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
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
his argument is the stronger for the distinction between them For although no prayers be made to Confutius no divine power be supposed to be in him as in the Tutelar Spirits yet because he had a Temple in every City with his Image in it and all other external Rites of adoration used as genuflections wax-candles incense and oblations such as your Church useth to Images without prayers yet these are condemned as Idolatrous And although the Cardinals might not then reflect on the consequence of this resolution as to their own practices yet I cannot but admire at the Wisdom of that Providence which once directed Caiaphas to speak a great Truth beside his intention that so overruled the Congregation of Cardinals to condemn their own Idolatry under the name of Confutius For if the using those external acts of adoration towards the Image of Confutius be Idolatry why shall it not be so where prayers are added as they are in your Church to the Images set up in your Churches Let T. G. tell me wherein the Nature of that Idolatry lay which consisted in external Acts of adoration without any opinion of Confutius being a God truly and properly so called 3. That external Acts are capable of Idolatry however the intention of the mind be directed For although the Cardinals believed the Crucifix to be a proper object of Divine Worship yet they condemned those Acts as Idolatrous which were directed to it in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirits And upon the whole matter I think no impartial Reader will believe that T. G. hath said any thing to purpose upon this matter and that he had better left those few leaves still vacant than have filled them with such an insignificant Postscript and he hath no reason to thank his Friend for putting him upon laying open so much the Weakness of his Cause For from hence it farther appears that the Modern Idolaters will likewise be excused if the nature of Idolatry doth consist as T. G. saith in Worshipping many Gods truly and properly so called R. P. But you are mistaken if you think T. G. placeth the Nature of Idolatry wholly in this for he saith that the Heathens were guilty of Idolatry in worshipping Nature instead of God either the several parts of the Vniverse as Sun Moon and Stars c. understanding the Fire by Jupiter the Air by Juno c. or the Soul of the World as the Stoicks did whereby the Heathens did as T. G. often repeats it from Vossius relicto Deo in Naturae Veneratione consistere forsaking God stay in the worship of the Creatures and for this he quotes Athanasius S. Augustine and Athenagoras P. D. It is sufficient for Dr. St.'s design if the worship of Images and of intellectual Beings under one supreme God were Idolatry among the Heathens for then it must remain so among Christians as well as Murder and Adultery are the same whereever they are found But since you have proposed it I shall consider with you how far the worship of the Creatures in general is Idolatry But I have some few questions to ask you about this sort of Idolatry 1. Whether you think the Heathens Idolatry did lye in worshipping meer matter as God Or 2. In worshipping God as the soul of the world and the several parts of it with respect to him Or 3. In acknowledging a Creator but giving all the worship to the Creatures R. P. In all these according to their several opinions P. D. Do you really think any of them did worship meer matter without life sense or understanding for God For either they did believe some other God or not if they did how is it possible they should not worship that which could hear and understand and help them and worship that which could do none of these If they did not believe any other God they were Atheists and not Idolaters For are not those Atheists who acknowledge no other God but meer matter i. e. no God at all For so Vossius himself saith those who held meer matter to be God verbo Deum fatebantur re negabant did only seem to believe a God whom they really denyed For what kind of God saith he was that which had neither sense nor reason R. P. It was Idolatry then to worship the parts of the world with a respect to God as the Soul of it which as T. G. saith in his Postscript is to make a false God P. D. There are two things which deserve to be considered as to this matter 1. In what sense making God the soul of the world is setting up a false God 2. How far the Gentiles could be charged with Idolatry who worshipped the parts of the world with respect to God as the soul of it R. P. Do not you think making God the soul of the world is setting up a false God P. D. I pray tell me what you mean by the soul of the world For either you mean the natural series of Causes or the more subtil and active parts of matter diffused through the Vniverse without Mind and Vnderstanding or you mean an Intelligent Being which by Wisdom and Providence orders and governs the world but withall is so united to it as the Soul is to the Body If you mean the former I say all such who held it were really Atheists and only differed in the way of speaking from those who worshipped meer matter for let them call God the soul of the world never so much they mean no more than that there is no other God but the Power of Nature If you mean an Vnderstanding Being Governing the World whose essence is distinct from matter but yet is supposed to be so united to it as the Soul is to the Body then I pray tell me in what sense you make him to be a false God and how it comes to be Idolatry to worship the parts of the world with respect to him R. P. S. Augustin proves against Varro that God was not the Soul of the World if there were any such thing but the Creator and Maker of it and he shews that this opinion is attended with impious and irreligious consequences P. D. I do not go about to defend the opinion but I hope I may ask wherein the Idolatry lay of worshipping one God under this notion as he animated the world and the several parts of it R. P. In worshipping the several parts of the world with Divine Worship not with a respect to the Body but to God as the Soul of it for therein Aquinas placeth their Idolatry P. D. Is relative Latria Idolatry R. P. Why do you ask me such an impertinent question P. D. Nothing can be more pertinent for this is meer relative Latria R. P. It was Idolatry in them but yet not so in us when we worship the Crucifix with respect to Christ. P. D. You may as well say Lying with another mans Wife was Adultery in them but not
