A iust discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet's vnjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome with a discovery of the vanity of his late defence in his pretended answer to a book entituled, Catholicks no idolaters : by way of dialogue between Eunomius, a conformist, & Catharinus, a non-conformist : the first part : concerning the charge of idolatry, &c.

A iust discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet's vnjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome with a discovery of the vanity of his late defence in his pretended answer to a book entituled, Catholicks no idolaters : by way of dialogue between Eunomius, a conformist, & Catharinus, a non-conformist : the first part : concerning the charge of idolatry, &c.

Table of contents

[1]

Title page

THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER

A SUMMARY OF The Chief matters contained in these Dialogues.

In the First Part.

In the Second Part.

In the Third Part.

ERRATA.

In the First Part.

In the Second Part.

In the Third Part.

1

THE FIRST DIALOGVE.

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

THE THIRD DIALOGVE.

THE FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

THE FIFTH DIALOGVE.

[2]

Title page

2

THE FIRST DIALOGVE.

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

THE THIRD DIALOGVE.

THE FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

[3]

Title page

THE THIRD PART.

THE FIRST DIALOGVE.

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

THE THIRD DIALOGVE.

THE FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

THE FIFTH DIALOGVE.

THE SIXTH DIALOGVE

A POSTSCRIPT FROM THE PUBLISHER

THE ARGUMENTS OF THE DIALOGUES.

THE FIRST PART.

The First Dialogue.

The Second Dialogue.

The Third Dialogue.

The Fourth Dialogue.

The Fifth Dialogue.

THE SECOND PART.

The First Dialogue.

The Second Dialogue.

The Third Dialogue.

The Fourth Dialogue.

THE THIRD PART.

The First Dialogue.

The Second Dialogue.

The Third Dialogue.

The Fourth Dialogue.

The Fifth Dialogue.

The Sixth Dialogue,

EXTRAICT DV PRIVILEGE du Roy.

§

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

A IUST DISCHARGE TO DR. STILLINGFLEET'S VNJVST CHARGE OF IDOLATRY AGAINST THE CHURCH OF ROME. WITH A Discovery of the Vanity of his late Defence, In his Pretended Answer to a Book Entituled CATHOLICKS NO IDOLATERS By way of Dialogue Between. EVNOMIVS, a Conformist & CATHARINVS, a Non-Conformist.

THE FIRST PART.

Concerning the Charge of Idolatry, &c.

Facile est cuiquam videri respondisse, si tacere noluerit.

S. Aug.

PARIS, Printed for RENE' GUIGNARD, at the sign of S. Basil, in S. Jacques Street

M.DC.LXXVII.

Avec Privilege du Roy.

[Page]

[Page]

THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER

THe Design of these Dialogues discovering it self in the Title Page, and the Particular Subjects they treat of being set down in the Summary annexed, and the Table at the End, supersede the troubling the Reader with any long Preface. I shall therefore only touch briefly upon some few things, which I conceive his Curiosity would lead him to demand, if he knew of whom.

The First is concerning the Author, who he is, and it is his desire that his name should be concealed, not to put the Dr. into the Temptation of giving him a like occasion of complaint, as he had done formerly to T G when having gotten the knowledge of his being the Author of a certain private Cath. u [...] Idol. Preface. Paper in answer to some Objections [Page] made by him, he published the said Paper in Print with such Characteristical notes of the Author, as might easily discover who he was, and in terms so invidious, as were apt to create the greatest Prejudice against him.

The Second is, what determin'd the Author to make choice of this way of Dialogue between a Conformist and a Non-Conformist, and I have heard him say, it was Dr St's constant acting of both parts in his Writings without any manner of Retractation; and no Method seemed more apt to make the Reader sensible of this Artifice, than to distribute the Parts to the Proper Persons, and make each rehearse for himself.

The Third is the Style, in which if the Dr chance to meet with some of those which he calls hard words, and which he saith he is so used to, that he Def. p. 4. can easily pass them over, yet in case this good Resolution should fail him, he can haue no just reason to complain, they being either All or the greatest part of them as appears by the Citations in the Margent, transcribed from his own Original, and but the Echos of his own Reproaches. And I doubt not, but the [Page] Reader after he hath considered all things, will find them to be much beneath the merits of his Intolerable Vapouring without cause, and the bitter Sarcasms, with which he treats T. G. who for the moderation used by him in his Reply had gained the repute of a Civil and modest Adversary in the judgment of many Learned men of the Church of England.

The Fourth is, why some Passages are more largely insisted on in this Treatise, which the Reader perhaps will think did not deserve the Pains that is bestowed on them, and particularly that Religious Question concerning the Heathen's Jupiter, whether according to the Fathers he were the true God or a Devil? But the great advantage the Dr thinks it to be to his Cause, to maintain him to be the true God, and the discussing this Point Def. p. 24 to be so very material towards the true Vnderstanding the nature of Idolatry, as to deem it worth the while to spend a hundred and twelve Pages in giving a full account of the Sense of the Fathers concerning it, is to be considered, as also his unreasonable triumphing over his Adversary for having asserted Jupiter [Page] according to the Fathers to be a devil, and the Impression all this must make upon an unwary Reader, together with the great abuse he puts upon the Fathers by mis-representing their Sense, and corrupting their words▪ as is shown in the Third Part of this Treatise Dial. 3.

The last is, how it can be expected, that a litle Anonymous Book in 12o of 500 Pages should ever pass in the world for a Just Answer to a Volume of Dr Stillingfleet's in large 8vo consisting of neer 900. in which the Citations too are without number, the Arguments without measure, and the Discourses o [...] rather Excursions without end. But for that I must referr the Reader to the Treatise it se [...]f, in which he will sind all the material difficulties of the Dr's D [...]fence relating to the Charge of Idolatry, proposed in his own words with their due Strength and light (and often times with advantage) by Catharinus, and ful [...]y refuted by Eunomius. T'is not Noise and Bulk which make an Answer, but Truth and Reason. For as S. Augustin saith Quid est loquacius vanitate? Quae non ideo potest quod Veritas, quia li. 5. de Civ. Dei [...]. ult. si voluerit, etiam plus potest clamar [...][Page]quam Veritas. There is nothing so full of words as Vanity: Yet we are not therefore to think, that Vanity can do what Truth does, because if it be resolv'd not to hold it's peace, it can make a greater Noise, than Truth it self.

[Page]

A SUMMARY OF The Chief matters contained in these Dialogues.

In the First Part.

THe Charge of Idolatry shown Vnmaintainable by Dr Stillingfleet.

1. Without dissenting from the Sense of Dial. 1. the True and Genuin Sons of the Church of England.

2. Without imposing upon the 22th of the 39. Articles, a Sense never intended Dial. 2. by the Compilers of them.

3. Without denying or Assigning a distinct Church in all Ages preserved from Dial. 3. Heresy and Idolatry, with which all Christians were bound to join in Communion.

4. Without granting the Church of Ibid. p. 91. &c▪ Rome to erre against a Fundamental Point of Faith.

5. Without bringing the Guilt and Mischi [...]f of the Schism upon the maintainers Dial. 4. of the Charge.

6. Without subverting all Lawfull Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church Dial. 5. of England.

[Page]

In the Second Part.

1. What Dr St hath done in his late Defence, Dial. 1. shown to have been un-necessary, as to the greater part of it, in Relation to T. G.

2. What it was he ought to haue done to Dial. 2. maintain his Charge of Idolatry. viz

1st To haue laid down the true Notion of Idolatry in the nature of the thing, which he hath not done,

And then 2ly to haue shown how it Dial. 3. agreed to the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils, viz

1 The Second Nicene.

2ly And that of Trent. In both which he Dial. 4. is shown to haue failed; as also in the Parallel he draws from the Practice of Ibid. p 247. the Arians.

Some Instances of his unfaithfull reporting Dial. 3. p. 220▪ the words and sense of Authors cited by him, tendred to Consideration. Dial. 4. p. 234. 252.

In the Third Part.

1. The Question is stated concerning the Dial. 1. Heathen's Jupiter, whether according to the Fathers, he were the true God ora Devil? The latter proved by more than a whole Jury of them.

2. The greatest part of the Testimonies produced by Dr St shown to be Impertinent, Dial. 2. [Page] (together with a short yet clear Account of the Heathens Theology out of the Fathers) and Ib. p. 330

3. Those Testimo [...]ies which seem most Dial. 3. Express to be mis-represented or corrupted by him.

4. The Parallel he draws from the Practice of the Vulgar Heathens shown Dial. 4. to be Vnjust, with another Instance of his unfaithfull reporting of a Passage of Ib. p. 3 [...]9 Thomas Aquinas.

5. As also his other Parallel from the Practice of the Wiser Heathens. Dial. 5.

6. The Argument from God's Appropriation of certain External Acts to his Ib. p. 447. &c worship, shown to conclude nothing against the Church of Rome, And

7. No succour to be had to his Cause from the determination of Circumstances Dial. 6. as assigned by him.

8. A Just discharge to his Vnjust Charge of Idolatry from the doctrine of Ib. p. 488. Mr Daillé concerning the Vse of Signs Instituted by men.

Lastly his denying Christ himself to be offered as a Sacrifice upon the Altar, Ib. p. 512 shown to be repugnant to the Sense of the true and Genuin Sons of the Church of England.

[Page]

ERRATA.

THe English Press being watch'd of late, as the Orchard of the Hesperides was of old, and a necessity arising from thence of making use of a Paris Printer, who understands not a word of English, the Reader will haue no cause to wonder, if he sometimes meet with ant for and, bu for but, te for the, is for it, tit for tis, wish for with, &c. and oftentimes with false Pointings, words unduly joined, and syllables un-artificially divided at the end of lines, as Ro-me, appropria-t [...], and the like. I can assure him, the Correction of the Press cost litle less pains, than the writing of the Treatise. Yet was it not possible to avoid all Errours. The most material are here noted, and I desire the Reader's Candour in the Amendment of them.

In the First Part.

P. 33. in the Marg. for 244. read 124. P. 40. l. 10. f. nay r. may. P. 54. l. 4. f. sigh. r. sight P. 68. l. 4. f. et r. it.

P. 71. l 15, f. Hall r. Hell. P. 92. l. 13. f. his r. to his. P. 101. l. 28. f. thati r. that it. P. 115. l. 7. f. Prophani r. Profane. P. 123. l. 2. f. Wit r. wits. P. 124. l. 6. [Page] f. ells r. tells. Ibid. l. 7. f. if r. of.

P. 137. l. 3. f. f r. if. P. 139. l. 6. f. who r. whom. P. 150. l. 25. f. [...]spiter r. Jupiter▪

In the Second Part.

P. 170. l. 27. f. Papisti r. Papists.

P. 186. l. 23. f. apon r. upon P. 188. l. 20. f. the r. they. Ibid. l. 26. f. 13.tly r 13th.

P. 189. l. 20. f. to r. as. Ibid. l. 21. f. forbidden r. forbidden as. P. 190. l. 9. f. Postulat's r. Postulata's. P. 219. l. 19. f. every r to every.

P. 232. l. 14. f. These r. There.

P. 240. l. 15. f. Auditros r. Auditors.

Ibid. l. 25. f Receptable r. Receptacle.

P. 281. l. 28. f. when r. whom.

In the Third Part.

P. 291. l. 8. f. being r. they are.

P. 292. l 22. f. haue r. haue not.

P. 299. l. 3. f. spirits r. spirit.

P. 320. l. 17. f. Po [...]tical r. Poetical.

P. 330. l. 26. f. whom r. (whom. Ibid. l. 27. f. heauen r. heauen)

P. 242. l. ult. f. to r. to be.

P. 346. l. 14. f. to weak r. so weak.

Ibid. l, 22. f. exatted r. exacted.

P. 455. l. 21. f. such r. such as.

P. 497. l. 9. f. it In like r. In like.

P. 502. l. 20. f. carnetly r. earnestly.

P. 525. l. 24. f. that r. than.

P. 526. l. 20. f. the. Wise r. the Wise,

1

[Page]

THE FIRST DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

EVnomins declares his dis-satisfaction witb the Charge of Idolatry, and Dr Stillingfleet's pretending it to be the Sense of the Church of England. The Dr's Endeavours in that part shown to be Insufficient, particularly as to the Book of Homilies, and the Rubrick for kneeling at Communion. The sad account of History we are like to have from him when he denies Robere Abbot Bishop of Salisbury to have been ever till now suspected for a Puritan. His charge of Idolatry different from that of the true and Genuin Sons of the Church of England; divers of whom vindicate the Doctrine of the Second Council of Nice concerning the worship of Images, from the note of Idolatry. The true State of the Controversy concerning that Point.

[Page] EVNOMIVS. CATHARINVS.

EVnomius:

How does my good friend Catharinus? What, ever more poring upon Books? Me thinks, you should somtimes giue your self leaue to divert a litle. Ne (que) semper arcum.—

Cathar;

Truly I think it much better to spend my time in reading Sermons and good Books of Controversy, than as Prophane men do now adays in Playhouses and Taverns.

Eunom:

These I confess are but the too frequent Employments, rather than Recreations of the time. But do you never spend an hour in reading a Play or a Romance?

Cathar:

It is not needfull. I have Dr Stillingfleet's Books of Controversy, which exceed them all not only in Profit but Delight: for he is the man in my mind, who Omne tulit punctum, dum miscuit utile dulci.

Eunom.

But is there not something of picquant, as wel as dulce in his writings, which perhaps makes them rellish the better with you? What you have before you, seems to me, by the bulk and fashion of the Book, to be his DEFENCE [Page] of his Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, in answer to T. Gs Book entituled, Catholicks no Idolaters.

Cathar.

It is the very same: and I have read it over once with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction, to see the Heathens could not be justly charged with Idolatry, bu the Papists must be so too: And am now tasting it over again, the second time.

Eun.

Every one, as Aristotle saith, iudgeth (as wel as tasteth) according as he is affected. I have met with some who have been delighted with it too, at the first reading, but as we use to be with the strange Adventures and Passages in Cassandra or the Grand Cyrus; in which Fiction and Truth are so artificially interwouen, that men easily suffer themselues to be Surpriz'd, and then please themselues with the surprise. But Others there are, who look upon it, as an Apology rather for the Heathens, than a Conviction of the Romanists. And Others again, considering the veneration given to Holy Things and Places in the Church of England, and particularly to the Altar by Dr St. himself, are of opinion, that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry, [Page] for giving an Honourary Respect to the Images of Christ and his Saints, both himself and the Church of England must be in the same condemnation.

Cathar.

By this I see, that for a man to write any thing in this age, especialy Controversy, is but to ly down and hold his hand for Every one to Strike. And to say the truth, his Adversaries have not been sparing to take their turns, and lay on as hard as they could. But notwithstanding all their Rage and malice, he sits down, he saith, with that Ep, Dedic. contentment, that He has defended a Righteous cause, and, with an honest mind. And therefore I hope you make a more favorable Judgment of his Performance.

Eun:

To deal plainly wirh you, Catharinus, I was never satisfied with the Charge it self of Idolatry, against the Church of Rome, and much less with Dr St's endeauoring to fasten it upon the Church of England as her Sense; and till I be satisfied of these things, I must begg your pardon, if my Judgment be not the same with yours.

Cathar.

I can not but wonder to hear this come from you, especially for what concerns the latter part of it, if you have [Page] seriously considered the irrefragable Evidences, which Dr. St. produces, first in the Preface to his Roman Idolatry, and afterwards in his Generall Preface, (where he brings in the Knight himself encountring the Dragon) to prove it to be the sense of the Church of England. For although the Knight shew himself not inexpert in the Art of Chivalry, by the buckling on his Armour; mounting his Steed, and according to all ancient and Modern pictures of the Combat, directing his lance into the very mouth of the dragon, as Dr St: pleasantly describes him; yet the Weapon entred no further then the Teeth, and was there Shivered in a thousand peices. And for his charging Dr St. with dissenting from the doctrin of the Church of England in accusing the Church of Rome of Idolatry, t'is so notorious a peice of disingenuous dealing in him, that the Dr desires the Reader by this one Instance to iudge, what Candor Gen: Preface. and sincerity he is to expect in his Book.

Eun:

I have considered the Peices you mention over and over, and before I give you my thoughts of them, I must desire you, to consider me, as a Person perfectly [Page] of Mr Thorndike's Judgement in this matter, and so to look upon the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome not only as groundless and Dangerous in it self, but Iniurious to the Church of England; and, consequently, what I shall say upon this subiect, shall either be from the said Mr Thorndike's own words, or what I conceive himself must and would have said in conformity to his Principles. This premised, I must desire you to reflect, how Dr St: in the Preface to his Roman Idolatry, fearing the Censure of divers learned men of the Church of England, for charging so horrid a crime upon the Mother Church of the English nation, iudged it stood him upon to order the matter so, that he might not be thought in so severe acensure, as that of Idolatry, to contradict the sense of the Church of England; (which he saith he hath so great aregard to.) And the way he takes to do it is to shew that this charge of Idolatry hath been managed against the Church of Rome, by the greatest and most learned defenders of it, ever since the Reformation, deeming those who excuse her from it, persons of more charity than Judgment in so doing, [Page] and accordingly alledges in his behalf the Book of Homilies and the Testimonies of seventeen severall Authors.

His Adversary T. G to show the Dr had not proceeded regularly in the proof of what he undertook, first demands, if he have such a regard, as he saith, for the Church of England, why he did not appeal to her 39 Articles? For, as Dr St. himself saith of the Sense of the Church of Rome that we are to appeal for it, not to the Testimonies of Particular Rom Idol: p. 209. Persons in that Church, but to the decrees of the Council of Trent. So in like manner, for the Sense of the Church of England (the same case, as himself saith, holding for Titius that doth for Sempronius) He ought to have appealed to the publickly authorized Articles of that Church. But in them the Church of England declares no such thing as shall be shewed hereafter.

2. As for the Book of Homilies, T. G. cited divers Eminent Divines of the Church of England as Bp Montague, Dr Heylin▪ and Mr Thorndike who do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the publick dogmaticall doctrin of that Church; and the last of them Mr[Page]Thorndike instances particularly in the very Homily against Peril of Idolatry; of which he saith, that in this particular he must have leave to think it fails, as it evidently doth in others.

3. He excepted against litle less than two parts of three, of the seventeen Authors produced by Dr. St, as incompetent Witnesses in the case, upon the account of being either Puritans, or Puritanically inclined; And although Dr St. call this a frivolous exception, Yet to doe T. G. Justice, and free him from envy in this particular, He took this measure from Dr. St. himself, who to make the Testimony of Ar. Bp Whitgift valid in his own cause, gives this for the Reason, because none could be less suspected to be Puritanically inclin'd than He; which was to insinuate that even suspition of Puritanism was a sufficient exception in this case. And therefore in pursuance of this, T. G. shewd from the Testimonies not of Roman, but of Protestant Authors, that Eleven of the Seventeen were accounted Puritans, or Puritanically inclin'd.

Cathar:

I took Good notice of that Reason of Dr. St. in his first Preface, [Page] and how tenderly in his Generall Preface he handled that Point, as willing rather to wave the exception by pretty facetious artifices of wit, then repell it from the Generality of those Eminent Persons by a Downright denyall, out of the affection I hope he bears still to the Cause which had been honoured by such learned and Godly Bps as Iewel, Downham, Vsher, the two Abbots, Robert, and George, and Davenant: all which I find recorded among many others by my good frind the Patron Bonae sidei in the Catalogue he gives of Prelats in the Sp [...]c. p. 49. Church of England, who have been Puritans, or Puritanically inclin'd. Dr. St. says indeed of Robert Abbot, that he was never till now suspected for a Puritan: but I understand him to speak with relation to his Adversary who had mistaken the one Brother for the Other, and so endeavoured to cast upon him the Suspition of Puritanism. But the Dr. has brought such a new recruit of Testimonies, to maintain his charge.—

Eunom:

Hold there my good Friend; I pray content your self a while with this sweet Bit, and have a litle patience while I go on.

[Page] 4. For the other six remaining Authors, cited by Dr. St. viz▪ D [...]. Jackson, Dr. Feild. Arch Bp Lau [...] ▪ &c. T. G. evidenced from their very words alledged, that they did not charge the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Council of Trent, or the practice, as conformable to that Doctrine to be Idolatry; but such things as they conceived to be great abuses in the practice of it; and consequently Preface to Rom. Idol. that they differed only as more and lesse in the same kind, from th [...]se other Learned Protestants, of whom the Dr. Himself confesseth, that they excuse [...]h Church of Rome from Idolatry although not all who live in the Communion of it.

By all which it appears to me, that T. G. did not dispute exprofesso, whether it were the sense of the Church of England, that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry, or no? Nor whether Dr. St. dissented from the sense of his Church? (as he calls it) but what he undertook to show was no more than that two parts of the' Authors there cited by the Dr. were Puritans or Puritanically inclin'd, by the Confession of other Divines of the Church of England: and [Page] that therefore according to Dr. Sts. owne measures (if they were good) their testimonies were to be looked on as incompetent to prove what he asserted; And for the other six; that what they charged with Idolatry, was not the doctrine of the Church of Rome, but some things which they conceived to be great abuses in the practice of it.

This being the true state of that Controversy between him and his Adversary in that place, what Ingenuity was it in the Dr. to tell his Reader in his Generall Preface (as you said even now,) that T. G. charged him with absolute Dissenting from the doctrin of the Church of England in accusing the Church of Rome of Idolatry; and then desiring his Reader by this one Instance, to iudg what Candour and sincerity he is to expect from T. G. in his Book; where as what T. G. charged him with was only, that He had not proved in the very way himself made choice of (as the best to do it) his charge of Idolatry to be the receiu'd doctrine of the Church of England, if that were not to be taken (as the Dr. himself insinuated) from such as were known Puritans or to be Puritanically inclin'd; and his [Page]charge of Idolatry were not the same with that of the aforesaid six Authors in the places alledged by him; much less if it were to be taken from the sentiments of those who are esteem'd her true and Genuin sons; who excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry, although not all who live in the communion of it. And upon this account me thinks with all due respect to Dr. St. T. G. might much better desire his Reader by this one Instance to iudge what Candour and Sincerity he is to expect from him in his defence. For to me it seems not the Same, to tell a Person, who brings witnesses to attest his Innocency, that his Witnesses are exceptionable, upon the account of Friendship or Relation, &c. or that they speak not home to his purpose; And to charge him as Guilty. But by the way, I must tell you, I never thought it the greatest Sign of Innocency, for a Person to be over solicitous to prove himself not guilty.

Cathar:

I see very wel, that what T. G. aym'd at, was to shew the way the Dr. took to prove his charge of Idolatry to be the Sense of the Church of England, not to be Regular, because not from the [Page] publikly authoriz'd Articles of that Church; and his Witnesses many of them to be incompetent by the Test the Dr Himself had given for the Tryal of them, as being Puritans or Puritanically inclin'd; and although I am satisfy'd my self that they were so, at least the most Eminent of them, yet I do not see, but as to any thing return'd by T. G. Dr. St. hath sufficiently removed that exception from them in his Generall Preface: and hath brought such Authentick Testimonies from other publick Acts and Records as evidently prove it to be the Sense of the Church of England.

Eunom:

Nor can I see what necessity there is that T. G. should Engage himself farther in this argument, his intention being only (as I said) to shew, that Dr. St. had not sufficiently proued it to be the Sense of the Church of England, from the Testimonies he then produced, whateuer he might or could doe from other Acts or Authors of that Church, and so might leaue it to be disputed between him and his Church (if it be His) and hauing giuen that only as a P [...]ludium of the close arguing of his Aduersary, betake himself to his defence against [Page] the Charge of Idolatry, whether it were the sense of the Church of England or no. But because I see you think, the Dr. has sufficiently acquitted himself, as to T. G. pray let me hear some of the Principall passages, in which you think he has done it; and I shall candidly giue you my sense of them, for hitherto, I confess I am not convinc'd that it is the Sense of the Church of England, nor can I wish it may be prou'd so, the Accusation is so foul, so extravagant, and, as yet it appears to me, so vniust

Cathar:

First then, what can you say to the Book of Homilies? The greatest Exception T. G. made, was why Dr. St. did not appeal for the Sense of the Church of England to her 39. Articles: And to this Dr. St. tells him, that the Approbation of that Book was one of them. Viz the 35. and that they were subscribed by the Bishops and whole convocation. A D. 1571. which they could never do, he says, with a good Conscience, if they beleived any great and considerable part of the doctrine therin contained, to be fals and dangerous.

Eun:

To the first part of this Viz; the Approba [...]ion of that Book T. G. in [Page] his Preface answer'd, that it doth not euince that Every particular doctrine contained in that Book is a Godly and wholsome doctrine, citing for it the Authorityes of Bp. Montagu, and Dr. Heylin; and what comes yet more close, Mr. Thorndike confessing of that very Homily against perill of Idolatry, that he must have leave to think it fails in this particular, as he saith it evidently doth in others. And what gives great force to this Answer (though not taken notice of by Dr. St.) is what T. G. had said a litle before, that had the Church of England authoriz'd the particular doctrine of that Homily, as her dogmaticall doctrine, these Persons by asserting and maintaining the contrary as Erroneous, had incurr'd Excommunication ipso facto (as appears by the Canons printed before the 39. Articles, set forth by Mr. Rogers) which I never heard they were charged with.

As for the other Point of appealing to mens thoughts and Consciences in a matter of subscription, as he doth, when he saith he hopes, it doth not evince that the subscribers did not think the main doctrine of any one Homily to be fals, it is a very hopefull Topick, if we consider [Page] what hath been done and vndone in that Kind in the Reigns of Kg Henry 8. K. Edw. 6. Q. Mary and Q. Elizabeth, not to speak of later times. If this be all he hath to say for the Book of Homilies, Mr. Thorndike, whom himself confesseth to have been a Man of Excellent Learning and great Piety must in all likelyhood have subscribed the 39. Articles against his conscience, (which I shall never be brought to believe) when nevertheless he declared his Judgment to be, that the Homily against Peril of Idolatry failed in this particular. And till I hear him and his Fellows condemned for what they assert, I must have leave to think, that the bare alledging the Fact of Subscription to the 35. Article among the rest, is not sufficient proof, that the contrary to what they iudged is the dogmaticall Sense of the Church of England, especially when speaking expressely in the 22. Article of the Romish doctrine concerning Worshipping and Adoraetion of Images, She gives it onely the name of a vain thing and a fond Invention.

Cathar.

But Dr. St. goes on; and shows the current doctrine of the Church ever [Page]since the Reformation to have been agreable to this Homily of the Peril of Idolatry. from the Injunctions of K. Edw. 6. and Q. Elizabeth.

