charged with Idolatry If I were given to quoting ends of Verses I would cry risum teneatis amici R. P. Secondly the force of the Parallel lies in Citations P. D And what then ought he not to examine and disprove them R. P. No such matter he hath found out a far better away than that he proves that Dr. St. hath forfeited all right of being believed in things of that kind P. D. Commend me to T. G. for shifting This is really the notablest trick I ever met with He finds abundance of Authors quoted both new and old to prove something he doth not like What should he do Must he search and examine them one by one no that is intolerable and how if they prove true Therefore the only way is to say he hath lost all credit in his citations Which is as much as to say he deserves to stand in the Pillory for suborning Witnesses and why should he be credited in any thing he saith But this is a very high accusation and T. G. in common justice is bound to prove it or else he deserves the same infamy himself R. P. Yes he proves it by his notorious misrepresenting and corrupting the Fathers P. D. I think I have sufficiently cleared the Doctours integrity and faithfulness therein but I am sure you cannot so well clear T. G. from bearing false Witness against his Brother R. P. But he gives one instance in this case viz. a testimony of Trigautius wherein he translates certum Triadis modum inducit quo tres Deos in unum deinde Numen coalescere fabulatur They worship the Trinity after a certain manner with an Image having three heads and one Body T. G. saith an ordinary Reader will here find neither Head nor Foot P. D. That is very strange when there are three But must T. G.'s quibble destroy all Dr. St.'s credit Any one that reads Trigautius will find he exactly expressed his sense but our Dionysius will make him construe word for word or else he must be set in the Pillory for suborning Testimonies Methinks this savours a little too much of Dionysius indeed R. P. But he charges him more with another Testimony of Trigautius where he leaves out the Emphatical words which shew the difference between the Worship which the Chineses give to Confutius and to the Tutelar Spirits For first he omits the Ceremony of the Magistrates taking the Oath before the Tutelar spirits then he leaves out what Trigautius affirms that the worship was not the same 3. He omits nam and Divinam which shew the reason of the difference to be the Divine Power which they believed to be in the Tutelar Spirits P. D. And what if T. G. be mistaken as to every one of these shall we not applaud him for a man of wonderful integrity and most commendable ingenuity 1. Dr. St. doth not omit the Ceremony of the Magistrates taking their oath to or before these Tutelar Spirits for he saith expresly that the Mandarines are to swear in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirit when they enter into their office and he particularly insists upon it as one of the instances of the allowances the Jesuites gave to their Converts to go and perform all external Acts of adoration in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirits provided they directed all those Acts to a Crucifix which they held in their hands or conveyed secretly among the flowers of the Altar 2. He distinguishes the Worship of Confutius from that of the Tutelar Spirits For he saith in that very place that they make no prayers to him neither seek nor hope for any thing from him but that they acknowledge the Tutelar Spirits to have power to reward and punish Is not this enough to shew the difference of their Worship to any men of common sense 3. Is not a Power to reward and punish in the Tutelar Spirits set down by Dr. St. out of Trigautius and to what end should he then leave out nam and Divinam but that he thought them needless when the sense was expressed But the birchen Scepter would be of little use unless Dionysius shewed his Authority upon such occasions Judge you now whether upon the account of such pitiful cavils Dr. St. hath forfeited his right of being believed in his Citations R. P. T. G. gives a third reason viz. because it appears from his own Citations that these modern Idolaters either worshipped a false God for the true one or false Gods together with the true one if they worshipped him at all P. D. This can be no reason at all for Dr. St.'s design was to shew that inferiour Deities were false Gods and that it was Idolatry to give Divine Worship to Creatures although men did acknowledge one supreme God But unless T. G. can prove these false Gods to have been Gods truly and properly so called i. e. absolute and independent Deities his Hypothesis is utterly overthrown by this discourse of Dr. St. which was the true reason he had no mind to meddle with it R. P. Lastly It is not credible he saith that the Cardinals de propaganda Fide with the full consent of the Pope should make such Decrees about Idolatrous Acts as should condemn the giving external Acts of Worship to Saints and Images as Idolatrous P. D. Dr. St. punctually produced the resolution made by the Cardinals about the Worship of Confutius and the performance of external Acts of Idolatry in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirits by the Jesuits Converts in China He names the Date the Place of Printing it and saith the Copy he had seen was attested by a publick Notary nay he directs T. G. where he might see not only the Decree but an explication of it And after all is not this Credible R. P. Dr. St. sets down the resolutions and doth not let us know what the Quaeres were P. D. He thought those might be easily understood by the Case viz. about performing the same external Acts of Worship with Idolaters but with a different intention i. e. the Mandarins were permitted by the Jesuites to go into the Temple of Tutelar Spirits and to use all the external Acts of adoration which others used provided they directed them to the Crucifix and not to the Idol which the Cardinals declare to be utterly unlawful notwithstanding this Intention From whence Dr. St. observed 1. That they called the Worship of the Tutelar Spirits Idolatry although they looked on them only as inferiour Deities and consequently Idolatry doth not consist in worshipping many absolute and independent Gods or truly and properly so called 2. That inferiour Worship on the account of created excellency is unlawful when it appears to be Religious This he proved from their condemning the Worship of Confutius which the Jesuits allowed And T. G. is so much mistaken in thinking that Dr. St. had any design to corrupt the Testimony of Trigautius by confounding the Worship of Confutius and the Tutelar Spirits that
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
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.