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
we shall come to that in time At present I pray clear this matter if you can P. D. To what purpose is all this raking and scraping and searching and quoting of passages not at all to the point of Idolatry R. P. What! would you have a man do nothing to fill up a Book and make it carry something of the Port of an Answer especially to a thick Book of between 800 and 900 pages P. D. If this be your design go on but I will make my answers as short as I can for methinks T. G. seems to have lost that spirit and briskness he had before for then he talked like a man that had a mind to keep close to the point but now he flags and draws heavily on For he repeats what he had said before for some pages and then quotes out of Dr. St.'s other Books for several pages more and at last it comes to no more than this Dr. St. doth in some places of his Writings seem to favour the Dissenters I am quite tired with this impertinency yet I would fain see an end of these things that we might come close to the business of Idolatry which I long to be at R. P. Your stomach is too sharp set we must blunt it a little before you fall to P. D. You take the course to do it with all this impertinency but what is it you have to say R. P. To please you I will bring this charge as near to the point of Idolatry as I can the substance of it is this Dr. St. saith the Church of England doth not look on her Articles as Articles of Faith but as inferiour Truths from thence T. G. infers 1. The Church of Rome doth not err against any Articles of Faith 2. Dr. St. doth not believe the thirty nine Articles to be Articles of Faith 3. Then this charge of Idolatry is vain and groundless because Idolatry is an error against a Fundamental point of Faith P. D. Here is not one word new in all this long charge but a tedious repetition of what T. G. had said before It consists of two points 1. The charge upon Dr. St. for undermining the Church of England 2. The unreasonableness of the charge of Idolatry upon his own supposition Because T. G. seems to think there is something in this business which touched Dr. St. to the quick and therefore he declined giving any answer to the First Part of it I will undertake to do it for him Dr. St. doth indeed say that the Church of England doth not make her Articles Articles of Faith as the Church of Rome doth the Articles of Pope Pius the fourth his Creed And did ever any Divine of the Church of England say otherwise It is true the Church of Rome from her insolent pretence of Infallibility doth make all things proposed by the Church of equal necessity to Salvation because the ground of Faith is the Churches Authority in proposing things to be believed But doth the Church of England challenge any such Infallibility to her self No. She utterly disowns it in her very Articles therefore she must leave matters of Faith as she found them i. e. she receives all the Creeds into her Articles and Offices but makes no additions to them of her own and therefore Dr. St. did with great reason say that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world and of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self from whence he doth justly magnifie the moderation of this Church in comparison with the Church of Rome R. P. But T. G. saith That he hath degraded the Articles of the Church of England from being Articles of Faith into a lower Classe of inferiour Truths P. D. I perceive plainly T. G. doth not know what an Article of Faith means according to the sense of the Church of England He looks on all propositions made by the Church as necessary Articles of Faith which is the Roman sense and founded on the doctrine of Infallibility but where the Churches Infallibility is rejected Articles of Faith are such as have been thought necessary to Salvation by the consent of the Christian world which consent is seen in the Ancient Creeds And whatever doctrine is not contained therein though it be received as Truth and agreeable to the Word of God yet is not accounted an Article of Faith i. e. not immediately necessary to Salvation as a point of Faith But because of the dissentions of the Christian world in matters of Religion a particular Church may for the preservation of her own peace declare her sense as to the Truth and Falshood of some controverted points of Religion and require from all persons who are intrusted in the Offices of that Church a subscription to those Articles which doth imply that they agree with the sense of that Church about them R. P. But Dr. St. saith from Arch-bishop Bramhall that the Church doth not oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them and upon this T. G. triumphs over Dr. St. as undermining the Doctrine and Government of the Church of England P. D. Why not over Arch-Bishop Bramhall whose words Dr. St. cites And was he a favourer of Dissenters and an underminer of the Church of England Yet Dr. St. himself in that place owns a subscription to them as necessary and what doth subscription imply less than agreeing with the sense of the Church So that he saith more than Arch-Bishop Bramhall doth And I do not see how