Eun:

This he saw very well might be looked upon, as an Effect of Heat at the first reformation, and whereas he will not have vs think it was only a sudden Heat. I shall give you an account of the progress of it out of Dr. Heylin. There was a time, saith he, when Q. Elizabeth beheld Cyprian Angl. pag. 342 2. Edit. the Pope as her greatest Enemy, in reference to her Mothers Marriage, her own Birth and consequently her Title to the Crown of England: and many of the Books which were printed in and about that time, were full of bitterness and revilings against the Church of Rome it self, and all the divine Offices, ceremonies and Performances of it. But after the C [...]own was setled vpon K. James, whose Title was vnquestionable both at Rome and abroad; the dangerous consequences of the charge of Idolatry vpon the Church of Rome began to be more calmely and maturely considered; and were so thoroughly weighed in the time of K. Charles I. that as the same Heylin saith Arch. B. Laud with equal diligence endeavoured[Page]by his decree, to hinder the reprinting of the said Books, as also of others containing Calvinian doctrines, that so the Church might rest in quiet, without any trouble or molestation ïn her self or giving offence to any other. Which evidently shows, that that Party never looked vpon the Expressions of Idolatry contained in those Iniunctions, as the Dogmaticall Sense of the Church of England.

Cathar:

I know the Heat of this charge began to grow cool in process of time, and together with it the fervour of the Reformation. But what can be said to the Rubrick in the 2d. Liturgy by Edw. 6. readmitted of late into the the Book of Communion: in which the Adoration of the Host is expressly called Idolatry? That very Rubrick of which T. G. (saith Dr. St.) according to his excellent Skil in the Offices of our Church, saith, it is not yet more than a dozen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book; which he might baue found aboue a 100. years before in the Book of E [...]w. 6. The words are these, that by kneeling at Communion no Adoration is intended or ought to be done [Page]either vnto the Sacrament all Bread and wine, there bodily receiued; or any Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Bloud: For the Sacramental Bread and wine remain stil in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be ador [...]d. For that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all Faithfull Christians. And now what can be more plain, then that the Adoration of the Host is here expressly condemned as Idolatry?

Eun:

To this I answer that the various Fate of this Rubrick, first in not being annexed to the Communion Book till the 2d. Liturgy in the 5. of Edw. 6. and being cast out again in the year 1562. vnder Q. Elizabeth, and so remaining for almost a 100. years, and then re-admitted again, is no Eviction to mee, that Dr. St's. charge of Idolatry is the dogmaticall doctrine of the Church of England; which although she affirm (Art. 28.) that Transsubstantiation hath given occasion to many Superstitions, yet doth she not charge it with Idolatry. And what cōfirms me more in this Judgment is that we know that Dr. Taylor and Mr. Thorndike both maintain, that although they suppose those of [Page] the church of Rome to be mistaken in their belief of the Elements being changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ; yet they deny it follows from thence, that they are Idolaters, because the Object of their Adoration is Christ the only true and Eternall God. And I never heard they were looked upon as Excommunicated Persons for it, though they both lived a considerable time after this Rubrick was annexed, Dr Taylor being advanced to a Bishoprick and Mr. Thorndike publishing his Just Weights and Measures in the year 1662. that is, two years after the said Rubrick was inserted; in which Book he expressely maintains that the worship of the Host in the chap. 19 Papacy is not Idolatry. and gives this reason for it, because they that worship the Host do not beleeve that the Elements remain; but beleeve our Lord Christ, the only true God hypostatically vnited to our flesh and Bloud to be there present in an especiall manner. And your friend the Patron Bonae Fidei declares his Judgment also to bee, that it is not so Prodr. p. 77. much madness in the Romanists to adore the Lord JESVS vnder the species of Bread and wine, as it is a gross Errour in [Page]them to belieue that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ. But then again, to tell you my own thoughts concerning the Sense of this Rubrick, as it now stands, I take the meaning of it not to be, the denying Adoration to be due in regard of Christ's Body being present Spiritually but truly in the Sacrament, (for this is asserted by Bp Andrews, Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram, Mr. Thorndike, and Andr. Resp. ad Apol. Bellar. other learned men of the Church of England) but only that no adoration ought to be done to any Corporal Presence of c. 1. Thornd Epil. p. 350. Christ's Natural Flesh and Bloud, as the word Corporal is taken by Dr Taylor in his Treatise of the Real Presence, and by other Protestant Divines, to signify the Natural. (or as Dr. Cosins cals it, Carnall) manner of a Body's being present. And my Reasons are. First because the words in the 2d, Liturgy of Edw. 6. (inserted by some of Calvins disciples then prevailing) No adoration ought to be done to any Real or Essential Being of Christ's natural Flesh and Bloud, are now changed in the present Communion-Book, into any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Bloud. For [Page] either the Corporal Presence is here distinguished by them from the Real and Essential, or not. If not, why were the words changed? If it be, it is manifest that this last Edition of the Rubrick deter mins nothing expressly of the Real and Essential Being of Christ's Naturall Flesh and Bloud, nor of the Adoration due to it, but rather intimates that Such a presence may be the Ground of Adoration: the word Corporal supposing only for the natural Presence after a gross and Carnal manner, as hath been said. And that the denying the Ceremony of kneeling at the participation of the Sacrament, to be done in regard of a [...]y Real and Essential Being of Christs natural Flesh and Bloud, being found in that Rubrick was one of the reasons, why the whole Rubrick was expunged by the Revisors of the Liturgy in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth is expressly affirmed by Dr H [...]ylin in his Ecclesia R [...]formata, Q. Eliz pag. III. and that for this very reason, not to giue scandal or Off [...]nce to the Popish Party, who though they maintain the Body of Christ to be t [...]uly, realy and substantially present in the Eucharist, yet they deny [Page] it to be there Corporaliter, Corporally, as the word is understood to imply the Natural manner of a Body's Existence. 2ly. Because Dr. Taylor in his Real Bellarm de Euch. li. 1. c. 2. Presence p. 12. saith that when the word Real Presence is denyed by some Protestants, it is taken for natural Presence, and not for Presence in rei veritate, which is at large declared by Bp. Cosins ch. 2. of his History of Transubstantiation (which at the Entreaty of Friends he permitted to be printed a litle before his death) to be the unanimous Beleif of all Protestants. Lastly had T. G. said it was not more then a Dozen years since this Rubrick was framed and deuised, Dr. St. had had some reason to tax his want of skill in the Offices of the Church of England, but saying only as he did that it was not more than a dozen years since it was inserted, I doe not conceiue it to be so improper a speech as to deserue the Ferula, being spoken of a thing, which had been cast out by publick Authority at the reviewing and correcting the Liturgy in the year 1562. and had remaind so, for wel neer a 100. years, and then put in.

If the Explication I haue giuen of it's [Page] meaning be not agreable to Dr. Sts sense, he may if he please, impugn. it; but it will import him, as I suppose, to do it so, as not to undermine the Constant doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Real Presence, and leaue us nothing but pure Zuinglianism in place of it.

Cathar.

I shall leaue that to the Dr. to make what he will or can of it; And proceed to a Passage, in which you neither will nor can deny, but that T. G. was grossly out indeed; viz, when he mistook George Abbot Arch Bp of Canterbury, for Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury, the former being neuer mentioned by Dr. St. and the latter, as he saith, neuer till now suspected for a Puritan. But they of the Church of Rome as the Dr. obserues vpon this pass [...]ge, have a faculty of doing greater wonders, with five words, than changing a Bishop into an Arch Bp. And he hopes T. G. vnderstands the Church he is of, better than that he lif [...], or els we are like to haue a sad account of History from him.

Eun:

This was a terrible mistake indeed of one Bishop for another, both [Page] Brothers and living at the Same time, as these Abbots were, and doubtlesse deserues such a Magisteriall Animadversion aas the Dr. hath given vpon it, as tending to the confusion of all History; especially if He of Salisbury cited by Dr. St. were not also Puritanically inclined.

Cathar:

Dr. Still. expressly affirms it, that he was neuer till now suspected for a Puritan. And I haue that esteem for his Skill in History, that I belieue you will not euince the contrary.

Eun.

And yet you cannot but know, that your friend the Patron bonae Fidei alledged euen now by your self recites the two Abbots, Robert and George, among those of the Hierarchy, whose names are in your Diptyeks; and his Book was published a year before Dr. St. printed his General Preface. But to passe this by: Let vs hear the account Dr. H [...]ylin giues of Dr Robert Abbot in his Cyprianus Anglious, when by the power and P. 61. fauour of his Brother, then Bishop of London, he was preferr'd to the Place of his Maties Professor for Divinity; He was, saith he, a man of Eminent Learning, and a more moderate Calvinian[Page]than either of his Predecessors in the matter of Predestination, but altogether depending on the will of his Brother, whom the Dr. cannot deny to have been Deep dy'd in the Doctrine of Geneua. The same Dr Heylin tells vs also a passage or two which sufficiently show the temper of this Dr. Abbot. For vpon occasion of Dr. Laud's touching in his Sermon vpon the Presbyterians and their proceedings, and vsing some words to this effect, viz, that the Presbyterians were as bad as the Papists; this being so directly contrary, saith Heylin to the Iudgment and opinion of this Dr. Abbot who was then Vice-Chancellor, Laud was exposed by him (on the next occasion) to publick shame and Censure: as Howson and Corbet both of Christ's P, 62. Church had been before by the same Dr. Abbot in the like case; the first hauing been suspended propter conciones minus Orthodoxas, for accusing the Geneua notes on the Bible of mis-interpretation concerning Christ's Divinity and Messiah-ship. The Other soundly ratled by the Repetitioner, for grating vpon Calvin's manifest perverting the sense and meaning of the Article of[Page]Christ's descending into Hell. These are Historicall Passages, which discouer this Dr. Abbot not only to haue acted in fauour of Geneua, out of complyance with his Brother, but out of Opinion and Judgment. So doe the Praises he giues Mr. Perkins as a man well deseruing for his great trauail and pains for the furtherance of true Religion, and edifying of the Church; as his Adversary Dr. Bishop cites the words in his Reproof pag. 48. and the same is confirmed by his last Swan-like song, as the English-Dutch-British Author of Herwologia Anglica calls it Cygnea cantio de gratia & perseverantia Sanctorum, of the Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. And Dr. St. knows who they be, that hold no falling from Grace. By all which it appears, that Dr. St. himself was grossly mistaken in point of History, when he affirmed of Robert Abbot Bp. of Salisbury that he was neuer till now suspected for a Puritan, he being Brother to Arch Bp Abbot as wel in Judgment as Nature, with that difference only which the Poet obserues to be vsually found in the faces of such neer Relations, Facies non vna duobus [Page]nec diversa tamen. And I thinke T. G. may with more reason return Dr. St's words vpon him, that he has a faculty of doing greater wonders with seuen or eight words viz (Robert Abbot was neuer till now suspected for a Puritan) than changing a Bishop into an Arch Bp And that he may hope too, the Dr understands the Church he opposes, better than that he vndertakes to defend, otherwise wee are like to haue a sad account of history from him: for to me it seems a greater wonder to change a Prelatik into a Puritan than a Bishop, into an Arch Bp. And likely to bring greater confusion into History, to erre in the Quality of the Person, than to mistake him for his Brother they being as Like as Twins to each other. Had I any power with Dr. St. I would aduise him not to be so Tragical vpon such sleight occasions, The Reader may think either that some secret Splinters of the Lance stick in the Dragons Iawes, which he cannot free himself from; or that he could find nothing of moment in his Adversary to exercise his Talent vpon; when he sees him fling and lay about him so vnreasonably for a thing of [Page] nothing, and in which his own mistake was farr the greater, the quality or Judgment of the Person being more to the purpose than his Individuality.

Cathar:

Euery one you know hath his seuerall Gift, and will exercise it as he sees best for his cause. I shall trouble you but with one Instance more vpon this subiect at present, and that is the Answer which T. G. giues to the other six Autho [...]s, whom he reckons of the same kind, with those of whom, Dr. St. saith, for meer shame he will not say they were Puritans, or Puritanical [...]y inclined, Viz, that they c [...]arged the Papists with what they thought they did, but the Papists deny they doe any such thing A Pretty Answer truely, and which seems to me to be the Same, as Dr. St. well obserues, as to say They charge them with Idolatry, but the Papists deny th [...]y commit it. And so saith he they doe when I charge them with it: So that T. G. by the very same reason might haue acquitted me from charging them with it, and haue spared his Book.

Eun:

What needed the words for meer shame, when T. G. did not charge the [Page] aforesaid six Authors of being Puritans or Puritanically inclin'd? But the Gift must be kept in vre for fear of growing restiff. What T. G. answers (howeuer Dr. St. moulds it after his own fashion to make it appear ridiculous) is this, that whoeuer attentiuely considers but the very places cited by Dr. St. out of those Authors, shall find that they do not impugn the doctrine it self of the Church of Rome, or the practice conformable to that doctrine; but such things as they conceiued to be great Abuses in the practice of it, which by the way is all can be made out of the Drs new Testimony of Arch Bp. Bancroft w [...]en he charges the Papists, with I kn [...]w not what (they are his own words) intolerable superstition and Idolatry, And in this T. G. sayes, these Authors differ only as more or less in the same kind, from what Mr Thorndike, and other learned Protestants pretend, when they reproue some practices, as Idolatrous, or at least in danger to be such, when neuerthelesse as Dr. St. Himself acknowledges in his first Preface, they excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry, although not all who liue [Page]in Communion of it. Now to me, I confess it seems not to be the same, to accuse the Doctrine of a Church and the Practice conf [...]rmable to that doctrine, which is what Dr. St. doth in charging the Church of Rome as guil [...]y of Idolatry; and to reproue some abuses conceiued to be committed in the practice of it, which is what the aforesaid Authors doe. Again, it seems not to me to be the same, not to excuse all the persons who liue in the Communion of a Church from the guilt of Idolatry, which is what Mr. Thorndike, and those other Learned Pr [...] testants doe; and to accuse the Church of Rome, f [...]r requiring by the termes of Communion with her, the committing Idolatry, paralel to that of the Heathens, as Dr. St. does. These I take to be very different charges, and so did Dr. St. vnderstand them, when he said, that vpon the whole matter T. G. cannot produce any one Person of our Church that hath clearly and wholly (mark that) acquitted the Church of Rome f [...]om the charge of Idolatry. It was not then T. G's. denying (as Dr. St. represents it) that those of the Church of Rome de [Page]commit Idolatry in the practices those Authors reproue, that acquits them, (though not in the whole, yet in part) of the charge of Idolatry, as it is aduanced by Dr. St. but their own excusing, (as himself confesses) the Church of Rome from Idolatry, though not all who liue in the Cōmunion of it. From whence it followes that the case is not the same between them and Dr. St. who asserts, that all the Members of that Church inust by the terms of Communion with her be guilty of damnable hypocrisy or Idolatry. 1. c. if their practice be conformable to her doctrine, since the termes of Communion can oblige them to no more And now if thus be what he means by the Sense of the Church of England when he would not be thought to contradict it, I thinke he will neuer be able to make out that it is so; when that Church proposes no such thing in her Articles, and such Eminent Diuines of her Communion, as are farthest from the suspition of Puritanism affirm the contrary. For what the Church of Rome requires of those of her Communion in the Point of Images [Page] (the grand contest at present between Dr. St. and his Adversary) as it is declared in the 2d. Council of Nice (to which the Council of Trent refers, and to which, according to the Drs. own Rule we are to appeal for the Sense of that Church and not to the testimonies of particular persons) what I say the Church of Rome requires there of those of her Communion, is to salute and giue an honorary adoration (or respect as the term Adoration is there declared to mean) to the Images of Christ and his Saints, like as is giuen to the Figure of the Holy Crosse, to Chalices, to the Books of the Holy Gospels, and sucb like sacred vtensils: but not Latria which (as true Faith teacheth) is due only to God. And in this, as T. G. shewed (and it ought to be repeated because Dr. St. takes no notice of it in his Defence) the Council is vindicated from Cath. no Idol. p. 144. Epil. 3. P. p. 363. Idolatry by Eminent diuines, as I said, of the Church of England, as Mr. Thorndike, who freely confesses, that he must maintain as vnquestionable, Of the Church li. 3. c. 36. that the Council of Nice enioyns no Idolatry, and Dr. Feild, who affirms [Page] that the Nicen Fathers mean nothing els [...]y adorati [...]n [...]f Images, but embracing, kissing and rever [...]ntly vsing of them, like to the Honour, we (saith he) do the Books of [...]oly Scripture: and Bp. Montague hauing laid down the doctrine of the Church of Rome in these termes, you say the Pictures of Christ, the Bd. Virgin and Saints must not haue Latria; so Wee. You giue them Dulia: I quarrel not the term, saith he, Gagg. p. [...]18. though I could. There is a respect due vnto, and honour giuen relatiuely to them. If this you call Dulia, we giue it too. Let practice and Doctrine go together, we agree. So that it is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome (if truely stated out of the Decrees of her Councils) or practice agreable to that doctrine, which these Divines impeach as Idolatrous; but the Opinions of some School Diuines, or Abuses they conceiu'd to be committed in the practice of it. And I think T. G. hath still good reason to desire the Reader to iudge, whether Dr. St. being (as he saith) by command publickely engaged in the defence of so Excellent[Page]a cause, as that of the Church of England against the Church of Rome, haue not betrayd his Trust, and his Church too (if it be his) by aduancing such a Medium to iustify her separation, as contradicts the sense of that Church, if it be to be taken form the Sentiments of those who are esteem'd her true and Genuine sons: that is (as Dr. St. paraphrases) the most remote from all suspition of disaffection to her, or Inclination to Puritanism (as these were) and in the Iudgment of Mr. Thorndike, makes her in plain termes to be Schismaticall. This T. G. Saith, will appear yet more clearly, if we consider how this charge of Idolatry, as maintained by Dr. St. subuerts the very foundation of Ecclesiasticall Authority in the Church of England, of which I may haue occasion to speak hereafter.

What I obserue at present is, that how couragiously soeuer He charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry, yet he Seldome or but Obiter only speaks of the Images of Christ and his Saints, which are the only subiect of the Decree of the Council of Trent, and consequently [Page] ought to be the chief if not only argument of his Book; but the main of his discourse is of the Image of God, which Bellarmin tells vs belongs not to Faith, but stands vnder Opinion: To. [...]. li. 2. c. 8. and thereupon taxes Calvin of extraordinary fraud and craft, who after he had proued, that Images of God are not to be made, as being incongruous to the diuine nature, runs out into Amplifications (in which he is followed and at last out-run by Dr. St.) and sings Io triumphe in so merry a t [...]ne, as if he had proued it vnlan f [...]ll to m [...]k [...] or worsh [...]p any Image at all. And vpon this acount, I confess I thinke T. G. might haue spared his Book, till the Dr. had thought fit to speak to this Essentiall Question, Whether it be Idolatry for a Christian to giue, not Latria, which is due only to God, but a honourary respect and Veneration, to the Images of Christ and his Saints; such as is giuen to the Books of the Holy Gospells, to the Sacraments, and such like sacred Things? This being as much as the Church of Rome requires by the terms of Communion with her. If Dr. St. can proue this to be Idolatry, the [Page] Knight must vnbuckle his Armour, descend from his steed, and yeild vp his Lance. But if Declining this, he will set himself to combate the Opinions of school men concerning the nature of the worship, some of them contending that the worship, due to Holy Image [...] in general is Religious, and to [...]hat of Christ Latria, &c. Howeuer it may serue him to his purpose (which himself knows best what it is, and others are not w [...]olly ignorant of,) it will be nothing to the Question; since none of those expressions are found in their Pr [...]f [...]ssion of Faith, or the Decree [...] of their Councils, from whence we are to take the terms of Communion with that Church. And as Mr. Thorndike well obserueth. (Iust weights. ch. 1.) we are not to forsake it for the actions of particular persons contrary to that which they publickly prof [...]ss. For my part as I told you I am of the same Mr. Thorndik'es mind, when he saith, that f [...]r any to cha [...]ge the Pope to be Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters, is to lead the P [...]ple by the Nose, to belieue that they can proue th [...]ir Supposition, when they cannot; but much [Page] more as it is managed by Dr. Sr. for which I shall give you my reasons to morrow, if you can be at leisure.

Cathar.

I shall preferr no business to this, and therefore pray fail not to be as good as your word.

Eun.

Til then Farewel.

[Page]

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

A Farther Declaration of the Sense of the Church of England concerning the Charge of Idolatry, in answer to what Dr. St. urges from the Testimony of Arch Bishop Whitgift, and the 39. Articles. The Lambeth Articles suppressed by Q. Eliz. And rejected by K. James: The Dr. desired to reconcile the doctrine of his Irenicum, viz, that nothing is lawfull in the worship of Godbut what he hath expressly commanded; with that in his Answer to N. O. that All things are lawfull which are not forbidd [...]n. The true meaning of the 22th. Article concerning the worshipping and Adoration of Images asserted.

CATHARINVS EVNOMIVS.

Cathar.

What you discoursed yesterday concerning the sense of [Page] the Church of England, hath I confess confirmed me something more in the Judgment, our Par [...] hath alwaies made of that Church, that it is but too much inclind to Rome. And if euer they lay aside the Disputes about the Nature of the Worship which you look vpon as Impertinent, and come vp closely to debate what you call the Essentiall Question, Whether a Chistian nay not giue a honourary respect and Veneration to the Images of Christ and his Saints? I think they will quickly come to an agreement, and so fare-well the Reformation: and much more if the Charge it self of Idolatry, which you wil haue to be hartily and throughly aduanced by none but the Puritan Party may not be made vse of to Justi [...]y the separation. I am very desirous to hear what you can say vpon this Subiect; but [...]wo things haue occurred to me since yesterday, vpon a Review I made of Dr. St's. Generall Preface about the former contention between him and T. G. concerning the Sense of the Church of England: and I should be glad, you would first speak to them.

Eun.

I cannot easily belieue, that any [Page] thing Material in that matter hath escaped your diligence. But if you think them so, I pray propose them.

Cathar.

The first, being about a particular Author Arch Bp. Whitgift, Is not So Materiall, as the Second, which I take to be an Euident Demonstration from the publickly authorized Articles of the Church of England, that the Charge of Idolatry, as aduanced by Dr. St. against the Church of Rome, is the Dogmaticall Sense of that Church.

Eun.

I wonder so important a passage should haue been forgotten, and which alone would haue done the work. But first, what of Arch Bp. Whitgift?

Cathar.

Why must He, Saith Dr. St. be thrown away to the Puritans? (I could quarrel the expression, but that I suppose him to speak his Adversary's mind, not his own) why must He be thrown away (saith he) to the Puritans, when all the world knows he was a great Aduersary to T. C. on the very account of the Puritan cause? But he is known also, saith T. G. to haue consented to the framing of the Lambeth Articles, and sending them to the Diuines of Cambridge. And what then? Are the Dominicans [Page]Puritans, and no Papists? If the Church of Rome may haue liberty not to determin those nice Points, why may not the Church of England? And so both parties remain of it, as long as they contradict no receiued Artticles among vs? But then again the Lambeth Articles were neuer intended for any more, then as Responsa Prudentum to silence disputes in the Vniversity. And I beleeue none of the Puritan Party after that took Arch Bp. Whitgift to be a Patron of the Cause.

Eun.

Admitting all this to be as you say, yet I see not but Arch Bp Whitgift by this f [...]ct of his, brought himself at least vnder the Suspition of being Puritanically inclin'd, which was all that T. G. aimed at to show, in opposition to what Dr. St. himself had asserted, that of all persons of that Age none could be less suspected to be Puritanically inclined than Arch Bp. Whitgift. Now that there was ground at least of Suspition of it in this fact, (howeuer he defended the Cburch of England against T. C.) appears first because Whitaker and Perk [...]ns, both Caluinists, saith Dr. Cyprian. Angl. pag. 193. Heylin and both of them Supralapsarians, [Page] were the chief Promoters and sollicitors for the making those Articles, among which the 5th carries that very stamp vpon it which Dr. St. giues for a mark of Puritanism, that there is no falling from Grace. 2dly because the Arch Bp. himself consented to the framing of those Articles, and proposed them to the Divines of Cambridge for regulating disputations in those Points of Controuersy. And though they were not intended as Articles determin'd by the Church but as Responsa Prudentum (not so much to silence, as to regulate disputes) yet the Arch Bp. it seems thought it prudent by this proceeding to countenance the maintaining of them. 3dly because the news of these proceedings being brought to the Queen, she was so offended, that onee she was at a point to haue them all endited of a Praemunire, had not the high esteem she had for Whitgift, whom she commonly called her Black Husband, reprieued all the rest from the danger of it. And her Offence proceeded not only from their intrenchment vpon her Prerogatiue in making such a declaration without her Authority; but ftom the Information [Page] she had how litle those Articles agreed Ibid. p. 132. with the Practice of Piety and Obedience to all Gouernment: whereupon such a strict cours was taken for the suppressing of them, that a Copy of them was not to be found in Cambridge for a long time after, though after the Queen's death they began to peep abroad again.

4thly Because K. James was no better conceited of them, than Q. Elizabeth was; for when it was moued by Dr. Reynolds, at Hamptoncourt that the nine Orthodoxall Assertions (as He pleased to call them) which were concluded on at Lambeth, might be admitted into the Confession of the Church of England, the King so much disliked the motion, that it was presently reiected without more adoe. This is the account which Dr. Heylin giues of this matter in his Cyprianus Angl. p. 193. 194. And I desire any indifferent Person to consider whether the Arch Bp's consenting to the framing these Articles, and sending them to Cambridge, and thereby countenancing the maintaining of them, were not sufficient to bring him at least vnder the Suspition of being Puritanically inclined, and consequently ground enough [Page] for T. G. to lay this Exception against him. What esteem the Puritan Party had for him after it I know not. If they did not look vpon him as a Patron, they had reason I am sure to think him a Favourer. Fot my part I should not stick to hold that Dominican to be no true Papist, but a Patron of the cause. who should doe but the half of what Arch Bp. Whitgift did.

Cathar:

This Peter Heylin's Book I see, serues you for a store house to furnish you with Historicall passages, as Dr St. saith, that Bellarmin and Coccius do T. G, sor Testimonies of the Fathers. But he is known to be a great Enemy to the Puritan Party.

Eun.

And that makes it the more vnlikely, that he would, though not throw away so eminent a Man to the Puritans, yet bring him at leust by such a relation vnder the Suspition of being a Fauourer of them. But what is it after all, that Arch Bp. Whitgift says?

Cathar.