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
in Euclid is plainer than this R. P. But I tell you we do not worship the creature but the body of Christ. P. D. I tell you again if there be a creature you do worship it for you give adoration to what is before you be it what it will if it be a creature you adore it R. P. But we say it is not a creature we worship P. D. Do not you give adoration to that which is consecrated whether it remains a creature or not after consecration At the elevation of the Host at the carrying it about at the exposing of it on the Altar you worship that which was consecrated do you not R. P. We worship that which was bread before consecration but after is no longer so but the body of Christ. P. D. But if it should remain bread after consecration what do ye adore then is it not the substance of the bread R. P. Yes but we believe it is not the bread P. D. That is not the question what you believe for they that believed God to be the soul of the world worshipped the parts of it upon a supposition which if it had been true would have justified their worship every jot as well as yours can do you and yet they were gross Idolaters for all that Nay I will say more to you there never were Idolaters in the world that did not proceed upon a false supposition and it may be not so unreasonable as yours This cannot therefore excuse you if your supposition proves false as no doubt it is that the substance of the bread doth not remain after consecration But I now ask you what your adoration is in the opinion of those persons who do firmly believe the Sacramental Elements to remain in their natural substances Is it not the giving divine worship to a creature And is not the giving divine worship to a creature Idolatry so that according to the sense of our Church the Worship of the Host must be Idolatry R. P. But what have you got by all this for we confess our selves that if the substance of bread and wine do remain after consecration we are as great Idolaters as they that worship a red cloath P. D. Upon my word you had need then to be well assured that the substance of Bread and Wine do not remain and yet I must tell you we can be certain of nothing in the world if we are not certain that the substance of bread and wine do remain after consecration For if we are certain of nothing by our senses but of the outward accidents which is all your best men do say in this case we cannot be certain of any visible substance in the world for no bodily substance can be discerned but by our senses and so all foundation of certainty by sense is destroyed Nay farther it takes away all certainty by reason for it confounds the clearest maxims of it by overthrowing all Mathematical proportions of great and small whole and parts by destroying all notions of distance and place by jumbling the notions of body and Spirit And lastly it takes away all certainty by Revelation which can never come to us but upon the supposition of the certainty of Sense and Reason R. P. O Sir I see what you would be at you would fain draw me into a dispute about transubstantiation upon principles of Reason I beg your pardon Sir This is a matter of faith and must be stoutly believed or else we are gone No more of this Sir to your business of Idolatry I pray P. D. I was only giving you some caution by the by how much you are concerned to look about you but since you are resolved to shut your eyes I return to the sense of our Church about the Idolatry of the Mass and it follows necessarily from our former discourse that since our Church believes the substance of the Elements do remain and that your worship doth really fix upon that substance whatever your intentions be it is really Idolatry R. P. However this only proves it to be material Idolatry and not formal P. D. I have often heard of this distinction but I could never be satisfied with it For what is material and formal Idolatry R. P. Material Idolatry I take to be mistaken worship i. e. I do give divine worship to a false object but I do not intend to give it to a false object of Worship but to a true one P. D. Then Formal Idolatry must be giving divine worship to a false object of Worship knowing it to be a false object And where are there any such Idolaters to be found in the world Did not the Heathens believe that to be God which they worshipped And is not God a true object of worship only they mistook that to be God which was not and so were only material Idolaters Even those that worshipped their Images for Gods were only mistaken for they had a good intention only to worship God but they unhappily took their Images for Gods And I must needs say they who took the Sun Moon and Stars for Gods and worshipped them as such were very excusable in comparison of those who take a piece of bread for God or that which appears like it R. P. You are very severe methinks but do you think there is no difference among Idolaters P. D. Yes I tell you there is but not much to your comfort The grosser mens erour is the more means to convince men of it the more wilful their blindness and continuance in it the more culpable they are in their Idolatry and consequently the less excusable R. P. But may not a man innocently mistake as if in the dark a Child should ask blessing of one that is not his Father would his Father have reason to be angry with him P. D. Not for once or if it were in the dark but if he should see him every day go very formally to a joyn'd Stool in the Hall or to a Brown Loaf in the Buttery and there very solemnly down upon his knees to them and beg their blessing tell me what you think the Father would say to such a mistake Would he excuse him saying Alas poor Child he intended all this to me only he mistook the Brown Loaf or a joyn'd stool for me R. P. Forbear such comparisons for we have divine Revelation This is my Body and we believe his word against all you can say in this matter P. D. But what will you say if by the confession of many of the best and most learned of your own Divines You have not Divine Revelation for it and that those words cannot prove that the substance of Bread doth not remain after consecration which is the thing we now enquire after and if it were not to go off from our present business I would undertake to prove this evidently to you R. P. However we have the Authority of our Church for it P. D. You had as good say you are