his words can pass but with this construction that when he saith we do not oblige any man to believe them he means as Articles of Faith of which he speaks just before But I do freely yield that the Church of England doth require assent to the truth of those propositions which are contained in the thirty nine Articles and so doth Dr. St. when he saith the Church requires subscription to them as inferiour Truths i. e. owning them to be true propositions though not as Articles of Faith but Articles of Religion as our Church calls them R. P. If they are but inferiour Truths saith T. G. was it worth the while to rend asunder the Peace of Christendom for them Is not this a very reasonable account as I. S. calls it of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion and a rare way of justifying her from the guilt of Schism P. D. T. G. mistakes the matter It was not our imposing negative points on others but the Church of Romes imposing false and absurd doctrines for necessary Articles of Faith which did break the Peace of Christendom We could have no communion with the Church of Rome unless we owned her Supremacy her Canon of Scripture her Rule of Faith or the equality of Tradition and Scripture her doctrines of Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Transubstantiation c. and we were required not
only to own them as true which we know to be false but as necessary to Salvation which we look on as great hinderances to it What was to be done in this case Communion could not be held on other terms than declaring false opinions to be true and dangerous Doctrines to be necessary to Salvation On such terms as these we must renounce our Christianity to declare that we believed falshoods for truths and not barely as truths but as necessary Articles of Faith Therefore what Schism there was the Church of Rome must thank her self for And when this breach happened our Church thought it necessary to express her sense of these Doctrines that they were so far from being Articles of Faith that they were false and erroneous having no foundation either in Scripture or Antiquity and required a subscription to this declaration from such as are admitted to teach and instruct others How could our Church do less than she did in this matter if she would declare her sense to the World or take care of her own security And is this making Negative Articles of Faith about which T. G. and E. W. and others have made such senseless clamours when we only declare those things they would impose upon us to be so far from being Articles of Faith that they are erroneous Doctrines and therefore are rejected by us And this I take to be a Reasonable Account of the Potestant Religion which is more than I. S. hath given to those of his own Church of his Demonstrations R. P. But since Dr. St. grants the Church of Rome to hold all the essential points of Faith how can he charge her with Idolatry since Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith I pray answer to this for this comes home to the business P. D. I am glad to see you but coming that way To this Dr. St. hath already given a full and clear answer in his late Defence 1. He saith by the Church of Romes holding all essential points of Faith no more is meant than that she owns and receives all the Ancient Creeds 2. T. G. grants that Idolatry is giving the Worship due to God to a Creature If therefore a Church holding the essential points of faith may give the Worship due to God to a Creature then there is no contradiction between saying the Church of Rome holds all the essential points of faith and yet charging it with Idolatry Because Idolatry is a practical Errour and therefore may be consistent with holding all the doctrinal points of Faith no more being necessary to it as Dr. St. proves than entertaining a false notion of Divine Worship by which means it may really give Gods worship to a Creature and yet be very Orthodox in holding that Gods Worship ought not to be given to a Creature R. P. T. G. was aware of this Answer and thus he takes it off To err he saith strictly speaking is to teach that which is opposite to Truth but if the Church of Rome teaches that the Worship she gives to Saints and Images is not a part of the Honour due to God and yet it is then she errs against the second Commandment though she judges she doth not P. D. What is this to the purpose the question is not whether Idolatry doth not imply a practical errour against the second Commandment but whether it be consistent with the doctrinal points of Faith such as are essential to the Being of a Church For of this sort of Errours all the dispute was as is plain from Dr St.'s words which gave occasion to this objection R. P. But is it not a Fundamental Errour to destroy the doctrine of the second Commandment P. D. If it be The more care had they need to have who put it out of their Books that it may not fly in their Faces But who ever reckoned the Commandments among the Articles of Faith I do not deny it to be a very dangerous practical Errour to destroy the doctrine of the second Commandment or rather to take away the whole force of the precept but I say this is none