Marry, that there are three kinds of Idolatry The one is, when the true God is worshipped by other means and wayes, than he hath prescribed, or would be worshipped. The other is when [Page]the true God is worshiped with f [...]ls Gods: the third is when we worship fals Gods, and altogesher forget the worship of the true God. And although, he saith he cannot see or learn, that the Papists are in this third kind of Idolatry yet he condemns them as guilty of the two former: which is enough and too much for any Christians.

Euno.

I haue not Arch Bp. Whitgift's Book by me to see on what occasion he said this, nor what connexion these words haue to the Antecedent and consequent discourse, but as they stand, they seem to me but to involue him deeper in the suspition of Puritanism. But first I pray tell me, what you vnderstand by his first kind of Idolatry: when (as he saith) the true God is worshipped by other means and ways, than he hath prescribed or would be worshipped.

Cathar.

I know Dr. St. saith his meaning is, when God is worshipped against his express Command: but the words to me seem not so much to condemn of Idolatry the giuing that worship to God, which he hath expressly forbidden; as the giving him any worship, which he hath not expres [...]ly commanded. [Page] And this appears euident to me from the Application the Arch Bp. makes, of what he had said, to the Papists, viz, that they worhip God other wise than his will is, and otherwise than he hath prescribed i. e. by means and wayes, which he hath not commanded; and then, that they also giue to the creature that which is due to the Creator, and sin against the first Table. i. e. against his express Prohibition in the 2d Commandment.

Eun.

This I should also take with Dr. St's. leaue to be the meaning of his words. And now I beseech you to consider if this do not involue him more deeply yet in the suspition of Puritanism. For although I do not make the charging the Papists to be Idolaters to be a distinctive signe of Puritanism, yet Dr. St. himself in his answer to N. O. p. 181. doth; when he saith that those who separate from the Church of England make this their Fundamentall Principle as to worship, (wherein the difference lyes) that nothing is lawfull in the worship of God, but what he hath expressly commanded: We say all things are lawful which are not forbidden: and vpon this[Page]single Point saith he the whole Controversy of separation stands as to the Constitutiō of our Church. Now if this single Point be, as Dr. St. saith, the Criterium between a Protestant and a Puritan, that the former says all things are lawf [...]ll in the worship of God which are not forbidden; and the latter, that nothing is lawfull but what he hath expressly commanded; And Arch Bp. Whitgif [...] haue carried his charge so farr, as to make it Idolatry, not only to worship God against his express command but by other means and ways than he hath commanded, it is plain that according to Dr. St. himself, he takes part with the Puritans in that very Point, vpon which the whole Controversy of the Separation stands as to them.

Cathar.

This is one of those which they call Argumenta ad hominem. And I cannot but wonder Dr. St. would lay himself open to it by varying so much from his Old Principles so firmly setled by him in his Irenicum, where page 6. he teacheth, that in those things which are therefore only Good because commanded, a command is necessary to make[Page]them lawfull, as in immediate positiue Asts of worship towards God; in which nothing is lawfull any further, than it is founded vpon a Divine Command. I Speak not, saith he, of Circumstances belonging to the acts of Worship, but whateuer is looked vpon, as a part of Diuine Worship, if it be not commanded by God himself, it is no ways acceptable to him, and theref [...]re not lawfull. And then a litle after. Although euen here we may say too, that it is not meerly the want of a D [...]vine Precept, which makes any part of Divine Worship vncommanded by God vnlawfull, but the General Prohibition, that nothing should be done in the immediate Worship of God, but what we haue a Divine Command for,

Eun.

This is a Wonder indeed; and must be attributed to those men, who as Dr. St. saith, haue a facul [...]y of doing greater wonders wich five words, than changing a Bishop into an Arch. Bishop: for if they are not the cause, they haue been at least the occation of this great change in him, viz that whereas before he asserted with those of your Party, that nothing is lawfull in the immediate [Page]worship of God, but what is commanded: he affirms now with the Church of England, that all things are lawfull which are not forbidden; vnless we may impute it to a greater light of the Spirit, which I am sure you will not. For other considerations which your friend Patronus Prodr. p▪ 76. bonae fidei would haue thought to be the Motiues of this Change, I shall not concern my self with them.

Cathar.

Whateuer wrought the wonder in Dr. St. or howeuer Arch-Bishop Whitgift fell upon this Principle, that to worship the true God by other means and ways, than He had prescribed, is Idolatry; his name is not found that I know of, among our Worthies; and you cannot deny, but that he charges the Papists with this kind of Idolatry, and that other too of giuing to the Creature that which is due to the Creator.

Eun.

Whether it were heat of disputation, or con [...]escendence to free himself from a troublesome Adversary, who had taxed him for hauing spok [...] something in b [...]half of the Papists (of which [...]. to [...]. Idol [...]. there is some appearance in his words cited by the Dr) yet his charge as you [Page] see, so farr forth as it makes the giuing to God any worship which he hath not commanded, to be Idolatry, is grounded vpon the very Fundamental Principle, which according to Dr. St. distinguishes the Puritan Party, from those of the Church of England; and so can be no Proof that it is the Sense of that Church. And for the 2d part of it, viz that the Papists giue to the Creature that which is due to the Creator, we may consider the time when he liued, in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth, of which you haue heard what Dr. Heylin saith. How euer, methinks Dr. St. ought not to assert this Charge of Idolatry to be the Sense of the Church of England, but might haue been content to haue it pass for one of those nice Points, of which, himself saith, that the Church may haue liberty not to determin, when the Church herself (as I said before) in her 39. Articles reiects the Romish doctrine concerning worshipping and Adoration of Images, not as Idolatry, but as a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded vpon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God. And therefore that he [Page] exceeded the bounds, which he ought to haue observed as the Champion of the Church of England, in making it to be her Sense to charge that with Idolatry, which the Compilers of the Articles call only a fond thing vainly invented; and in positively defining that to be expressly prohibited in the 2d Commandment, which they, after their best inquiry, pronounce Problematically only as rather repugnant to the word of God, than agreable to it.

Cathar.

This is the very place, which Dr. St. hath pitch'd vpon to proue his charge of Idolatry to be the Sense of the Church of England. And he hath done it so home, that I think there is no avoiding it. And that you may better see the force of his Arguments, I shall put them in form. And First he argues also ad hominem against T. G. in this manner.

If T. G. and all others of their Divines yeild that adoration of Images which the Church of England charges them with, to be Idolatry, then they must needs grant it to be her sense to charge them with Idolatry.

But T. G. and all others of their [Page]Divines, yeild that Adoration of Images, which our Church chargeth them with Art. 22. (viz, not barely worshipping, but Adoration of Images) to be Idolatry. Therefore they must grant it to be her sense to charge them with Idolatry.

And that it is not meerly the Practice used in the Church of Rome but their very doctrine, which the Church of England chargeth with Idolatry heproues no lesse strongly by this 2d Argument.

The Romish doctrine (mark that) concerning the worshipping and Adoration Art. 22. of Images &c. is a f [...]nd thing, vainly inuented, and grounded vpon no warranty of scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.

Therefore it is not meerly the Practice vsed in the Church of Rome but their very doctrine concerning Ad [...]ration of Images, which is here charged. But a Church cannot teach Adoration of Images but she must be guilty of Idolatry;

Ergo the Sense of the Article is to charge with Idolatry the very doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Adoration of Images. What doe you think of this my Friend?

[Page]Eun.

I'le be sworn, I think Dr. St. is much obliged to you for reducing his Argumēts into form: for as you haue done it, they appear at first sight Formidable indeed, like an vpper and lower Range of Teeth with their Maiors, Minors, Subsumptions, and Conclusions, threatning the very last extremity of danger to the Knight, if he dare euermore direct his lance into the Dragon's mouth. But then vpon second considerations, I think he may venture to draw neer, for (if I mistake not) these arguments, like the Young men, who arose to play before Abner and Ioab, catch each other by the head, and thrust their swords into their fellows side; and both fall down together. And I doubt not to make you see it as clearly, as two and three make five, if we can but agree what is meant by those words of the Article viz The Romish Doctrine concerning Adoration of Images: For the term Romish Doctrine is not clear, and as Mr. Thorndike hath observed, the word Adoratiō is and may be in despite of our hearts Equiuocall, i. e. sometimes signifie one kind of honour, and sometimes another.

Cathar.

But I haue a way to avoid all [Page] that in the present case, by telling you, that, the Romish doctrine concerning Adoration of Images, is as if one should say, the Adoration of Images taught in the Church of Rome.

Eun.

Very Identically answered I can assure you; and as much as is needfull. Let vs then apply it to our present purpose, and reduce both arguments into one, since the First is but a consequence of the Second.

It is not meerly the Practice vsed in the Church of Rome, but their very doctrine concerning Adoration of Images, i. e. the Adoration of Images taught in that Church, which is Charged by the Church of England.

But T. G. and all others of their Divines yeild that Adoration of Images which our Church chargeth them with, i. e. which is taught in the Church of Rome, to be Idolatry. Ergo.

Doe you not see how if the First Proposition be true, the second is false? For who euer heard that T. G. or any other of the Divines of the Church of Rome, held the doctrine taught in that C [...]urch, concerning the Adoration of Images to be Idolatry? And consequently [Page] to vse a simile suitable to the Dr's Genius, the Teeth of this dragon like those▪ of that other sown by Cadmus, come vp like armed Souldiers, but fight and Destroy each other. For if T. G. and all others of their Diuines do not yeild the Adoration of Images taught in the Church of Rome to be Idolatry (as certainly they doe not) tis manifest that they do not yeild that Adoration of Images to be Idolatry, which the Church of England chargeth them with; if she charge the very doctrine of that Church.

Cathar.

I did not think such vse could be made of Identicall Propositions, as you haue made of them. But what do you say to each argument a part.

Eun.

I say that by the words, Romish doctrine concerning Adoration of Images, may be vnderstood, either the doct [...]ine taught in her Schools, which being but the Opinions of Particular Persons, no man is bound to follow: or the Doctrine taught in her Councils, to which all those of her Communion are bound to submit by the terms of Communion with her. And if the Doctrine which the Church of England here [Page] chargeth, be that which is taught in the Church of Rome by some of her School-Diuines (which I take indeed to be her true meaning) this also is denyed (at least by those very Diuines who teach it,) to be Idolatry: and comes not home to the charge aduanced by Dr. St. viz that what she requires by the termes of her Communion is Idolatry. And so the first argument falls to the ground. But if you will haue the Church of England to lay her charge against the Doctrine of the Church of Rom in her Councils concerning worshipping and Adoration of Images; herein She is vindicated from the note of Idolatry by Eminent Divines, and such as haue alwaies been esteemed the true and Genuine Sons of the Church of England, as you heard before. And so the second goes after the first. For were this her Sense, those Divines had not escaped without some note, if not incurred the censure of excommunication for maintaining the contrary. In a word, which way soeuer you vnderstand the words, Romish Doctrine concerning Adoration of Images, all that the Church of England chargeth it with, is that it is a [Page]fond thing, vainly inuented and rather rep [...]gnant to the word of God, but not that is Idolatry.

Cathar.

But as Dr. St. wel obserues, It is not barely worshipping, but Adoration of Images which is here charged: And can any Church teach Adoration of Images, and not be guilty of Idolatry? Or were the Compilers of the Articles so Senselesse, as not to think Idolatry repugnant to Scripture?

Eun,

I hope I may suppose the Church of England, to be as litle in loue with wrangling about words, as Dr. St. professes himself to be▪ You haue heard Mr. Thorndike and others affirm, that the word Adoration is or may be in despite of our hearts Equiuocall, that is sometimes signify one kind of honour, sometimes another, And if it be taken, not for Latria, which is due to God, but to signify an Honoura [...]y [...]espect and Venera [...]ion (as they confess it is vsed in the 2d Council of Nice) they maintain it is not Idolatry: which they could not haue done without a Reproof were it the Sense of the Church of England, that it is Idolatry. As for the Compilers of the Articles, I do not take [Page] them to be so Senseless, as not to think Idolatry repugnant to Scripture, but had they thought it to be Idolatry, thay had been Senseless indeed to reiect it only as being rather repugnant to the word of God.

Cathar.

An ingenious Criticism indeed! as Dr. St. calls it: but such an one as had been vtterly lost, if T. G. had looked into the Latin Articles, where the words are, Immo verbo Dei contradicit, whereby it appears, that [rather] is not vsed as a term of diminution, but of a more vehement affirmation.

Eun.

And what of this for the loue of Grammar? Would the Dr. haue the word rather to be of so vehement an affirmation▪ as to aff [...]ct the words that follow, and affirm it to be absolutely repugnant [...]o the word of God? This were to make the Compilers no wiser Grammarians, than He would haue them thought to be Diuines, and to send the Church of England to School to learn her Accidence. Or would he haue it only to be a more vehement Affirmation of what went before, that is, that they looked upon the worshipping of [Page]Images, not only as grounded upon no warranty of scripture, but of the two to be rather repugnant, than agreable to the word of God? This is what was urgedby T. G. against him to shew his Confidence in peremptorily fixing vpon the Church of England a sense which she durst not own. Haue but a litle patience and I shall giue you the very words of T. G. which had the Dr. set down, this notable Criticism of his had been vtterly lost.

‘As for any Command, saith he, of God forbiding to honour the Images Cath. no Idol p: 197. of Christ and his Saints, besides that I haue shown that Assertion to be in every respect groundless, yet for the satisfaction of the true Protestant Reader I shall adde one Observation more upon that subject. And it is this, that the Compilers of the 39. Articles (in Which is contained the doctrine of the Church of England) sufficiently insinuate they could sind no such cōmand, when they rejected the Adoration of Images, not as Idolatry (as the Dr. doth) but only as a Fond thing, vainly invented; nor as repugnant to the plain [Page] words of Scripture (as they profess very roundly Artic. 28. though without ground, when they speak of Transubstantiation) but as being rather repugnant to the word of God: Which Qualification of theirs plainly giues us to understand. That they had done their endeavours to find a Command, but could meet with none; For had they made any such discovery either in the Second Commandment, or els where in the Word of God, they would not haues pared to tell us of it, and haue cry'd it down for flat Idolatry, as the Dr. does. In the mean time, saith he, it is pleasant (I should have said Sad) to see what Veneration this Champion of the Church of England, hath either for the compilers of those Articles, or for the Articles themselues, when what they call only a Fond thing, a vain Invention; he condemns as Idolatry, most damnable Idolatry; and Magisterially declares it to be expressly prohibited in the second Commandment, when they after the best Inquiry they could make, pronounce only Problematically, that in their Iudgment, they [Page] thought it to be rather repugnant, than conformable to the word of God. Thus cleerly hath T. G. evinced the sense of the Church of England in this matter.’ And although he had not only that regard to her as to repel the odious charge of Idolatry (which Dr. St. would have fixed vpon her) by shewing he had not proved what he vndertook; but that Civility also for the Dr. himself, as not to charge him with downright contradicting the sense of that Church which he was engaged to defend, I think it my part to speak my mind more freely, and affirm as I may do from what I have here alledged, that t'is plain he dissents from the sense of the Church of England: while he endeauours to make that worsh [...]pping and Adoration of Images which the Church of Rome teacheth in her Councils, and requires submission to by the terms of Communion with her, to be I [...]olatry. I shall proceed, if you give leaue, in our next Conference to lay downe the dangerous and detestable consequences, vrged by T. G. as following from the charge of Idolatry and particularly that of the Subversion [Page]of all Ecclesiasticall Authority in the Church of England; to all which Dr. St. hath either returned nothing at all, or such an answer as is worth iust nothing.

Cathar.

This with your leaue, is I hope, more than you can make good: and therefore I pray thinke well on [...]t against the next time we meet.

[Page]

THE THIRD DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

SEverall important Consequences, urged by T. G. as following from the charge of Idolatry, which the Dr. passes by in silence. His obligation either to deny, or assign a distinct Church in all Ages, preserved from Heresy and Idolatry, with which Christians were bound to ioyn in Communion. T. G's Arguments to shew the Roman Church to be that Church, not answered by the Dr. nor the Question proposed by T. G. concerning the necessily of ioining with the Church of England. His Irenicall Doctrine; Of the lawfulness of Non-Communion with any Church, that imposeth doubtfull or suspected Practices. The charge of Idolatry not maintainable upon the Dr's Principles without gross self-contradiction.

[Page] CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

CAthar.

You promised at our last parting to let me see I know not what dangerous and detestable consequences, which T. G. vrged as following from the charge of Idolatry, and to which you say Dr. St. hath either returned nothing at all in answer, or such an answer as is worth iust nothing. And I cannot but wonder they should be of any importance, when Dr. St. at the end of his defence saith, he hath gone through all the material points in T. Gs p. 877. Book, which relate to the General nature of Idolatry; and diligently weighed and considered euery thing that lookod like a difficulty in the Controversy about the worship of Images.

Eun.

How Dr. St. hath performed this, his Readers will iudge. But there are other material Difficulties relating to the Charge of Idolatry (be it's nature what it will, of which we may speak here aster) which he hath either not weighed or considered at all, or not in their Iust weights and measures. For as Iust vveights chap. 1. Mr. Thorndike well obserues; To charge [Page]the Church of Rome with Idolatry, it is Necessary to provide that we contradict not our selues. It is necessary also to consider the importance and consequence of it; Whether tbe reason of the distance amount to so heauy a charge or not. It is necessary that we vnderstand our selues, whether we admit the consequence of our own Supposition or not. And to let you see that Dr. St. hath not considered nor prouided for these things, and consequently failed in his Defence, I shall desire you to consider in the first place that whoeuer will vndertake to maintain this charge, must at the same time profess, that Christ, who commanded vs vnder pain of damnation to hear his Church, hath permitted Her to require and enioyn her Children for many hundreds of years together, to commit Idolatry paralel (as Dr. St contends) to that of the Heathens.

2dly. That Mahomet (that Grand Impostor) whose Followers haue been preserued by the grounds he layd, for aboue a thousand years from falling into Idolatry, had more wisdome and Power to contriue and carry on his design, than the Son of God. And 3dly. that our Fore-Fathers in this Land, had better haut[Page]been converted to Judaism or Turcism, than to Christianity as they were. These are things which must needs strike horrour into the Soul of any Christian as often as he repeats those words of his Creed, I beleeue the Holy Catholick Church, if he consider what he sayes; and firmly beleeues that Christ himself hath promised to be with his disciples alwaies euen to the end of the world: and send the Holy Ghost, to guide them into all truth, and that the Gates of Hell shall neuer preuail against his Church; and being laid down by T. G in his Epistle Dedicatory as following from the cbarge of Idolatry, ought not Dr. St. when he vndertakes to maintain it, to haue remoued them in the first place, and not passed them ouer in silence? What can such a Silence argue, but that he declined them as too true to be refuted? And now please your self if you can in the charge of Idolat [...]y.

Cathar.

Perhaps these things appear not such horrible Bugbears to all, as you would make them. We know that excellent Seruant of God Caluin (as the Dr. represents him in his Irenicum) maintains in the Preface to his Institutions, that Iren. p. 405. [Page] God had suffered men for their unthankfulness to be dro [...]ned in deep darkness, so that there was no Face of the true Church to be seer. And et is no new thing to find Cypr. Ang [...]. P. 391. among vs Godly Persons who (as your Peter H [...]ylin obserues) look vpon the R [...]lig [...]on of Rome, as worse than that of the Turk [...] and Moors, and hold conformity to them in Rites and Ceremonies [...] tolerable than to those of Rome. But how fart this Silence of Dr. Sts. argues his consent to these Points, I cannot determin. I wonder he should neither grant nor deny them, yet now I think on't, I remember that in his Defence he doth deny it follows from the charge of P. 141. I [...]olatry, that the Gates of Hell haue preuaild against the Church, when he askes T. G. upon his obiecting it to him, Against what Church? the whole Christian Church? Whoeuer said they could, o [...] low doth that follow? which I take to be the same as to deny it doth or can follow.

Eun.

And so do I too. But then, if it be as you say, that Dr. St. denyes it to follow from the charge of Idolatry that the Gates of Hell haue prevailed against the whole Christian Church, ought he not to haue assigned vs some Church, [Page]distinct in all Ages from all Hereticall and Idolatrous Congregations, which Christ hath preserued allwaies from heresy and Idolatry?

Cathar.

Not at all, if he be of Mr. Calvin's mind (that Excellent Servant of God) that there was a time when the Face of the true Church was not to be seen.

Eun.

But what if Dr. St. assert (as he doth in his Roman Idolatry) that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is pag. 8. bound to ioyn insome Church or Congregation of Christians, doth it not follow, that the [...]e must be such a Church at all times to joyn with? And that those who in any time did not ioyn with it, acted against their very Christianity, by vertue of which they were bound to do it? Let him then assign vs such a Church in the world before Luther, to which all Christians by vertue of their being so, were bound to ioyn in Communion; or els he must grant that the Gates of Hell had then preuailed against the whole Christian Church.

Cathar.

This Principle of the Drs. viz that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to ioyn in some Church [Page]or Congregation of Christians, I confess, hath always seem'd odd to me. But I am very well assured, he will not assign the Roman to be that Chu [...]ch, because in that very place he expressly affirms, that the Gates of Hell do certainly Defence. P. 141. preuail against the Church of Rome, if it doth vn-church all other Christians that are not of it's Communion: as certainly it doth.

Eun.

But if the Dr. some Ieaucs before, viz, pag. 785. allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church, as holding all the Essential Points of Faith, what does he mean now by telling us that the Gates of Hell haue prevailed against it? Do you not see into what turnings and windings they are driven, who will take upon them to maintain this Charge of Idolatry? Such frequent dizziness giues cause to suspect, that the Point of the Lance hath pass'd beyond tbe Teeth of the Dragon.

Cathar.

No such matter. For a Church may hold all the Essential Points of Faith, and yet rhe Gat [...]s of Hell prevail against it for it's Tyranny in un-churching all other Christians, who are not of its Communion.

[Page]Eun.

It is not then the meer holding and teaching Idolatry inconsistent (as the Dr. saith) with salvation, for which the Gates of Hell haue prevail'd against the Church of Rome, but her Severity in removing those from her Communion, who will not conform to her doctrin. But what euer the cause be, if the Gates of Hell haue prevailed against it, the Dr. is obliged by his Principles to assign some other Church, which Christians by vertue of their being so are bound to ioyn in Communion with; and if he can assign none such, he must grant that the Gates of Hall haue prevailed against the wh [...]le Christian Church.

Cathar.

Whateuer he can or may do in this matter, (and I see by his Principles he is bound to doe it) I am very much pleased with a Qu [...]stion, which I remember he often requested, and insisted vpon so earnestly as to coniure the Lady whose satisfaction he end eavoured, to intercede if n [...]t fo [...] her own sake, yet for his, to procure of T. G. that he might k [...]ow one reason at least, why the Beleeving all the Ancient C [...]eeds, and leading a Good life, may not be sufficient[Page]to saluation, vnless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome?

Eun.

I beleeue I ghess the reason why you are so pleased with this Question: as supposing there lyes at the bottome of it, that the Beleeuing the Ancient Creeds, and Leading a Good life, may be sufficient to salvation without communicating with any Church at all. But I know not whether you will be as much pleased with the Answer. For whereas Dr. St. had reproached T. G. Cath. no I [...]ol. p. 5. that he had often requested an answer to this Question, but could not procure it T. G. tells him, that had he pleased to haue taken notice of it, he had done it in his first paper, as farr as was pertinent to the present purpose (that is in handling the 2d Question, where it came in order) where Dr. St. grants, that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to ioyn in some Church and to chuse the Communion of the Purest. Where vpon saith T. G. I subioyned, that that Church was to be iudged the purest, which had the strongest Motives for it, and then laid down a Catalogue of such weighty motiues for the Roman. Catholick, allowed by Dr. Taylor (lib. of[Page]Proph. Sect. 20). that neither Dr. St. in his Defence, nor Dr. Taylor himself when he had a mind to invalidate them, produced any thing to weigh against them, but a few Tinsel-words, and one Scripture-Testimony, interpreted by and according to their own fancy. But then again, because Dr. St. passed this Answer by, as not worth his taking notice of, T. G. not to be wanting to so earnest a Request, proceeded to adde three reasons more to the former to proue the Roman Church to be that, with which all are bound by vertue of their Christianity to ioyn in communion: And I shall giue you them in order as they lye.

1. There was in the world before Luther a distinct Church, whose Communion was necessary to Saluation; but this was not the Protestant; Therefore it was the Roman. The Maior, saith he, is euident from Dr. St's. own Conf [...]ssion, that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to ioyn in some Church; which is not possible, if there be not such a Church to ioyn with. The Minor also, that this was not the Protestant, is manifest, because before Luther there was[Page]no such Church in the world distinct from the Roman. It follows therefore, saith he (the Q [...]estion between Dr. St. and him, being supposed to be of the necessity of Communion either with the Roman, or wih the Protestant) that of the two the Roman Church was, and still is (as remaining still the same) that Church, whose Communion is necessary to saluation.

2. Again, saith he; taking the term Roman-Church, not only for the Particular Diocess of Rome, but for the Churches also in Communion with it, as the Head, (as it is generally taken in this Controversy) nothing can render her Communion not necessary to salvation, but either Heresy, that is, an adhesion to some private or singular Opinion or Errour in Faith; Or Schism, that is separation from former Ecclesiasticall vnity. For the first, he saith, that Dr. St. himself (Rat. Aecount, p. 54) acknowledges the Church of Rome to beleiue all the same Articles of Faith with the Protestant; and that the Points in which the Protestant differs from the Roman, are not Articles of Faith. Consequently the Opposite Tenets to them can be no[Page]Errours in Faith with him. And for the second, if he will make the Cburch of Rome guilty of Schism, he must assign some other distinct Church, (then at least in being) from whose vnity She departed: which T. G. thinkes he saith, was neuer pretended, and mak [...]s himself sure can neuer be performed.

Cathar:

T. G. is no good Undertaker for what his Adversary can or cannot performe in this point. But t'is euident the Church of Rome hath giuen iust cause for other Churches to withdraw themselues from her Communion, by imposing new Articles of Faith, and some of them Idolatrous. And this makes the crime of the Schism to lye at her door.

Eun.

This Obiection T. G. foresaw, and three things he saith to it. 1. that this is the Common Plea of all Separatists, viz to charge those from whom they separated with bringing in new doctrines. 2. that it implyes an acknowledgment of the Fact of Schism, that is, of breaking Church-Vnity to be on the Protestants side. 3. that this being so, the Protestants stand arraigned of the crime of Schism also, for breaking Communion[Page]with the Church of Rome, vntill the Accusation be made good, and iudged to be so, by some other more competent Judge than themselues in their own cause.

