as the younger sister to the Whore of Babylon never a barrel the better herring only we can have liberty of Conscience with one and not with the other It is all one to me to bow to an Image and to bow to the Altar to worship Images and to kneel at the Sacrament P. D. I am in hopes you are now coming to the point I pray keep there without any farther rambling F. C. Call you this rambling You know Amesius saith even in controverted points much respect ought to be had to the experience of Gods people I tell you I have found it thus with me and you ought rather to hear me teach you than dispute with me P. D. All this shall not serve I must have your arguments since you urge me thus F. C. Why look ye now d' ye see how petulant and malapert these Divines of the Church of England are But since nothing will satisfie you but arguing I have an argument ready for you will do your business To Worship the Bread is Idolatry But to kneel at the Sacrament is to Worship the Bread Ergo. P. D. I am glad to find you come to any kind of Reasoning I deny that in kneeling at the Sacrament we do worship the Bread for our Church expresly declares the contrary in this Rubrick F. C. What do I care for your Church or her Rubricks I say you do worship the Bread and prove it too That which you kneel before and look towards when you worship you do give the worship to But you kneel before and look towards the bread when you worship Ergo. P. D. I begin to be afraid of you now for you do not only prove by this argument kneeling at the Sacrament but reading the Common Prayer to be Idolatry For if that which we kneel before and look towards when we worship must be the object of our worship it is plain we must indeed make an Idol of the Common Prayer for every time we read it we kneel before it and looks towards it when we worship F. C. Look you to that I alwayes took the Common Prayer for an Idol but I did not think I had proved it now P. D. I shall endeavour to undeceive you in this matter Since we are not pure spirits but must worship God with our bodies by kneeling and looking towards something in our Acts of Worship we must not determine that to be the object of our Worship which our bodies are bended towards or we look upon in our worship unless there be some other reason for it for then Idolatry would be necessary and unavoidable For we cannot kneel with our eyes open but we must look upon some creature which according to your way of arguing must be the object of our Worship I pray Sir without being angry give me leave to ask you whether a man kneeling in the Fields and praying with his eyes lifted up to Heaven be an Idolater or not F. C. I think not P. D. Yet he kneels towards some creature and looks upon some creature when he worships therefore you must prove by some other way that we do make the bread the Object of our Worship But this we utterly deny and say the doing it is Idolatry and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And will you make us worship it whether we will or no F. C. But you use the same postures which the Papists do and yet you charge them with Idolatry P. D. Because this is a thing many of you stumble at I will make the difference of our case and theirs plain to you In all moral Acts we are to have a great great regard to their circumstances from whence they take a different denomination He that kills a man by accident and he that kills a man out of malice do the very same thing as to the substance of the Act yet no man will say it is the same act upon a moral consideration We kneel and the Papists kneel but we declare when we kneel we intend no adoration to the Elements but the Papists cannot deny that they do give proper adoration to that which is before them which we say is bread and they say the Body of Christ under the species of bread and yet not meerly to the invisible Body of Christ but taking the species of bread as united to that Body of Christ and so directing their worship to these two together as the proper objects of divine adoration And to make this evident to you their adoration is performed at the Elevation of the Host and at the carrying it about in processions and at the exposing it on their Altars and not meerly in the participation of it Whence it is observable that the Church of Rome doth not strictly require kneeling at the participation which it would do if it looked on the kneeling at receiving as a proper Act of Adoration The Rubricks of the Mass do not that I can find require the Priest to kneel in the Act of receiving and the Pope when he celebrates receives sitting Espencaeus saith in the Church of Lions many of the People did not receive kneeling and upon complaint made about it they were by the advice of two Cardinals left to their old custome And I wonder your Brethren have not taken notice of the difference of kneeling at the elevation of the Host and in the Act of receiving it the one was required by the Constitution of Honorius and was intended for an act of adoration to the Host the other was derived from the ancient Church which although it did not alwayes use the same posture of adoration that we do yet it is sufficient for our purpose if they received the Sacrament in the same posture in which they worshipped God And this I could easily prove if this were a place or season for it F. C. Well Sir I do not love disputing I pray go on with your former Adversary R. P. Sir I thank you for the diversion you have given us if you please I will now return to the place where we left I was about to tell you the Answer T. G. gives to Dr. St.'s third Argument from the Rubrick at the end of the Communion The words are It is here declared that by kneeling no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians and the natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one About which Dr. St. charges T. G. first with Ignorance in saying it was not yet above a douzen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book whereas he might have
be given to God How else can the giving it to a Creature make it Idolatry F. C. I do not well understand you but as far as I can guess you speak of bodily worship but alas we know that God must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth P. D. Who denies that But observe what follows then no man is guilty of Idolatry that doth not worship an Image in Spirit and in Truth but the Law forbids bowing down to them and worshipping of them do you think that bowing down is meant of the Mind or of the Body F. C. What is it you would have by all these Questions P. D. No more but this that it is lawful to give external adoration to the Divine Majesty F. C. And what then P. D. Is it lawful to give God that worship which it is lawful to give absolutely in a place set apart for his Worship F. C. That is a strange question indeed P. D. See now what you have brought your self to to acknowledge that to be lawful which you so rashly called Idolatry F. C. What is that P. D. Bowing in the Church in testimony of our adoration of the Divine Majesty F. C. That is not it but it is bowing to the Altar P. D. Who knows best Those that made the Canon or you They declare they meant nothing else than what I have said and deny any Religious Worship to be given to the Altar And would not you think it hard for us to accuse you for worshipping your Hats in prayer because you put them before your faces when you pray as you do us for worshipping the Altar because we bow towards it F. C. But you look towards the Altar when you bow P. D. And are not your eyes upon your Hats when you pray And is not prayer a part of Gods immediate Worship F. C. But we call it bowing to the Altar P. D. We may as well call yours praying to the Hat F. C. Some do assign the reason of their worship from the Communion Table and we never do from our Hats P. D. They do not assign the reason of their worship but the reason of that circumstance of it why that way rather than another which they parallel with the Jews worshipping of God towards the Ark and the Cherubims which yet were no objects of Divine Worship either by Gods appointment or the Jewish practice or in the opinion of some of the most learned Divines even of the Roman Church who make the most advantage they can of it as Dr. St. hath at large proved in his Answer to T. G. and I do not hear of any Reply T. G. hath made to it R. P. But the Patronus bonae Fidei saith the Papists have more reason to worship Christ on the supposition of Transubstantiation than you have to worship P. D. What Speak out The Altar we deny it to be any Object of Worship to us If he means than to worship God with external adoration towards the Altar let him do that which he never yet did prove what he saith viz. that there is more reason to worship Christ under the bread on supposition of transubstantiation than for our giving external adoration to the Divine Majesty For to give this adoration to God needs no other supposition but of his infinite Majesty and Omnipresence but to worship Christ on the Altar under the species of Bread doth not only suppose the truth of one of the most absurd suppositions in the world that the substance of the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Body of Christ is there invisibly present under the species of Bread but it supposes likewise these things 1. That the Body of Christ as united with the species of Bread is a proper object of Divine Adoration i. e. that these two do make up one entire object of Divine Worship and then it follows that the sacramental species are a partial object of Divine Adoration for whatever goes to make up an object entire must have share with it which is quite another thing from an accidental connexion as of a Princes Robes together with his Person for no man ever said the Princes Garments made up with his Person an Object fit to be kneeled to in token of Subjection But here is an union supposed between Christs Body and the Accidents and such an union by vertue whereof Divine Worship is directed to the species of Bread and consequentially to the Body of Christ as united thereto 2. It supposeth that the Body of Christ being thus united with the species of bread may receive all that worship which is due to God alone Which is not very easie to prove Because it doth not follow that where-ever a Body is there those things must be which do not result by necessary concomitancy from the being of a Body For since it doth not follow by vertue of the Hypostatical union that where-ever the Divinity is the humane nature of Christ must be there also how doth it necessarily follow that where-ever