of those essential points of Faith which Dr. St. spake of and therefore this is no answer to him R. P. Therefore T. G. adds that this doth not proceed upon a general Thesis whether some Idolatrous practice may not consist with owning the general principles of Faith but upon a particular Hypothesis whether the Worship of God by an Image be not an errour against the doctrine of the second Commandment if that be to forbid men to worship him by an Image And therefore if it be a Fundamental point to believe that to be Idolatry which God hath expresly forbidden in the Law under the notion of Idolatry and that be the worshipping of him by an Image as Dr. St. asserts 't is clear that the Church of Rome in telling men it is not Idolatry errs against a Fundamental point and he cannot according to his principles maintain his charge of Idolatry without a contradiction P. D. This is then the thing to be tryed and therefore we must judge of it by what Dr. St. said to which this is supposed to be a Contradiction Did he ever say that the Church of Rome did not erre against the doctrine of the second commandment Nay he hath invincibly proved it hath I say invincibly since T. G. gives it up in these Dialogues spending so many pages upon the repetition of his old arguments and passing over all that elaborate discourse of Dr. St. about the sense of the second Commandment on which the hinge of the Controversie depends If then Dr. St. doth charge them with a very dangerous and pernicious errour in respect of this Commandment that could not be the Fundamental errour he cleared the Church of Rome from when he said she held all essential points of Faith mark that and he explained himself purposely to prevent such a mistake to mean such doctrinal points of Faith as are essential to the constitution of a Church and the true Form of Baptism now the question is whether it be a contradiction for a man to say that the Church of Rome doth hold all these essential points of faith and yet is guilty of Idolatry And how after all hath T. G. proved it It is a fundamental point saith he to believe that to be Idolatry which God hath forbidden as Idolatry and so it is to believe that to be Perjury and Theft and Adultery which God hath forbidden under their notion But will any man say the true notion of Adultery is a doctrinal point of Faith Although therefore it be granted that the Church of Rome do err fundamentally against the second Commandment yet that doth not prove Dr. St. guilty of a contradiction because he spake not of practical errours but of the Doctrinal and essential points of Faith And now I hope we have done with all these preliminaries and may come
to the point of Idolatry it self R. P. Hold a little you are still too quick I have something more yet to say to you before we come to it P. D. What is that R. P. I have a great deal to tell you out of Mr. Thorndikes Just Weights and Measures about the Charge of Idolatry and the mischievous consequences of it P. D. To what end should you repeat all that I begin to think you were not in jest when you said T. G. put in some things to fill up his Book Dr. St. had before declared the great esteem he had for Mr. Thorndikes Learning and Piety but in this particular he declared that he saw no reason to recede from the common doctrine of the Church of England on the account of Mr. Thorndikes Authority or Arguments And I have already given you such an account of his opinion with respect to the Church of Rome as I hope will take off Mr. Thorndikes Testimonies being so often alledged against us by T. G. and his Brethren If T. G. had not purposely declined the main matters in debate between Dr. St. and him he would never have stuffed out so much of his Book with things so little material to that which ought to have been the main design of it R. P. But I have somewhat more to say to you which is that you charge T. G. with declining the dispute about the sense of the second Commandment whereas he doth speak particularly to it P. D. I am glad to hear it I hope then he takes off the force of what Dr. St. had said in his late Defence about it For I assure you it was much expected from him R. P. What would you have a man do he produces at least four leaves of what he had said before and then a little after near two leaves more and within a few pages above two leaves again out of his old Book and then tells how Dr. St. spends above an hundred pages about the sense of the second Commandment whereas he neither removes the contradictions nor answers the arguments of T. G. but criticizeth upon the exceptions of T. G. to the several methods for finding out the sense of the Law but saith he what need so much pains and labour be taken if the Law be express and do not you think this enough about the second Commandment P. D. No truly Nor you neither upon any consideration For the Dr. in his Discourse upon the second Commandment 1. hath manifestly overthrown T. G.'s notion of an Idol viz. of a figment set up for Worship by such clear and convincing arguments that if T. G· had any thing to have said in defence of it he would never have let it escaped thus 2. He hath proved the sense he