3. The third and last argument pressed p. 9. by T. G. why the beleiuing all the Ancient creeds, and leading a good life, may not be sufficient to saluat on, vnless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome is this A Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to be of the Communion of that Church, which euidently was the t [...]ue one, and the purest; vntill it be as euidently at least (if not more euidently) proued not to be so; for otherwise he wrongs both his Reason and conscience, if he leaue a greater euidence and adhere to a lesser. But the Roman Church, as comprehending all those in Communion with her by the Testimony not only of S. Paul (Rom. C. 1. and c. 16) but of the whole Christian world of all Ages, was euidently once the only true Church of Christ, and consequently, the Purest; and neither hath it, nor can it be as euidently, (much less more euidently) proued not to be so still; since the Testimony of those who do or will [Page]deny it, is incomparably Short of the former. Therefore saith T. G. a Christian by vertue of his being so is bound to be of the Communion of the Roman Church.

These are the reasons which T. G. gaue to Dr. St's demand, and saith, he hea [...]tily prayes they may do him good, because he requested so earnestly to know them for his own sake; and I cannot but wonder that▪ the Dr. hauing so earnestly requested them, and so feelingly complained that he could not procure them, now that they are giuen, should pass them also by in Silence and take no notice of them.

Cathar.

I fear you think these arguments conclude, that Communion with the Church of Rome is necessary to salvation, and I should be loath to hear so convincing an argument of your Inclination to Popery.

Eun.

You do not hear me say so; and yet I cannot but look upon them, as coming so home to the Point, that unless answered, they carry all before them and quite ruine the Cause of the Reformation. And although perhaps you will not confess so much, yet I [Page] perceiue by your discourse, you are not so well pleased either with the Argument [...] of T. G. or Dr. St's silence, as you were with the Question. However there is one thing added by T. G. which I think you wil not be displeased with: and that is a Reflexion he makes, that wbereas it hath been hitherto speciously pretended against the Church of Rome, [...]. 9. 10. that the beleeuing all the Ancient Creeds, and leading a good life, is all that is necessary to saluation, yet now there is more required by Dr. St. Viz, to ioyn in some Church or Congregation of Christ [...]a [...], by vertue of a man's being a Christian; and that he is bound to chuse the Communion of the Purest: by which T. G. saith, he will suppose he meanes at present the Church of England: and thereupon hopes he may without Offence tak [...] the same liberty with Dr. St. which Dr St. had done with him, and desire if not for his own sake, yet for the sake of the Presbyterians, Anabaptists, and other separated Congregations, to know one reason from him, why the beleeuing all the Ancient Creeds, and leading a good life may not be sufficient to salvation vnless one be of the Communion of the Church[Page]of England? This you see how it was press't by T. G. after he had giuen his reasons to Dr. St's demand; but the Dr. has not been so mutually kind as to defer [...] to so earnest a request in his Defence.

Cathar.

Perhaps he looked vpon it as an impertinent Digression.

Eun.

So himself also feared he should be thought to digress when he proposed the Rom. Idol. p. 50. Question to T. G. and yet could neuer be at rest till he had procured an answer from him. Why then ought he not to haue done the same, when if there were any digression, himself was the Author of it

Cathar.

Perhaps it suited not with his Circumstances, yet I could wish he had done it, because then I suppose we should haue seen with how much greater Justice the Church of England exacts Cōmunion with her from other Churches, than the Church of Rome. Which hitherto I confesse I haue not been able to discern, and that for a reason offered formerly to Consideration by Dr. St. himself in his Irenicum pag. 117. where hauing laid down this Proposition viz. [where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming [Page]to any vnlawfull or suspected practice, Men may lawf [...]lly deny conformity to, and Communion with that Church in such things, without the guilt of Schism] he endeavours to iustify it from the lawfulnesse of separation from the Church of Rome, in this manner. If our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawful, because she required vnlawful things as conditions of her Communion; then whereuer such things are required by any Church (as we say they are by the Church of England) non-Communion with th [...]t Church in those things will be lawful too, and where non-communion is lawful, there can be no Schism in it. If it be said here (he means, I suppose, by the Prelates of Iren. p. 118. the Church of England) that the Pope's Power was an vsurpation, which is not in lawful Governours of Churches; it is som replied saith he, that the Pope's vsurpation mainly lyes in imposing things vpon men's Consciences, as necessary, which are doubtfull or vnlawful. And whereuer the same thing is done, there is an vsurpation of the same nature, though not in so high a degree: and it may be as lawful to withdraw[Page]Communion from one, as well as the othre.

Eun:

But may it not be said, that Men are bound to be ruled by their Governours, in determining what things are lawful and what not?

Cathar.

To this it is answered by Dr. St. first that no true Protestant can swear blind Obedience to Church-Governours in all things. That euery one hath a Judicium priuatae discretionis, which is the Rule of practice as to himself: and though we freely allow a Ministeriall Power vnder Christ in the Governours of the Church, yet that extends not to an obligation vpon men to go against the dictates of their own reason and conscience. Their power is only directiue, and declaratiue, and in matters of duty can bind no more than reason and euidence brought from Scripture by them doth. Again if the Governours must be Judges, what things are lawful what not, their power will be absolute; for to be sure what euer they command, they will say is lawful either in it's self, or as they command it: If euery priuate person must iudge what is lawfull, what not, which is commanded; (as when all is [Page]said, euery man will be his own Judge in this case, in things concerning his own welfare) then he is no further bound to obey, than he iudgeth the thing to be lawful which is commanded. And for the plea of an erroneous conscience, that takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates of it: for as he is bound to lay it down, supposing it erroneous; so he is bound not to go against it while it is not laid down. But then again — Did not the Pope plead to be a lawfull Governour? And if men are bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governours, as to the lawfulnesse of things, they were bound to beleeue him in that as well as other things, and so separation from that Church (that is, the Church of Rome) was vnlawfull then. Where vpon he concludes, that let men turn and wind themselues, which way they will, by the very same Arguments, that any will proue Separation from the Church of Rome lawful, because she required vnlawful things, as conditions of her Communion, it will be proued lawful, not to conform to any suspected or vnlawfull practice, required by any Church-Governours, vpon the same terms? if the thing so required,[Page]be after serious and sober inquiry, iudged vnwarrantable by a Man's own Conscience. Lastly, he addes, that withall, it would be further considered, whether when our best Writers against the Papists do lay the imputation of Schism, not on those who withdraw Communion, but on them for requiring such conditions of Communion (whereby they did rather eiect men out of their Communion, than the others separate f [...]om them) they do not by the same argument, lay the Imputation of Schism on all, who require such conditions of Communion, and take it wholly off from those, who refuse to conform for Conscience sake: And much more to the same purpose, which for breuities sake I omit to repeat.

Eun.

Now I perceive what it is you would be at; you would haue had Dr. St. answer his own argument. A very vngrateful employement I can assure you; for either he cannot absolue you from the crime of Schism, or he must deny (which I am sure you will not) that the Church of England imposes any doubtful and suspected practices, as conditions of Communion with her, ye [...] [Page] if I mistake not, he hath offered something to this purpose in his Rational Account pag. 54. where he lays down the State of the difference between the Church of Rome and the Church of England in these words. The Church of Rome, saith he, imposeth new Articles of Faith to be beleeued as necessary to saluation. But the Church of England mak [...]s no Articles of Faith, but such as haue the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self; and in other things she requires subscription to them, not as Articles of Faith, but as Inferiour Truths, or as Dr. Br [...]hall calls them pio [...] Opinions fitted for the Preseruation of Vnity, not, saith he, that we oblige any man to beleeue them, but only not to oppose or contradict them. How farr this Answer may relish with you, Catharinus, as implying the Guilt of Schism to be on your side for denying Conformity to so moderate a condition, as non-contradicting only is, I leaue to your consideration. But the vse that T. G. makes of it, is to shew that Dr. St. was not wel advised vpon these Principles, to [Page] vndertake the charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome. In order to which he first lays down the Sense of what the Dr. affirms in these words. This saith he according to Dr. St. is the Basis and Foundation of the Pr [...]t [...]stant R [...]ligion, that no doctrine of the Protestant Religion, as it differs from that of the Roman, is an Article of Faith; that is, that no Protestant belieues; or if he do, he ougbt not to belieue, as a matter of Faith, viz, that the Images of Christ and his Saints, are not to be honoured; that the Substance of the Bread is not changed in to the Body of Christ; that the Saints in heauen are not to be invoked to pray for vs. But all that he is obliged to by the Church of England, is not to oppose or contradict them. And then inferrs these Consequences from the Dr's Assertion.

1. That the Church of Rome according Cath. no Idol. p. 14. to him, doth not erre against any Article of Faith, because the Church of England, as he saith, makes no Articles of Faith, but such as are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self.

2. That himself doth not belieue any of the af [...]resaid Points as they are determined by the Church of England,[Page]to be Articles of Faith: because to be Articles of Faith with him they must haue the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages, and be acknowledged to be such by Rome it self; which certainly the English Articles concerning the worshipping of Images, the Adoration of the Host, and the Inuocation of Saints, are not,

3. That after all this bustle to make the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in these very Points, for ought any man knows, himself giues no Interiour Assent to any of the fore-mentioned Tenets (as determined by the Church of England) not euen as to Inferiour Truths, or Pious Opinions, because the Church of England doth not oblige any man to belieue them as such, but only not to oppose or contradict them: and it is not likely, saith T. G. he defers more to the Church of England, than She obliges him to (or than he conceiues She obliges him to.)

4. And lastly, that this Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome is vain and groundlesse; because Idolatry being an Errour against the most Fundamentall Point of Faith, and the Church of Rome according to him, not [Page]erring against any Article of Faith, t'is euident, saith T. G. that to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry must according to his own Principles be the most groundless, vnreasonable, and contradictory proceeding in the world.

This done he desires euery indifferent Reader to reflect and iudge whether Dr. St. to render the doctrine of the 39 Articles digestible (as he phrases it) to the most squeamish stomack of the Nicest Non-Conformist, haue not done a notable peice of Seruice to the Church of England in degrading so many of them, as are not ackno [...]ledged by the Church of Rome (although they be esteemed the distinctiue badge of the Purity of the Church of England) from the dignity of being Articles of Faith, into a lower Class of Inf [...]riour Truths (as he calls them) such as neither himself, nor any body els knows, whether they haue a grain of truth in them, or no; and consequently are not bound to belieue them? Nay, saith he, Doth he not vndermine the Church of England, both in her doctrine and Government? In her doctrine, by freeing her subiects from any obligation of interiour belieuing her Articles, so farr forth as they differ f [...]om[Page]thos [...] of the Church of Rome to be so much as inferiour Truth? In her Gouernment, by exposing h [...]r Ordination, (or Publik Ministery) to be invaded without scruple, by such as in their hearts iudge it Anti-Christian, when he tells them, her Sense is to oblige them no fa [...]ther, than not to oppose or contradict it? In which by the way I think he dissents as much from the Sense of the Church of England, if that be to be taken from the publick Acts of her Convocat [...]ons, as in his charge of Idolatry. But to proceed with T. G. Was it not worth the while, saith he, to rend asunder the peace of Christendome for a Company of Opinions, which (though Dr. Bramhal call them Pious, yet (the greater part of Christians, both in the East and West for many Ages haue, and do condemn for Impious and Blasphemous? Is not this, saith he, a very Rational, or rather (as Mr. I. S. expounds the word) a very Reasonable Account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion, and a rare way of Justifying her from the guilt of Schism? Surely he neuer thought of charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry, when he layd such sandy Principles[Page]of so brittle a Temper, that it was not possible they should bear so great a charge, without breaking and discharging vpon himself.

This and much more to the same purpose (which I may haue occasion to mind you of hereafter, is vrged by T. G. and I could wish Dr. St. would haue d [...]gr [...]ssed so farr, as to shew the consistency of his Charge of Idolat [...]y with these Principles; though he had spared the giving vs a digression of neer two hundred Pages together in the first chapter of his defence about the worship both of the Ancient and Modern Hea [...]hens; which when all is done signifies iust nothing to the making of a Paralell with that of the Church of Rome, as will be very easily made appear.

Cathar.

As for the digression (as you call it) it is not our concern at present to engage in it. It lyes at his Aduersaries door; and so doth the Imputation of Schism at the Church of Englands, on the same account, as on the Church of Rome's, while she imposes doubtful and Suspected Practices as condi [...]ons of her Communion. But for the consequences [Page] T. G. inferrs from the difference laid down by Dr. St. between the Church of England and that of Rome he hath sufficiently shown the vanity of one of them. viz. the 4th in the last Chapter of his Defence, where 1st he saith that to affirm that the Church of Rome doth not erre in any Fundamental Point of the Chrictian Faith, and yet may be guilty of Idolatry, hath no contradiction in it; f [...]r the notion of Idolatry, as applyed to the Church of Rome, is consistent wich it's owning the General Principles of Faith, as to the true God and Jesus-Christ, and giuing Souereign Worship to them. 2. Whereas T. G. saith, that Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamentall Point of Faith, Dr. St. replies that T. G. himself confesses the true Notion of Idolatry to be, the giving the worship due to God to a Creature: And so, if Dr. St. haue proued that the worship of Images in the Roman Church be the giuing the worship due only to God to a Creature, then although the Church of Rome may hold all the Essentials of Faith and be a true Church, yet may it be guilty of Idolatry without contradiction.

[Page]Eun.

I was very well aware of this, but did not belieue your self would take it for an answer, especially seing he saith nothing at all to the Three first, which plainly euince he cannot maintain his charge of Idolatry without contradicting himself. And if this you alledge be all he hath to say to the 4th I thinke he hath but spun a webb to entangle himself the more. For his Aduersaries will soon reply, that in prouing the Church of Rome to be guil [...]y of Idolatry he proues her at the same time to erre against a Fundamental Article of Faith: vnlesse he will deny, (which I am sure you will not) the doctrine of the 2d Commandment to be a Fundame [...]tal A [...]ticle, or that to teach the opposite to it, is not to erre against it.

Cathar.

But Dr. St. being, as he p. 7 [...]9. saith, afraid to be snap'd by such cunning S [...]phisters, hath therefore distinguished in time, viz. that to affirm a Church to hold any Idolatry lawfull, which it iudges to be Idolatry and not erre against a Fundamental Point, would be a contradiction. But to say, that it may entertain a false notion of Idolatry, or[Page]of that worship which is due only to God, and not erre against any Fundamental, is none: for this false notion being receiued, men may really giue the worship that belongs only to God to his creatures. And this saith he, is the v [...]most errour necessa [...]y in this case.

Eun.

This I take to be the vtmost, which Dr St. can say in this case: And when I consider the distinction he giues, methinkes I am more clearly conuinc'd of the truth of that Sage saying of his (though ill applied his Aduersary I. W. for his distinction of expressely or impl [...]citely,) viz that Mother-wit is much better than Scholastick Fooling. For if p. 791. my Mo [...]her-wit fail me not; to erre, in the strictest way of speaking, (though it be used also to signify any Opposition to Truth) is not so properly to oppos [...] the Truth, knowing it to be the Truth, as to teach that which is opposite to truth in reality, the Teacher not knowing it to be so. And if the Church of Rome erre in telling men, that the Honour She giues to the Images of Christ and his Saints is not a part of the Honour due to God, if in reality it be a part of his Honour, t'is [Page] Euident She erres against the 2d Commandment, though she iudges she doth not. So that which way soeuer the Dr. turns himself, he cannot maintain the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry without erring against a Fundamental Po [...]t. And that this Errour is damnable, is avowed by himself in his very cha [...]ge, when he asserteth▪ that those who Communicate with the Church of Rome, must by the terms of Communion with her be guilty either of Hypocrisy or Idolatry, either of which, saith he, are sins inconsistent with saluation.

Cathar.

But still methinks you come not home to the Point. For what the Dr. fixes himself vpon p. 787. is that the Notion of Idolatry as applyed to the Church of Rome (mark that) is consistent with its owning the General Principles of Faith, as to the true God and Jesus Christ, and giving Soueraign worship to them, that is, if I vnderstand him aright, that the C [...]urch of Rome may teach in the General that Soueraign worship is due only to the true God and Jesus Christ, and yet giue the real parts of worship due only to God to a meer [Page]creature, in worshipping him by an Image, (which is the notion of Idolatry he applyes to that Church) and yet again at the same time tell men, it is not a part of the Honour which is due to God, as not iudging it to be such.

Eun.

Well, if this be the Point, I think I haue spoken sufficiently to it already. But to make it yet plainer, I must desire you to reflect, that the Controuersy here is not only vpon a General Thesis whether some Idolatrous Practice may not consist with owning the General Principles of Faith as to the true God and Jesus Christ, and giuing. Soueraign worship to them (which yet I know not, how himself can maintain against I W's distinction of expressly or implicitely, when he supposes the Church of Rome to debauch the very p. 788. essential Principles of Faith by damnable errours, and to corrupt the worship of God by vertue of them) but vpon a particular Hypothesis, viz, whether the notion of Idolatry, as applyed to the Church of Rome.) 1. e. the worshipping of God by an Image) be consistent with, that is, be not an errour against the [Page] doctrine of the 2d Commandment, if that be, to forbid men to worship him by an Image? The Affirmatiue of this I think is too manifest to be denyed by any man that hath not lost his Mother-Wit. And therefore if it be a Fundamental Point to belieue that to be Idolatry, which God himself hath expressly f [...]rbidden in the law vnder the notion of Idolat [...]y and that be, the worshipping of him by an Image (as Dr. St. asserts) t'is cleer that the Church of Rome in telling men it is no [...] Idolatry (as not knowing it to be such) erres against a Fundamentall Point; and he cannot according to his Principles maintain his charge of I [...]olatry without a Contradiction. For if it be expressly reuealed in H. Scripture, that to worship God by an Image is Idolatry, it is an Article of Paith, and a Fundamental One too, and the Church of Rome in teaching men to do so, erres against it. And if Dr. St. with the Church of England make no Articles of Faith, but such as are aknowledged to be such by Rome it self (as this is not) according to him it is no Article of Faith at all, that God i [...] [Page] not to be w [...]r [...]hipped by an Image. This I take to be Contradiction enough, and the Dr. must clear himself from it as he can.

Cathar.

This is what a man gets by dropping, (as Dr. St. saith vpon this p. 785. occasion) some kind words towards them who whil be sure to make all possible advantages from them, to ouerthrow the force of whateuer can be said afterwards against them. Had he not been so kind hearted as to allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and hold all the Essential Points of Christian Faith, but had stood firm to the Principles of our Party, who look vpon that Church, not as a true Church, but as the Synagogue of Antichrist, he had done the work throughly, and freed himself from the intangling Sophisms of these Scholastick Foolers.

Eun.

I think you haue litle reason to esteem T. G. for one of them who make all possible aduantages from the Dr's kind words to ouerthrow the force of whateuer might or was, said afterwards against him, if you consider how exact he was afterwards in replying to all his arguments, [Page] whereas the Dr. in his Defence hath passed ouer many important things obiected by T. G. (as you haue heard) without taking notice at all of them. But in the main, I see by what you say, you agree so farr with me, that Dr. St. was not well-aduised to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry vpon his Principles. Nor am I less dissatisfied with his managing it, vpon some other Accounts, which I shall acquaint you with at our next meeting.

[Page]

THE FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

MR. Thorndike's Judgment of the Charge of Idolatry, with Dr. St's. Honourable Encomium of him. Instead of iustifying the Separation, he brings the Guilt of the Schism vpon himself and the Church of England. A farther display of his Omissions and Contradictions. His Paralel between the worship of the Heathens, and that of the Church of Rome shown to be Impertinent, and the Worship of God by an Image not to be expressly prohibited in the 2d Commandment.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS

CAthar.

I remember at the beginning of our discourse, you desir'd me to consider you vnder the quality of a Person perfectly of Mr. Thorndik's Judgment, as to the Charge of Idolatry [Page]vpon the Church of Rome: and that what you should produce vpon that account, should be either from his own words, or what you conceiued himself must and would haue said in conformity to his Principles, And I was willing to entertain this conceit of you; but cannot perswade my self, that so learned and Judicious a Man, as Mr. Thorndike is esteemed, would haue allowed so much partiality, as you haue shown in this cause both to T. G. and the Church of Rome.

Eun.

This is what I expected all along to hear from you. And though I haue not the other works of that Learned Person by me, yet I may hope to acquit my self sufficiently of this Imputation with his Just weights and measures.

For first if the Question be of the charge it self of Idolatry, it is manifest that Mr. Tho [...]ndike excuses the Doctrine and Pr [...]fession of the Church of Rome (from whence we are to take the terms of Communion with it) from Idolatry, in all the three Points obiected by Dr. St. viz, The worshipping of Images, and the Adoration of the Host in the 19th Chapter; and the Inuocation of Saints in the 16th.

[Page] Of the first he saith, that to the Images of Saints there can be no Idolatry, so long as men take them for Saints, that is, Gods creatures; much lesse to the Images of our Lord, for it is the honour of our Lord and not of his Image. And although, saith he, the 2d Council of Nice acknowledges that the Image it self is ho [...]oured, by the honour giuen to that which it signifieth before the Image, yet it distinguisheth this honour from the honour of our Lord: and therefore teacheth not Idolatry, by teaching to honour Images, though it acknowledge that the Image it self is honoured, when it need not. Of the 2d he affirmeth that the worship of the Host in the Papacy is not Idolatry, because those who worship the Host, do not belieue that the Elements remain, but that our Lord Christ, the only true God is present there in a particular manner. For the 3d; though he seem more Scrupulous in that than the other two, because the same things he saith, are desired of the Saints, and in the same terms, in which they are desired of God, euen in the Holy Scripture, yet he acknowledges there is a Profession of that Church extant, which contradicts [Page]the proper sense of such prayers, and forces the Addressers of them, vnless they will contradict themselues, to expound them to signify no more, than obtaining that of God, which they are desired to grant of themselues. And this he implies to be sufficient to excuse them from Idolatry, when he sayes, that were it not so, they could not be excused from it.

Again, if the Question be concerning the managing the Charge of Idolatry, supposing or granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church, as Dr. St. doth. Mr. Thorndik [...] expressly affirmeth in his 1. Chapter, that if the Pope be Antichrist, and the Papists Idol [...]ters the Church of Rome is no true Church; and if it be a true Church, that which it professeth, is not Idolatry, and therevpon giues this necessary caution to those who will proceed vpon that supposition, to prouide that they contradict not themselues; which in his 2d Chapter he saith they must doe, i. e. contradict themselues if they maintain it. 3dly if the Question be of the Sense of the Church of England, Mr. Thorndike shews from the very fact of the Refo [...]mation, that i [...] was not the meaning of those who made the [Page] Change, to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, because that were to suppose it not to be a true Church, and the Church of England not to be the same Church with that which was: whereas the R [...]formation was not intended for the making a new Church, which was not before, but for the restoring a sick Church to its soundness, and a corrupted Church to it's Purity. Chapt. 1. and 3d

4thly if the Question be, on which side the crime of Schism lyes, he affirms in the same first Chapter, that they that separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters, are thereby Schismaticks before God; and again, that in plain terms we make our selues Schismaticks, by grounding our Reformation vpon this pretence.

Lastly, he asserteth the Profession of one Visible Church, to oblige all to stand to those grounds and those terms, vpon which it is to be maintained (of which certainly with him the charge of Idolatry is none) and that he who takes the Pope for Antichrist, and the Papists for Idolaters, can neuer weigh by his own Weights, and mete by his own measures, till he hate Papists worse than [Page]I [...]ws or Mahumetans; ch. 2. These things being so, I hope you will absolue me from the Suspition of hauing aduanced any thing in this matter, but what Mr. Thorndike himself allows. The Reasons he brings for these Positions you may see your self at leasure in the Places I haue cited.

Cath.

You haue sufficiently acquitted your self of the conceit I began to haue of you: and Dr. St. seems to haue acquitted himself also sufficiently, as to the respect due to the memory of so learned and Pious a Person (as himself acknowledges Mr. Thorndike to haue been) when he assures T. G. that if he could haue thought, what that Learned Def. p. 783. Man had said in this matter, to haue been agreable either to Scripture or Reason, or the sense of the Primitiue, or of the present Church of England, it might haue prevented his writing, by changing his Opinion; for he saith, he was no stranger to his writings or his arguments. By which you see, he came to them with a good will to be informed before he engaged in this cause and would not haue receded from his Opinion, could he haue adhered to it without violence to [Page] his Reason.

Eun.

This I know is returned by Dr. St. in his late defence. p. 783. in answer to T. G. who vpon occasion of a discourse of Mr. Thorndike's, about the Sense of the 2d Commandment, diametrically opposite to that which Dr. St. giues, had said, that he could not but look vpon it, as a kind of Prophetical Co [...]f [...]tation in the year 1662. of all whi [...]h the Dr. had produced in the yeare Cath. no Idol. p. 175. 1671. (when his Treatise of Roman Idolatry came forth) for the proof of h [...] charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the matter of Images. And how full of respect the Dr's answer is to the Memory of that excellent Person, your self will iudge, if you consider what an honour it is for Mr. Thorndike, for the world to hear it proclaimed from the mouth of Dr. St; that what he hath said in this matter is in his Judgment agreable neither to Scripture, nor Reason, nor the Sense of the Primitiue Church, nor of his own; and this after he had made himself no Stranger to his writings, or his Arguments. Do you not think that many will be apt to beleeue that there must be none of all [Page]these in [...]h [...]m, when such a Man as Dr. St. brought both wit and will to discouer them, but could not? But why did he not make it some part of his business to answer his A [...]guments, if he found them so void of Sense and Reason, at least those which T. G. vrged against him, and, because the Dr. left them vn-answered, said he must look vpon Mr. Thorndike's Book, as a Confutation of his before it was written? Does not Mr. Thorndike himself in the 1. Chapter of his Just Weights and Measures, speaking to those of Dr. St's Judgment, demand, if they can pretend so much charity to him, as to haue attempted the answering of his Reasons, and the rectifying of his mistakes? Or will they, saith he, shew me who hath answered them; and so, that they need not be troubled for me? And now, when Mr. Thorndike himself so charitably, and T. G so iustly called vpon Dr. St. to answer his arguments, was it enough for him to pass all this by with a deaf ear, and hauing professed himself no stranger to the writings, and arguments of that great Man, to tell vs with an Ipse dixit, that he could find neither [Page] Scripture nor Reason, nor the Sense of the Primitiue Church, nor of his own in what he had said in this mat [...]er? You may belieue as you please, but those of the Church of England haue a d [...]ffer [...]nt esteem for him, and for his writings. What if T. G. should answer Dr. St's defence in the same manner, and with the same words, would you take it for good payment? For my part I should be satisfied with neither, nor will your self be, I beleeue, for what concerns Mr. Thorndike, when you shall haue heard what T. G. alledged out of him, Pref. [...] Cath. no Idol. to show the crime of Schism to ly at their doors, who charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, and is left vntouched by Dr. St. both in his General Preface, and late Defence. That this was Mr. Thorndike's Judgment as to the charge of Idolatry in general, is euident from what I haue cited aboue out of his First chapter; and for the worship of images in particular, in his 19th Chapter he saith, It is manifest that the Church of God is tyed no farther than there can appear danger of Idolatry, which if it be so heightned, beyond appearance, as to involve the Church in [Page]the crime of it (i. e. Idolatry) chargeth the schism that may come by that meanes vpon them, that so inhanse it.