the Body of Christ is the Divinity is so present as to make that Body become an Object of Divine Adoration We say the Foot is united to the Soul as well as the Head but do we therefore say that whatever is in the Soul is equally present in the Foot as in the Head as that the Foot reasons considers directs as the Head doth It is not therefore bare union but the manner of Presence which doth make an Object fit for adoration That Presence ought to be if not glorious and becoming the Divine Majesty in that respect yet so well attested as the Divinity of Christ was in his humane nature by the voice of Angels by Testimony of God himself from Heaven by miracles by Prophecies c. But here is nothing like this no evidence being given of the Divine Presence under the Elements neither from sense nor reason nor Scripture For the Scripture is only pretended to speak of the Body of Christ and not of his Divinity R. P. But by vertue of the hypostatical union where-ever the Body of Christ is his Divine Nature must be present too P. D. That I know very well is commonly said by you but I pray consider these two things 1. If the Body of Christ may be present by reproduction of the same Body as some of your greatest and latest Divines have asserted then there is no such necessity of concomitancy of the Divinity of Christ because they say God may reproduce the same body without all the accidents of it and consequently without the Hypostatical Vnion 2. By the same way of Concomitancy they may hold the Persons of the Father and Holy Ghost to be under the species and to be there worshipped For where the Body of Christ is there the soul is where Soul and Body is there the Divinity is where the Divinity is there the Person of the Son is and where the Person of the Son is there the
peculiar to the Divine Nature in regard of his Soveraignty over us and the infinite distance between him and his Creatures 3. That the giving this solemn worship which is due to God to any Creature is the invading the Rights of his Soveraignty Thence he shews from Aquinas that worship is not given to God because he needs it but that the belief of one God may hereby be confirmed in us by external and sensible Acts which cannot be done unless there be some peculiar Acts of his Worship And external worship is a profession of internal acts being expressive of our minds as well as words Thence he determines that Idolatry is a sin of the highest nature because it invades Gods peculiar Rights and implyes blasphemy in it because it takes away from God the peculiarity of his dominion Are not these arguments drawn from the nature of the thing and not meerly from a positive Law 2. Notwithstanding these dictates of natural Reason concerning the worship of God yet he supposes mankind to have been so corrupted as to have lost the sense of the sinfulness of giving divine worship to creatures Which he saith they did chiefly on a threefold supposition 1. That God committed the Government of the world under him to some inferiour Deities Or 2. That God was the soul of the world and therefore the worship given to the parts of it did redound to him Or 3. That external adoration was below him and that the service due to God was that of our minds and the other might be given to Creatures 3. That God saw it necessary to revive the peculiarity of his worship by his Law given in the Decalogue which although given to the Jews was of an eternal and immutable nature being not built on any reason peculiar to them but common to all mankind and on this account the Christian Church did look on the same Law as obliging all Christians as the Doctour hath proved in several places before cited 4. That when the Apostles went abroad to reclaim the world from Idolatry they made use of no other notion of it than what was received among the Jews and by the Reasons on which the Law of God was founded they convinced the world of that sin of Idolatry which by the corruption of mankind and the custom of the world they had lost the sense of And this was plainly the meaning of Dr. St.'s words to any unprejudiced mind as appears by laying these things together which are all contained in the same discourse If we say the Gentiles had lost the sense of other sins as it is evident they had and the Apostles made use of the Law of God to convince them doth it hence follow that the sinfulness of those things did barely depend upon a positive Law And therefore the notion of Idolatry may be said to be new not as though it were not against the principles of Natural Religion but because they had lost the sense of them so the Law of Moses was a new Law though it revived the Law of Nature in its moral precepts the doctrine of Christ was a new doctrine to the world although most agreeable to the principles of natural reason 2. The sinfulness of Idolatry according to natural Religion consists in these things 1. In taking away the due sense of the Distance between God and his Creatures which is a violation of the Rights of his Soveraignty and consequently it is crimen laesae Majestatis Divinae or Treason against the Divine Majesty 2. In neglecting to give God the worship which was proper to him And this was the consequent of Idolatry and not as though the Nature of Idolatry did lye barely in not giving to God the worship due to him as T. G. seems to suggest but when men did accustome themselves to the worship of Idols they grew so fond of their own inventions that they had five Ave Maries for one Pater Noster and so the worship of God came to be almost lost in the croud of Deities which they joyned with him 3. In worshipping bad Spirits instead of good ones which craftily insinuated themselves among the Idolaters under the pretence of Inferiour Deities For so the people still believed them to be good Spirits and their learned men defied all those who said they worshipped any other as Dr. St. hath shewed yet the Christians proved they were evil because they received that worship from them which the good ones would not do 4. In disparaging the Divine Nature by making Images to represent him which suggested mean thoughts of God to their minds lessening the apprehensions of the Greatness of his Majesty and hoping to please God by worshipping such representations of him Which he thought so dishonourable to himself that he forbids it by a severe Law and punished the transgressours of it and from hence the Christian Church hath accounted the same thing unlawful to them because so dishonourable to God 5. In taking away that dependence upon God which he expects from his Creatures For when they suppose that God hath committed the care of these things to any inferiour beings they are apt to make their addresses to them more frequently because of a vicinity of Nature to them and to depend upon them for help in time of need which takes off that entire trust in God which is most agreeable to his Wisdom Goodness and Providence 6. In giving divine worship to vile and wicked men instead of God This was an aggravation of Idolatry and increased the sinfulness of it although the nature of Idolatry doth not lye in giving divine worship to bad men but to any Creatures And in this particular lay the abominable sinfulness of the Poetical Idolatry among the Greeks and Romans which was in this respect worse than of the most barbarous Nations we ever read of 7. The more vile the practices the more mean the submissions the more gross the errours of Idolaters were the greater was the sinfulness of Idolatry Hence the filthy and obscene Actions of the Eastern Greek and Roman Idolatries the mean submissions and the gross errours of the Egyptian Idolatries heightned the sinfulness of them These are the main things wherein the sinfulness of Idolatry did consist abstractly from any positive Law You see how freely I give them to you upon such an invitation and much good may they do you If Dr. St. had thought T. G. had desired any such thing from him I do believe he would have added not only a seventh but an eighth Chapter for his sake on such a subject as this which it is so easie to inlarge upon But I stop for fear T. G. should think I am only patching up a Sermon out of Note-books yet I think I have not taken leave of my Text. R. P. Did you ever hear of the speaking Trumpet P. D. What hath the speaking Trumpet to do with Idolatry I am afraid I waked you out of some
that the Heathens offered to Devils and not to God and will you make S. Paul to contradict himself P. D. S. Paul doth not there speak of their intention and design for they professed to worship the true God and good spirits as inferiour Deities but what their worship was in Gods account which being so abominably corrupted with Idolatry and Superstition was so far from being pleasing to God that it could be acceptable to none but impure spirits From whence you may do well to observe that Worship is not terminated according to the iâ—â—ention of the persons but according to the nature and design of the Worship For the Heathens when they were urged did stifly maintain that the spirits they worshipped were good in themselves and kind to us and utterly denyed that they worshipped any other as Dr. St. hath shewed but notwithstanding this S. Paul doth charge them with the worshipping of Devils and not of God And the main argument the Fathers had to prove them to be evil spirits was because they received such worship from men which good Spirits would never have done This observation is of necessary use for understanding both Scripture and Fathers when they charge the Heathen Idolaters with worshipping Devils and not God as will appear by our following discourse This place doth not therefore prove that the Gentiles did not intend to worship the true God under the title of Jupiter O. M. but that Idolatrous worship doth not tend to the honour of God but to the service of the Devil R. P. Do not you remember when at Lystra the Priest of Jupiter would have offered Sacrifice to S. Paul as Mercury and to Barnabas as Jove in whose shapes they supposed those Gods to have appeared S. Paul not only forbad them to do it but told them their design was to convert them from those vain things to the living God and can you now think that S. Paul meant Jupiter by this living God when he taught them to convert themselves from those vain things their false Gods to the living God i. e. to Jupiter Was this his way to perswade the men of Lystra to leave the worship of their Gods to tell them that he came to teach them to worship Jupiter P. D. Is there no difference between these two Questions whether the true God might not be