order in the Church of God it is enough to make things lawful if they are not forbidden Let us now compare this saying with what he calls the Fundamental principle of Separation that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what he hath expresly commanded and can any thing be more contradictory to this than what Dr. St. layes down as a principle in that very page of his Irenicum that an express positive command is not necessary to make a thing lawful but a non-prohibition by a Law is sufficient for that Where then lay T. G.'s understanding or ingenuity when he mentions such a great change in the Dr. as to this principle when he owned the very same principle even in that Book and that very page he quotes to the contrary T. G. doth presume good Catholick Readers will take his word without looking farther and I scarce ever knew a Writer who stands more in need of the good opinion of his Reader in this kind than T. G. doth As I shall make it fully appear if you hold on this discourse with me for I have taken some pains to consider T. G.'s manner of dealing with his Adversary But this is too gross a way of imposing upon the credulity of Readers yet this is their common method of dealing with Dr. St. When they intend to write against him then have you Dr. St. 's Irenicum hoping to find matter there to expose him to the hatred of the Bishops and to represent him as unfit to defend the Church of England If this takes not then they pick sentences and half-sentences from the series of the discourse and laying these together cry Look ye here is this a man fit to defend your Church that so contradicts himself thus and thus when any common understanding by comparing the places will find them either falsely represented or easily reconciled In truth Sir I think you have shewed as little learning or skill or ingenuity in answering him as any one Adversary that ever appeared against your Church and especially when T. G. goes about to prove that he contradicts himself or the sense of the Church of England R. P. But I pray tell me if this charge of Idolatry were agreeable to the sense of the Church of England why the Articles of the Church do only reject the Romish Doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration of Images not as Idolatry but as a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God For I perceive this sticks much with T. G. and from hence he concludes Dr. St. to contradict the sense of it who is the Champion of the Church of England P. D. I perceive T. G. kept this for a parting blow after which he thought fit to breath a while having spent so many spirits in this encounter but methinks his arm grows feeble and although his fury be as great as ever yet his strength is decayed And in my mind it doth not become a man of his Chivalry so often to leave his Lance and to run with open mouth upon his Adversary and to bite till his Teeth meet For what mean the unhandsome reflections he makes on all occasions upon his being the Champion of the Church of England and the Church of Englands having cause to be ashamed of such a Champion and of his putting him in mind of his duty as the Champion of the Church not to betray the Church he pretends to defend Where doth he ever assume any such title to himself or ever entred the lists but on the account of obedience or upon great provocation The name of Champion savours too much of vanity and ostentation whereas he only shewed how easily the Cause could be defended when his superiours first commanded such a stripling as he then was to undertake the defence of it But I shall set aside these reflections and come to the point of our Articles and therein consider 1. What T. G. objects 2. What Dr. St. answered 3. Which way the sense of the Articles is to be interpreted T. G. looks upon it as a notable observation that the Compilers of the 39 Articles in which is contained the doctrine of the Church of England sufficiently insinuate that they could find no such command forbidding the Worship of Images when they rejected the adoration of Images not as Idolatry but only as a fond thing vainly invented nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture but as rather repugnant to the word of God which qualification of theirs gives us plainly to understand that they had done their endeavours to find such a command but could meet with none To which Dr. St. gives this answer that the force of all he saith lyes upon the words of the English translation whereas if he had looked on the Latin wherein they give account of their doctrine to foreign Churches this Criticism had been lost the words being immo verbo Dei contradicit whereby it appears that rather is not used as a term of diminution but of a more vehement affirmation And what saith T. G. I pray to this R. P. T. G. repeats his own words at large and then blames the compilers of the Articles for want of Grammar if they intend the word rather to affect the words that follow P. D. But what is all this to the Latin Articles which Dr. St. appealed to for explication of the English And for the Love of Grammar let T. G. tell us whether there be not a more vehement affirmation in those words immo verbo Dei contradicit Either T. G. should never have mentioned this more or have said something more to the purpose For doth he think our Bishops and Clergy were not careful that their true sense were set forth in the Latin Articles And their sense being so peremptory herein and contrary to T.G. is there not all the reason in the world to explain the English Articles by the Latin since we are sure they had not two meanings This is so plain I am ashamed to say a word more to it R. P. But T. G. is very pleasant in describing the arguments Dr. St. brings to prove the Articles to make the worship of Images Idolatry because it is called Adoration of Images and said to be the Romish Doctrine about adoration But after the Cat hath plaid with the Mouse as long as he thinks fit leaping and frisking with him in his claws at last he falls on him with his Teeth and hardly leaves a bone behind him After he hath muster'd his arguments and drawn them out in rank and file and made one charge upon another for the pleasure of the Reader he then gives him a plain and solid answer viz. by the words Romish doctrine concerning adoration of Images may be understood either the Doctrine taught in her Schools which being but the opinions of particular persons no man is bound to follow or