Cathar.

This is a thing which I haue often heard, and allwayes with wonder; nothing appearing to me so proper to iustify the Separation of the Church of England from that of Rome, as the charging that Church with Idolatry: for (as Dr. St. himself giues the reason Pref. to Rom. Id [...]l. in his Preface) whereas other things are subtle and nice, tedious and obscure, this lyes plain to the conscience of euery man: If the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry, our Separation can be no Schism, either before God or man, because our Communion would be a Sin.

Eun.

This wonder of yours proceeds from a mistake (as you heard before) that those who made the change intended a Separation; whereas Reformat [...]on is indeed, and allwaies was the thing intended. And for what you alledge from Dr. St. M. Thorndike confesses, this cause (i. e. Idolatry) Iust. vveight. ch. 1. would be more then sufficient to iustify separation, did it appear to be true: but then on the othe side, saith he, it charges the mischiefs of the Schism vpon those[Page]that proceed vpon it, before it be as euident as the mischief, are, which they run into vpon it. So that, should the Church of England declare that the Change, which we call Reformation is grounded vpon this supposition, I must then acknowledg saith he, that we are Schismaticks. For the cause not appearing to me (as hitherto it hath not, and I think will neuer be made to appear to me) the Separation, and the Mischiefs of it must be imputed to them that make the change. And therefore we (of the Church of England) in plain terms make our selues Schismaticks, by grounding our Reformation vpon this Pretence. This was returned by T. G. in his Preface, to Dr St. with this reflexion, that this Judgment of Mr. Thorndike, abetted by diuers of the most learned, and most Judicious Persons of the Church of England, will stand as a convincing Preiudice against him, and his charge, till he can make it as euident that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry, as the mischiefs are that haue ensued vpon it. And I can imagin no probable reason, why he should not haue endeavour'd at least, either in his General Preface, or [Page] in his Defence, to haue removed this Preiudice, but that he was so farr of Mr. Thorndike's mind in the matter, as to think it a task impossible to be performed. Otherwise surely he would not haue sate downe quietly with the Imputation of so horrible a Sin, as Mr. Thorndike characters that of Schisin to be in the sight of God in his next Chapter, euen greater than that of Heresy Chap. 2. or Aposta [...]y. For an Heretick or an Apostate, saith he, in the sight of God destroys only [...] own soul. But he that causeth division in the Church, either peremptorily destroys, or probably hinders the Salvation of all who are parties to it. So the Authors of Schisin must answer for all the souls that perish by it. Add to this, the infinite Bloud. shed, the barbarous Violences, the vncharitable sland [...]rs, the horrid perjuries, the vnchristian practices, the Antichristian doctrines, the hatred of our Fellow christians worse than Iews and Mahumetans, the reviling the first and greatest of Patriarchs, (at least in Order and Dignity,) as the Man of sin; and railing at that Church, which the Dr. himself acknowledges to be a true Church, [Page]and to hold all the Essentials of Faith, as the Mistress of Idolatry, and the Whore of Babylon: besides the other mischi [...]f. and Miseries, which this division hath brought forth, part of which saith Dr. St. himself, if our experience doth not tell vs of, yet our consciences Iren. p. 62. may. Adde I say these things, which lye open to the eyes of men, to the hainousness of Schism in the sight of God, which, as Dr. Hammond tells us out of the Fathers, is as great if not greater than Sacriledg, Parricide or Idolatry, not iustifyable by any pretence Of Schis. ch. 1. Sect. 6. 7. 8. whatsoeuer, nor expiable even by Martyrdome it self, and you will see what reason there was, why Dr. St. should haue endeavourd at least the answering Mr. Thorndike's argument, least he might be thought by his silence to stand convicted of the consequence of it, (that is, the guilt of Schism) in his own Judgment.

Cathar.

These are terrible Bugbears indeed to frighten vs from the Charge of Idolatry. But still our Plea is the same in order to the Church of England, With that of the Church of England to that of Rome; and whether [Page] the charge be of Idolatry, as we will haue it, or only of Abuses and Superstitions as Mr. Thorndike calls them, the case of both is alike as to the Church of Rome: for both doe grant, that not those who separate, but those who cause the separation by imposing and requiring things vnlawful, as conditions of Communion, are Schismaticks before God; Only this aduantage they haue, who charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, that it lyes open to the Conscience of euery man, if that Church be guilty of it, our separation can be no Schism either before God or man, because our Communion would be a sin, whereas other Pleas are subtle and Nice, tedious and obscure, as Dr St. saith.

Eun.

But haue you proued the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry, or those things which the Church of England requireth of you to be vnlawful, as euidently, as the Mischiefs are which haue Ensued vpon the Separation?

Cathar.

And haue you proued the things which the Church of England requireth, to be lawful; and the Abuses and Superstitions of the Church of Rome as Mr. Thornd. calls them, to be as euidently[Page]such, as the Mischiefs are which haue followed frō the imposing of them? The contest at the best stands yet sub Judice as to both, and for what concerns the Church of Rome, those that Gouern that See (whom Mr. Thorndike esteems the Ch. 2 wisest people vpon earth) and all those, whom their wisdome carries along, deny what they require as terms of Communion with them, to be either abuses or Superstitions. And so T. G's. Argument, which you mentioned before, if it be good for any thing will haue equall force against the charge of Superstition, as of Idolatry, viz, that till the Accusation be made Good, and iudged so by some more competent Judge, than your selues, you stand arraigned of the Crime of Schism also for breaking Communion with the Church of Rome.

Eun.

Forthat, we appeal, saith Dr. St. to the doctrine and Practice of the truly Catholick Church, in the matters Ansvv. 10 N. O. [...]. 180. of difference between us and the Church of Rome.

Cathar.

Very well: But then, you are bound I hope, as well as Dr. St. either to acknowledge the Roman to be that Church, and consequently to stand [Page] to her Judgement: or to assign some other Church distinct from the Roman, which Christ hath preserved free from those doctrines and Practices, which you call Abuses and Superstitions, unless you will be your own Judges. Which way you will take, I shall leaue to your consideration.

But for the Dr. me thinks you needed not to haue been so seuere vpon him, for not Answering Mr. Thorndike's Arguments; for although he thought it not fitting to combate him by name, whilst he was defending the cause of the Churc [...] of England, yet he hath Sufficiently proved his own Charge, both in his Treatise of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, and in his late Defence of it against the Cavils of T. G. first by shewing, that the Heathens were not iustly charged with Idolatry, if the Church of Rome be not guilty of it; and 2dly that all worship of God by an Image is expressly forbidden vnder the notion of Idolatry in the 2d Commandment. What need was there then of a particular answer?

Eun.

This is a pretty kind of plausible come off, but will not serve the turn, [Page] I know the word [sufficiently] confidently uttered can do wonders. The Oracles of General Councils are nothing to it, especially if added to a Text of Scripture though neuer so much wrested. But I am too well acquainted with it, to be imposed on by it. Nothing will be sufficient here, but what makes the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, as Evident as the mischiefs are, which haue ensued vpon the Separation; and your self I belieue will grant the first Proof from the practice of the Heathens not to be of that nature, when you shall haue considered, how expressly the Scripture taxes the Heathens of Polytheism and for worshipping their Idols as Gods; and the Obscurity and Contradiction there is found in the manner of their worship even as it was explicated by the most learned of their Philosophers. I know very well that Dr St. in his defence strains all the Nerves of his wit, and the Texts, of many of those Fathers he cites to proue the Heathens supream God Jupiter, to be the Supream Being, Creator and Governour of the worl [...] ▪ by that means to dragg the worship of the Heathens in to a Paral [...]l [Page] with that of the Church of Rome: but I neuer yet met with any man that belieued it was or is what he would haue it to be; and I haue that esteem for the deuotion of the Feminine Sex that did they belieue it, they would never be so Prophani, as to give the sacred name of Jupiter to their Dogs: But however that be (which we may haue occasion to Examin hereafter) t'is plain the Argument can signify nothing to the purpose. For if the Heathens gaue not the same worship to their Images and Inferiour Deities which the Church of Rome doth to her Images and Saints, the Paralell is lost: And if they gaue the same which the Church of Rome allows, the manner of the Worship which he there insists vpon (howeuer they might be mistaken in the things or Persons) is excused from Idolatry by many Emin [...]nt diuines of the Church of England, as you heard before, and will neuer be proued by Dr. St. to be so. All then that such an Extrinsic Topick can do, is that it may serue to amuze the Ignorant but can neuer Satisfy a Judicious Reader.

As for the 2d that God in the second [Page]Commandment hath expressly prohibited the giuing any worship to himself by an Image, let vs first hear the Exceptions which T G. layes against it, in p. 33. the 3d Chapter of his Catholiks no Idolaters, of which Dr St. takes not the least notice neither in his Defence.

‘What we are to consider in the first Cath. [...]o Idol. p. 33. place here, saith T. G. is what it is that Dr. St. will undertake to prove: and it is this; that God in the 2d Commandment hath expressly prohibited the giving any worship to himself by an Image. This is what vpon Second thoughts (for the term expressly was not in his first Answer) he undertakes to prove: And I cannot but wonder, saith he, to see it drop now from his Pen, who on the other side asserts Scripture (doubtlesse Express Scripture) to be his most certain Rule of Faith, and on the other side denies, (as hath been shewed aboue) any thing to be an Article of Faith which is not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self. What may the meaning of this be? If it be expressly revealed in Scripture that God is not to be worshipped by an Image, it is an Article of Faith, If it be not acknowledged [Page] to be such by Rome it self, it is no Article of Faith but (as he calls it) an Inferiour Truth or Pious Opinion, yet such as neither himself, nor any man else according to his Principles ought to belieue there is a Iot of Truth in it. Here vpon he calls vpon the Dr. to speak out. Is it, or is it not an Article of Faith? If it be an Article of Faith, t'is false what he asserts so stiffly in his Rational Account p. 54. that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, but what are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self. If it be not an Article of Faith, t'is false what he affirms so positiuely here, that God hath expressly prohibited it in the 2d Commandment. And which side soeuer he takes, tis manifest he contradicts himself. Here was Prouocation enough for Dr. St. to cleer himself. But T. G. proceeds.’

‘Perhaps his meaning is, saith he, that what at one time is but an Inferiour Truth, must at another time be an Article of Faith, according as it may serue to the different ends and purposes he hath designed to himself. And here, if I mistake not, saith T. G. lies the Knack, or [Page] (if you will giue it so venerable a name) the Mystery of the business. When the Hedge of the Church of England (viz, Suscription to her 39. Articles) must be broken down for the Good Brethren the Non-Conformists (pray pardon me, if I repeat his words) to enter in and ravage without scruple her Rights and Reuenues, so many of the said Articles, as are not owned by Rome it self, must pass for a company of Inferiour Truths, or Pious Opinions, not, to be assented to, but not to be opposed for Unitie's sake. But when the Church of Rome is to be charged with Idolatry (the Pretence, saith Mr. Thorndike, with which Ignorant Preachers driue their factions) then they are no more Inferiour Truths, but Articles of Faith expressly reuealed in Holy Scripture. Now would an Impartial Reader (to use Dr. Taylor's expression vpon another occasion) say vpon his Conscience, that this was not kindly done, to make vse of the Authority of the Church of Rome, to vnhallow so many of the 39. Articles, as are not owned by her, and cast them down into the class of Inferiour Truths, to stich vp the Rent [Page] made by the Non-Conformists from the Church of England: And then to consecrate them again so easily by vertue of that one Definitiue word [expressly] into diuine Reuelations, against the Church of Rome, to make the Breach of the Church of England from her, yet wider. But what cannot an Irenical complyance with one Party; and a Polemical Animosity, or (as Mr. Thorndike calls it Faction) against another doe? when the same Proposition, as it respects the former shall be ranked only amongst Inferiour Truths, which none are obliged to assent to; and as it may serue to oppugn the latter, shal be raised to an Article of Faith, which all are bound to belieue. Here then saith he, lyes the Mystery, that the same Proposition, viz that God is not to be worshiped by an Image, taken Irenically and in its Pacifick temper, is but an Inferiour Truth, because not owned to be an Article of Faith by the Church of Rome: but taken Polemically, and in its warlike Humour, it must be an Article of Faith, because expressly (as Dr. St. saith) revealed in scripture. Thus T. G.’

[Page]Ca [...]har.

This is meer Scholastick Fooling indeed, and would you haue Dr. St. trouble himself with such stuff as this? What he would haue said, could he haue spoken to it, (for I confess the Point is nice in his circumstances) I shal not vndertake to Divine. T'is wisdome you know to be in vt [...]um (que) paratus yet I was alwaies of Opinion, that if he would haue no Articles of Faith, but what are acknowledged for such by Rome it self; he ought to haue excepted tbis at least of not giving any wor [...]hip to God himself by an Image, this seeming to me so plainly and expressly deliuered in the 2d Commandment, That if Scripture be the Rule of our Faith, I see not how any point can be an Article of Faith, if this be not.

Eun.

I see you are no Friend to School-distinctions; (though Dr. St. himself as you know is sometimes fain to make vse of them) and much lesse to the way of making men contradict themselues. But then it is necessary, especially for Controvertists to prouide they do not do it. T'is necessary as Mr. Thorndike sayes, that they vnderstand themselues, whether they admit the consequence[Page]of their own supposition, or not: which I think Dr. St. did not consider, when he advanced this Proposition, that God in the 2d Commandment hath expressly prohibited the giuing any worship to himself by an Image. For (as T. G. discourses vpon it) It were well he Cath [...]. no. Idol. p. 36. would tell vs first, what he vnderstands by the term [Expressly.] ‘For if he call Li de Vnit. Eccl. c. 19. that (for example) an express Text, which of it self is absolutely cleer and manifest, and therefore as St. Austin saith, Non eget Interpre [...]e, needs no Interpreter, Mr. Thorndike (and those other learned men of the Church of England who see no better than He) haue reason to lament the loss of their Eye-sight. But if he mean no more, but that it is cleer and manifest to himself, they may hope they see as well as their Neighbours, though they see the quite contrary; vnless they will suffer themselues to be wrought vpon by his stout asserting it to be cleer and manifest as the Travellers were by Polus, (in Erasmus his Exorcismus) when pretending that he saw a huge Dragon with fiery horns in the sky, by auouching it strongly, and pointing expressly to the Place, [Page] he forced them (out of shame not to see so conspicuous a thing) to confess, that they saw it also. Now that it is not absolutely cleer and manifest of it self, the pains and ways he takes to find it out sufficiently evince, And whether it be cleer and manifest euen to himself, we haue cause to doubt; because the Proposition in debate, viz, That God hath prohibited the giving any worship to himself by an Image, not being acknowledged by the Church of Rome for an Article of Faith, the Church of England, according to himself, obliges no man to assent to it, but only not to oppose it; and yet on the other side Euery man is bound to assent to that, which he sees to be clear and manifest. Such frequent self-contradictions, saith T. G. are the natural consequences of a discourse not grounded vpon Truth.’

Cathar.

This is iust what Dr. St. saith of I. W: that he makes him pile Contradictions vpon Contradictions, as Def. p. 785. Children do cards one vpon another, and then he comes and cunningly steals away one of the Supporters, and down all the rest fall in great disorder and confusion.

[Page]Eun:

This is pleasantly enough said, and may serue to entertain drollish wit, though I understand not well what he means by his Aduersary's Stealing aw [...]y one of the Supporters. If this piling of contradictions be like that of Cards, me thinks it should be Dr. St's. part to steal away one of the supporters, that the Falrick may fall to the ground; for whilst both stand the Contradiction will remain. But this cannot be done without renouncing one of his Principles, viz, either that he makes no Articles of Faith but what are acknowledged f [...]r such by Rome it self, or that it is expressly revealed in Scripture (the Rule of Faith) that God is not to be worshipped by an Image. Otherwise it is not the puff of a Iest that will blow down the building. And therefore T. G. adds, that although the Reader may think, (as I perceiue you do) he takes a delight to discover such frequent Contradictions in his Adversary, yet I can assure him, saith he, t'it a much greater Grief to me, to see so subtil a wit so often intangled in them. The fault is in the Cause, (I suppose he means the charge of Idolatry) which cannot be managed without falling [Page]into them. But as St Austin saith. Quis coegit eos malam causam habere; Who compelled him and his Partizans to engage themselues in a bad Cause? Nothing of Faith, if that be true, which he ells us in his Rational Account. Nothing tf Reason, as will be shewed in the examination of his Proofs. Now if after all this, you still persist in the same mind you were of, that the prohibition of giving any worship to God himself by an Image, is so cleerly and expressly delivered in tho 2d Commandment, that if Scripture be the Rule of Faith, nothing can be an Rule of Faith, if that be not; let me desire you to consider farther what T. G. hath reply'd in particular, to Dr. Sts first way of finding out the Sense of the Law, viz, from the Terms in which the Law is expressod. Gathar. no Idol. p. 38. Exod 20. 4. Thou shalt not make vnto thee any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing &c. Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them, nor serve them. ‘These are the Terms, in which the Law is expressed according to the Translation used in the Church of England: and [...]here, I pray, saith T. G. is it expressed here that we may not giue any [Page] worship to God himself by an Image? The first part touches not the worship of Images, or of God himself by them, but only the making them, and giues matter to Divines to dispute, whether it be forbidden by this Commandment to make any Image or any likeness at all; a thing in which Protestants are concerned, as well as Catholicks. The second forbids indeed in express terms to bow our selues down to the Images themselues (as the Heathens did) but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or vnlaw [...]ulness of worshipping God himself by them. So that if to treat a matter expressly, be not the same in other words, as not to speak of it at all, it is manifest, that to worship God himself before or by an Image, is not expressly prohibited by this Commandment This T. G. desires his Protestant Reader (he should haue said Puritan) to consider well, and not suffer Puritan) to be deluded wish the sound of words. Is it all, one, saith he to bow our selues down to the Images themselues without any Relation to God, and to worship God himself by bowing before an Image? The difference is too palpable not [Page] to be seen by any one who hath not the natural Conceptions of his mind corrupted by an ouer eager desire to pursue at any rate so vniust and vncharitable a charge, as that of Idolatry. The Iews we know gaue worship to God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubins, and yet they did not worship them instead of God: And if Dr. St. will needs contend, that this was a particular dispensation to the Iews, that they might lawfully bow down to or before the Ark and Cherubins to give worship to God, he must acknowledg the Precept (if it were so) as to that part, viz, of not worshipping God by bowing before an Image, not to haue been Natural, for then God had dispensed with them to commit Real Idolatry; but Ceremonial only, and so not to oblige Christians, vnless he wil engage them also in the observance of all the Ceremonial part of the Law of Moses. Taking then the Terms of the Law, and that in the most favourable Translation to the Dr's Cause, tis euident that to worship God himself by an Image is not expressly prohibited in it.’ And the Euidence of this is so great, [Page] that although Dr. St. in his late D [...]f [...]nce spend aboue a 100. Pages about the Sense of the Second Commandment, yet he neither endeavours to remove the Contradictions,, nor answer the Arguments of T. G. His whole business there is to Criticize vpon the Exceptions which T. G. had made to the several Methods he proposed for the finding out, the Sense of the Law. A very pleasant diversion if you consider it well. I proposed, P. 720. saith he, several Methods for the finding out the Sense of the Law. The first whereof was from the General terms in which the Law was Expressed (viz the terms, Image, and Similitude.) And that we might be sure to take notice of it he gives us the same Item when he comes to the Second: The second way, saith he, I proposed to find P. 73 [...]. out the sense of the Commandment was from the Reason of it. And so when he comes to the Third. The last way, P. 747. I proposed to find out the sense of the Law, was from the Judgment of the Law-giver in the Case of the Golden Calf. And who can chuse but wonder to see so many ways and Methods pursued, so much pains and labour spent [Page] (not to say lost) to seek out what was Express in the Text and plain to be seen without more ado? What need such beating the Hedges and Bushes to find out the Game, if it show it self fairly in the Open Feild? Hunters sometimes will pass by a Hare in the Form, and let the [...]ounds loose to find her out by the Sent. But these are such as hunt more for their Pleasure and Exercise, than for the Game.

Cathar.

And why may not Dr. St. course it somerimes in like manner in Controversy. T'is mean and clownish to knock the Point presently on the head, where as she pursuing new ways and Methods to find it out affords great matter both of pleasure and Exercise of Wit.

Eunom.

But whilst the Dr. hunts thus for his pleasure, may he not be in danger to lose the Prey?

Cathar.

No fear at all of that. The very Charge of Idolatry secures it to him: For (as my good Friend, Patronus bonae Spec. p. 44. Fidei observes) The Puritans (who ground themselues upon that charge) do not so easily become Papists, as those of the Church of England who take [Page]other ways; whose consanguinity (as he calls it) in life and discipline with the Papists carries them ouer to them upon the least impulse, as might be insta [...]'d in many, whose names you may find in a litle Book called Legenda lignea: Whereas on the contrary, the l [...]f [...], the doctrine and discipline of th [...] P [...]ritans, as approaehing nearer to the Apostolick, make them more averse and [...] against the Papists, and very hardly or never to pass over to them.

Eun.

This is a notable Observation indeed, and perhaps may hold better, for the [...]anaticks or the Turks, than the Puritans. But Mr. Thorndike had a different esteem of the matter, when weighing in his Ju [...]t Weight ch. 2. what we get [...] the Cha [...]ge of Idolatry and Antichrist, he app [...]als to the Judgment of men of discretion, Wh [...]ther This be not the rea [...]on of that which wise men haue observed, that the passage from the one Extream to the other is more easy and frequent among us, than from the mean to the Extream. For when a Novice, saith he, grounded upon this Supposition is forced from his Ground upon Remonstrance of such Reasons (as may [Page] be and are produced against it) how ready is He to fall into the Snare of the Missionaries. And there upon it is, that he advises them not to lead the People by the Nose; to belieue, they can proue their Supposition, when They cannot; and then expect that it be maintained by Those that own the Church of Rome for a true Church, ond therefore must contradict themselues, if they maintain it. What Dr. St. should haue done was to remove the Contradictions, objected to him, and answer the Arguments of T. G. and not go a coursing for his pleasure with new ways and Methods to find out that which himself affirms to be so cleerly Expressed in the Second Commandment, that it cannot enter into his mind, how God should haue forbidden it by more express and Emphatical words, Rom. Idel p. [...]8. than he hath done. But of this I may haue occasion to speak again here after. Let us now, if you please, adjourn till another time.

[Page]

THE FIFTH DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

The Charge of Idolatry not maintainable without subverting all lawful Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England. Dr. St's. Doctrine in his Answer to N. O. concerning the Power and Authority of the Church: He is left at liberty to chuse whether he will haue it be a Retractation or Contradiction of what he asserted in his Irenicum, set down in the 3d Dialogue. His mistake of the Validity of Ordination for the lawful Authority to Exercise the Power conferred by it, shown to be Inexcusable. A Recapitulation of what hath been discoursed in this, and the fore-going Dialogues.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS

EVn:

Hitherto Catharinus I haue entertained you with some remarkable [Page] Omissions of Dr. St. to the Exceptions made by T. G. to his Charge of Idolatry; and although perhaps you will not esteem them so muc [...] as Venial sins, and much less his Silence to be a yeilding of the Caus [...]; yet some of them are of that Importanc [...] that the whole weight of the matter in debatelies vpon them. As for the faults of Commission, where He thought fit to break Silence, and speak to his Adversary's Arguments, some of them also may chance to come in our way before we end: At present I shall only giue you one for a Tast, by which you may iudge, not only what Candour, and S [...]n [...]rity, but what skill also in Church-affairs you are to expect in the rest. It is that of the Subversion of Ecclesiasticall Authority in the Church of England which T. G. contends to follow from the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome.

Cathar.

This is what I haue long expected, and would gladly see. And surely, it must be no less, than another Thunder-shower with a terrible crack, it has made such a rumbling in the ayr P. 273. before it breaks.

Eun:

Whateuer it be, you shall [Page] haue it in T. Gs. own words at the end of his Pr [...]f [...]ce to Catholicks no Idolaters, where hauing laid down this for his Position, that the Charge of Idolatry subverts the very foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England, he proues it with this reason; because it being a receiued Maxime, and not deniable by any one of Common Sense, that no man can giue to another, that which he hath not himself, it lies open to the Conscience of Euery man, that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy. much more if guilty of Idolat [...]y, it falls vnder the Apostle's Excommunication (Gal 1. 8) and so remains deprived of the lawful Authority to vse and exercise the power of Orders, and consequently the Authority of Gouerning, Preaching, and Administring Sacraments, which those of the Church of England challenge to themselues, as deriued from the Church of Rome, can be no true and lawful Jurifdiction, but vsurped and Antichristian. This you see bids very fair towards the subversion of all lawful Authority in the Church of England if the Church of Rome were guilty of Idolatry, when the Schism began; [Page] because Excommunicated Persons, such as Idolaters are, being depriued of lawfull Authority themselues, can giue none to others; and if those others take any vpon them, it must be vsurped and vnlawful; no man can giue to another what he hath not in himself: and vpon this Principle it is, that the Earl of Clarendon in his late Excellent Survey of Leviathan p. 40. 41. affirms, that this sole Proposition, that men cannot dispose of their own liues, hath been alwaies held as a manifest and vndeniable Argument, that Soveraigns neuer had, nor can haue their power from the People; because it is without doubt, that no man is Dominus vitae suae and therefore cannot giue that to another, which he hath not in himself▪ And the Maxime holds no less in Spiritual than in Temporal Jurisdiction.