worshipped among the Heathens under the title of Jupiter O. M. and whether Jupiter of Creet as worshipped by them was not a false God This later Dr. St. never denyed and the former was all he pleaded for as pertinent to his purpose When they did make such a description of him as to his Power and Goodness as could not agree to such a wretch as the Cretan Jupiter was described by the Poets when they rejected the Poetical Fables and declared as plainly as men could do that they understood the supreme Governour of the World as Dr. St. hath at large shewed the question is whether under the name of Jove they meant the true God or not But doth he ever so much as intimate that Jupiter of Creet was not a false God or that S. Paul and the Apostles did not go about to convert mankind from the vanities of Idol-worship in the sacrifices they made to this Jupiter and Mercury as well as any other of their inferiour Deities To make this matter more clear which concerns the worship of Jupiter among the Heathens we are to observe 1. That the name was more ancient in Greece for an object of Divine Worship than Jupiter of Creet If this can be made out then although this name might be applyed to a particular person as it was usual in the Eastern parts to call their Princes by the name of their Gods yet originally it belonged to the Deity and consequently might still be properly attributed to him and under that name they might well understand the Supreme God For the proof of this I make use of an observation of Pausanias and of others from him viz. that Cecrops was the first who called the supreme God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jove Eusebius hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic primus omnium Jovem appellavit saith Isidore It is well known that Cecrops came out of Egypt from whence Herodotus observes the Greeks took the names of their Gods Cecrops lived in the time of Moses and before the flood of Deucalion saith Varro it happened in his time say Eusebius and S. Hierome in which great part of Thessaly and Greece were overwhelmed But Jupiter of Creet by whom Europa the daughter of Agenor was taken was the fifth in descent from Deucalion according to Diodorus being the son of Tectamus the son of Dorus the son of Hellen the son of Deucalion His proper name Diodorus saith was Asterius whom Eusebius follows S. Augustin calls him Zanthus and Strabo Zathus whose son Jon carryed the Colonies of Greeks into the twelve Cities of Asia from him called Jonia From hence it appears that the name of Jupiter did not properly belong to him of Creet but was assumed by him when he affected divine honours 2. This Jupiter of Creet did obtain Divine honour under that name among the rude and barbarous Greeks And this was the great discovery made by Euhemerus from the inscription in the Temple of Jupiter Triphylius in Greece from whence it appeared that this King of Creet was a very busie and active Prince having great command both at Sea and Land and was very successful in reducing the barbarous people under Laws and Government and in many useful inventions for the benefit of humane Life which made the people after his death in Creet bestow the greatest Divine honours upon him and worship him under the most sacred name For it had been a custome long before among the Greeks to Deifie the most useful men as S. Augustine observes of Phegous the Brother of Phoroneus of Apis King of the Argives who dyed in Egypt of Argus who had a Temple and Sacrifices allotted to him of Phorbas Jasus Sthenelus who were all Princes among the old Greeks And therefore it was no wonder such people should give Divine Worship to this Prince who had brought them into so much order in comparison of what they were in before From hence we find him not only worshipped in Creet where he had several titles from the places where his Temples stood as Idaeus Dictaeus Arbius Asius Temillius and Scyllius c. but in Greece as Ithometes Atabyrius Triphylius Olympius Cithaeronius c. and whereever the Colonies of Greeks in Asia were as at Tarsus S. Paul's own Countrey and he was called Sardessius from a City of Lycia Chrysosoreus from a place in Caria Tarantaeus from a City in Bithynia Dolichaeus from a City in Comagene Abretanus from a place in Mysia and Asbameus from a Fountain in Cappadocia Is this now any such mighty argument to prove that Jupiter could not be
the Poets attribute to Jupiter in express terms Clemens saith are spoken with great decorum of God and at the same time he grants that they meant God by their Jupiter what then follows but that although they used the name Jupiter yet under that name they spake those thinks of God which were very agreeable to him No saith T. G. this is not his meaning but that they spake those things concerning their Jupiter which being applied to the true God would be spoken with great gravity and decency Which in plain terms is that they attributed the perfections of God to the Arch-devil which was very ill done of them one would think and horrible blasphemy but however saith T. G. these things may be said to be spoken with great gravity and decency concerning God because if you take them from the Devil and apply them to God they are decent expressions Let us suppose James Naylor riding through the streets of Bristol assuming to himself the title of the Son of God and some of his followers crying Hosanna to the Son of David would T. G. say this were spoken with decency aâ—d gravity because it would be so if it were rightly applied to his Son Christ Jesus T. G. doth not seem here to consider wherein the decency of speech lies for there is the greatest indecency nay blasphemy in the misapplication of the best titles and most glorious attributes And were there no other reason to convince me of the sense of the Fathers in this matter this alone were sufficient that if T. G.'s hypothesis were true all those great things which the Heathens spake of their Jupiter were most abominable blasphemies for the Divine Perfections were attributed to the chief of Devils And if to attribute the miraculous works of God to the Devil be the sin against the Holy Ghost what then is it to give to the Devil all the perfections of God himself And yet if T. G. say true the Fathers must believe that the most learned and wise of the Heathens did so when they spake of the Wisdom and Power and Goodness of their supreme Jupiter and if they did believe they were guilty of such horrible blasphemy would they so often quote approve extol these sayings as they do Would they not rather have reproved censured condemned them for them as the most intolerable reproaches of the Divine Nature Would they have born such things in Plato Euripides or any other Philosopher or Poet For to call a Stone a Stock a dead Man a God to attribute life sense understanding to meer matter were tolerable blasphemies in comparison with making the Devil to be the supreme Governour of the world to be One and All to be infinite Wisdom as well as Power and yet all these must be thus given to the Devil by the wisest Poets and Philosophers which the Heathens ever had Nay farther their best and most understanding men who are most commended by the Fathers themselves must be the greatest blasphemers of all others and be thought so by the Fathers at the same time when they magnifie their sayings for the Wisdom Gravity and Decency contained in them This is so gross so wild so absurd an imagination as could hardly enter into any mans head who had any manner of esteem for the Fathers And I would advise T. G. rather to let the Fathers quite alone than to fix such absurdities upon them R. P. Methinks you are grown very warm of a sudden but I have another Father to cool you and he is Minucius Felix P. D. He is but a Paterculus a very diminutive Father as T. G. speaks however I hope he is able to speak for himself R. P. He saith the impure Spirits lurking in the consecrated statues gained to themselves the Authority and Esteem of a Deity that was there present P. D. And what then How often must you be told that the question is not whether the Devils were not assisting in the practice of Idolatry which Dr. St. never questioned either by presence in consecrated Images or by assuming divine honours under the names of Deified men but this doth not come up to the question in hand which is whethers the Fathers did not believe they did intend to worship the supreme God under the name and Titles of Jupiter O. M. I will make this plain to you that if possible you may understand the difference of these questions You know what boasts are made in your Church of the Miracles wrought by our Lady of such and such a place as of Mointague Hall Loretto c. what do you mean by this but that such Images which are there of her did effect them not by the power of the Wood or Stone but of some spiritual power which was present in or about them suppose now a person who hath heard of the coming of Satan with signs and lying wonders should believe that the evil spirits did endeavour to retrieve Idolatry in the Christian World after the way by which they advanced it in the Heathen World and so concludes that they work these pretended miracles might not such a one say that impure spirits lurk in your consecrated Images and there receive Divine Worship under the names of Saints and Angels and yet at the same time believe that you worship one supreme God R. P. But here the case is different for Minucius saith that Saturn and Serapis and Jupiter mark that confess themselves to be Devils P. D. Two wayes Jupiter might be a Devil and yet not prejudice Dr. St.'s assertion 1. As he assumed the honours given to the Poetical Jupiter who was really a Prince of Creet but the Poets by attributing to him the villanies of many others as to the ravishing of women c. had made him one of the greatest monsters of Wickedness that ever was and therefore it was no wonder the Devil should be worshipped under his name not intentionally but terminatively in as much as all this worship ended in the service of the Devil who was alwayes very active to subdue the minds of men to the Folly and Wickedness of Idolatry 2. As he was busie about consecrated Images even to the supreme Jupiter Thus although the Greeks and Romans might set up Images with Scepters and Globes and Thunderbolts in their hands on purpose to declare that they intended to worship the supreme God by them yet this way of worship being so disagreeable to the Divine Nature and Perfections God might justly suffer the impure Spirits to be active in those very Images which were consecrated to himself and they might by this means run away with that honour which they intended to give to the Divine Majesty But the Question still remains whether notwithstanding all this the Heathens did not design to worship the supreme God under the name of Jove and nothing of this nature doth shew that the Fathers believed the contrary and as to Minucius Felix Dr. St. had produced a material passage out
