. that for his life he can understand these things no better after all the pains which hath been taken about him Hath not the difference of these cases been laid open before him Do not your own Writers confess that in some cases an Image may become an Idol by having Divine Worship given to it Is this then the same case with a Wives kissing her Husbands Picture Doth not this excuse the Gnosticks worship of the Image of Christ as well as yours If there may be Idolatry in the worship of an Image we are then to consider whether your worship be not Idolatry Especially since both parties charge each other with Idolatry those who will have it to be Latria and those who will not And I do not see what honest nature can do in this case however assisted unless it can make the worship of Images to be neither one nor the other I see T. G. would fain make it to be no more than bare honour of an Image for the sake of Christ but this doth not come up to the Decrees of Councils the general sense of Divines and the constant practice of your Church If ever worship was given to Images you give it by using all Acts of Adoration towards them R. P. But suppose the King had made an Order that due honour and respect should be given to the Chair of State ought not that to be observed notwithstanding the disputes which might arise about the nature of the Act P. D. To answer this we must suppose a Command from God that we must worship an Image of Christ as we do his Person but here it is just contrary The Reason of the second Command being owned by the Christian Church to hold against the worship of Images now as well as under the Law But those in the Church of Rome who do charge each other with Idolatry without supposing any such command do proceed upon the nature of the Worship which must either be Divine Worship which one party saith is Idolatry being the same which is given to God or an inferiour Religious Worship which the other party saith must be Idolatry being an expression of our submission to an inanimate thing And for my life I cannot see what answer T. G. makes to this R. P. T. G. saith the Rules of the Church are to be observed in this case as the Rules of the Court about the Chair of State P. D. What! are the Rules of the Church to be observed absolutely whether against the Law of God or not Which is as much as to say at Court that the Orders of the Green-cloth are to be observed against his Majesties pleasure But not to insist on that I say in this case the Rules of the Church help nothing for they who do follow the Rules of the Church must do one or the other of these and whichsoever they do they are charged with Idolatry And therefore Dr. St. had great reason to say Where there is no necessity of doing the thing the best way to avoid Idolatry is to give no worship to Images at all R. P. What will become of the Rules of the Church saith T. G. if men may be permitted to break them for such Capriches as these are P. D. Are you in earnest Doth T. G. call these Capriches Idolatry is accounted both by Fathers and Schoolmen a crime of the highest nature and when I am told I must commit it one way or other by your Divines if I give worship to Images is this only a Capriche R. P. Will not the same reason hold against bowing to the Altar bowing being an act of worship appropriated to God P. D. Will the same reason hold against bowing out of Reverence to Almighty God which I have told you again and again is all our Church allows in that which you call bowing to the Altar I see you are very hard put to it to bring in this single Instance upon every turn against the plain sense and declaration of our Church If this be all T. G. upon so long consideration hath to say in this matter it is not hard to judge who hath much the better Cause R. P. I pray hold from triumphing a while for there is a fresh charge behind wherein you will repent that ever you undertook to defend Dr. St. it is concerning the unjust parallel he hath made between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry P. D. I see no cause to repent hitherto And I hope I shall find as little when I come to that THE Fourth Conference About the Parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry R. P. HAVE you considered what T. G. saith concerning the parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry and doth not your heart fail you as to the defence of Dr. St. which you promised to undertake P. D. No truly The more I have considered it the less I fear it R. P. What think you of the notion of Idolatry he chargeth on T. G. viz. that it is the giving the Soveraign Worship of God to a Creature and among the Heathens to the Devil as if the Idolatry of the Heathens consisted only in worshipping the Devil whereas it appears from the words Dr. St. cites out of him that he charged the Heathens with Idolatry in worshipping their Images for Gods and the Creatures for Gods although withal they worshipped evil Spirits and T. G. contends that their Supream God was an Arch-Devil P. D. Is this such a difficulty to be set in the Front I suppose it is only to try whether I will stumble at the threshold If the Supreme God whom the Heathens worshipped was an Arch-devil as T. G.