to the point of Idolatry it self R. P. Hold a little you are still too quick I have something more yet to say to you before we come to it P. D. What is that R. P. I have a great deal to tell you out of Mr. Thorndikes Just Weights and Measures about the Charge of Idolatry and the mischievous consequences of it P. D. To what end should you repeat all that I begin to think you were not in jest when you said T. G. put in some things to fill up his Book Dr. St. had before declared the great esteem he had for Mr. Thorndikes Learning and Piety but in this particular he declared that he saw no reason to recede from the common doctrine of the Church of England on the account of Mr. Thorndikes Authority or Arguments And I have already given you such an account of his opinion with respect to the Church of Rome as I hope will take off Mr. Thorndikes Testimonies being so often alledged against us by T. G. and his Brethren If T. G. had not purposely declined the main matters in debate between Dr. St. and him he would never have stuffed out so much of his Book with things so little material to that which ought to have been the main design of it R. P. But I have somewhat more to say to you which is that you charge T. G. with declining the dispute about the sense of the second Commandment whereas he doth speak particularly to it P. D. I am glad to hear it I hope then he takes off the force of what Dr. St. had said in his late Defence about it For I assure you it was much expected from him R. P. What would you have a man do he produces at least four leaves of what he had said before and then a little after near two leaves more and within a few pages above two leaves again out of his old Book and then tells how Dr. St. spends above an hundred pages about the sense of the second Commandment whereas he neither removes the contradictions nor answers the arguments of T. G. but criticizeth upon the exceptions of T. G. to the several methods for finding out the sense of the Law but saith he what need so much pains and labour be taken if the Law be express and do not you think this enough about the second Commandment P. D. No truly Nor you neither upon any consideration For the Dr. in his Discourse upon the second Commandment 1. hath manifestly overthrown T. G.'s notion of an Idol viz. of a figment set up for Worship by such clear and convincing arguments that if T. G· had any thing to have said in defence of it he would never have let it escaped thus 2. He hath proved the sense he gives of the Commandment to be the same which the Fathers gave of it 3. He takes off T. G.'s instances of worshipping before the Ark and the Cherubims and the Testimony of S. Austin 4. He answers T. G.'s objections and clears the sense of the Law by all the means a Law can be well understood And is all this do you think answered by T. G.'s repeating what he had said before or blown down by a puff or two of Wit I do not know what T. G. thinks of it but I do not find any understanding man takes this for an answer but a meer put-off So that I may well say Dr. St.'s proofs are invincible when T. G. so shamefully retreats out of the Field and sculks under some hedges and thorns which he had planted before for a shelter in time of need R. P. But why did not Dr. St. answer punctually to all that T. G. said P. D. Because he did not think it material if the main things were proved R. P. Bu◠T. G. will think them unanswerable till he receive satisfaction concerning them P. D. That it may be is impossible to give a man that hath no mind to receive it but if you please let me hear the strength of what T. G. lays such weight upon that he may have no such pretence for the future and lest the third time we meet with the same Coleworts R. P. Doth not Dr. St. make express Scripture his most certain rule of Faith Doth not he on the other side deny any thing to be an Article of Faith which is not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self Then if God hath expresly forbidden the worship of himself by an Image it is an Article of Faith that he ought not to be worshipped by an Image and since Rome doth not acknowledge it it is not an Article of Faith Therefore T. G. calls upon the Dr. to speak out Is it or is it not an Article of Faith But T. G. saith he hath found out the Mysterie of the business for he can find out Mysteries I assure you as well as discover plots and catch Moles to gratifie the Non-conformists the Articles of the Church of England must pass only for inferiour truths but when the Church of Rome is to be charged with Idolatry then they are Articles of Faith so that as T. G. pleasantly saith the same proposition taken Irenically is an inferiour Truth but taken Polemically it must be an Article of Faith because expresly revealed in Scripture P. D. Is this it which T. G. thought worth repeating at large surely it was for the sake of the Clinch of Irenically and Polemically and not for any shew of difficulty in the thing For all the Mist is easily scattered by observing a very plain distinction of an Article of faith which is either taken 1. For an essential point of faith such as is antecedently necessary to the Being of a Christian Church and so the Creed is said to contain the Articles of our Faith and in this sense Dr. St. said the Church of Rome did hold all the essential points of faith which we did 2. For any doctrine plainly revealed in Scripture which is our Rule of faith And did Dr. St. ever deny that the Church of Rome opposed some things clearly revealed in Scripture nay it is the design of his Books to prove it doth And if every doctrine which can be deduced from a plain command of Scripture is to be looked on as an Article of Faith then that the Cup is to be given to those who partake of the Bread that Prayers are to be in a known Tongue will become Articles of Faith and do you think Dr. St. either Irenically or Polemically did ever yield that the Church of Rome did not oppose these If T. G. lays so much weight on such slight things as these I must tell you he is not the man I took him for and I believe it was only civility in Dr. St. to pass such things by R.P. But T.G. would know what he means by expresly forbidden only that it is clear to himself expecting that others should submit to his saying it
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