Elements or whatsoever creature it be to give that worship to it which is due only to God is to make other Gods besides him and this I thought had been agreed on all sides R. P. If they give Divine Worship to any one of these as an absolute Deity as T. G. well observes and not if they refer the worship they give to them to the true God P. D. What means the giving divine worship as to an absolute Deity Is it to suppose that which they worship to be truly and properly God as T. G. saith That is to suppose it not to be a Creature And upon this ground those who supposed the Spirits or Stars or Elements to be Creatures could not be guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of them and so the greatest part of the Heathen World will be excused from it Or is it to give divine worship to the Creatures without any respect to God the Maker of the World and of all things in it But then either they did at that time believe him to be the Maker of those Beings or they did not if they did either they worshipped them as created or as uncreated beings if as created beings how could they wholly pass by the Creator if as uncreated how could they at the same time believe them to be created by him R. P. T. G. was aware of this for he puts the question concerning the Heathens how those who acknowledged one Supreme Being could think any others to be truely and properly Gods besides him And he resolves it thus that the generality of the Heathens had no clear and distinct notion of one Supreme Being but only the Wiser Philosophers P. D. By this answer none but the dull and stupid vulgar could be guilty of Idolatry such who believed if any did there were no other Gods besides their Images or if there were they never considered more than that they were all called Gods alike and they knew no distinction between one Chief and the rest but if they happened to suppose one Supreme and the others made by him as I have shewed from Tertullian they generally did then they are free from Idolatry in all acts of worship performed with that opinion For if Idolatry doth suppose a belief of more Gods than one truly and properly so called then all those who did own and acknowledge one first cause from whence all other beings were derived could not be guilty of it and consequently all those who had the true knowledge of God could not commit Idolatry because they could not at the same time believe but one true God and many true Gods And if the true notion of Idolary doth consist in believing and worshipping many Gods truely and properly so called then let us see how many of the Heathens will stand clear from the guilt of it 1. All those who worshipped Deified men and believed them to be such although they gave them the worship proper to true Gods For as long as they did not think them to be such it could not be real Idolatry and so Cicero Varro and Seneca and the rest of the Wise Statesmen will be excused 2. All those who believed Inferiour Gods having their first being from one Supreme as the ancient Poets Platonists and many others 3. All those who worshipped the parts of the World with respect to one God as the Stoicks and others 4. All those who opposed Christianity upon this ground that although there were but one Supreme God yet others might receive divine worship together with him and upon this principle the most bitter enemies of Christianity disputed viz. Celsus Porphyrius Hierocles Julian Maximus Symmachus and others And to own it not to be Idolatry to give divine worship to created beings supposing them not to be owned to be truely and properly Gods is in plain terms to give up the Cause of Christianity against Heathen Idolatry And this I insist upon as the main argument in this matter and desire you or T. G. or any one else to answer it Dr. St. hath made it evident from the Testimonies of Celsus Julian and the modern Platonists that the Dispute about Idolatry between them and the Christians was not whether there were only one God truely and properly so called and others only by participation from him for this they yielded but the question was whether upon that supposition that they were inferiour and subservient Gods they might not have divine worship given to them in a degree suitable to their excellencies And upon this point the hinge of the Controversie turned Either the Christians were right in condemning such Worship for Idolatry or not If not the Cause of Christianity is given up to Celsus and Julian if they were in the right then Idolatry doth not lie in believing and worshipping many Gods properly and truely so called but in giving divine worship to any Creature whatsoever And why did not T. G. answer to this which was the most material point of all others but run out into long discourses of the Ignorance of the vulgar Heathen which no man doubts any more than the Ignorance of vulgar Papists although I hope not to the same degree concerning the true God And yet we could tell him of another sort of Statesmen who love to keep the People in Ignorance lest they should by the help of the Scriptures see too far into these matters And some of your own Church have told us that they could find no difference between the common peoples opinion of Saints and what the Heathens had of their Gods And thus the parallel holds good still But the common people though more gross in their apprehensions and do commit greater follies in their practices may yet be safer in their Ignorance than those who ought to inform them better But when we enquire what is lawful we must not run to the practices or opinions of the vulgar as T. G. doth here but to the state of the case as it was managed by those who best understood it And they did not put it upon that issue whether it were lawful to worship many independent Deities but whether it were lawful to give Divine worship to any created beings on the account of that power and authority which God had put into their hands And if this were not Idolatry Celsus and Julian thought Heathenism justified and the doctrine of Christianity overthrown and so did Origen S. Cyril and S. Augustin too 5. The modern Idolaters will be excused too if the nature of Idolatry doth consist in a multitude of independent Deities or of Gods truely and properly so called For Dr. St. hath proved abundantly that the Eastern Western Southern and Northern Nations which are or have been charged with Idolatry by the Roman Church do own one Supreme God and others as inferiour Deities And this he chiefly proves from the Testimonies of those of the Roman Church who have been sent as Missioners to convert them from their
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
suspected for a Puritan at that time when many of the greatest Anti-Puritans were zealous defenders of those opinions In all Q. Elizabeth's time and after the name of Puritans signified the opposers of our Government and the Service and Orders of our Church and some have undertaken to name the Person who first applyed this name to the asserters of these doctrinal points towards the latter end of K. James This is certain which is most material to our purpose that when K. Charles I. published his Declaration to prevent unnecessary Disputations about these points he saith that they did all agree in the true usual literal meaning of the said Articles of our Church and that even in those curious points in which the present differences lye men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them which is an argument again none of them intend any desertion of the Articles established And which is a certain argument that even at that time no man was charged with disaffection to the Church of England meerly on the account of these doctrinal points R. P. But what was it which Archbishop Whitgift saith for T. G. saith even that will involve him more in the suspicion of Puritanism P. D. His words are these I do as much mislike the distinction of the Papists and the intent of it as any man doth neither do I go about to excuse them from wicked and without repentance and Gods singular mercy damnable Idolatry This is enough to Dr. St.'s purpose and afterwards he saith he placeth the Papists among wicked and damnable Idolaters Is not this home do you think R. P. But doth not he say that one kind of Idolatry is when the true God is worshipped by other means and wayes than he hath prescribed or would be Worshipped and according to Dr. St. this is the Fundamental principle of those who separate from the Church of England that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what he hath expresly commanded therefore according to Dr. St. himself Archbishop Whitgift was a Puritan P. D. It is notably argued I confess and thence it follows if Archbishop Whitgift had understood the force of his own principle he must have separated from the Church of England But is it not plain to the common sense of any man that Archbishop Whitgift writing on behalf of our Ceremonies and against this very principle in T. G. his words could not bear that meaning and therefore Dr. St. had great reason to say that his meaning in those words was against his express command as appears by the application of them So that either you must make Archbishop Whitgift so weak a man as to overthrow the design of his whole Book or this must be his meaning which Dr. St. assigns R. P. But Dr. St. himself makes the charging Papists to be Idolaters a distinctive sign of Puritanism P. D. Are you in earnest I pray when and where For then I am sure he contradicts himself for his design is to prove just the contrary Name me the page I beseech you that I may judge of it R. P. Why doth he not say that it is the Fundamental principle of Puritanism that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what he hath expresly commanded P. D. And what then R. P. Then Hold a little then it will not do P. D. I think not truly If this be the Fundamental principle of Puritans that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what is commanded then to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry is a distinctive sign of Puritanism How many Cords are necessary to tye these two together 1. Can no one charge the Papists with