but those you give to Images and Saints are R. P. I see the weight of this whole debate lies at last upon this determination of circumstances but how comes the Dr. after all the great bustle he makes about Gods appropriating external acts of worship to himself to put the trial of his cause at last upon the determination of circumstances P. D. What other way should the difference of moral actions be tried What incongruity is there between Gods appropriating acts of religious worship to himself and the finding out what those acts are by the circumstances Is it not thus in the other Commandments God in general forbids Murder Theft and Adultery but are not those prohibited acts to be judged by the circumstances For there is the same substance of the act in and unlawful actions If a man kills another by chance or out of malice if a man takes away another mans goods with his consent or without it is the same act as to its substance and what discrimination can be made but by the circumstances and therefore I cannot but wonder to hear you object against this or think it any repugnancy to Gods appropriating acts of Divine Worship to himself R. P. How can the nature of such acts be determined wholly by circumstances unless the appropriation of them be taken away for if that continues the Law determines the nature of the acts P. D. Do you not apprehend the difference between the discrimination of acts of civil and religious worship and the appropriation of the latter to God by his Law I say the Law makes them peculiar to God when they are found to be acts of religious worship but the circumstances are to determine whether they are civil or religious acts As all acts of murder are forbidden by Gods Law but whether such an act be murder or no is to be judged by circumstances R. P. But then if the external acts of worship given to Creatures in the Church of Rome chance to prove accompanied with such circumstances by which they may and generally are understood not to be acts of Divine Worship but of inferiour veneration then they are acquitted from the guilt of Idolatry according to the Dr.'s own principles P. D. No such matter unless we suppose those acts to be wholly indifferent and left free by any Divine Law and that it is in the Churches Power to declare what is to pass for divine worship and what for inferiour worship But no particular circumstances can make an act lawful which the Law of God hath made unlawful As suppose the Spartan Common-wealth allow pilfering or taking away Goods from each other without consent of the owners here is one circumstance which goes a great way towards the altering the nature of such actions but if there be an antecedent Law of God which makes such acts unlawful they remain so still notwithstanding the declaration of the Spartan State Just thus it is in the present case your Church declares such Acts of Worship may be lawfully applied to Images and Saints but what then hath your Church the Power to repeal the Law of God if not the acts remain as unlawful as ever notwithstanding the circumstance of such a declaration R. P. But T. G. saith all Dr. St. 's discourse about discrimination of acts of civil and religious worship by circumstances is only a popular discourse and upon enquiry will be found as incoherent and weak as an adversary could wish P. D. I shall not take T. G.'s judgement in this matter for I have not found him so impartial and just that I should submit to his arbitration If you have any thing to object against that discourse I do not question we shall hear of it R. P. First Acts take their nature from the formal reason or account upon which they tend to their objects and from thence they become either civil or religious though they may receive another denomination from the circumstances which do accompany them P. D. I pray consider the thing we enquire after is the difference between Acts of Civil and Religious Worship which Dr. St. saith is to be taken from the circumstances no say you it must be taken from the formal reason or account on which they tend to their objects but the formal reason of acts being secret and invisible the question is whether that be sufficient to put a discrimination between Acts of an external and visible nature as those of civil and religious worship are I will make this plain to you by a noted instance While the Christian Emperors required no more than meer civil worship the Christians made no scruple of giving it to them in the same postures which were used in divine worship but when they suspected that divine worship was required they utterly refused it here we have the same acts as to the substance of them in both cases and yet the Christians could easily discern which did belong to civil and which to religious worship was it from such a reason and intention of the persons which none could know but the doers or else from the circumstances which did make it appear that more than civil worship was required And yet this worship which the Heathens gave to their Emperours was only an inferiour sort of divine worship and so understood by the general consent of the Heathens themselves from whence we gather 1. That the discrimination of acts of civil and divine worship do not depend upon the intention of the Doer but the outward circumstances of them For if it had depended on the inward intention of the person the Christians might have saved their lives and honours by doing the external acts with a different intention and that which was divine worship in him that designed it for such were but civil worship in him that intended no more 2. That the declaration of an inferiour sort of divine worship doth not make it lawful For it could be no otherwise understood by the Christians and yet they refused it as Idolatrous Worship R. P. 2. If the circumstances of time and place and such like do so restrain and limit the signification of external acts that it is easie to discern one worship from another how can you make it out that the people did not give religious worship to David when in a most solemn act of devotion it is said that the people worshipped the Lord and the King where we see the same act at the same time a time of solemn devotion given to God and the King and the People never charged for giving religious worship to the King P. D. T.G. need not have gone so far back for such an argument For the Kings Chaplains in a sacred place and at a solemn time of devotion do bow three times to the King when they enter into the Pulpit and yet who is there imagines they give him divine worship It is not therefore the circumstance of time and place alone which