gives of the Commandment to be the same which the Fathers gave of it 3. He takes off T. G.'s instances of worshipping before the Ark and the Cherubims and the Testimony of S. Austin 4. He answers T. G.'s objections and clears the sense of the Law by all the means a Law can be well understood And is all this do you think answered by T. G.'s repeating what he had said before or blown down by a puff or two of Wit I do not know what T. G. thinks of it but I do not find any understanding man takes this for an answer but a meer put-off So that I may well say Dr. St.'s proofs are invincible when T. G. so shamefully retreats out of the Field and sculks under some hedges and thorns which he had planted before for a shelter in time of need R. P. But why did not Dr. St. answer punctually to all that T. G. said P. D. Because he did not think it material if the main things were proved R. P. Bu◠T. G. will think them unanswerable till he receive satisfaction concerning them P. D. That it may be is impossible to give a man that hath no mind to receive it but if you please let me hear the strength of what T. G. lays such weight upon that he may have no such pretence for the future and lest the third time we meet with the same Coleworts R. P. Doth not Dr. St. make express Scripture his most certain rule of Faith Doth not he on the other side deny any thing to be an Article of Faith which is not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self Then if God hath expresly forbidden the worship of himself by an Image it is an Article of Faith that he ought not to be worshipped by an Image and since Rome doth not acknowledge it it is not an Article of Faith Therefore T. G. calls upon the Dr. to speak out Is it or is it not an Article of Faith But T. G. saith he hath found out the Mysterie of the business for he can find out Mysteries I assure you as well as discover plots and catch Moles to gratifie the Non-conformists the Articles of the Church of England must pass only for inferiour truths but when the Church of Rome is to be charged with Idolatry then they are Articles of Faith so that as T. G. pleasantly saith the same proposition taken Irenically is an inferiour Truth but taken Polemically it must be an Article of Faith because expresly revealed in Scripture P. D. Is this it which T. G. thought worth repeating at large surely it was for the sake of the Clinch of Irenically and Polemically and not for any shew of difficulty in the thing For all the Mist is easily scattered by observing a very plain distinction of an Article of faith which is either taken 1. For an essential point of faith such as is antecedently necessary to the Being of a Christian Church and so the Creed is said to contain the Articles of our Faith and in this sense Dr. St. said the Church of Rome did hold all the essential points of faith which we did 2. For any doctrine plainly revealed in Scripture which is our Rule of faith And did Dr. St. ever deny that the Church of Rome opposed some things clearly revealed in Scripture nay it is the design of his Books to prove it doth And if every doctrine which can be deduced from a plain command of Scripture is to be looked on as an Article of Faith then that the Cup is to be given to those who partake of the Bread that Prayers are to be in a known Tongue will become Articles of Faith and do you think Dr. St. either Irenically or Polemically did ever yield that the Church of Rome did not oppose these If T. G. lays so much weight on such slight things as these I must tell you he is not the man I took him for and I believe it was only civility in Dr. St. to pass such things by R.P. But T.G. would know what he means by expresly forbidden only that it is clear to himself expecting that others should submit to his saying it
at least as to the generality But afterwards he takes heart and sayes roundly that the Fathers evermore charge the Arians for giving absolute Divine Worship to Christ although they believed him to be of a different nature from the Supreme God which he hopes is far enough from the Doctors relative or inferior Worship But I am very far from being satisfied with this Answer For I pray tell me wherein lies the difference between Soveraign Worship and Inferiour In Acts of the Mind or in External Acts R. P. In Internal doubtless on T. G.'s principles who makes External Acts to signifie according to the determination of the Church P. D. What are those Internal Acts wherein the Worship of the Supreme God consists R. P. A due esteem of his excellency and suitable affection to it P. D. Must not this due esteem distinguish him from all Creatures R. P. Yes surely for otherwise it can be no due esteem the distance being infinite between God and his Creatures P. D. Can a man then have an equal esteem of God and a Creature which he acknowledges to be made by him R. P. Certainly not P. D. Then it must be unequal according to the difference of uncreated and created excellencies R. P. Yes P. D. Then the Worship must be unequal and that which is given to a Creature must be inferiour worship R. P. But T. G. saith they might believe true Divinity to be in him as the Heathens did of