Idolatry but by vertue of this principle I do hold whatever God hath not forbidden to be lawful in his Worship but may not I at the same time hold some kind of prohibited Worship to be Idolatry I can hardly imagine a man of T. G.'s subtilty could write thus But that you have the Book by you and tell me so I could not have believed it 2. Those who do hold this principle do not presently make every thing unlawful to be an Idol by vertue of it For they do not deduce this unlawfulness from the prohibition of Idolatry but from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule of Worship and they say we must not add thereto and therefore no humane invention must be used in the Worship of God Now judge you whether according to this principle there can be nothing unlawful but it must be an Idol R. P. This was an oversight I suppose in him Let it pass But what makes D. St. vary so much from his old principle in his Irenicum wherein he asserted that nothing is lawful in the immediate Worship of God but what is commanded this must come either from a greater light of the Spirit or from the weighty considerations mentioned by the Patronus bonae Fidei when he saith quicquid Cl. Stilling-fleet delinitus occaecatus opimitate obesitate suorum sacerdotiorum c. P. D. For the malicious suggestions of so wretched a calumniator as the Patronus bonae Fidei appears to be throughout that Book they are not worth taking notice of by any one that doth not search for dunghils It is Dr. St.'s honour to be reproached by a man who hath made it his business to reproach the best Church in Christendome and to undermine all Churches above thirty years and yet the ungrateful creature hath in some measure lived upon the Revenues of that Church himself which he hath so shamefully reviled being in great part supported by the Bounty of a very worthy and learned Church-man who is nearly related to him But as to the contradiction charged on Dr. St. I begin to suspect T. G. more than ever I did For doth not Dr. St. in that place distinguish between immediate Acts and parts of Worship and circumstances belonging to those Acts even in the very words alledged by T. G. And doth not he say expresly that he doth not speak of these but of the former And is not the very same distinction used by Bishop Andrews Bishop Sanderson and the most zealous defenders of the Rites of our Church Why then must he be supposed to have changed his mind as to this principle when he said no more at that time than what the most genuine Sons of our Church have asserted among whom I do not question Bishop Andrews and Bishop Sanderson will be allowed to pass And they distinguish after the same manner between the necessary parts of Worship for which they suppose a command necessary as well as Dr. St. and the accidental and mutable circumstances attending the same for order comeliness and edifications sake which are lawful if not contrary to Gods command And doth not Dr. St. say the very same thing viz. that in matters of meer decency and
him Athenagoras speaks when he joyns him with Saturn and Proserpina Where he mentions the Poetical Theology and he saith that Orpheus Homer and Hesrod were not much inferiour in age to the Gods they describe as to their Genealogies shapes actions and passions which he shews at large to be unworthy of any who are called Gods Towards the latter end of his Apology he gives the true account of these things viz. that those whom they worshipped for Gods had formerly been men of interest and power and either through fear or flattery had divine worship given to them and particularly of Jupiter he proves from Callimachus that he was born in Creet although the Poet will by no means allow that he died and had a Sepulchre there From hence he shews that under the names of Deified men the evil spirits did assume the divine worship which was given to themselves which he proves from the cruel and impure actions which they did put men upon He shews that the Image of Neryllinus who lived in their time did give answers to those who consulted it and so did that of Proteus or Lucians Peregrinus who cast himself into the fire at Olympia since therefore the Images themselves could not do these things nor those whose Images they were he concludes they were evil Spirits who were busie about those Images and wrought upon the imaginations of those who came to consult them And who denies that these were evil Spirits which drew men to Idolatry and encouraged them in it as Athenagoras observes who under the names of great men did assume divine worship to themselves And in this sense Dr. St. never denied that Jupiter of Creet was a false God and the Devil under his name drew men to the practice of gross Idolatry 3. The Allegorical Jupiter For Athenagoras saith that the Poetical Fables were so filthy and base that the Philosophers had no other way but to turn them into Allegories and to interpret them Physically of the nature and mixture of the Elements And thus according to Empedocles Jupiter was Fire Juno Earth Pluto Air Nestis water However saith Athenagoras these are but Elements and parts of matter and therefore cannot be Gods nor deserve divine worship The Stoicks made Jupiter to be Fire Juno Air Neptune Water Others made one part of Air to be Jupiter and another Juno however they cooked and dressed their Allegories they were but Pork still it could arise no higher than a worship of the Elements instead of God And now let any one judge how sufficiently T. G. hath proved from Athenagoras that the supreme God of the Heathens was an Arch-devil I pray proceed to your next R. P. Theophilus Antiochenus saith that neither the Mother of the Gods nor her Children are Gods but Idols the works of mens hands and most impure Devils which T.G. saith was cited by him in the same page with Origen before although Dr. St. makes so much sport with him about crying out the Fathers when he named he saith only Origen P. D. And was not this true Doth T. G. name any more than Origen to prove that Jupiter according to the Fathers was an Arch-devil Look the place and you will find it punctually true I grant he mentions Theophilus Antioâ—hemis in the same page but to what purpose Not to prove the supreme God an Arch-devil but the inferiour Deities to be Inferiour Devils which was a thing never denyed by Dr. St. and therefore this Testimony signifies as little now as it did before R. P. But you will not so easily reconcile Tertullians Testimonies with Dr. St. 's abominable pretence as T. G. calls it that the God of the Romans was the true God P. D. It is one thing to say the God of the Romans was the true God and another to say they did worship the true God under the title of Jupiter O. M. For the former may imply that they had no other Gods besides him to whom they gave Divine Worship which I dare say never came into Dr. St.'s head But all that he asserted was that the Romans did own and worship the supreme God under the titles of Jupiter O. M. and gave such characters and descriptions of him as could agree to none but the Lord and Governour of the World which he proved from many testimonies of Cicero Seneca and others the gravest of the Roman Writers And what doth Tertullian say to take off these testimonies R. P. First he saith we are not ignorant that those who act and are pleased and counterfeit a Divinity under those names of dead men and consecrated statues are wicked spirits i. e. Devils P. D. And what then I beseech you Was Jupiter O. M. one of these dead men if not to what purpose is this Testimony brought unless it be as Countrey people say for want of a better R. P. Not so for he saith elsewhere We worship one God whom ye all know by the light of Nature As for the rest whom you think to be Gods we know them to be Devils P. D. Admirable who can stand before such demonstrations Tertullian here grants they all knew the true God therefore the supreme God of the Romans was a Devil He might as well have brought another Testimony out of the Book de spectaculis No man can be ignorant of that which Nature suggests that God is the Maker of the World Were the Romans ignorant of that which Tertullian saith no man could be ignorant of And when they made use of the most proper Epithets of Good and Great to describe and worship him by is it probable they should not understand him Or that Tertullian should think their supreme God was an Arch-devil when he saith in the words cited by T. G. he was the same God whom the Christians worshipped Doth T.G. consider what he writes when he puts down this for a Testimony against Dr. St. We worship one God whom ye all know by the light of Nature Doth it not hence follow that the God whom the Gentiles knew was the same whom the Christians worshipped and he was not certainly an Arch-devil I pray judge whose pretence is the more abominable upon his own Testimonies R. P. For all this Tertullian shews that Jupiter worshipped in the Capitol was not the true God For speaking of the supplications the Heathens made there he saith they were averse both from God and Heaven P. D. And had he not great-reason to say so when he saith The Romans with full bellies and wallowing in all kind of Luxury did offer up their sacrifices to obtain rain and thought to have it drop down from the Capitol upon them if the people went barefoot thither Doth not God himself tell the Jews they were far from him when they seemed most to draw nigh unto him i. e. their sacrifices and oblations signified nothing while they continued in their sins I should not stick to say that intemperate