indifferent Rite there had been some reason for what T. G. saith But the force of what Dr. St. said lay not meerly in their having no Images in Churches in the Primitive times but in the Reasons given by the Primitive Christians against the Worship of them From whence he hath at large proved that the Primitive Christians did look on the Worship of Images as utterly unlawful by the Law of God although the Object represented did deserve Worship And this I take to be one of the most material Discourses in Dr. St.'s Book to the present Controversie and which he lays the greatest weight upon For he insists upon these several particulars 1. That they judged such a representation of God by Images to be unsuitable to his Nature for which he produceth the Testimonies of Clemens Alexandr Justin Martyr Athenagoras Origen S. Hierom S. Augustin and others 2. That they looked on the Worship of Images as repugnant to the Will of God as being contrary to the second Commandment which did oblige Christians 3. That to suppose that they looked on the worship of Images as a thing indifferent is to charge the Primitive Christians with great hypocrisie 4. That the Christian Church continued to have the same opinion about the worship of Images after the Pagan Idolatry was suppressed 5. That it was no just excuse in the sense of the Primitive Church that they worshipped a true object or gave only an inferiour worship to the Images for the sake of those represented by them 6. That Ignorance and Superstition first brought in the worship of Images which was still condemned by the best Divines of the Church 7. That the Worship of Images came to be established in the Church by very indirect means such as Treason calumnies lyes and burning and suppressing all Books against it 8. That when it was established by the second Council of Nice it was vehemently opposed by the Western Church at the Council of Francford and that this Council of Nice was never owned in the Western Church for a General Council till the Reformation began And now I pray was it possible for T. G. to overlook all these things or was it fair to pretend to answer Dr. St.'s Book wherein all these things are and yet to pass them over as if they had never been written If this be the way of making Just Discharges I am afraid T. G.'s credit cannot hold out long for this is not after the rate of five shillings in the pound and for all that I see Dr. St. may take out the Statute against him However I shall consider what he pretends to Discharge and if his payment be not good in that neither his Word will hardly be taken for any Just Discharge more I pray go on R. P. For the fifth Chapter Of the sense of the second Commandment T. G. saith if God hath there expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image as Dr. St. affirms there needed no more than to expose the Law as in a Table in Legislative Gothick as it is done by him p. 671. with the addition only of a Finger in the Margent to point to the Words for every one that runs to read them P. D. And must this pass for an Answer to Dr. St.'s Discourse about the sense of the second Commandment I am really ashamed of such trifling in a matter of so great importance I know not whether it were the Legislative Gothick or no or a Finger on the Wall but something or other about that Commandment hath so affrighted you in the Church of Rome that you dare not let it be seen in your Ordinary Books of Devotion As for the cavil about expresly I have answered it already R. P. For his last Chapter T. G. saith there needed no more than to say that the Church of England doth not allow any Worship to be given to the Altar P. D. Is it possible for T. G. to think to fob us off with such answers as these barely to tell his Adversary he might have spared this and the other Discourse R. P. But T. G. saith this is the most material thing in that Chapter P. D. Say you so Was the wise Council of Nice so immaterial a thing that it must now be quite abandoned and no kind of Discharge be so much as offered to be made for it Was there nothing material in what concerns the charge of Contradictions Paradoxes School-disputes c. And all the other Instances waved to come to this of Bowing to the Altar there must be some Mysterie in this and I think I have found it the Patronus bonae Fidei inveighs bitterly against this as worse than Egyptian Idolatry and reproaches Dr. St. upon account of his defending it and T. G. finds it much easier to reproach than to answer R. P. The truth is this Patronus bonae Fidei doth T. G. Knights service For when he hath no mind to appear himself he serves him for a Knight of the Post who runs blindfold upon any thing that may discredit the Church of England two or three such rare men would ease us of a great deal of trouble For T. G. takes between five and six pages together out of him in this place besides what he hath taken up at interest upon other occasions P. D. Is this the Just Discharge to borrow so much out of the Fanatick stock Setting then aside what is brought over of the old Account which had been reckoned for before and how very many material things are never entred which he was accountable for and how much he hath borrowed upon the Bona Fides of the Fanatick Historian all the rest will amount to a very pitiful Discharge But since no better payment can be had let us at least examine this For this Bona Fides is a kind of Republican Publick Faith which no body will trust twice not so much as for Bodkins and Thimbles F. C. Hold Sir You love alwayes to be rubbing upon old Sores have you forgot the Act of Oblivion You know we dare not speak what we think of those times now and is that fair to accuse when we dare not answer Mind your own business defend the Church of England if you can in that Idolatrous practice of bowing to the Altar I alwayes thought what it would come to when Dr. St. went about the charge of Idolatry upon the principles of the Church of England I knew he could never defend himself but upon good Orthodox Fanatick principles as you call them Now Sir you have him at an advantage joyn your force and T. G.'s with that of the Patronus bonae Fidei and if the Geese follow the Fox close you will keep him from ever stirring more P. D. I thank you for your good Will to the Cause and that is all I fear from you you only add to the number and help to preserve the Roman Capitol by
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-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
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.