But then again, if we consider the time, when Dr. St. aduanced this charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, that is, after he had by a new Impression tendred his Irenicum in the year 1662. to Consideration. Viz, after that Episcopacy was resetled in the Church of England, we shall find the [Page] Argument press much more home, For, maintaining as he does in that Book, that no particular Form of Church-Government is de Jure Divino but mutable as the secular Magistrate, with the aduice of learned and Experienced Persons, shall see convenient for State and Church; and particularly that the main ground for setling Episcopal Government in this Nation, was not any pretence of Divine Right, but Conveniency to the State and Condition of the Church at tbe time of it's Reformation, citing for it the Testimony of Arch Bp. Cranmer and others; This saith T. G. seems but too apparently to be a clinching of the Nail which he had driuen before to the head. For, if the Form of Church Government be mutable, as the Secular Power wel-advised shall see Reason, what greater Reason can there be, saith he, for the actual changing of Episcopacy, than the Nullity of it's Jurisdiction? And therefore wonders, how the Governours of tbe Church of England could see their Authority so closely attacqued (at least so manifestly betrayed) by their pretended Champion, and not vindicate themselues and their Jurisdiction from[Page]the foul stain of Antichristian, which necessarily follows, if the Church of Rome, as he pretends, be guilty of Idolatry, and they derive together with their Consecration, their Episcopal Jurisdiction from it.

Cathar.

This is a terrible Bl [...]w indeed, as Dr. St. calls it in his General Preface, and had he not sufficiently warded it off, others perhaps might haue been sollicitous for it. But I still hope with my good Friend Patronus bonae fidei, that what Defens. verit. p. 1 [...]. things were formerly said by Dr. St. in a lower fortune and station, concerning the Irregular and Exorbitant Power of the English Episcopacy (of which there is no appearance in the Primitive Church) viz that one Pastor should be over many fix'd Congregations of Christians; as also concerning the discipline of the Presbyterians, more neerly approaching to the Apostolick Form, than that of the Hierarchicks, and more fitly agreing with the light of Nature; my hope is, I say, that now he sits high among the Hierarchicks, and is in the way to rise higher, He will not retract and cōdemn his former Assertions, making his Opinion turn and vere about with the wind of honour.

[Page]Eun:

I told you before, I shall not concern my self in the M [...]tives of the change. They better become (or [...]f you will, come better from) your Friend, the Patron bonae sidei, as you call him. But how farr the Dr. St. hath proceeded in changing his Opinions (if they were as you say) your self will iudge when you shall hear what he saith in the first Part of his Answer to N. O.

First concerning Episcopacy. We defend, saith he, the Government of the p. 181. Church by Bishops to be the most ancient and Apostolical Government, and that no Person can haue sufficient reason to cast that off, which hath been so vniuersally received in all Ages since the Apostle's times.

2dly Concerning the Authority of making Rules and Canons about matters of Order and Decency in the Church, I freely grant saith he, not only that such p. 26 [...]. an Authority is in its self reasonable and Iust; but that in such matters requi [...]ed by a lawful Authority, (such as tha [...] of our Church is) there is an advantage on the side of Authority, against a Scrupulous Conscience, which ought t [...] ouerrule the practice of such who are the[Page]members of that Church.

3dly Concerning the Authority of proposing even matters of Faith, and p. 269. directing men in Religion, which he saith, is the proper Authority of Teachers, and Guides, and Instructers of others, he affirmeth that those who are duely appointed for this work, and ordained by those whose Office is to ordain, viz, the Bishops, haue an Authority to declare what the mind and will of God is, contained in Scripture in order to the Salvation and edification of the souls of Men.

4thly Concerning Subscription, he acknowledgeth that the Synod or Conuocation in the present circumstances hath the power and Authority within it self to declare what Errours and Abuses are crept into Religion and Doctrine, Which they iudg fit to reform, and to require a consent to such Propositions as are agreed vpon for that end, of those who are to enioy the Publick Offices of teaching and instructing others, and not to allow any Persons to preach and Officiate in the Church, in a way contrary to the design of such a Reformation Which I take to be the same with what [Page] the Author of the Reply to the Naked Truth, pag. 6. asserteth, when he saith, that the Church is so iust to her self as to exact for the security of her own peace, that all whom she trusts with teaching others, or whom she recommends to the world with Vniversity-Degrees shall subscribe to the 39. Articles, as their own Opinions, and what they belieue as convinced in their [...]wn Judgments that they are true, what do you think of this, Catharinus? Is this a Retractation or no?

Cathar.

I think there is a great deal of difference between changing Opinion, and changing the Person. That Dr. St. speaks there in the Person of the Church of England to stop the mouth of an Importune Adversary (N. O.) who would haue no Authority left in the Guides of the Church, if I [...]fallible direction were taken from them; is manifest from the Design of his discourse. But nothing I suppose of a Retractation, because I neuer heard he made any Recantation-Sermon, for what he had writen either in his Irenicum, or Rational Account, or other writings; or any other publick Profession of retracting or condemning his former Opinions. Nay do you not [Page] see, how careful he is not to be thought to retract, when hauing giuen Authority to the Synod to require a consent to the Propositions agreed vpon; he presently takes it away again, by telling vs, that Persons may not be allowed to preach and Officiate in the Church in a way contrary to the design of the Reformation? Which I take to be the same with his former Assertion, that what is required of them is no more than not to oppose or contradict them.

Eun:

This kind of dealing is I assure you an Argument to me, that the Reasons for these new Assertions did not appear Satisfactory to him, because I belieue what he protests concerning his charge of Idolatry at the end of his defence p. 877. viz that if the subtilties of T. G. could haue satisfied him or any other Argument he had met with, he would as f [...]eely haue retracted his Charge of Idolatry, as he euer made it; to be altogether as true here; that is, had he met with any Arguments which could haue satisfied him of the Erroneousness of his former Opinions, he would as willingly have retracted th [...]m as euer he advanc'd them. The distinction you [Page] make of changing the Person, not the Opinion, is very subtil: But he hath Cunning Sophisters, as you know, to deal with; and if it pass not for a Retractation, they will be ready to say that he contradicts himself; and so raise vp a new Pile or rather Pyramid of Contradictions, for him to pluck down.

Cathar.

I hate this piling of Contradictions with all my heart. And therefore pray return to the Terrible Blow.

Eun.

I shall. And it is if you remember that if the first Ordainers of the English Bishops were Idolaters, they were depriued themselues of lawful Authority to ordain, because they fell vnder the Apostles Excommunication, and so could giue none to those whom they ordained? What can be said to this?

Cathar:

This it is, as Dr. St. Saith, to charge home, and so Farewel to the Church of England, if the Church of Rome were not more kind in this case, than T. G. is. Hitherto we haue seen his Skil in the affairs of our Church, and now saith the Dr. we shall see iust as much in the Doctrine of his own. For doth not the Council of Trent make Orders a Sacrament? And one of those[Page]which do imprint an indelible Character? And doth not that Council pronounce an Anathema against those that denied the validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin, in case he obserues the Essentials of it. How then can T. G. escape Excommunication from his own Church, who denies the validity of the Sacrament of Orders, in case of the sin of the Giuers of it? And then after this he proceeds to proue his Assertion for no less than 16. Pages together, viz. that a Bishop who is in mortal sin, or an Heretick, may validly ordain a Bishop or a Priest, with a cloud of Testimonies both out of the Ancient Fathers, and Modern Doctors of the Church of Rome as Vasquez, Estius, Aquinas, Bonaventure, &c. as also from the Practice both of the Ancient and Modern Church, in this case. Doe you not think the B [...]ew sufficiently warded off, and deseruedly retorted vpon the head of T. G.

Eun:

This indeed may be called an Answer with a Witness. But what if the Witnesses speak not at all to the case in debate, or if they do, it is for T. G. Does T. G. any where denie the Validity of the Sacrament [Page] of Orders in case of the Sin of the Giuers of it? Consider the argument again▪ and you will not find so much as one word that sounds to that purpose. The Consequence T. G. draws from Dr. Sts charge of Idolatry, was not to disprove the Validity of the Ordination of the Protestant Bishops, but the lawfulness of their Authority to vse and exe [...]cise the power of Orders, which he did by showing, that the Ordainers hauing lost the lawful exercise of their Orders by falling into Idolatry, (though we should suppose the Protestant Bishops, to haue been validly ordained by them,) yet could they not receiue any lawful Authority or Jurisdiction from them; it being an vndeniable Maxime, that nothing can giue to another what it hath not it self. Now that a Man may truely and validly haue the Order of a Bishop or Priest conferr'd vpon him, and yet not haue lawful Authority to exercise what belongs to that Order, is out of question, from the acknowledgment and practice both of the Church of Rome and that of England, which for certain crimes, as Heresy, Murder, Apostasy, and the like, suspend and [Page] Excommunicate the Offenders. And it is agreed on both sides, that Persons so suspended and Excommunicated cannot lawfully exercise the Functions belonging to those Orders. Hence it is, that a Minister Silenc'd and Suspended by his Bishop, though he retain the character of his Order, that is, remain still a Minister, yet cannot he lawfully preach or administer the Sacraments. The same is also of a Bishop, if he be suspended or Excommunicated for heresy or the like, he cannot lawfully confer Orders, nor giue that Jurisdiction to another, of which he is depriued himself. And in case he should, the Person so receiving them, would in that case remain suspended as well as the Bishop. This then is what T. G. insisted vpon, that the First Ordainers, who were of the Roman Communion, hauing lost by the supposed crime of Idolatry, the lawful Authority of exercising their Orders, could not communicat▪ any such Authority to those whom they Ordained; and consequently there could be no such Authority in the Pr [...]testant Bishops, if the Church of Rome, as Dr. St. pretends, were [Page] guilty of Idolatry, and they derive together with their Consecration their Episcopal Jurisdiction from it.

Cathar.

I consess, you haue giuen me a new prospect of T. G's. drift and meaning in this Argument, which I neuer discern'd till new, nor do I belieue Dr. St. took it so. Otherwise, (I haue that esteem for his Sincerity) he would not hauespent so much pains, and so many Pages to proue what was quite beside the intent of his Adversary, and neuer denied by him, viz that the Sacrament of Orders is validly conferred, though the Person conferring chance to be in mortal sin, or Excommunicated.

Eun.

Be it as you belieue; yet Dr. St I think had litle reason to charge T. G. with Ignorance in Church affairs, when himself mistook so grossly in them, as to vnderstand his Adversary to speak of the Invalidity of Orders in case of the sin of the Giuers, when his whole discourse tended only to show the want of due Authority to exercise them, in case the Ordainers had none to giue t [...]em. But I fear there is but too much reason to belieue that Dr St. vnderstood all this well enough: and my Grounds [Page] are these. 1st because there is nothing more visible (nor more complain'd of by those of your Party) in the practice of the C [...]urch of England, than the Silencing and suspending factious Prea [...]hers from the Office of Preaching: and Dr. St. himself supposes it iust and lawfull, when he saith as you heard before, that Persons are not to be allowed to preach and Officiate in the Ch [...]rch, in a way cont [...]ary to the design of the Reformation. They must then be Silenced and Suspended from the Exercise of their Function; but are not thereby depriued of the Order of their Ministery, as might be instanced in many cases both A [...]cient and Mo [...]ern, wel known to Dr. St. in which the Persons were Restored to the exercise of their Order, (whether Episcopal or Minister [...]al) not by a new Ordination, but by taking off the Suspension 2dly. Because himself could not but take no [...]ice of the Distinction between O [...]din [...]tio and Jurisdictior, laid down by some of the Roman Doctors cited by himself, as E [...]tius and Bonaventure. Th [...] former of which, saith he, affi [...]meth, that no Crime or General [...]face, Censure how heauy soeuer, can hinder [Page]the validity of Ordination by a Bishop, although it be of those who are not Subiect to his Jurisdiction, in case he observe the Essentials of the Sacrament; and that we might not doubt but he took good notice of what he said, he puts in a distinct character, that it was for this reason. Because Ordination saith Estius belongs to the Power of Order, which being once received can neuer be lost, but those things which belong [...]o Jurisdiction, as Absolution and Excommunication, haue no Effect where that Jurisdiction is taken away. And the l [...]t [...]er viz, B [...]naventure saith, that in the matter of Ordination, the Power of Orders can [...]o more be taken way, than the Character it self; but whateuer is founded vpon Jurisdiction, as the Power of Excommuni [...]ation and Ab [...]olution, may be taken away. Do you st [...]ll belieue, that Dr St. had not gro [...]nd enough to make him consider, whether his Adversary spoke of Ordination or Jurisdictio [...]? That which follows will put the matter quite out of doubt; Because 3.dly. T. G. exp [...]e [...]sly declares himself all along to speak, of the lawfull Authority to vse and exercise the Power of[Page]Orders, and in his last words cleerly distinguishes Jurisdiction from Consecration when he saith. If the B [...]hops together with th [...]ir C [...]ns [...]cration, deriue their Episcopal Juris [...]iction f [...]om the Church of Rome. By which it is plain to any one of Common sense, that his Int [...]ntion in that place, was not to attacque the Consecrat [...]on of the Engil [...]h B [...]hops, but rather supposing that in the present case, (as not to his purpose,) to shew from Dr. Sts. charge of Idolatry vpon their first Ordainers, their want of lawf [...]l Iurisdiction. What then can be said here, but that Dr. St. could not but [...] the meaning and force of T. Gs. Argument; but not being able to ward off the blow, resolued to cast a blind before his Readers eyes, by impugning T. G as if he had denied the validity of Ordination in case [...]f he sin of the Giuers of it, And to make the m [...]st the darker he heaps a whole Shower of reproaches upon him, as the veryest Ignoramus, that euer set pen to paper. Hi [...]he [...]to, saith he, we haue seen his skill in the affairs of our Church, and now wee shal see iust as much in the doctrine of his o [...]n. How can be escape Excommunication f [...]om his own Church, who denies the validity[Page]of the Sacrament of Orders in case of the sin of the Giuers of it? Methinks if he had f [...]rgotten the doctrine of the Council of Trent, he might haue looked into some one or other of their own Authors, to haue informed himself be [...]ter of their doctrine in this matter. By this we may indge of the lear [...]ing and skill of T. G. in the doctrine of his own Church. But if he would not look into the Controuersial writers of their Church, yet if he had b [...]t [...]earched into the practice of the Church, either in Ancient or Modern times, he would haue been Ashamed to haue made vse of such an Argument to overthr [...]w all Ecclesiastical Authority among vs. What do you think of this, Catharinus? do you not belieue the Dr. was put hard to it to keep his Countenance for 16. Pages together; but that he must laugh at least through his fingers to see what a fourb he had put vpon his Readers. First by imposing falsly vpon T. G. that he denied the validity of Ordination in case of the sin of the Giuers of it, and then treating him like a Dolt, and most triumphantly telling him, he might haue been Ashamed to make vse of such an Argument? [Page] Is this it he means, when he so piously protests, that he loues not to repre [...]ent others worse than they are? He may, if he can, Sit down with that contentment which he proposes to himself as his last resort, that he h [...]s defended a Righteous Ep. D [...] dic. to his Defence. cause, and with an honest mind. But if he can do it upon no better an account, himself is like to reap but litle comfort from it; and the Church of England will I fear soon haue cause enough to be ashamed of such a Champion. For my part, I shall neuer iudge worse hereafter of any Aduersary, for being reproached by Dr. St. but s [...]sp [...]ct his own want of Ingenuity, or of an Answer, rather than his Adversary's deficiency either in Wit or Learning. And to tell you my Apprehensions, I begin already to questio [...], whether T. G. euer asserted, the Heathens to be Idolaters only for giuing diuine honour to the Diuel: and much less whether the Apostles and Fath [...]rs euer preached to the world, that the Heathen's I [...]piter was the only true G [...]d. The noble P [...]neg [...]rick he makes of that King of Gods and Men in the first Chapter of his Defence, out of the Poets, Orators, Philosophers and Fathers, hath [Page] but litle Influence vpon me row (though before it had a great deal) to make me alter my Creed, and say, I belieue in one God Jupiter, the Father Almighty, maker of H [...]auen and Earth, &c,

Cathar.

You are too seuere Eunomius, in your censure; for although Dr. St. could not be ignorant, that a man may haue the [...]wer of Orders and yet not haue lawful Authority to vse them, yet it being the Common Objection of those of the Church of R [...]me, that the Bishops of England neuer had any valid Ordination, he might not reflect vpon the Nic [...]ty of the dist [...]nction, but suppose his Adversary proceeded in the same strain with his felloows.

Eun:

An excellent defence indeed for a writer of Controversy. But what if Dr. St haue been publickly reproued for this mistake, (as you wil haue it;) as he is by E. W. (Mr Edward Worstl [...]y) in his Treatise of the Infallibility of the Roman-Catholick Church, printed at Antwerp 1674. and yet after that, shall take no not [...]ce of it, but go on, as he does in his late Defence, to confirm his former Answer with n [...]w Proofs and Testimonies, that Bishops ordain'd by [Page]Idolaters, were esteemed validly ordained; and not speak one word in Answer to what was objected by T. G. viz that the English Bishps must want lawful A [...]thority to exercise the Power of Orders, if their first Ordainers were Idolaters?

Cathar.

To this I know not well what can be replied; vnless perhaps it may be said, that the B [...]ok you speak of neuer came to Dr. Stills kn [...]wledg. You know how difficult a thing it is to import Books, especially of that nature printed beyond sea, into England, and how much more Dangerous to disperse them.

Eun.

How euer, it cannot be doubted, but one of them came to Dr. St's. hands, before he published his late defence, for p. 785. he cites the said Treatise, setting down the very year when it was printed and calls the Author, in his Encomiastick way of speaking. That mighty man at Ecclesiastical Fencing E. W.

Cathar.

I remember now who you mean, The renowned Champion, as the Dr. goes on, of our Lady of Loreto, and the miraculous Translation of her Chappel; of whom, he saith, he must [Page]haue litle care of himself, if he euer more come near the Clutches of such a Giant, who seems to write with a Beetle instead of a Pen; and therefore resolues to let him lye quietly in his shades, and snore on to dooms-day for him, vnless he see further rea [...]on of disturbing his repose, than at present he does.

Eun:

This is indeed the Character, which Dr. St. is pleas'd to giue of that Person, whom I haue heard much esteem'd for his Learning. And although he meant it for an Irony, yet it expresses wel the nature of the Blows, which E. W. giues; and the Dr's Resolution thereupon, never more to disturb his repose: there being as litle fencing I suppose against a Beetle, as a Flail. And I pray see how close the Dr. has stuck to this Resolution, in the passage we are now vpon concerning T. G.

‘I cannot but reflect, saith E. W. (p. 87. of the fore-mentioned Treatise) vpon another intolerable mistake of Dr St. that whereas T. G. had said in his Preface, that, it is a known Maxim, that none can giue to another that which he hath not himself; and therefore if the Church of Rome be guilty of [Page] Heresy, much more of Idolatry, it fall [...] vnder the Apostles Excommunication, and so remains depriued of lawfull Authority (mark the words, saith he,) to vse and excercise the power of Orders, and consequently the Authority of Gouerning, preaching, and administring Sacraments, which those of the Church of England challenge to themselues, as deriued from the Church of Rome, can be no true and lawful Jurisdiction but vsurped and Antichristian. The plain and ob [...]ions sense of which words saith he, is that He who hath no Jurisdiction, but is depriued of it by the Church's Censures, cannot giue it to anot [...]er. Neither can He that hath no lawful Authority to ordain, lawfully ordain any, or giue Authority lawfully to ordain others. Now comes Dr. St. in his General Preface to ward off this blow, but never man did it less dexterously, and we must wholly attribute it to his litle Skil in fencing He tells vs that the Council of Trent pronounces Anathema a [...]ainst those that deny the validity (observe here also, sai [...]h he the word Validity) of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin, in case he observes the Essentials [Page] of it; and in this gross errour he runs on for 9. or 10. Pages, (he might have said almost as many leaves) citing Author after Author to prove that the Sacrament of Order is validly given by one in mortal sin or Excommunicated. But what is all this, Saith E. W. to T. Gs. most true Assertion? that none guilty of Idolatry, or Heresy can give Jurisdiction to any of the Church of England (which they must have from Catholick Bishops, or wholly want it,) or impower them to ordain others lawfully, when they are deprived them selves, of all lawful Authority to use or exercise the power of Orders? Hence you se [...], saith he, Dr. Sts. blindness, who argues from the validity of giving Orders, to the lawful giving them, &c.’ Thus E. W. And such a publick rebuke one would think, had been sufficient to make Dr. St. open his Eyes, and consider what it was that his Adversary objected; if he intended ever more to speak to this Argument. But as if he were wholly insensible of the gross and intolerable errour E. W. taxed him with, (whether stun'd with the blow of the Beetle, or not hauing any thing else to [Page] answer, he runs again into the same shameful mistake, and instead of defending that the first Bishops of the Church of England receiued lawful Authority to vse and exercise the Power of O [...]ders which T. G. denied they could, in case their Ordainers were guilty of Idolatry, he falls vpon him afresh in his late defence, as if he demed the validity of Orders giuen by a Bishop in case of Idolatry. And that his Reader may see, he was resolued notwithstanding the Rebukes of E. W. to goe on in the same track still, he tells him pag. 795. that hauing formerly showed, in his General Preface, that no Act of Ordination is invalid in case of any Heresy or crime of the Giuer, and that the contrary Doctrine is condemned for Heresy by the Church, he shall now particularly shew, that the Power of giuing Orders is not taken away by the guilt of Idolatry; which he there proceeds to proue from the case of the▪ Arian Bishops; And if I can make it appear saith he, that the Arian Ordinations were allowed, I shall put this matter beyond dispute, that the Charge of Idolatry doth not null the Ordinations of our Church, as being derived from[Page]tho [...]e who were guilty of Idolatry. Thus Dr. St. after he had been publickly told of his mistake. And what is this but to tell vs, that howeuer E. W. and T. G, vrge him, the o [...]e with a Pen, the [...]ther with a B [...]etle to shew how the sirst Protestant Bishops could haue any lawf [...]l Jurisdiction or Authority to exercise the p [...]we [...] of Orders, in case heir Ordainers were guilty of Idolat [...]y, he is resolued neuertheless to take no notice at all of that (which was the onely thing in disput [...]) but will fight on stil couragiously against a Shad [...]w of his own making, and put it beyond dispute, that the Act it se [...]f of Ordinat [...]on is not inval [...]d in case of the I [...]ol [...]try of [...] G [...]uers, which was neuer denied by his A [...]ve [...]sary. What shall I say here? Are the Pow [...]r of giuing Orders, and lawful Autho [...]ity to giue them, so [...]ssentially linked to each other, that they cannot be separated? May not a Bishop or P [...]est remaining so, be deprived of all lawful Authority to exercise their Functions, for hauing fallen into Heresy or Idolatry? And if they haue non [...] t [...]emselues, can they giue it to others? does not Estius cited by the Dr, affirm, that no crime or [Page]Censure how h [...]a [...]y [...]o [...]uer can hinder the validity of O [...]dination by a Bishop although it be of those who are not s [...]biect to his Jurisdictio [...]? &c. By which it is manifest the Power of Ordination may haue its effect, where there is no lawf [...]l Authority to exercise it? And does not the Church of England suspend her B [...]shops and Priests in case of those or the lik [...] crimes, and vpon their repentance admit them again without [...]? And if the Protestant Bishops neither haue nor could haue any lawful Jurisdiction derived vpon them, in case their first O [...]dainer▪ were guilty of Idolatry and so could giue none is there not all the rea [...]on in the world according to t [...]e Dr's Irenicall Principle of the mutabili [...]y of Chu [...]ch-Gouernment, to take away Episcopacy, and Substiti [...]te some other in it [...]s Place? These are the Points, which Dr. St: should haue spoken to, to an [...]w [...] his Adversarys argument; but instead of doing that, to mo [...]k his Reader, and lavish away time and paper, as he does, to proue the validity of Ordination in case of the Heresy or Idolat [...]y of the giuer, (a po [...]nt well known to T. G. before Dr. St took [Page] vpon him to teach him) is the greatest sign of Tergiversation, to say no worse, Jeuer yet met with.

Cathar.

Here I confess was ground enough, and Provocation enough for Dr. St to see what it was his Adversary droue at, and speak to the Point if he had thought fit. Why he did it not I doe not vnderstand, but rather w [...]nde he should take such pains to proue that the Power of giving Orders is not taken a [...]ay by the guilt of Idolatry. Yet I obserue that he does not positively assert th [...] as his own Opinon, but layes it down rather as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, to shew the litle Skill which T. G hath in his own Church's affairs: And I should wonder more, were it otherwise, when Dr. Wille [...] contr. 16. qu. 2. de ord. part 4 (as I find him cited by my Friend Patronus bonae fidei. p. 47) expressly affirmeth, that Ministers ordained in the Roman Chu [...]ch, are not true Presbyters, because th [...] Bishops of that Church are not the Minist [...]s of Christ but of Antichrist.

Eun:

This would be to make the force of T. Gs. Argument yet stronger, which it may be is what you would be [Page] at. For if the first Ordainers were no true Bishops, those whom they ordained could be none, and much less could they receiue la [...]ful Authority from them to make others. But how wary soever the Dr. be in expressing his thoughts, yet I doe not find, he any were denies the Bishops of the Church of Rome to be true B [...]hops: nor does T. G. concern himself to disproue the validity of the Ordination of the Bishops of the Church of E [...]gland; but only to show it to be a consequence of Dr. St's charge of Idolatry, that they could haue [...]o lawful Authority to exercise the power of Orders, in case their first O [...]ainers were Idolaters. And methinks T. G's. Civility in this Point, in wauing the Q [...]est on of the validity of their Ordination (a Topick vehemently insisted on by those of his Party) ought to haue preuailed with Dr. St. to haue treated him with more Moderation; and yet the Impor [...]ance of the Argument [...]aue induced him not to leaue it vnspok [...]n to, in its full f [...]rce and vtmost consequence; which was no less than the actual ch [...]nge of Epis [...]opal Government in England, according to his Principles. [Page] Ordinary Readers, if Impartial, will be at a loss what to think of this; but those of better capacity wil be apt to suspect, (what it may be you hope) there was something in the bottome, which made him so careful not to touch this Point; and so much the more, if they shall but res [...]ect with themselues, how things haue been managed by him in relation to it from the beginning, as.

1. His publishing of the doctrine of the Mutability of Church-Government as the secular Magistrate shall see rea [...]on, laid down by him at large in his Irenicum.

2. His re-printing that Book after the Bishops were re-established by law, and humbly tendring it to Consideration.

3. His cajolling the very Bishops themselues in his Preface; with what a rare example of self-denyal, and of the highest Christian Prudence it would be in them, to reduce the form of Church Government in England to its Primitiue state and Order by retrenching all Exorbitances of Power, (mark that) and restoring those Presbyteries, which no law hath forbidden, but only through disuse haue been laid aside.