the most noted Philosophers he hath this remarkable expression Exposui opiniones omnium fere Philosophorum quibus illustrior gloria est Deum unum multis licet designasse nominibus I have set down the opinions of almost all the famous Philosophers who all set forth one God though under many names And lest any should fall into T. G.'s extravagant imagination that this was not a consent in the same Being but as to a meer Vnity of Power though lodged in the Devil himself he adds these words Vt quivis arbitretur aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos Let T. G. construe this to his sense if he can for his heart Would any man in the World who believed the Heathens supreme God to be the Devil have said either that the Christians now were Philosophers or the Philosophers then were Christians i. e. that those who asserted that God and those who said the Devil were supreme Governour of the world were of the same opinion Which is so foolish so ridiculous an assertion that I wonder to find T. G. resolve to maintain it And I now desire you or any man to judge whether the half dozen Fathers T. G. hath produced before Origen can amount to a Covie of One. I have exercised great patience in examining these testimonies and not after T. G.'s way turned off all the rest because one was defective and if you have any more that speak to the point I am content to give you all the satisfaction you can desire provided they prove more than that in general the Gentiles sacrificed to Devils which was never denied R. P. T. G. produces the Testimonies of Eusebius Athanasius S. Cyprian S. Chrysostom S. Hierom and others P. D. To what purpose R. P. To prove that they were wicked spirits who delighted in their worship and Sacrifices P. D. Who ever denyed this Will T. G. quote the Fathers from one end to the other to prove that all men are sinners Name me those who seem to speak to the poinâ— and I will answer them R. P. You cannot deny that Arnobius Lactantius and S. Augustin do speak to the point about Jove being worshipped as the supreme God will you hear them P. D. Yes what have you to say more about them R. P. Arnobius saith that Jupiter O. M. to whom the Capitol was Dedicated was not the true omnipotent God and Lactantius makes Jupiter the King of those Celestial Gods which the evil spirits feigned P. D. Are not these the two persons whom Dr. St. goes about to excuse for applying the Poetical Fables to Jupiter O. M. R. P. That is a fine way of defending the Fathers to take the parts of the Heathens against them as Dr. St. doth P. D. He never doth it as to the main of the cause as to any of them which were to take the part of Idolatry against Christianity which in my opinion others are far more lyable to the guilt of than he nor doth he charge any of them with wholly mistaking the state of the Question but he instanceth in two Rhetoricians who must be excused in many other things as it were easie to shew and he saith of them that they could not forbear giving a cast of their former imployment in this matter And when Dr. St. saith we ought not to charge the Heathens with more than they were guilty of doth T. G. think we ought but I am of another opinion though we should grant their supreme God to be a Devil for we ought to give the Devil his due R. P. But what say you to S. Augustin whom Dr. St. represents as the most baffled by the Heathens in this point Is not this kind of procedure more suitable to the design of Julian than of the Reformation P. D. Cannot a man write against your Idolatry but he must be another Julian i. e. a man cannot write like a Christian but he must be an Apostate Are you the only Christians in the world and your peculiar doctrines the only Christianity If it be it is a Christianity which the Christian Church never knew in its best Ages a Christianity never taught by Christ nor his Apostles but for S. Augustin I do not find that Dr. St. thinks him in the least baffled in this matter but being a learned and ingenuous man he saith that he quitted the argument from the Poetical Fables concerning Jupiter and reduced the controversie to its true point about the Idolatry committed in the worship of inferiour Deities But what an itch of calumniating had seized T. G. when he could not hold from paralleling Dr. St. with Julian meerly for giving an account of the state of the Controversie about Idolatry as it was managed by S. Augustin R. P. This leads us into another weighty subject viz. on what account the Fathers charged the Heathens with Idolatry P. D. I grant it is so and tends very much to the right understanding the nature of it And what account doth T. G. give of it R. P. I assure you T. G. shews himself to be a man very well versed in the Fathers and seems to have them at his Fingers ends nay he hath such great plenty of them that they serve him not only for freight but for ballast too filling his Margent as well as his Book with them and had he not studied brevity he might have outdone the Dr. himself in being Voluminous P. D. No doubt of it if he had a mind to produce all that the Fathers say on the subject of Heathen Idolatry but let us pare off all impertinencies which tend only to amuse and confound a Reader and keep close to our subject Tell me on what account T. G. saith the Fathers did charge the Heathens with Idolatry R. P. I suppose it may be reduced to these following 1. In worshipping their Images for Gods 2. In worshipping a multitude of false Gods 3. In worshipping the Creatures and not the Creator And as to every one of these he shews how false Dr. St.'s parallel is of the Heathen Idolatry and the worship practised and allowed in our Church P. D. I pray begin with the first of these and let us hear what account T. G. gives of the Heathen Idolatry in the Worship of Images R. P. The Images he saith were erected to the memory of dead men whom the people out of flattery or affection had placed in Heaven but evil Spirits as it were incorporated themselves in those Images and by working strange things about those who worshipt them they gained the reputation of Gods and consequently the Images were held to be Gods and worshipped as such P. D. I am far from being satisfied with this account of the Heathen Idolatry in the Worship of Images For when a man pretends to give an account of a thing there are three things he ought to regard First that it be full Secondly that it be
clear and distinct Thirdly that it be general But I shall shew you that this account fails in all those particulars and withall that it doth not clear the Image worship of the Roman Church 1. That it is not full because it supposes all their Idolatry as to Images to lye in taking the Images of Deified men for Gods on the account of the presence of evil Spirits in them But I find another reason alledged out of the Fathers against the Worship of Images by Dr. St. which T. G. takes no notice at all of viz. that Image Worship was very unsuitable to the Divine Nature as well as repugnant to the Will of God and although the latter reason may seem to hold only for those who received the Scriptures yet the former doth extend to all mankind For he shews from the Fathers that Zeno the Stoick Antisthenes Xenophon Numa and others condemned the Worship of Images on this account because they were a disparagement of the Divine Nature And for this he produces the Testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus Justin Martyr Athenagoras Origen Lactantius and many others Is this account true or false if false why is it not proved to be so if true why is it not allowed Is this fair or honest dealing in pretending to answer and not taking notice of the main objections or to give account of the Fathers opinions of this matter and to say not one word to all this But it is one thing to write an Answer to a Book and another to write a Book which must pass for an Answer 2. This account is not clear and distinct For it doth not express whether it were Idolatry or not to worship Images where there was no incorporation supposed of evil Spirits nor doth it shew how it could be Idolatry on that supposition I do not deny that there was such an opinion among the Heathens that Spirits might possess Images and be incorporated with them but I say this was a particular opinion and not the general belief For Hermes from whom S. Augustin gives the most exact account of this hypothesis from the Asclepian Dialogue looks upon it as a Divine and peculiar art of drawing invisible Spirits into Images in such a manner as to animate them and thereby making Gods Which he saith is the most wonderful of all wonders that it should be in mens power to make Gods Not by producing the Divine Being but by so uniting it to the Image as to make that a fit object for divine worship But you of the Church of Rome pretend to do as much as this comes to with five words and somewhat more for you pretend to annihilate a substance which they did not but as to the main wonder yours is of the same nature viz. so to unite the Divinity to the species of Bread and Wine as to make them together a fit object for divine worship And therefore T. G. doth not at all clear the nature of Idolatry as to Images by such an Hypothesis which doth justifie the Worship of Images upon his own grounds For this principle being supposed that God was really incorporated in the Image it was as lawful for them to Worship that Image as for you to Worship the Host. If you say those were evil Spirits and not the true God that doth not clear the matter For we are not now disputing whether they were good or bad Spirits which were in those Images but on what account they were charged with Idolatry in the Worship of Images If it were for worshipping their Images as Gods on the account of one of their Gods being incorporated in the Image this I say is no account at all on T. G.'s principles for then such an Image was as fit an object of worship on their supposition as the adoration of the Host is on yours So that this is rather a clearing the Worship of Images from the charge of Idolatry among the Heathens than giving any account of it all the Idolatry in this case lying in the worship of Evil Spirits and not in the Worship of Images 3. This Account is not general as to the Heathens For many and those the most learned among them declared that they did not take their Images for Gods as Dr. St. proved in his First Book not barely from the Testimonies of the Heathens but from the Fathers too which passages he repeated and urged against T. G. in his Defence And among others he produced the Testimony of Eusebius speaking of the Heathens in general who saith they did not look on their Images as Gods and of him T. G. saith that no man understood the Heathens Principles better And yet after all this T. G. hopes to have it pass for a good account of the Heathens Idolatry as to Images that they took their Images for Gods 4. This Account doth not clear the practice of your Church in the Worship of Images R. P. There I am sure you are mistaken For do we take our Images for Gods And T. G. well observes that when the Fathers spake against the Worship of Images from their vileness and impotency they did not found their arguments meerly on the matter of the Images and the Art of the Artificers but upon these two conditions conjoyntly taken viz. that they were held to be Gods and yet were made of such materials whereas we do not believe our Images to be Gods nor worship them as such as the Heathens did For the Council of Trent declares that it believes no Divinity in them for which they ought to be worshipped P. D. This is the utmost which can be said in your Defence and to shew you how far this is from clearing your Worship of Images I shall consider 1. The force of the Fathers arguments 2. The difference of the Heathens opinions from yours as to the Divinity of Images And if their arguments be such as equally hold against your practises and your answers do not really differ from theirs then the parallel will hold good between your Idolatry and theirs in this particular 1. For the force of the Fathers arguments the thing to be considered is whether they held only in conjunction with believing their Images to be Gods What connexion was there between this Hypothesis and the disparagement which Images did imply to the Divine Nature For this was wholly on the account of representation and this is the great argument the Fathers insist upon The infinite distance between God and the Work of mens hands the disproportion that dull and senseless matter however Carved and Adorned doth bear to a Divine Majesty that no Image of God ought to be worshipped but what is what he is i. e. his Eternal Son the light of Nature teaching men that it was greater purity of Worship greater reverence to the Deity less danger of errour to mankind to worship God without an Image are all arguments used and pressed by the Fathers against the