doth For Dr. St. designed to prove in that place from Tertullian that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God from the testimony of their Consciences and lifting up their hands and eyes to Heaven upon any great occasion and then brings in those words before mentioned which are there produced for no other end but to shew that the same powerful God was owned by the Gentiles and Christians in that famous miracle He did not intend there to prove as T. G. suggests that Jupiter whom they worshipped in the Capitol was this one Supreme Being from the testimony of Tertullian and the Miracle wrought by God himself upon the Heathens supplications to him under the name of Jove And where he did purposely set himself to prove this he there confesses that the miracle was wrought at the prayers of the Christians and that the whole Army made the exclamation Deo Deorum qui solus potens whereby they did in Jovis nomine Deo nostro testimonium reddere saith Tertullian and Dr. St. adds that the Heathens did intend this honour to their own Jove From whence it appears that all the force of the argument from this Testimony lies in this that the Heathens did confess there was one supreme and powerful God whom they called Jove And this I say in Dr. St.'s name is the whole strength and force of his argument and that he never thought of what T. G. imposes upon him viz. that God wrought that miracle upon the supplications of the Heathens to prove that Jove was the true God which was not necessary to his design But I do insist upon it as an invincible proof of that which he intended the acknowledgement of one supreme God whom they called Jove I do yield then that the miracle was wrought by the prayers of the Christians that the Christians did not pray to God under the name of Jove that the Heathens did attribute the honour of the miracle to their Jove that in the titles they gave to him on this occasion they did give testimony to the mighty power of that God whom the Christians worshipped I will not deny that M. Aurelius did write a Letter to the Senate wherein he acknowledged this miracle to be wrought by the Christians although it may be that was not the Letter which is extant in Baronius But after all these concessions I say that Dr. St.'s argument holds good that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God under the name of Jove For what could the Army mean else by that acclamation Deo Deorum qui solus potens From whence it unavoidably follows that the Heathen Army did acknowledge one Supreme and Omnipotent God whom they called Jove And in Antoninus his Column at Rome this God is described under the title of Jupiter Pluvius therefore according to the sense of the Heathen Army this Jupiter was Deus Deorum solus Potens T. G. could not but see that herein lay the strength of Dr. St.'s argument but he dissembles it and makes him to aim at what he never thought of and catching hold of an ambiguous expression he runs away with that and uses him with more severity than ever Dionysius turned Pedant or reforming Stepmother used which are his own expressions upon a far less occasion R. P. But Tertullian distinguishes the true God from him who was worshipped under the name of Jove P. D. I deny not that Tertullian doth distinguish the worship of the true God from the worship of Jove And when the Heathens attributed such miracles to their Jupiter with a design thereby to justifie the Heathen Worship the Christians had great reason to stand upon this distinction and to complain that what the Christians obtained by prayers and fasting they attributed to their Jupiter i. e. what the Christians hoped would convince them of their Idolatry they used for an argument to prove that God was not displeased with it But it doth not follow from any thing Tertullian hath said that he did not suppose the Heathens did not intend to worship the true God under their Jupiter when he confesses the greatest part of them did suppose one Supreme God and that the Christians worshipped the same God whom all men knew by the light of Nature R. P. What say you to Clemens Alexandrinus who affirms the Gods of the Heathens to be Devils and among the rest he reckons up Jupiter himself so far was he from thinking Jupiter to be the true God P. D. Dr. St. had prevented this objection by saying that in that place Clemens speaks of the Poetical Theology and of Jupiter of Creet but withall he shews not only that Clemens doth acknowledge that all mankind had a natural knowledge of the true God but that they meant him under the name of Jupiter and commends the manner of speaking concerning God as grave and decent where the Divine perfections are attributed to Jupiter he quotes a saying of Xenocrates wherein he calls God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Supreme Jove and some others of a like nature Which seem to be as plain evidences as Dr. St. could desire And what answer doth T. G. give to them R. P. He saith it doth not follow from hence that it was the sense of Clemens himself that Jupiter who was worshipped in the Temples was that true God And his meaning was not to assert Jupiter to be that supreme Being but from the Epithets and Titles of Omniscient Omnipotent c. which the Poets and Philosophers attributed unto God under the name of Jupiter to convince them that there was but one supreme Being Maker and Governour of the World P. D. His design then was to convince them of that which he proves they all knew already If they had such a knowledge of God as T. G. grants that Clemens doth prove from their Testimonies either it was the true God they knew or a false God or an Arch-devil If the later they do not reach to what he brings them for which was to prove the inbred notion of one supreme Disposer of things if the former then all those Titles and Epithets did express the true God according to Clemens his own sense of them But doth T. G. think that they gave the Titles and Epithets of Omnipotent Omniscient c. to the Devil and that Clemens believed it at the same time when he proves from hence that all men have the natural knowledge of God If he can think so he must make Clemens a man of much reading but of no judgement But I pray reflect a little T. G. confesses that Clemens saith that those Epithets were attributed to Jupiter with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God then according to T. G. the Devil may very decently and gravely be said to be an omnipotent and omniscient Devil For I pray observe but this one passage and you will find what pitiful shifts T. G. is put to The things which