Dr. St. makes to discriminate civil and religious worship but the concurrence of all circumstances together If I bowed to a Friend at Church is any man so senseless to take this for Idolatry Where there is an antecedent ground for civil worship and respect which is well known and understood among men there is nothing like Idolatry although we do use the same external acts towards men which we use towards God himself As among the Israelites no man doubted that their bowing to the King was upon a quite different account from their bowing to God although they bowed to the King in a place dedicated to divine worship And where the reason of worship is so well understood to be of a quite different nature from that of religious worship that very reason makes a discrimination besides the circumstances of time and place Which I shall make appear from the case of Naaman the Syrian whose bowing in the house of Rimmon was therefore free from Idolatry because of the known custom of paying civil respect every where else to his Prince in that manner and by his publick protestatition against the Idolatrous worship there performed as T. G. shews at large from Dr. H. T. G. therefore very much mistakes Dr. St.'s meaning if he thinks he assigned the discrimination of acts of religious and civil worship barely to the circumstances of time and place without taking in the object and reason of worship R. P. But from hence it appears that bowing in the House and Presence of an Idol and in the very time of worship is not Idolatry For then Naaman could not be excused P. D. Where the worship is known to be given not to the Idol but to the Prince to whom it is acknowledged to be due elsewhere Dr. St. never supposed such an act of worship though done in an Idol-temple to be Idolatry R. P. But suppose men should ask a Bishop blessing in a Church and at Prayer-time this is not civil worship and is this Idolatry P. D. Worship may be said to be civil two wayes 1. When it is performed on a meer civil account as it is to Magistrates and Parents 2. When it is performed on the account of a spiritual relation as in the respect shewed to Bishops as spiritual Fathers The worship is of the same kind with that which is shewed to natural Parents but the relation is of another kind on which account it may be called Spiritual Respect but it is in it self an act of civil worship arising upon a moral relation which being of a different nature from that which is between Princes and Subjects and Parents and Children and being founded upon Religious Grounds may be said to be Religious or Spiritual Respect rather than Worship R. P. If the first Christians had upon their knees in time of prayer begged S. James his benediction had this been an unlawful Act of Worship P. D. If they were upon their knees in prayer to God I think it was a very unseasonable time to ask their Bishop blessing although the act in it self were lawful R. P. But is not this an act of the same kind with that of invocation of Saints in times and places of Divine Worship when we only pray to them to pray for us P. D. I say again that is not all You do for you own their Patronage Protection and Power to help you in your necessities and your Prayers must be understood according to your Doctrines But suppose you did only pray to them to pray for you yet 1. You do it with all the solemnity of Divine Worship in the publick Litanies of the Church when you are in the posture of your greatest Devotion And the Angel rebuked no less man than St. John for using the posture of Divine Adoration to him 2. In kneeling to a Bishop to pray for us we suppose nothing that encroaches upon the Divine excellencies for we are certain he hears and understands us and we desire nothing from him but what is in his power to do and is very fitting for us to request from him But when you pray to Saints you can have no possible assurance that they do or can hear what you say to them and so it is a foolish and unreasonable worship and when you do it with the same external Acts of Devotion which you use to the Divine Majesty you take away that peculiarity of Divine Worship which is due to God by reason of his incommunicable excellencies and so it is superstitious and idolatrous Worship these two wayes 1. As it supposes as great excellencies in Creatures as those did who for that reason were charged with Idolatry I do not meddle with the possibility of an intelligent being disunited from matter 's hearing at such a distance as the Saints are supposed to be from us nor whether God may not communicate such knowledge to them but that which I insist on is this I find those charged with Idolatry not only in Scripture and the Fathers but by the Church of Rome it self who professed to worship some inferiour Spirits as Mediators between God and men and such Mediators as were never imagined to be Mediators of Redemption but barely of Intercession as being believed to carry up the prayers of men and to bring down help from above Now here is no Omnisciency or Omnipotency or other incommunicable excellency attributed to these Spirits and all the addresses made to them was under the notion of Mediators to intercede for them i. e. to pray to them to pray for them and yet these were charged with flat Idolatry It were easie to make it appear from unquestionable testimonies that the Heathen Idolaters did worship inferiour spirits only as Mediators as Apuleius expresses it inter caelicolas terricolasque vectores hinc preeum inde donorum wherein he only interprets Plato's sense and that this was one of the most common and universal kinds of Idolatry and therefore I would fain know why they must be charged with Idolatry and you escape Either be just to them and vindicate the Heathen Worship or else you must condemn your own 2. T. G. confesses that by the Law of Nature there ought to be some peculiar external Acts appropriated to the worship of God as most agreeable to his incommunicable excellency now among all mankind no one external Act of Worship hath been supposed more peculiar to the Divine Nature than solemn Invocation in places and times appropriated to Divine Worship but the Invocation practised in the Roman Church hath all the solemnity and circumstances of Divine Worship and therefore it is robbing God of the peculiar Acts of his Worship which is Idolatry And he must be very dull indeed who cannot distinguish this Invocation from a casual or accidental meeting with a Bishop at Church and kissing the hem of his Garment or asking his Benediction on ones knees R. P. But where there are different objects in themselves and