too Only he doth not believe Deified-men to be independent Deities They were Gods as they gave them not barely the name and title of Gods but as they supposed them to be admitted into some share in administring the affairs of the world and had therefore Divine Worship given unto them R. P. Secondly The Heathens accused the Christians of Atheism because they denied them to be Gods who were publickly worshipped P. D. The Heathens did not believe there was any such God who disallowed the worship of any other Gods besides him and therefore when they found the Christians utterly reject their worship they charged them with Atheism But is not this an admirable way of reasoning from the Heathens objections against the Christians Might he not prove as well that the Christians God had Asses ears that they eat Children that they had promiscuous Conjunctions c. for all these were objected by the Heathens as well as Atheism And Athenagoras whom T. G. cites shews what kind of Gods those were whom the Christians rejected in the very beginning of his Apology such as Hector Helena Agamemnon Ericttheus c. and because the Christians rejected such Deities they were accused of Atheism but doth this prove Hector and Agamemnon to have been Original and Independent Gods R. P. Thirdly They persecuted the Christians to death and they willingly suffered it for maintaining there was but one only true God who deserved Divine Honour to be given to him P. D. Very true Because they thought it unlawful to give Divine Worship to any Creature whatsoever But did not the Heathens require Divine Worship to be given to Deified-men R. P. Fourthly They erected Temples instituted Priests and appointed Sacrifices to be offered to them P. D. That is they gave them Divine Worship and what then they did so to Deified-men saith T. G. R. P. Fifthly The Fathers bring infinite arguments to prove that those whom the Heathens called Gods were not really and truly Gods which had been a superfluous labour if the Heathens had not believed as well as called them Gods P. D. And did not the same Fathers bring infinite arguments to prove that these Gods were but men Their design was to shew that nothing but what was truly and essentially God could deserve Divine Worship which their vulgar Gods were so far from being that they were meer men and some of the worst too R. P. Sixthly Many of those who wrote against the Heathens had been such themselves and therefore would not charge them with more than they were guilty of in this matter P. D. Those were the very men T. G. cited to prove their Gods had been Men and had Fathers and Mothers and Vncles and Aunts as other Mortals have R. P. Seventhly The Devils perswaded most of the Heathens that they were Gods as St. Augustin saith by their fallacious signs and predictions P. D. St. Augustin speaks of their dominion over mankind by reason of Idolatry which might have been although the Heathens had only worshipped Deified men but I grant that the Heathens did give divine worship to Daemons too whom some believed to be intercessors between the Gods and Men carrying up our prayers to them and bringing down their help to us as he there expresseth it and others thought them to be Gods i. e. a superiour kind of Spirits however all agreed in giving divine honour to them But those who believed them to be Gods i. e. of a higher rank than the subservient Damons did not suppose them to be self-existent and independent Deities but to have received their being by participation from God and supposing them good St. Augustin thinks their notion of them not much different from what Christians have of Angels and that it was a controversie about a name whether they be called Gods or not but he is far from thinking it so whether Divine worship were to be given to them For this he utterly denies it being inconsistent with the Christian Religion as he proves in the beginning of his tenth Book From whence it appears that the Controversie was not about the name of Gods but about giving Divine Worship to any Creature For St. Augustin would allow them to call them Gods if they reserved Divine worship as peculiar to God but if they did give this to them it was no excuse to call them Angels or inferiour Gods as the Platonists did And when he saith the Devils had perswaded the greatest part of mankind by their lying wonders that they were Gods his meaning is no more than that they were good Spirits which he saith Apuleius and others observing them more narrowly found they were not but a sort of malicious and deceitful beings notwithstanding which he saith these agreed with the rest in giving divine worship to them So that whatever men do give Divine Worship to that they do make a God of whatsoever notion they have of its Original and receiving Being from another R. P. Eighthly The wisest of the Heathens not only concurred with the vulgar in the external practice of worshipping many Gods but looked on it as a point of State-policy not to let the people know that they were no Gods whom they worshipped P. D. And what then I beseech you They were rather willing to maintain Idolatry than to hazard the disturbance of Government therefore the Gods whom they worshipped were truely and properly Gods All that follows from hence is that there were many follies and superstitions among the people which they thought better to let them alone in than to run the hazard of all by a change that the Poets and Painters and Statuaries had tainted the Religion of the Vulgar with false and unworthy notions of their Gods and would in spite of Laws represent their Gods in the publick Sports doing things unsitting for men to do or see that although they thought it were much better to have these things redressed yet they had so much greater regard to the safety of the Government than to the honour of Religion that they chose rather to let things stand as they found them and to joyn with the people in the same Acts of publick worship retaining their opinions to themselves But we shall have occasion to discourse of these wiser men afterwards R. P. I have one thing yet more to say which I am sure ought and will weigh with you more than all the rest P. D. So it will if it weighs any thing at all R. P. It is that God himself forbids the Jews to have any other Gods besides him and yet he doth not forbid the name of Gods to be given both to Angels and Men. P. D. Is this the weighty observation the bit reserved to close up the stomach with God doth allow I grant the name of Gods to be given to Creatures but where doth he allow Divine worship internal or external to be given to any other Being besides himself Whether Angels or Stars or
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
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
Although therefore the Heathens did own and worship many Gods yet they looked on them as inferiour and subordinate to the Supreme and only imployed by him in the administration of things under him And as for the partners you mention they were not such quoad plenitudinem potestatis but only made use of in their particular Offices you know the distinction and it serves better here than in the Court of Rome But I cannot but wonder when T. G. had upbraided Dr. St. for two pages together with his Father Livy Father Varro Father Cicero Father Seneca Father Virgil c. he should at last sink so low as to quote Father T. G. in his Roman Antiquities against him surely any one of those Fathers in a matter of Roman Antiquities would weigh down a hundred Father T. G.'s and yet even this Testimony doth not prove that the Gods that were supposed to be in Heaven by their own right were supreme and independent Deities but the Dij Consentes were of a higher rank than the semidei or indigites the one having been always in Heaven according to the Platonists supposition the other being assumed from among men which comes at last to the distinction of Angels and Saints 2. How far your opinion and practice do differ from theirs And here I pray remember that I go not about to compare the Heathen Gods with Angels and Saints as to their excellencies for the Apostle tells us however the Gentiles intended it they did really sacrifice to Devils and not to God but I am only to compare the Heathens notion of worship and yours together And if you do allow Gods by participation viz. Spirits assumed into such a share of Government as to have the care of some things and places committed to some more than to others and if addresses and supplications are allowed to be made to them on that account I desire to know how the Heathens are justly charged with Idolatry and you not Was it Idolatry to pray to Diana as an inferiour Deity which presided over hunting and is it none to pray to S. Hubert on the like account Was it Idolatry to pray to Vesta to preserve from the Fire and is it none to pray to S. Agatha If two persons in the same storm prayed as to their Tutelar Deities the one to Neptune the other to S. Paul is the one guilty of Idolatry and the other not If two women in travail prayed for help the one to Lucina the other to the B. Virgin is the first only guilty of Idolatry They might be accused of Ignorance and Folly in making a bad choice but I do not see how the Heathens could be charged with Idolatry and not the other