Idolatry And what saith T. G. to that R. P. Truely he had forgotten to speak to it but a Friend of his putting him in mind of it he hath added something by way of Appendix about it to shew how unnecessary it was to speak to it P. D. All in good time but it was well the Printer informed him of two or three vacant leaves too or else we might have wanted those rare observations But why so unnecessary to answer an argument of that consequence which to my apprehension hath effectually overthrown this hypothesis of T. G. that Idolatry lies in the esteem and worship of many Gods truely and properly so called for if that were the general supposition that Idolaters went upon that there was one Supreme and many inferiour Deities as Dr. St. hath proved of the Arabians Persians Brachmans who are shewed to have no other esteem of the inferiour Deities than you have of your Saints and that they give only a relative worship to them and to their Images and of the very Tartars and West-Indians and Northern Idolaters how then can T. G. hope to make it appear to any man of common sense that the nature of Idolatry lies in the worshipping many independent Gods If T. G. were sent upon a Mission to them I would fain know by what arguments he could convince any of these of Idolatry T. G. charges them with Idolatry for worshipping many Gods truely and properly so called they deny it and say they worship only one Supreme and others in subordination to him what hath T. G. further to say Will he tell them he knows better what they do than they do themselves I say therefore it is impossible upon T. G.'s principles to convince these Heathens of Idolatry But there is another thing I think very material in this Discourse concerning the modern Idolaters which is T. G. insinuates that although some few of the wiser sort of Heathens might understand the difference between the Supreme God and inferiour Deities yet the generality of the People did not and so might easily worship many Gods properly and truly so called whereas by this Discourse it appears that the difference between the supreme and inferiour Deities was a thing known and received among the most rude and barbarous Nations And it is no great civility towards the Greeks and Romans to imagine them to be more sottish Idolaters than the Tartars and West-Indians I will confess freely to you that I think there was not a more absurd and impious Scheme of Divinity extant in the most barbarous parts of the world that are come to our knowledge than the Poetical Theology of the Greeks and Romans if it be understood literally and therefore the common people who had the Poets in mighty esteem lay under great disadvantages but yet the Poetical Fables being rejected by their Laws as well as by their Wise Men and the Poets themselves confessing one Supreme God but above all the natural sense of Conscience did keep up the Notion of one God among the People who was Lord over all insomuch that upon any solemn occasions they made their appeal to him as the Fathers observe Lactantius saith not only the Wise but all sorts of People confessed the unity of God even those who seemed to assert the multiplicity of Gods truely and properly so called for these are his words Quod quia intelligunt isti assertores Deorum ita eos praeesse singulis rebus ac partibus dicunt ut tantum unus sit Rector eximius Jam ergo caeteri non Dij erunt sed satellites ac ministri quos ille unus maximus potens omnium officiis his praefecit ut ipsi ejus imperio ac nutibus serviant Let T. G. construe this to the confusion of his Hypothesis that the Heathen Idolatry lay in the worship of many Gods truely and properly so called when even Lactantius saith the contrary so expresly Those cannot be Gods truely and properly so called who are under the command of another and this is Lactantius his own argument Ergo Dij non sunt quos parere uni maximo Deo necessitas cogit And this truth he saith of the Vnity of God is so plain that no man can be so blind not to discover so clear a light Seneca in his Exhortations quoted by Lactantius calls the inferiour Gods the servants to the Supreme Ministros Regni sui Deos genuit and the difference between them and the holy Angels he places in this that these would not be called Gods nor be worshipped as Gods the former we see S. Augustin makes nothing of so that the true ground why the Heathens attributed Divinity to them was because they gave to them Divine Worship which the Christians utterly refused The same Lactantius saith in general of the Romans that in any great distress they made their application to the supreme God and prayed to him and expected help from him and begg'd relief from others per ejus Divinum atque unicum Numen and these beggars surely were some of the common sort of people from whence it follows that the generality of the Heathen even among the Romans did not esteem and worship many Gods properly so called R. P. But methinks You seem to have forgotten T. G. 's Appendix about the modern Idolatry as well as he had to write about it till he was put in mind by a friend P. D. I am not very apt to believe T. G. could forget so material a part of the Doctours Book but there was some other reason for passing it over which it is not hard to conjecture But I thank you for putting me to ask you why he thought it so unnecessary to speak to it R. P. First because the Doctour reduces their worship to one of these two principles either that God hath committed the Government of the World to inferiour Deities or that God is the soul of the World now T. G. having proved that those who do hold the latter principle are guilty of Idolatry and those who hold the former of the exteriour profession of it in concurring with the Vulgar in the external practice of their Idolatry it would have been but actum agere to repeat the same things over again P. D. This is scarce a tolerable shift For the great force of that discourse lay in two things 1. The almost universal consent of Idolaters that there was one supreme God against T. G.'s hypothesis of many Gods truly and properly so called 2. That all these were charged with Idolatry by the Roman Church and therefore according to the sense of that Idolatry could not lye in worshipping many independent and absolute Deities But the prettiest shift is that he had condemned the Platonists for the exteriour practice of Idolatry in concurring with the Vulgar and therefore he need not speak to whole Nations who agreed in that principle of Worship and yet are