[Page] 4ly when this would not take with them to make them divest themselues of what they thought to be their Just Power, his putting forth a Treatise to charge the Church of R [...]me with Idolatry, when neither of the two Questions proposed to him and his Adversary requir'd it: and endeavouring to fasten that charge vpon the Church of England as her Sense, and so make her contribute to the subversion of her own Authority. 5.ly when T G. vrged vpon him, the want of lawf [...]l Jurisdiction as the consequence of this cha [...]g [...], and consequently that in his Principles there was reason enough for the State to think fit to take away Episcopa [...]y; His passing this by, as if he saw it not and trifling with his Adversary, about the validity of Ordination in case of Heresy. And, lastly, when [...] put him in mind of his duty, as the Champion of the Church of England; and in such a manner as would provoke a man of more Phlegm, than Dr. St shows himself to be; His still letting it alone and running a new descant vpon the old mistake, viz, the validity of Ordination in case of the Idolatry of the Givers of it: neither retracting his [Page] Principles, nor speaking to the Point, but leaving Episcopacy, as it is established in the Church of England, vnder the s [...]okes of the B [...]tle to shift for it'sself, as it can. And what was this I pray (if you will not call it attacquing) but to betray at least the cause of the Church of England as T. G. saith, whilst he pretends to d [...]f [...]nd it?

Catha [...] ▪

What my sentiment is in this matter, I need not tell you. But I must needs tell you, I am [...]o at all [...]atisfied with the Surmis [...] you cast into the Readers mind of Dr St's ma [...]aging this cha [...]ge of Idolat [...]y vpon some desi [...]n against the Episcopall G [...]u [...]rnment established in this land. This is a great Secre [...] indeed, and transcends the power of the Iudge of controversies, much more of any privaete man to dive into it.

E [...]n:

But you haue heard I hope of some f [...]mous P [...]ophetick pict [...]r [...]s pretending to represent the f [...]te of England, in which the chief thing observable (in several of them) is a Mo [...]e, a creature blind and busy smooth and deceitfull, continually working vnder ground, but now and th [...]n to be discerned by the disturbance it makes in the surface of the Earth.

[Page]Cath

I remember very well that Dr. St begins his Epistle Dedicatory before his defence with this passage, as so natural a description of a restless party among vs, that w [...] need no Judge of controversies to inter [...]ret the meaning of it. But what do you infer from that Prophetick Emblem?

Eun:

Nothing, but that we may see by the casting vp of the little Hills, which way the Mole works; and the Church of England may iudge, by the Drs. aforesa [...]d managing of the charge of Idolatry, to whom the description more naturally belongs, without either the help of the Judge of controversies, or the light of the Private spirit.

Cathar.

Well then, leaving these things, as T. G. does in his Preface to those whom they concern; as I haue giuen you hitherto the Satisfaction at least of a fair hearing, whilst you represented the Motives of your dissatisfaction with the charge of Idolatry, as managed by Dr. St, so now I expect you'l be so kind, as to giue me your Opinion of the Book you found me vpon at your first visit, viz. Dr. St's late Defence of his Roman Idolatry in answer to T. G. For although you haue occasionally [Page] touch'd vpon some passages of it in our former discourses, yet I would willingly hear what you think of the whole.

Eunom.

This then (if you will needs haue it) shall be the subiect of another Conference. Only I shall leaue you a short Memorial to consider on, of the matters we haue hitherto discoursed, and it is this: that Dr. St. (as hath been shown) cannot maintain his charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome. 1. without dissenting from the Judgment of the true and Genuine sons of Dial. 1. the Church of England. 2ly not without Dial. 2. offering violence to the 39. Articles. 3ly not without denying or assigning Dial. 3. a Church in all ages distinct from all Conuenticles of Hercticks and Schismaticks, with which Christians were bound to ioyn in Communion. 4ly not without granting the Church of Rome to err against a Fundamentall Point of Faith. 5ly not without bringing the guilt and Mischeifs of the Schism vpon the Dial. 4. Maintainer. 6ly not without quitting that grand supporter of the Cause the words, Expressly prohibited in the second Commandment. 7ly not without frequent and manifest Self-Contradictions. Dial. 3. 4. [Page] Lastly not without subverting all [...]īal. 5. lawful Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England.

And if these things cannot be cleared (as hitherto by Dr Sts. behauiour it doth not appear to me they ca [...]) That must stand good which T. G asserts, as the consequence of th [...]m, viz that the Charge of Idolatry (especially as D. St. hath managed it) is the most g [...]oundless, vnreasonable, and cont [...]adictory proceeding in the world. And with this I take leaue at present.

The End of the First Part.

§

§

§

[Page]

THE SECOND PART OF THE JUST DISCHARGE TO DR. STILLINGFLEET'S VNJVST CHARGE OF IDOLATRY, &c. Discovering. The vanity of his late Defence in his pretended Answer to a Book entituled CATHOLICKS NO IDOLATERS By way of Dialogue Between. EVNOMIVS, a Conformist. & CATHARINVS, a Non-Conformist.

PARIS, Printed for RENE' GUIGNARD, at the sign of S. Basil, in S. Jacques Streer.

M.DC.LXXVII.

Avec Privilege du Roy.

2

[Page]

[Page]

THE FIRST DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

A Discovery of the Vanity of Dr. St's Endless discourses in his late Defence, in relation to T. G. His Excellent Glosse of the Canon of the Church of England, concerning Bowing to the Altar; which the Author of a late Treatise, entituled Patronus Bonae Fidei, by Arguments cast in the Dr's own moulds, contends to be Idolatry, worse than that of the Romanists, or Aegyptians.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

CAthar:

What Judgment to make of the Memorial you left me, I cannot easily determin. If the Consequences contained in it be false, (as I hope they are) I cannot but wonder Dr. St. in his Defence should take so litle [Page] notice of them? And if they be true I wonder as much, he should take so much pains to maintain the Charge; vnless it be to keep vp the Cry against Popery, by exposing the Papists, as Idolaters, to the hatred of all Good Christians. Other Pretences may fail; but this will be sure to take place, as they find by the success.

Eunom:

The Bulk of a Book too, as you know, may conduce much to make the Cry the Louder. But were the [...]oise a litle ouer, that men could hear one another speak, I am of Opinion there would not be many found of such aukward Intellectuals; as to belieue it to be Idolatry, to kiss or put off our hats, or kneel before an Image or Picture of Christ, with Intention by those outward Acts to shew the respect we haue for his Person; which is what Dr. St. obliges himself to maintain when he asserts the making and bowing b [...]f [...]re an Rom. Idol. p. 60. 62. Image with respect to the worship of God to be forbidden under the notion of I [...]olatry: But doth it in such a manner, that I haue heard some Learned men say, they could look vpon his Performance in this Point, no otherwise than as an [Page] Essay of his Wit, like that of Erasmus, when he vndertook to write a Book in Commendatien of Folly; but with this difference, that Erasmus foresaw no harm like to ensue from his Panegyrick to the world; for none wete likely to be more in loue withit for his Praises, nor to suffer more for it, than if he had said nothing. But Dr St. could not but haue a Prospect at least of much. Mischief likely to f [...]llow to his Fellow-subjects from his Idle Charge of Idolatry, as Mr. Thorndike call'd it a litle before his death.

Cathar.

How euer others may look vpon his Performance, For my parr I think I haue reason to hope (as he doth himself) of his D [...]fence, that it will be a Prophetical Confutation of all that T. G. will euer be able to say vpon this subject. Although (if it be true w [...]at the Dr. saih of him in his Epist. Dedicat.) H [...] hath [...]aid as much in def [...]nce of the Romam cause, as wit and subtilty could invent; But withall he wishes he could speak as freely of his Fair-dealing and ing [...]nuity.

Eun.

Egr [...]g [...]am sane laudem. a very ample Enco [...]mium no doubt as to the [Page] first part of it, and such a one as addes no small glory to the Dr's Triumph, to drag such an Adversary after the wheels of his Chariot. But if you take it together with the 2d part, I. can by no means allow it to be a good definition, as being such a Collection of Properties, as is found with more advantage in a Subject much neerer home. Witness the Tast I haue given you even now of the Dr's own [...]air-dealing and Ingenuity; and of which I may have occasion to give you farther Instances before we end.

Cathar.

These are such Complements as pass between Adversaries when each hopes and defigns to lay the other in the dust. But to come to the Point we were entring upon, and which you promised to speak to at our last parting. Haue you not read the Dr's Defence.

Eun.

Yes I have, but to deal ingenuously with you, not with that pleasure and Satisfaction, you express'd, at the beginning of our discourse, to see that the Heathens could not be iustly charged with Idolatry, but the Papists must be so too. For naturally I loue not to see People represented worse than they [Page]are; and though Dr. St. Professe he [...], yet his Readers will iu [...]g [...] as they find cause Besides, I euermore [...] a great [...] vpon one Subiect, as supposing much time must be [...] in reading many t [...]ings which are crowded in [...] to the purpose: However like tho [...], w [...]o put themselu [...]s (as we say) into t [...]e S [...]ock▪ to comply with the [...], I resolved as I saw others do, to [...] vpon it; And to tell you the truth, I had scarcely gotten ouer half a score Leaues, when I found my self in the case of the vnfortunate Laconian in Boccalini.

Cathar.

And what was that I pray?

Eun.

Why, this it was. The poor Man for having deliuered that in three words, which might haue been said in two, after eight month's imprisonment, was condemned to read ouer the Warr of Pisa written by Guicciardine. So horribly tedious did that rabble of discourse appear to him, that after he had read ouer the first leaf with much agony, he earnestly intreated the Judges to reuerse the Sentence, and condemn him rather to row in the Gallies all his life. What other Sentiment could I haue of my [Page] Condition, than that of this vnhappy Laconian, to see my self condemned, (for what fault of mine I know not) by that Tyrant custome, to read ouer Dr. St's endless discourses? First a hundred and fourscore and three Pages, Of T. G [...]. notion of Idolatry. Then a hundred and threescore and four Pages, Of the Nature of divino Worship. Then a hundred and fourty Pages, Of the State of the Controuersy about the worship of Images between Christians and Heathens. After that a hundred and fourscore and odd Pages, Of the State of the Controuersy about Images in the Christian Church. Then a hundred and thirteen Pages, Of the sense of the second Commandment. And lastly Fourscore and thirteen Pages more, In answer to the Instances and some other. Passages of T. G. However, I resolued (as I said) to read them over; but all the while I was doing it, I could not but think, had the Book been brought before the Iudges of Parnass [...]s, what punishment they would or could haue inflicted suitable to the delict, viz, for a man of Dr. Sts. parts to spend neer nine hundred Pages (if you take in the [Page] Epistle dedicatory and the Preface) in deliuering that, which might haue been expressed sufficienthy for what concerns T. G in nine or ten lines.

Ca [...]har:

You amaze me with this discourse; and I shall look vpon it, as no ot [...]er than a dream vpon Parnass [...], vnless you give me good reason for it.

Eun:

Content; but then you must haue patience, whilst I giue you the rea [...]on: and this it is: Had Dr. St. according to the Method vsed by the Mathematicians, but laid down these f [...]w Points as Postulatas, viz. 1. That Idolatry may consist with the acknowledgment of one Supream Being, which is the subiect of his first Chapter. 2. That God ought to be worshipped according to his own appointment; or that those external acts of worship, which God hath appropriated to himself, cannot, while that appropriation remains, be given to another, which is what he ayms at in his second. 3. That the Wiser Heathens pretended, they did not look vpon their Images as Gods, but as Symbols of that Being to which they gaue divine worship, which is the Scope [Page] of his T [...]ird. And 4. That f [...]r the four first Centuries there was litle or no use of Imag [...]s in [...]he Temples and Oratories of Christians; but that the use and Veneration of them came in afterwards by degrees, which is the subi [...]ct of his Fou [...]th. Had the Dr. I say laid these Po [...]t [...]ons [...] P [...]stulatas, he might (if I understand T. G. aright) haue saued himself the pains of writing, and his Readers the t [...]o [...]ble of reading more than two third Parts of his Book which are spent vpon them.

For as for the I That Idolatry may consist w [...]th the acknowledgment of one Supream Being, at least as Idolatry is taken by Dr. St. for the giving External Acts of worship due only to God, to a Creature, and Was sussicient as it was practis'd by his Wiser Heathens, for the Fathers to charge them with Idolatry; it is plainly acknowledged by T. G. Page 23 of his first Paper where speaking of those, of whom S. Paul saith, that though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God. T. G. saith, they changed his glory into an Image made like to corruptible man, by adoring and offering sacr [...]fice due to God alone[Page]to the Statues themselues, or the deities they s [...]pposed to dwell in them: and the same he repeats again Pag 97. and other Places of his Book.

For the 2. That God is to be worshipped with external Acts according to his own appointment &c. This is no where denied by T. G. but is supposed by him Pag. 29. where he saith, that if God haue forbidden himself to be worshipped after such a manner, the giving him such worship will be a dishonouring him, t [...]ough the Giuer intend it neuer so much for his honour, much more then, the giuing acts of worship appropriated to him to another.

The 3 also concerning the Practice of the Wiser Heathens is admitted by T. G. for the Dr. to make his best of it, when he saith p. 107. 108. that howeuer they pretended through the Images to worship the true deitie, yet they were to blame in two things. 1. Because the Images being instituted by publick Authority for the worship of false Gods they concurred (as Dr. St. himself acknowledges) with the vulgar in all the External practices of their Idolatry. 2. Because, though in the schools they denied them [Page]to be Gods neuertheless they gaue honour to them so farr, as to lead the People into errour by their Example.

And for the 4 the l [...]tle or no use of Images in Churches for the sirst four hundred years▪ it was not looked upon by T G. as any Prejudic [...] to his cause although it had been much longer before the use and Venerat [...]on of them were brought in, as he sufficiently declares (p. 171.) where he answers in Mr. Thorndikes words, that fo [...] the first h [...]e [...] or four Centuries, ther [...] might be Ieaiousy of Offence in hauing Images in Churches, bef [...]re Idolatry was quite rooted out, of which afterwards there might be no appearance. And therefore they were afterwards admitted all ouer, for it is manif [...]st, saith he the Church is tied no farther, than there can appear danger of Idolatry. And again, p. 173. What furniture and Ceremonies the Churches of Christians, and the publick worship of God in them may require, now all the world professes Christianity, this, saith he, the Church is at freedome to determin by the word of God expounded according to the best agreement of Christians. And whilst the Church is acknowledged [Page] to haue such a Power in decreeing Rites and Ceremonies (of which nature the use of Images is) as ought to ouer-rule a scrupulous Conscience, what the Dr. obiects against Mr. Thorndikes reason concerning the danger of Idolatry in after times, comes not Home to the purpose; Fot t'is not his scrupulous Conscience, but the Church that must be the Iudge. What need was there then to lauish away six hundred and seuenty Pages, to proue those things which were either granted or giuen as granted by T. G.?

But then again for the 5. Chapter, Of the sense Of the seco [...]d Commandm [...]nt, if God haue there expresly prohibit [...]d [...]he giuing any wors [...]ip [...]o himself by an Image, as Dr. St. affirms, there needed no more than to expose the Law, as in a Table, printed in Legis latiue Gothick (as it is done by him. p. 671.) with the addition only of a Finger in the Margent to point to the words for euery one that runs to read them: the thing being so plain, that himself confesses, it cannot enter into his mind, how Roman Idol. p. 59. God should haue forbidden it by more express and Emphatical words than he [Page]hath done. If this be so, then certainly it was a needless and strange Extravagance, to spend a hundred and thirteen Pages to speak that in less Express and Emphatical terms, (that is to say, more obscurely) what God had already spoken in a few words more cl [...]rly; and in criticizing as he doth vpon the words, Idol, Image, Similitude &c. and drawing arguments 1. from t [...]e Terms of the law, 2. from the Reason annexed to it, and 3. from the Judgment of the Lawgiuer, to find out what himself cannot conceiue how God should haue expressed it in clearer terms. For my part, I belieue, that God can express himself much clearer than Man: Catb. no Idol. p. 50. and yet I must be of T. G's. mind in this case, that had the Law been deliuered in Dr. Sts. own words (Rom: Idol p. 60. viz that any Image or similitude is forbidden to be made with respect to the worship of God,) they had been much more express and Emphatical to his purpose, than those in which God himself did deliuer it. For these we see require much criticizing and many arguments to make the sense be, what Dr. St. would haue it; where as those are so [Page] plain, that euery one that reads, vnderstands their meaning at the first sight It was well for T. G. that God himself was pleased to write the Commandment with his own finger. For had Dr. St been trusted with the penning of it, he would no doubt, (if it be true what he says) haue out-done God himself, though he had done his best.

As for the last Chapter, where Dr. St. sets himself to show the diff [...]rence between the Instances brought by T. G. viz, the Reverence shewd to the G [...]ound by Moses and Joshua, the bowing at the name of Jesus, and towards the Altar, vsed by the Church of England on the one side, and the vespect and Veneration given to Images by those of the Church of Rome on the other: (the most material thing in that Chapter) I think there needed no more than to say, as he doth in two lines p 869. that the Church of England doth not allow any worship to be giuen to the Altar: meaning thereby, as I suppose, that the Church of England intends not by the [...]xternal Act of Bowing to she any Reverence to the Altar. This you see is a [Page] very compendious, and yet clear decifion of the case; and there needed no more, to defeat the other Instances also brought by T. G. For if he speak consequently, the same must hold with him for them too. But then on the other side, you must giue me leaue to tell you, that I doe not see how this Assertion of Dr. St. agrees either with the sense of the Church of England in the Canon he appeals to for it▪ or with what himself affirms but three leaues before. For the Canon saith no more (and I cannot but wonder why he caused it to be printed in great Characters for the world to take notice of his fair dealing) than that their Intent on in doing Reverence and Obeisance at the coming in or going out of the Church or Chancel, is no [...] to exhibite any Religious worship othe Communion Table &c. in which they agree with Aquinas and other Divines of the Church of Rome; but no where deny they intend not to giue any worship at all to it, as the Dr. glosses it. Nor does it agree with what himself had affirmed but three leaues before p. 863. that there is a Reverence [Page]left to be shewed to Sacred Places, on the account of their discrimination from o [...]her places, and separation for Sacred vses.

Cathar:

But the Dr. you know distinguishes between Reverence and Worship; and it is this latter, which he charges with Idolatry, as it is an Expression of our submission to a meer inanimate thing.

Eun:

But if those of the Church of Rome by the word Worship in the case of Images declare, they require no more by the terms of Communion wi [...]h her, but Reverence, or (as they call it) a honourary respect and V [...]neration, the Dr. must either lay down his [...]harge of Idolatry against the Church of R [...]me, or if he wil maintain a Reverence due to sacred Places and things, he must put himself in, and the Church of England too (if it be her cause) for company.

Cathar.

This I confess hath stuck long in my thoughs; and to tell you the t [...]uth, (now that you vrge it a second time) I was never throughly satisfied either [...]ith Dr. Sts. practice or defence in this Point; For though [Page] I hope well still of his Affection to the Cause, yet it cannot be denied, but his bending complyance in this particular of bowing to the Altar, hath giuen but too much advantage to his Adversaries, and too much Offence to the Godly: whose sense I shall giue you in the words of my good Friend Patronus bonae Fidei, with relation to the Dr. The discourse is somewhat of the longest, but I hope you will haue patience to hear it. Thus then He in his Prodromus p 76.

Quicquid Clarissimus Stillingfleet Delinitus & occoecatus &c. ‘Howeuer the most Renowned Stillingfleet wheadled and blinded with [...] ▪ (I dare say no more for fear of a Rebuke) endeauour in his most learned and accurate work to dawb and smo [...]th ouer (and that but sleigh [...]ly neither) this kind of Adoration, with intention to vindicate it from the crime of Idolatry, lest himself amidst the crowd of those who bow down before the Altar be deem'd guilty of a crime, which none hath thrown with more strength vpon the Romanists, than He; yet I doubt not▪ saith he, to affirm, that this Bowing out vies the Idolatry both of the Egyptians and [Page]Romanists, not only in horrible iniquity and enormitis, but in madness and folly.’

Hauing laid down this for his Position, he proceeds to proue it in this manner. ‘And first for the Romanists; It is not saith he, so much Madness in them to adore the Lord Jesus vnder the species of Bread, as it is a gross Errour in the ground of the thing, viz, their belieuing the Bread to be in very deed Transubstantiated, as they call it, into the Body of Christ. But it is no o [...]her than the dotage of Hypochondriacks, and a meer giddy-brain'd stupidity for men to perform their Adorations towards that place, where Christ is no more present, than any where else, and where neither the Table nor the Altar, nor any thing that is set vpon the Table (vnless perchance a clean Towell, two Books richly bound, or a pair of Candlesticks with two Candles in them, not to be lighted, till their minds be quite drunk with Popery) represent either Christ or his Image; A Fanatical Adoration, as he calls it, without any Obiect.’

2. ‘For the Aegyptians; They, saith [Page] he, pretended some colour for their Idolatry, as that an Ape, a cat, a Wolf a Ball, an Ibis, were things endowed with that Principle of life, with that ayr and participation of the divinity, by which the worsbippers were carried to God, whom alone they made the Obiect of their Adoration; denying any thing to be worshipped by them hut with relation to God, as we learn from Origen against Celsus, and Augustin vpon the 96. Psalm. where this latter farther adds, that the Heathens pretended they did not worship any corporeal Representation (and that it was a meercalumny imputed to them by the Christians) but the divinity, which was represented and expressed by such an Effigies. So that now Those who bow down to a logge, a Stock, and a Trunk, such as is a Woodden Table out of the use for which it is ordained, are Themselues stocks, and render themselues guilty of a farr more greiuous crime, Jam sure, of a farr more giddy-brain'd Madness, than either the Aegyptians or the Romanists. For what Dr. Stillingfleet saith, that this worship is perfo [...]med only in the coming in, and going out of the Temple,[Page]takes not away the crime of Idolatry, as more or lesse changes not the kind: Nor doth it agree with Truth &c.’

This done and hauing very fitly applied to them for their frequent and p [...]ofound Adorations (so low that they almost knock saith he, the pauement with their Fore-heads) those words of Persius.

O curuae in terras Animae, & coelestium inanes!

‘He goes on saying, that this Fanaticisin is the more gross and blockish, in that the Altar or Table it self are not so much worshipped, as the Place for it's rich Furniture in which they are set. For let them be remoued but neuer so litle from the Wall, and placed with out the Rails: Let but the Eucharistical decking be taken away, and they left naked, and transferred to some other part of the Temple, no man thinks them worthy of Adoration; no man b [...]ws down (vnless perchance to the East.) A madness Paralel to that of tbe Romanists, who haue a Reverence and Veneration for their Images, while they are set vp in high Places, and so much the more as they are more richly attired and[Page]adorned, but being taken from thence, or laid vpon the ground or broken, no one thinks them worthy to be look'd on.’

‘Nor is this all. He affirms yet farther, that this Bowing to the Altar, doth not only out-vy in its Enormity the Idolatry both of the Aegyptians and Romanists, but, although we had neuer heard, saith he, of their Idolatry; yet this is such, that it fights against Reason it self, and that Analogy or Relaton there is between an Altar and it's Correlate, (i. ē. a Sacrifice) for which reason, the old English Superstition vnder Popery in the Book of Windsor, did with much congruity command the Adoration to be performed Deo & Altati, to God and to the Altar, or Host, in wh [...]h the true Body of Christ was belieued to be. But for as much as the Altar we speak of at present, hath no such Host apon it, no, not so much as the Bread; for any one to bow down to it, it can be iudged no other, than Irrational and Absurd, because there is no true Altar without an Host.’

Lastly (not to exercise your patience too too much) he concludes with a [Page] Consideration, which, he saith, shows this Rite of bowing to the Altar, to be the Symptom of a mind perfectly mad, viz, because no Ado [...]ation was euer made, nor ought to be made by those who worship God rightly, but with eyes and mind fixed and intent vpon and towards the Propitiatory or Mercy-Seat; which is no other than Christ reconciling Sinners to God, and He sitting at the right hand of his Father; not standing in that place, where the Romanists Altar was placed.

Euno [...]n:

This is a discourse which shows the Author to be a Son of Thunder indeed. May I not know what other name he hath?

Cathar:

He wanted neither courage nor zeal I can assure you, to haue put it to his Book; and there was much ado to perswade him not to do it. But at length he suffered himself to be prevailed with, licèt aegrè, (as he saith in his Admonition to the Reader) by the importunity of a F [...]iend to leaue out his name, out of a true Christian Charity, as I take it, not to stirr vp the B [...]le of the Hierarchicks too much. Moreouer also, not to hazard the [Page] losing so worthy a Member as Dr. Stillingfleet by some free Reflections (as he calls them) vpon his complyance, he was contented, after his Book was finished, in a leaf printed apart to be inserted towards the latter end of it to set Dr. Stillingfleet's name in the middle, between G [...]urnall and Conant, on the one side, and Meriton and Neston on the other, and so represent them all together, as Men who vpon the change of affairs, had ioined themselues to the Hierarchicks, not out of hope of Lucre or a more plentifull fortune, but out of the dictamen of Conscience, holding fast, saith he, to that Principle, that separation is not to be made from the Publick Ministery, but for very weighty causes, yet not so, as that th [...] laid aside their former more fauourable Inclinations to the Puritans.

Eun:

This by your leaue seems to me to be nothing, but plain dawhing with that vntempered Morter, of which the Prophet Ezechiel speakethin his 13tly Chapter. For what can be more inconsistent, than to make the publick Ministery Idolatrous, as your Friend doth, and then acknowledge, they ioin in it for Conscience[Page]sake? T. G. himself (the man of Intentions) acknowledges that be the Intention neuer so good, yet if the Act be forbidden, the doing it will be vnlawfull. And which way soeuer the Dr. turn him, he will find himself, if I be not deceiued in a case of much Perplexity. For if he maintain a Reverence to be shewed to the Altar, he puts himself in for company with the Romanists, and must either acquit them, or incurr himself the guilt of Idolatry. And if he deny any to be giuen, yet he stands condemned of Idolatry, worfe than that of the Aegyptians or Romauists by your Friend the Patron, for performing the external act of worship towards the Altar; and very agreeably, to I take it, to his Principles, who asserts the External act to be forbidden, Idolatrous in the second Commandment, whereas the only external act expressly there forbidden, is that of B [...]wing, Thou shalt not bow down to them. But these things require a larger discussion. What I intended at present, was not to engage in a particular dispute, but to let you see, (as I said at first) that what Dr. St. hath with much [Page] labour to himself, and pain to his Readers delivered in nine hundred Pages might haue been done sufficiently (so far forth, as it relates to the Contest between him and T. G.) in nine or ten lines; For there needed no more, than to put down in Gothick Character, the Four Postulat's aboue mentioned; The words of the Sccond Commandment; and his own Excellent Gloss of the Canon of the Church of England. For the Postulata's were granted, or giuen for granted, before hand, by T. G. The words of the Commandment, are according to him so Express and Emphatical, that it cannot enter his mind how God should haue made them more, and therefore they needed not the Explication of man. And lastly his Gloss of the Canon, that it allows no worship to be giuen to the Altar, supersedes all trouble of showing any farther difference between the Ceremony of bowing to the Altar, and the other Instances produced by T. G. on the one side and to that of Bowing before an Image on the other.