When Saints are Canonized to be Particular Patrons of Places as S. Rosa lately for Peru why may not the inhabitants make particular addresses to her as their Patroness and Tutelar Deity as Lipsius did to the B. Virgin Is not this to make such a Saint a sharer in the Government of the World as much as the Heathens did their Tutelar Gods under one Supreme And therefore upon T. G.'s own ground you are as justly charged with Idolatry as the Heathens were For the Heathens did not look on their Tutelar Gods as the Original Givers but as the subordinate Ministers R. P. But as T. G. saith we do not pray to them to obtain the things we desire but that they would be our Intercessors with God for us P. D. I wonder T. G. would say this again without answering what Dr. St. had said in his late Defence to shew 1. That the very words of the Council of Trent do allow more than bare intercession 2. That formal prayers to them to bestow blessings are allowed and practised among them of which he produces several Instances of present use in the approved Books of Devotion 3. That such prayers do not contradict any received Doctrine of the Roman Church and he challenges T. G. to shew what Article of your Creed what Decree of your Church what Doctrine of your Divines it doth contradict for any man to pray directly to the Virgin Mary for the destruction of heresies support under troubles Grace to withstand temptations and reception to Glory And what can we beg for more from God himself But I do not yet understand how you can charge those Heathens with Idolatry who owned a Supreme God and worshipped inferiour Deities as subordinate to them and their Images but the charge will return upon your selves R. P. Will you never be satisfied Did not T. G. say they were justly charged with it on two accounts 1. Because those Images were instituted by publick Authority for the worship of false Gods and they concurred with the vulgar in all the external practices of their Idolatry 2. Because though in their Schools they denied them to be Gods yet they gave divine honour to them as the people did P. D. You must excuse me Sir I have such an imperfection in my understanding that it will not be satisfied without the appearance at least of Reason which I confess I cannot yet see in this answer For I pray how comes it to be Idolatry in them who give only an inferiour and relative worship if that worship be not Idolatry R. P. T. G. saith they were not guilty of internal Idolatry but of external complying with the vulgar who did worship them as truely and properly Gods and that in such a manner that they were judged to do the same thing and therefore it was at least an exteriour profession of Idolatry in them P. D. But you have not yet proved that the Gentiles did worship many independent Gods and I have very lately shewed the contrary from the express testimonies of the Fathers and therefore this answer doth not reach to the case Yet suppose that against the general sense of understanding men the common people should take the inferiour Gods for independent and absolute Deities is not this the case of your own Church as Dr. St. observed the common people take their Images for Gods or take the B. Virgin for the Queen of Heaven and pray to them accordingly which is both internal and external Idolatry in them however T. G. and their learned men comply with them in all their external Acts of Worship are they guilty of the exteriour profession of Idolatry or not R. P. I thought where you would be but is it the same case of some few men complying with a common and publick custom of Idolatrous worship and of those who follow the publick profession and do the same Acts with some private men who turn them to Idolatrous worship P. D. But if the publick profession of the Gentiles was to worship one Supreme God as I have already proved then the case is the very same as to the profession and practice of Idolatry which is the main thing insisted on And the shewing of many other
Dr. St. makes to discriminate civil and religious worship but the concurrence of all circumstances together If I bowed to a Friend at Church is any man so senseless to take this for Idolatry Where there is an antecedent ground for civil worship and respect which is well known and understood among men there is nothing like Idolatry although we do use the same external acts towards men which we use towards God himself As among the Israelites no man doubted that their bowing to the King was upon a quite different account from their bowing to God although they bowed to the King in a place dedicated to divine worship And where the reason of worship is so well understood to be of a quite different nature from that of religious worship that very reason makes a discrimination besides the circumstances of time and place Which I shall make appear from the case of Naaman the Syrian whose bowing in the house of Rimmon was therefore free from Idolatry because of the known custom of paying civil respect every where else to his Prince in that manner and by his publick protestatition against the Idolatrous worship there performed as T. G. shews at large from Dr. H. T. G. therefore very much mistakes Dr. St.'s meaning if he thinks he assigned the discrimination of acts of religious and civil worship barely to the circumstances of time and place without taking in the object and reason of worship R. P. But from hence it appears that bowing in the House and Presence of an Idol and in the very time of worship is not Idolatry For then Naaman could not be excused P. D. Where the worship is known to be given not to the Idol but to the Prince to whom it is acknowledged to be due elsewhere Dr. St. never supposed such an act of worship though done in an Idol-temple to be Idolatry R. P. But suppose men should ask a Bishop blessing in a Church and at Prayer-time this is not civil worship and is this Idolatry P. D. Worship may be said to be civil two wayes 1. When it is performed on a meer civil account as it is to Magistrates and Parents 2. When it is performed on the account of a spiritual relation as in the respect shewed to Bishops as spiritual Fathers The worship is of the same kind with that which is shewed to natural Parents but the relation is of another kind on which account it may be called Spiritual Respect but it is in it self an act of civil worship arising upon a moral relation which being of a different nature from that which is between Princes and Subjects and Parents and Children and being founded upon Religious Grounds may be said to be Religious or Spiritual Respect rather than Worship R. P. If the first Christians had upon their knees in time of prayer begged S. James his benediction had this been an unlawful Act of Worship P. D. If they were upon their knees in prayer to God I think it was a very unseasonable time to ask their Bishop blessing although the act in it self were lawful R. P. But is not this an act of the same kind with that of invocation of Saints in times and places of Divine Worship when we only pray to them to pray for us P. D. I say again that is not all You do for you own their Patronage Protection and Power to help you in your necessities and your Prayers must be understood according to your Doctrines But suppose you did only pray to them to pray for you yet 1. You do it with all the solemnity of Divine Worship in the publick Litanies of the Church when you are in the posture of your greatest Devotion And the Angel rebuked no less man than St. John for using the posture of Divine Adoration to him 2. In kneeling to a Bishop to pray for us we suppose nothing that encroaches upon the Divine excellencies for we are certain he hears and understands us and we desire nothing from him but what is in his power to do and is very fitting for us to request from him But when you pray to Saints you can have no possible assurance that they do or can hear what you say to them and so it is a foolish and unreasonable worship and when you do it with the same external Acts of Devotion which you use to the Divine Majesty you take away that peculiarity of Divine Worship which is due to God by reason of his incommunicable excellencies and so it is superstitious and idolatrous Worship these two wayes 1. As it supposes as great excellencies in Creatures as those did who for that reason were charged with Idolatry I do not meddle with the possibility of an intelligent being disunited from matter 's hearing at such a distance as the Saints are supposed to be from us nor whether God may not communicate such knowledge to them but that which I insist on is this I find those charged with Idolatry not only in Scripture and the Fathers but by the Church of Rome it self who professed to worship some inferiour Spirits as Mediators between God and men and such Mediators as were never imagined to be Mediators of Redemption but barely of Intercession as being believed to carry up the prayers of men and to bring down help from above Now here is no Omnisciency or Omnipotency or other incommunicable excellency attributed to these Spirits and all the addresses made to them was under the notion of Mediators to intercede for them i. e. to pray to them to pray for them and yet these were charged with flat Idolatry It were easie to make it appear from unquestionable testimonies that the Heathen Idolaters did worship inferiour spirits only as Mediators as Apuleius expresses it inter caelicolas terricolasque vectores hinc preeum inde donorum wherein he only interprets Plato's sense and that this was one of the most common and universal kinds of Idolatry and therefore I would fain know why they must be charged with Idolatry and you escape Either be just to them and vindicate the Heathen Worship or else you must condemn your own 2. T. G. confesses that by the Law of Nature there ought to be some peculiar external Acts appropriated to the worship of God as most agreeable to his incommunicable excellency now among all mankind no one external Act of Worship hath been supposed more peculiar to the Divine Nature than solemn Invocation in places and times appropriated to Divine Worship but the Invocation practised in the Roman Church hath all the solemnity and circumstances of Divine Worship and therefore it is robbing God of the peculiar Acts of his Worship which is Idolatry And he must be very dull indeed who cannot distinguish this Invocation from a casual or accidental meeting with a Bishop at Church and kissing the hem of his Garment or asking his Benediction on ones knees R. P. But where there are different objects in themselves and