their lesser Gods P. D. True Divinity What is that when they believed him to be a Creature did they take him for an uncreated creature For that can be no true Divinity which is not uncreated and yet you confess they owned Christ to be a Creature What nonsense and contradiction would T. G. cry out upon if Dr. St. had ever said any such thing R. P. Might not they believe Christ to be assumed as Consort in the Empire and so absolute Divine Honour to be due to him P. D. What do you mean by this absolute Divine Honour For I have already proved it must be inferiour Worship R. P. I do suppose absolute Divine Honour is that which is given to a Being on the account of its own excellency and relative from the respect it hath to another P. D. But whether absolute or relative it is proper Divine Honour you mean And doth not that imply an esteem of proper divine excellency and is not that proper to God alone and uncreated How then can this absolute Divine Honour be given to a Created Being R. P. How did the Gentiles to their false Gods P. D. Just as the Arians for they made distinctions in their worship as will appear when we come to that subject R. P. What do you make then this worship of the Arians to be P. D. An Inferior and Relative Worship for they supposed they worshipped God when they gave those Acts of Worship to Christ which were agreeable to the excellencies that were in him R. P. But 2. Those Acts were such as by the consent of the Church were understood to be due only to God incarnate P. D. Here we are to know both what these Acts were and what power the Church hath to impose a signification upon them R. P. T. G. names these 1. Worshipping and serving him with Latria 2. Putting their trust in him as Mediator of Redemption 3. Invoking him as the Judge of the quick and the dead c. P. D. What means this c. I am afraid here is something beyond the trick about Gregory Nyssen which lies under this Dragons Tayl. Are these all which Dr. St. mentioned R. P. I know not that if you know more I am sure to hear of it P. D. You are not mistaken for Dr. St. had shewed at large 1. That external adoration was one of those things which the Fathers charged the Arians with Idolatry for giving to Christ supposing him to be a Creature from Peters forbidding Cornelius and the Angel St. John because this is only proper to God from the plain testimonies of Athanasius Epiphanius and St. Cyril 2. That invocation of Christ as a Mediator of Intercession was condemned as Idolatry in the Arians Athanasius supposes it inconsistent with Christianity to joyn Christ if he were a creature in our prayers together with God 3. That they made no such distinction of worshipping and serving with Latria as T. G. insinuates For he shews from the Testimonies of Athanasius and even Gregory Nyssen St. Cyril and Theodoret that the very worship which they condemn for Idolatry is called Doulia by them And therefore these are meer shifts and evasions which do not remove the difficulty at all I deny not but they did put their trust in Christ for Salvation and expect his coming to judge the quick and the dead but I say these were but expressions suitable to the apprehensions they had of his excellencies above any other Creatures but still inferiour to Gods and the Fathers did not charge them with Idolatry meerly for these Acts but for the other likewise mentioned before R. P. But T. G. hath a reserve still behind viz. that it is in the Churches Power to determine the signification of external Acts of Worship what belongs to Soveraign or proper Divine Worship and what to inferiour worship that at that time the Church might take those for Acts of Divine Worship which afterwards by consent of the Church came only to signifie inferiour Acts of Worship when applied to Creatures and therefore the argument cannot hold from that time to after Ages P.D. I think you have hit upon T. G.'s meaning and in truth it is the only thing to be said in the case For if Idolatry be a thing in the Churches Power to determine it is the only way in the world for the Church of Rome to free her self supposing that power to be lodged in her but if it should happen that the Law of God the consent of Nations the Reason of Divine Worship and the Practice of the Primitive Church have determined Idolatry antecedently to the power of the present Church what a case are you then in The guilt of Idolatry must lie heavily upon you and if it be so great a sin as your own Schoolmen determine you have a great deal to answer for notwithstanding all the tricks and evasions of T. G. But why doth not T. G. make the external Acts of Theft Adultery Murder and Perjury as much under the Churches power as those of Idolatry But I forbear now supposing that we shall meet with this useful notion again before we end this debate R. P. You are mistaken if you think T. G. had no other answer to give For he saith they could not be understood of that worship which our Church gives to Saints because they acknowledge an inferiour worship due to the Saints for which he quotes St. Austin Gregory Nazianzen St. Hierom and Gregory Nyssen P. D.
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