a publick profession and consent that those acts are applyed to those objects upon different accounts it is intolerable impertinency to understand such Acts as are in themselves equivocal in any other sense than the Church declares viz. as applyed to Saints or Images the outward Acts of Worship as bowing kneeling c. are used only as tokens or expressions of an inferiour respect and Veneration P. D. If this be all you have to say for your selves the Heathens must be excused from Idolatry as well as You. For they acknowledged by common consent and publick profession a difference between the supreme God and inferiour Spirits they allowed of different degrees of Worship and without all question did not look on their Emperours as the Supreme Deity that made and governs the world and yet I hope the primitive Christians were not guilty of intolerable impertinency in charging them with Idolatry But it seems the holy Angel was guilty of the same intolerable impertinency in so rashly rebuking the Apostle for falling down to Worship him for this was an equivocal Act and in all probability was intended only as a token of respect and Veneration inferiour to what was thought due to God over all Blessed for evermore But those Acts of Divine Worship which by the Law of God become due only to himself can by no consent or declaration of a Church be made lawful to be given to any creature however they may call them Acts of inferiour respect and Veneration as long as they are of the same nature with those which were condemned both by the Scripture and Fathers as Idolatrous Worship R. P. Doth not Dr. Hammond say that Naaman the Syrian was excused from Idolatry because of the publick profession he made that he intended not the Worship to the Idol but to his Master And will not the same plea hold for us who declare we do not give Soveraign Worship to any Creatures but only inferiour Worship P. D. If Naaman had desired leave to worship Rimmon or Saturn with an inferiour Worship declaring that he did not take Saturn for the true and Supreme God but the God of Israel and therefore he might apply the same Act after a different manner and the Prophet had then bid him Go in Peace You had some reason for your parallel But as long as Naamans question only related to the performing an act of Civil Worship to his Prince in the House of Rimmon what colour can be hence taken for giving any kind of Religious Worship to Saints or Images in places and at times set apart for Divine Worship R. P. But Monsieur Daillé saith that external signs whether of nature or Religion are to be interpreted by the publick and common practice of those who use them and not by the secret and particular intentions of this or that Person P. D. And what then I beseech you Monsieur Daillé discourses against those who would use all the external Acts of adoration of the Host which others did but with a different intention and hoped this would excuse them from Idolatry Now in this case he saith that signs of Religious Worship as uncovering the Head kneeling or prostrating the body at the sound of a little bell and such other actions are the plain and ordinary signs of the adoration of the Host and are so appointed by the Church of Rome and so understood by those who generally practise it therefore saith he those who do use these outward signs are to be understood to give adoration to the Host. From whence it follows that men cannot comply with others in the Acts of adoration of the Host without hypocrisie or Idolatry which it was Mons. Daillé's design to prove But what is all this to the proving that inferiour worship is not Idolatry we desire that these signs of Worship may be interpreted according to the common and publick practice of those who use them by which we say it is as truly Religious Worship as the Nations used which all Christians do charge with Idolatry But if your meaning be that your actions are to be interpreted in your own sense it will come to this at last that You are not guilty of Idolatry because you declare you are not guilty of it And whoever condemned themselves for it by publick declarations unless it were when they repented of it as a great sin which I do not find you are yet willing to do I pray remember this saying of Daille's when you think to justifie giving acts of Divine Worship to a Creature by your secret intention for he saith and you seem to approve his saying that such Acts when they are of the nature of Religious Worship are to be interpreted by the common and publick practice and not by particular intentions if therefore the Acts of Worship be such as by the Scriptures and sense of the Primitive Church belong only to God no intention of yours of applying them after an inferiour manner can excuse you from giving adoration to a Creature Especially if they be such Acts which God hath appropriated to himself as the six mentioned by Dr. St. for who dares alter what God himself hath appointed R. P. I think you are turning Quaker for this is their principle do not they alledge Christs precept against swearing and then say who dares alter what God himself hath appointed P. D. I may as well fear you are renouncing Christianity for what Christian ever said or thought otherwise than that it is not in the power of men to alter the Laws of Christ If Christs precept were to be understood of all kind of swearing do you really think it would be lawful to swear at all I am ashamed of this loose not to say profane way of talking about the obligation of Divine Laws R. P. I only mentioned this by the by to let you see what kind of principles the Dr. makes use of to combate the Church of Rome P. D. Just such principles as all Christians own and are bound so to do by their being Christians But do you think in earnest that it is in the power of men to alter the Laws of God R. P. No. But T. G. means that there is now no Law of God binding men concerning these external Acts of worship and therefore it is in the Power of the Church to appoint these as well as other Rites and Ceremonies and to determine the signification of them P. D. If this be his meaning it is very ill expressed But I say that our Saviour hath declared the immutable obligation of that Law concerning applying all Acts of Religious worship only to God and that the Vniversal Church of Christ in the first Ages so understood it as appears not barely by their words but by the greatest testimony of their Actions when such multitudes laid down their lives upon this Principle Therefore I say again You must call in question their Title to Martyrdom or