you must own this for a true Christian Principle R. P. But we declare our meaning in those which Dr. St. calls appropriate Acts of Divine worship when we apply them to any creatures to be only to use them as tokens of inferiour respect and Veneration as Invocation Building of Temples and Altars burning of Incense making of Vows c. But that which God hath forbidden is that we shall not use them to any besides himself as tokens of that inward submission of our souls which is proper to him P. D. Did not you say that the Appropriation of these Acts by the Law of Moses being taken away by the ceasing of that Law they are now to be looked on as indifferent Rites and Ceremonies R. P. And what then P. D. Did that Law cease at the coming of Christ that those Acts were to be used only to God as tokens of that inward submission which is proper to him R. P. No that doth never cease P. D. But this you say was the sense in which God did appropriate them to himself and therefore the Appropriation doth still continue R. P. I suppose T. G.'s meaning is that the appropriation before extended to them as tokens of inferiour respect and veneration which Law ceasing it is now lawful to use them in that sense P. D. Then these Acts under the Law were forbidden in that sense whatsoever profession or declaration were made by those that used them As suppose that the Jews had invocated Saints and Angels in their Temple or Synagogues and worshipped Images just as you do and made the same professions of their meanings and intentions as your Church doth this had been Idolatry in them but not in you Is this his meaning R. P. I suppose it must be P. D. Then inferiour Religious worship was once Idolatry but it ceased to be so at the coming of Christ. Is not this a rare invention And by this means Christ destroyed Idolatry not by rooting it out but by making that not to be Idolatry which was so before and so he might take away all other sins by making those breaches of the other nine Commandments not to be sins to Christians which were so to the Jews But we have not only the express words of Christ making all Religious worship of a Creature unlawful against this invention but the Doctrine of the Apostles who charged the Gentiles with Idolatry without regarding this distinction who were not under the Law of Moses and the Consent of the Christian Church which judged this inferiour Religious Worship to be Idolatry still And if this be all you have to say it is impossible to clear your selves from the charge of Idolatry notwithstanding all your meanings and intentions R. P. I have one thing yet more to say viz. that Christ appropriates the Titles of Good Father and Master to God and yet we apply them to men in a different sense and why may we not do the same in equivocal Acts of Worship P. D. Our Saviour's design was to deter men from assuming or affecting such titles of excellency superiority or Authority over others in teaching as seemed to encroach too much on the divine perfections but this holds much more against the pretence of infallibility in any person than for the lawfulness of inferiour Religious worship For Christ never forbids the common use of those titles among men when they have no respect to Divine Matters no more than he doth the Acts of Civil worship in men towards Magistrates or Parents and thus far the parallel is good as to Words and Actions but as Christ doth forbid the affectation of Infallibility though of an inferiour sort under the titles of Rabbi Father and Master so he doth likewise all inferiour sort of Religious worship when he saith Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And therefore the equivocation which lyes in mens power to determine is not that of the degrees of Religious worship but of the acts of Civil and Religious worship But if it be lawful to apply the signification of external Acts of worship to higher or lower degrees why may ye not do the same as to Sacrifice as well as Invocation c. R. P. This is a scruple which hath troubled the Doctours notions from the beginning But T. G. gives two answers to it 1. That Sacrifice in general is both by the custom of the Church and the consent of all mankind as S. Augustine teaches appropriated to signifie the absolute worship due only to God 2. For the particular sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ the nature and dignity thereof requireth that it be offered to God alone P. D. I am sorry to see you dissemble the force of the Doctours argument when you pretend to give an answer to it For he saith that S. Augustine joyns adoration and Sacrifice together as appropriated to signifie the worship peculiar to God How then saith Dr. St. comes S. Augustines Authority to be quitted for the one and so greedily embraced for the other What doth T. G. answer to that R. P. I do not find he takes notice of S. Augustine for any thing more than the consent of mankind about Sacrifice P. D. Was it not wisely done and then to talk a great deal about the remainder of the Doctours Discourse whether sacrifice of it self doth signifie absolute worship more than adoration without taking notice that S. Augustine joyned them together though the Church of Rome separates them And T. G. gives no manner of reason why the antecedent consent of mankind as to one of these should not prevail in your Church as well as in the other which is the main ground according to T. G. why sacrifice ought still to be appropriated to the peculiar Worship of God R. P. What advantage doth the Doctor get by insisting so much on that question why Sacrifice may not be offered to Creatures as well as other external Acts of Worship for he can only infer from thence that in such case the Church of Rome might possibly have no external act of Worship appropriated to God if she have none but Sacrifice but whilest she hath no such custom de facto as offering Sacrifice to Saints and Images 't is manifest he cannot accuse them in that point of having no external Act of Worship proper to God or of giving it to any besides him P. D. It was to very good purpose that he insisted on that question on these accounts 1. Because either it is in the power of the Church to appoint appropriate Acts of Divine Worship or it is not If it be in the Churches Power then sacrifice may be as lawfully offered to the B. Virgin if the Church think fit as prayers and invocations notwithstanding the general consent of mankind in appropriating Sacrifice to God If not then there is some antecedent reason why some external Acts of Worship are