Cathar.

By this I see, you think the Dr. might haue spared all his long [Page] and elaborate discourses vpon these subiects, as vnnecessary, and consequently his whole Book excepting nine or ten lines. This doubtlesse would haue been a great Contentment to T. G.

Eun:

I, and to many others besides him, who would haue been glad to haue saued both their money and Time.

Cathar:

But what is it then you iudge necessary the Dr. should haue done?

Eun:

That if you please shall be the Subiect of our next Conference.

[Page]

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

THE ARGVMENT.

WHat Dr. St. ought to haue done to maintain his Charge. The first thing was to haue laid down the true Notion of Idolatry in the Nature of the thing, antecedently to any Positiue Prohibition. The Notion he giues of it shown to be insufficient; and the Heathens not iustly chargeable with Idolat [...]y by vertue of it. The Consequence he urges from the worship of Images to a like worship of all other Beings declared vseless: And a Specimen given of his rare Insight in Mystical Theology.

CATH ARINVS. EV NOMIVS.

CAthar.

You promised. Eunomius, to tell me at our next meeting, [Page] what it was the Dr. ought to haue done, but hath not done to maintain his charge of Idolatry. And I pray let me know, what it is without suspending my longing with another Preamble like that of the unfortunate Laconian.

Eun:

I shall do my endeavour to comply with your desire both in the one and the other. Nature and Art, you know, both tell us, that the first thing to be done in a Dispute (if the discovery of Truth and satisfact on of the Reader be intended) is to settle the State of the Controversy vpon its right Grounds. And that nothing tends more effectually to the doing of it, than to lay down the true Notion of the matter in debate; without which though much Wit perhaps may be shown, and much Reading too, yet All to litle purpose. What therefore I think Dr. St. ought to haue done, had his businesse been to manage his Charge of Idolatry so as not to amuze, but satisfy his Reader, was in the First place to haue given us the true notion of Idolatry in the nature of the thing; and then in the second place to haue shown that Notion to haue agreed to the Honour and Veneration, [Page] which the Church of Rome in her Councils declares may be given to the Images of Christ and the Saints. This had been to set the matter in it's true light; But he chose rather to dazle the eyes of the Reader with the false lights of meer External Acts, the obscure practice euen of the Wiser Heathens, and the clashing of School-divines.

Cathar:

Euery one you know, Eunomius, is at liberty, especially the Accuser, to lay and manage his Charge in the Method and way he deems best for his cause. And al though Dr. St. haue drawn in these Auxiliaries to his Assistance, and insist very much vpon them; yet methinks you are much mistaken when you say he hath omitted those things, which you iudge to be the only necessary ones. And for the first of them I cannot but wonder, how you could forget, that the first thing he aduances, in the uery first Page of his Defence, to make good his Charge of Idolatry, is to lay down the right Notion of it. ‘J begin, saith he, with the consideration of the nature of Idolatry, not only because my Adversary calls me to it in these[Page]words, [Here the Axe is laid to the Catho. no Idol. p. 203. Root, and if euer the Dr. will speak home to the purpose, it must be vpon this Point: He must speak to the Nature of the thing &c.]’ But because the weight of the whole matter depends vpon it. And then hauing refuted T. Gs. notion of Idolatry at large in his first Chapter he lays down the Notion of Divine worship in the Second. What could haue been done more Methodically by the best School-Divine of them all?

Euno:

This was a fair Beginning indeed, had he gone on to pursue it in the sense it was proposed by his Adversary, but like a Preacher, that has patch'd vp a Sermon out of his note-Book, he names the Text, and then takes his leaue of it. What his Adversary call'd him to in that place, was to speak to the Notion of Idolatry in the Nature of the thing, independently of any Positive law. ‘For speaking there of the Reverence shown by Moses and Joshua to the G [...]ound by putting of their shoes, he saith, If it were Idolatry in the nature of the thing to put off their shoes in Reverence to the Ground, God's [Page]command could not make it to be otherwise, And if it were nor Idolatry in it self to do it, neither is it to giue a like honour to the Image of Christ. From whence it followeth, to the v [...]ter ruine of all the Dr hath argued f [...]om his pretended Prohibition, that as no command of God can make that to be not Idolatry, which is so in the nature of the thing: so no Prohibition (if there were any) could make that to be Idolatry, which hath not in it the true and Real nature of Idolatry. This done he tells the Dr. Here it is the Axe is laid to the Ro [...]t, and if euer he will speak home to the purpose, it must be vpon this Point. He must speak to the nature of the thing.’ This is what T. G. call'd him to: and I saw very plainly there must be such a thing as. Idolatry independently of any Positive law of God; and that Dr. St. by the manner of his Procedure was engaged to speak to it: because otherwise the Heathens (of whom he makes so much vpon all occasions) before that Law was made, and afterwards also, if not promulgated to them▪ could not haue been iustly charged with Idolatry. This therefore I carried along with me in my mind, whilst I read ouer his [Page] discourses. But after I had tired my self with seeking for it in his first Part consisting of three hundred and forty seuen Pages, in which he pretends to consider the nature of Idolatry, I found that in the sirst Chapter he imposed a fallacious Notion of the Heathens Idolatry vpon T. G. for himself to triumph in impugning it, viz that the particular Idolatry of the Heathens consisted in giuing Divine worship to the Diuel, as if T. G. had asserted them to be Idolaters vpon no other account: And in the Second he giues no other notion of it himself, but that of an External Act of worship standing vnder a supposed (but not proved) Prohibition. For although he assure T. G. vpon his word, p. 269. that he meant very Real Idolatry, yet he immediately adds that it was vpon this Reason, because it belongs (saith he) to God to appropriate Acts of worship to himself, and that hauing appropriated them, they become only due to him. And after a long discourse to the same purpose, (though nothing to the purpose) he tells vs over again p 275. for fear we should mistake him, that the meaning of it [Page]all is no more, than to show that Adoration of Images is Idolatry by vertue of that Commandment. And by the way is in such a chafe with T. G. for offering to vnderstand some words of his to imply Real Idolatry antecedently to any Prohibition, that he compares the attempt to a Thunder-Shower full of sulphur and darkness with a terrible Crack, and looks vpon Gun-powder, as a needless Invention to blow a Man vp in comparison of a Train of Consequences f [...]om his own words, let but T. G. haue the laying of it. Nothing then can be more euident, than that the Dr. notwithstanding his fair proposal, meant not to speak to the nature of Idolatry in it't self, which his Adversary call'd him to, and vpon which the weight of the whole matter in debate depends; particularly that which concerns the Heathens, as I said before; and which for the want of it must needs fall to the ground. For if by very Real Idolatry he mean no more, than that to giue any worship to God by an Image is such only vpon the account of being forbidden by a Positiue Law, viz, the 2d Commandment, all the arguments, he draws from [Page] the supposed Practice of the Heathens, as worshipping the true God by their Images (which make vp well neer one half of his Book) are blown vp with this rare Invention of his, and made of no use either to himself or his cause; because the Law not being giuen or promulgated to them, they can be no farther concerned in what is forbidden by it, than as it is evil in its self antecedently to any such Positiue Prohibition.

Cathar;

But, as Dr. St. saith very well, p. 263. What notion of Idolatry could the Heathens haue, bu [...] what was the same the Jews had from the Law of Moses? The notion of Idolatry was a new thing among them, who knew no harm at all in giuing Divine honour to Creatures. From whence should they vnderstand the sinfulness and the nature of it, if not from some Law of God?

Eun:

This was kindly done of the Dr. to make this Apology for the poor Heathens, who had stood him in so much stead. But had not his kindness made him forget what S. Paul saith Rom. 2. that when the Gentiles who haue not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, these hauing not the Law [Page]are a Law vnto themselues, [...]ho shew the wo [...]k [...] of the Law written in their hearts, their Conscience bearing witness, and their though [...]s between themselues accusing or else excusing one another? And how by vertue of this Law, which was written in their hearts, and not of the Law of Moses, the same Apostle in the Precedent Chapter declared them inexcusable for giuing divine honour to Creatures; because that which may be k [...]own of God, was manifest in them: for God, saith he, manifested it to them, in as much as the Invisible things of him, euen his Eternal Power and divinity are seen from the Creation of the world, being vnderstood by the things tbat are made. Here you see S. Paul plainly asserts a Law written in their hearts by which they might and ought to haue vnderstood the natur [...] and sinfullness of Idolatry. And if their hearts were so blinded with the loue of the Creatures, as not to know any harm at all in giuing them divine honour, yet this hinders not but that there was harm in it, and that it was sinfull in its own nature antecedently to the Law, as Concupiscence was, although the Apostle saith he [Page] knew it not to be sin, but by the Law. Here then it was that the Dr. should haue laid the Axe to the Root, and added a 7th Chapter to show wherein the deordination or sinfulness of Idolatry consists antecedently to any Positive Prohibition; and till this be done, you must giue me leaue to say of the other six, what Virgil said of the walls of Carthage, when left vnfinished.

Pendent opera interrupta, minaeque.

Mu [...]orum Ingentes. Twas necessary for him to haue setled the notion of Idolatry in the nature of the thing; and not after a mighty Bravado, as if he meant nothing less than to do it, to divert and amuze his Reader with a tedious discourse of External Acts of worship, as standing vnder a Positiue Prohibition, though to the vtter ruin of the aid he proposed to his cause from the Paralel he draws from the supposed practicae of the Heathens, who were not under the Law, and therefore if they were Idolaters, it must be vpon some other account abstracting from the Law. But this it is to be a Dragon at Controversy.

Cathar:

Yet when all is done, Eunomius, you must giue me leaue to tell [Page] you, that the securest way to settle the Notion of Idolatry, must be from such a Prohibition. For, abstracting from that, in comes the distinction of Absolute and Relative Worship; and I do not see, but by vertue of that, if it be admitted, Men may worship the sun, the starrs, the Earth, or any other creature, with the same kind of worship that they doe an Image, and be no more guilty of Idolatry in the one than in the other. And in what will this differ from the practice of the Heathens?

Eun:

This is a thing frequently and Roman Idol. p. [...]29. mightily objected by Dr. St. and the Consequence, as the world goes, seems not much vnlike to that of the Improuem [...]nt [...] of the Speaking-Trumpet fancied by a late Virtuoso, as being made capable to carry the voice, if a league off. then eight mile about, if eight mile about, then round a whole County: If round a whole County, then why not from one Nation to another, there being no stop in Art? And so there will need saith he, but one Pa [...]son to preach to a whole County, from the most Eminent place in it; and Princes may convers and treat without the great charge and[Page]trouble of Embassadors.

Cathar:

This is a Fancy you haue met with in some Idle Poet or other; but nothing suitable to the present purpose, since Art may stretch Nature too farr, and render it vnserviceable to its designs. But the Consequence we speak of is admitted very seriously by some of the Roman Divines; and Vasques in particular, a man of a searching wit, not only grants but contends for it in a set disputation, wherein he proues very well from the Principles of worship allowed in the Roman Church, that God may be adored in any other Beings, Rational or Irrational, as well as in an Image; provided the mind do not rest in the Creature, but be terminated vpon God.

Eun:

For the Fancy as you call it, it matters not much where I had it: T'is the Conformity we are to mind between it, and the Extension you vrge of the worship giuen to an Image, to any other creature. For what euer the consequence of this latter may be as to Speculation, yet for the Practicablenesse of it, I think, as matters now stand with mankind after the fall of Adam, it will find as great [Page] a stop in nature, as the Speaking Trumpet; the creatures euer since Sense prevailed against reason, being become like stumbling-blocks to the souls of men, and a snare to the feet of the vnwise, to allure and draw them to the worship of them. And therefore those very Divines of the Church of Rome, who admit the Consequence in speculation, and do not condemn the Practice of it in Philosophical and Contemplatiue men, who consider the Creatures purely as the works of God, and as it were behold him present in them; do notwithstanding vtterly condemn the common and promiscuous vse of it in the Vulgar, as exposing them to manifest danger of being seduced by the tempting beauty and astonishing power of the Creatures to forget the Creator, and worship them. And that this was the case of the Heathens, at least the Generality of them, is expresly asserted by Vossius in his first Preface, Where he Voss. d [...] Idol. Praef. 1. saith that the Gentils did not distinguish the Divine Power, which is from God, from that other which is in God, and therefore from the wonderful things of nature, concluded nature it self to be God, and the parts of it also to be deities. And this [Page] he affirmeth to be one of the reasons which mov'd him to lay open the admirable vertue and power of the Creatures in a Treatise of Idolatry, that we may know saith he, what compelled the Gentils to forsake God, and stay in the worship of Nature. This is the account which Vossius giues of the prastice of the Heathens (vt relicto Deo in naturae veneratione consisterent) and it is no other than that which the Scripture and the Fathers giue of it, as I could shew at large, if need were. As for the supposed Practice of the Wiser Heathens, I haue shown the Arguments which the Dr. draws from thence to support his charge, to be insignificant and vseless, both in this and the 4th Dialogue. Part. 1. p 114. 115.

Cathar:

This defence of yours, though brought in with a speaking-Trumpet comes at last I see to be the same in substance with that of T. G. viz, that the Creatures subsisting in them selues, and Cath. no Idol. p. 93. being eviden [...]ly the causes of many great Benesits to mankind, the danger is greater of terminating worship vpon them, than vpon an Image, whose formal Being consisting only in representation connaturally carries our thoughts and Affections to the[Page]Person represented by it: And the danger is so much the greater, in that the Creatures, he saith, represent God rudely, remotely, darkly, and imperfectly. An excellent Paraphrase no doubt, as Dr. St. observes, on the words of the Psalmist. The Heavens declare the Glory of Def. p. 805. God, and the Firmament sheweth his handy-worke. O how much the skill of a Painter exceeds the Power of God?

Eun:

This was a nicking remark indeed, and not to be omitted. But then you are to consider that T. G. speaks there of the Creatures comparatively to Images, viz that though they carry in them the marks and tokens of an Infinite Wisdom, Power, and Goodness, yet they are not so apparently representative of God, that vpon the sig [...]t of them, our thoughts are presently and effectually carried to him, as they are vpon the sight of an Image to the Person represented by it, but that there is need of a great deal of discourse to discouer the Analogy they bear to the Creator, and the dependance they haue of him for their very Being, yet so that from the greatness and beau [...]y of the Creatures, the Maker of them may proportionably be seen▪ [Page] And this, I hope, is no incongruous Paraphrase of the words of the Psalmist, The Heavens declare the Glory of God, and the Firmament sheweth his handy-work. If Dr. St. haue the eye of his vnderstanding so elevated and penetrating, that vpon the sight of them, his mind is as presently and effectually carried to God, as from the sight of an Image to the Prototype, I belieue he is one of the most admirable Persons in the Meletetiques, (as the same Author calls them) in the whole world.

Cathar,

The Meletetiques? What mean you by that? some new Science invented of late by the Vertuosi?

Eun:

I mean the Excellent Art of Reflexion and Meditation vpon the Creatures: which as it is vsed by the Vertuosi for the benefit of Mankind, or their own Curiosity, may go for a part of natural Philosophy: But applied to devotion, in the manner it is by Dr. St. I take it to be that part of Mystical Theology, which so in-essences the soul with God, as to make it see great Evidences of his Rom. Idol. p. 69. Power, and Wisdome, and Goodness in an Ant or a Fly, which may suggest venerable Apprehensions of him to the[Page]mind; when it can see nothing in any Artificial Image (though of God Incarnate dying for our sakes vpon the Cross) worthy admiration, but the skill of the Painter or Artificer; nor any thing that can warm or inflame ones devotion comparably to the Sun. Petrus Viretus must doubtless haue been well advanc'd in this Science, when, as the Lutherans report of him he wrote, that Cbrist Crucified was represented b [...]tter by a Cow than In Collo. Mompelgart. by any Image either painted or graven. And Beza yet more, when he profess'd that from his heart he detested the Image of Christ crucified: as being an Image Ibid. of the Cruelty of the Iews towards him, and therefore could not endure it. What a p [...]escinding faculty was this, to see in a C [...]ucifix the Cruelty of the Iews to detest it, and not see the loue of a dying God to admire it? But euery one has not made so great a progress in this kind of Meletetiques, as these men, or as the Dr himself has done. And yet I cannot but wonder how He comes to be so Excellent in it, while he affirms the Creatures can giue no greater than Moral Rat. Acc. p. 178. 286. &c. certainty of the Being of God himself, which seems to me to be no such great [Page]Incentive to Devotion, if according to him it admit a possibility of being otherwise.

Cathar:

yet I am sure He lays down Rom. Idol. p. 560. this for one of his Principles, that what. ever God reveals to man is infallibly true, and may be certainly known to be his Will. And again that all supernatural Revelation must suppose (not only the moral certainty, but) the Tru [...]h of Natural Religion: for unless We be saith he, antecedently certain that there is a God, it is impossible to be certain that God hath revealed his Will to us.

Eun:

I know very well the Dr. can say and unsay without retracting with as much Art and Ease as any man I ever read. But if you ask him, whether the Creatures afford any such Evidence of the Existence of a deity, as can inf [...]llibly convince it to be absolutely true and so impossible to be false! He will tell you, The nature of the thing will not beare it; and consequently for any thing He or any one according to him, can certainly know from the Creatures, possibly there may be no such thing as a God. A much rarer Paraphrase no doubt than T. Gs. was on the same words of [Page] the Psalmist, The Heavens declare the G [...]o [...]y of God, and the Firmament sheweth hi [...] handy-work. And of those other words also of S. Paul, The Invisible things of God, even his Eternal Power and Divinity, are clearly seen, being vnderstood by the things that are made. O how much a resolute perswasion that there is a God, notwithstanding a known Possibility of Falshood, exceeds the Certainty of a Demonstration, to raise and warm one's devot [...]on towards him! T'was for this I suppose that Dr. St. represents the Heathens (who neither had nor could haue according to him any Infallible certainty of the Being of God) so piously wary not to let their worship stay in the Creatures, but to transfort it to God; and Christians who profess to haue such certainty of his Being from the works of the Creation, so inconsiderately apt to terminate their worship vpon an Image. If this admirable way of inflaming Affections be well improu'd, who knows but Ignorance at length may come indeed to be the Mother of devotion. But to return from whence you haue made me digress, if I haue not forgotten it.

[Page]Cathar:

I shall giue you time to call vpon yout me mory till to morrow. For I must now go to another meeting.

Eun:

But I pray do not you in the mean time forget that whilst the Dr. giues us no other Notion of Idolatry than that of External Acts of worship standing under a positive Prohibition, he cannot make the Heathens to be Idolaters, at least before the Law was giuen; and so ruins the great support of his cause from their practice. And if [...] were Idolaters without the Law, as S. Paul saith they were, he hath failed to giue us the true and proper N [...]tion of Idolatry; which was the first thing I said was necessary for him to haue done. The second now comes to my mind, but I shall reserve it for to morrow.

[Page]

THE THIRD DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

THe Second Thing Dr. S [...]. oug [...]t to haue done, to maintain his Charge of Idolatry, in the worship of Images, was to shew the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils to be Idolatrous. The doctrine of the Second Council of Nice in that Point, as stated by himself, not Idolatrous; and the Practice of bowing to the Altar, according to his Principles, flat Idol [...]try. An Instance of his reporting, faithsully the Atthorities he alledges, laid open in a passage cited by him out of Cardinal Lugo.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

EVnom.

The Second Thing I iudg'd necessary for the Dr. to haue done was after he had setled the true Notion [Page] of Idolatry, to shew how it agreed to the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils; since t'is from them we are to take the terms of Communion with her.

Cathar:

And I wonder yet more, how you should think him defective in this, when he hath treated so largely of the doctrine both of that Wise Synod of Nice, and of that wary Council of Trent, as he calls them.

Eun:

And what is it He finds in their Decrees that he can fix the notion of Idolatry vpon, without returning it vpon himself, and the Church of England? And first for the Council of Nice. The doctrine of that Council concern [...]ng the Images of Christ and the Saints was no more, but that a honourary adoration be given them, like as is giuen to the Figure of the Holy Cross, to Chalices, to the Books of the Gospels and such like sacred Vtensils. This was the doctrine of the Council of Nice: and how it is freed in this from the note of Idolatry by Eminent Divines of the Church of England, you haue heard before in our first Conference. What the Dr. himself saith of it in his Defence is. 1. that the [Page] Council required true and real worship p. 575. to be giuen to Images. 2. that it was an Inferiour worship, and not Latria. And supposing this to be as he would haue it, can any thing be clearer, than that the worship or respect which the Council required to be given to Images, was n [...]t the Worship due to God, and consequently the Church of Rome not chargeable with Idolatry for any thing contained in that decree.

Cathar:

But still the worship, saith he, Def. p. 600. 601. required is higher than meer Reverence, due to Holy places and things; which is but a different vsage and regard from other things; as the Vessels of the Church, or the Chalices are not to be vsed for common drinking. And is there no difference think you between a Religious respect (if I may so call it) [...]o sacred places and things; and all the most solemn Acts of Adoration, which were euer giuen to p. 603. Images by the grossest and most sottish Idolaters; such as kneelings before them, prostrations, praying with their eyes fixed vpon them, as though they were speaking to them, burning Incense and lights before them?

Eun:

If Dr. St. will be so liberal as to [Page] giue it the title of Religious respect to Holy Places and Things, t'is more than those of the Church of Rome are bound to do by the terms of Communion with her; for there is no such Expression in the Decrees of her Councils. But then again, if the degree of respect or honour to be shewed to them, be only a different vsage and regard from other things, as that the Vessels of the Church, or Chalices are not to be vsed for common drinking, what means the Church of England by bowing before the Altar? Is not the Altar sufficiently garded by being set with in Rails, and regard sufficiently shewd to it by keeping it clean, and decently couered, and not permitting it to be vsed for common eating? Why then must the Ministers bow down before it, as often as they goe in and out of the Chancel, which if the Altar had any sense would think were done to it? as I haue for certain been informed of a Countrey-fellow (something of kin as I suppose to him, who found out the brave Covie of one Partridge) who being got neer the Altar in his Maties Chappel thought all the Congies had been made to him, and so as in Courtship bound [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page] fell to making of legs after his Fashion to answer the great Civilities that were done him. On the other side, If the Church of England mean by this Action to shew, what the Dr. saith may be called a Religious respect, to the Altar; on the account of its being Sacred to God, why may not the Church of Rome do the same to the Images of Christ and the Saints? And if Bowing, which is an Act appropriated to God (and reckoned as such by Dr. St. himself together with consecrating, kneeling, &c. p. 861.) may be vsed for that end, why not kneeling, or prostration, or fixing of eyes in time of prayer, or burning Incense, or lights? What makes the discrimination between these Acts, if they be all appropriated to God? And if there be none made, and any of them may be vsed, is not the Church at liberty to determine which or how many of them she will make vse of? However Those of the Church of Rome to purge themselues from Idolatry in bowing &c. before the Images of Christ and the Saints may pretend that they intend not to giue to them, the honour due to God; and those of the Church of England, that [Page] they intend not to exhibite any Religious worship to the Communion. Table; yet I see not how Dr. St. can purge himself or the Church of England (if it be his) from that crime, when he asserts, that any Image being made so farr the Obiect of Divine worship, that Men do bow down before it (and I suppose the same holds with him for any other creature) it doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in the 2d Commandment.

Cathar:

But this Act of Bowing is not vsed in the Church of England, as Dr. St. Def. p. 86. 863. saith, with any submission of the mind towards the Altar; as it is in the Church of Rome towards Images; And herein I conceiue he makes the main point of the difference to consist.

Eun:

This is to give a new turn to the Business. For by this it should seem, that t'is not now the doing an External act appropriated to God, to the Altar, or an Image, which makes it Idolatry, but the intention of the mind with which it is done: And so the Dr. must renounce his old notion of Idolatry, and giue us a new one. But where does he read in the Decree of the Council, that it requires [Page] submission of mind to the Images themselues? What the Council requires is that the Faithful salute them, and exhibite (honorariam Adorationem) a certain worship of honour to them; and whether you will call it Salutation or Adoration, Epiphanius there declares it will be the same thing, so doth the Patriarch Tarasius also (Ep. ad Imperator.) when he saith, that the Adoration here meant is no other than a saluting, or if you had rather call it so, Embracing of them. And accordingly the Anathema at the end of the Council runs thus; Si quis non salutaverit, if any one shall not salute in the name of our Lord and his Saints their sacred Images, &c.

Cathar:

Here I confess the Fathers of that Council showed themselues wary as well as Wise: Notwithanding it is the Def. p. [...]9 [...]. Judgment of many of the most learned and Eminent Divines of the Roman Church, that by the Decree of the Nicene Council such true and real worship is to be giuen to Images, as is terminated vpon the Images themselues And amongst the rest Cardinal Lugo saith, that to the worship of Images, it is not only necessary, that the External Act be performed to [Page]the Image, viz of kissing or bowing &c. but there must be an inward Affection too which implyes submission. For, saith he, worship, as all agree, is an Expression of submission to the thing worshipped. And it would be ridiculous to say that Peter is worshipped by that token of submission which J shew to Paul. Therefore to the worship of the Image, the outward Act must express the inward submission of the mind to it; or else we must deny the Common definition of Adoration, and make a new one. And this he afterwards proues to haue been the definition of the Second Council of Nice, who did decree that true and real worship is to be giuen to Images, as they are distinct from the Exemplar according euery thing that is required to the nature of worship.

Eun:

supposing this to be as Dr. St. represents, it is but the Ratiocination of a Divine, endeauouring to shew his Opinion conformable to the words of the Council. But what if the Dr. haue strained the words and sense of the Cardinal beyond, and besides, if not against his meaning? T [...]is none of the [...]audable vertues of a Contrevertist to do so; yet being a thing so frequently in use among [Page] them, I could not hauing the Book by me, but indulge so farr to my Curiosity, as to look into the place cited by the Dr. viz de myst, I nearn. disp. 36. sect. 3. n. 37. And first I found a strange want of exactness as to the words: for what the Cardinal there saith is this.

3. Ponendum est, non it a ferri ad imaginem solum actum externum osculi aut genuflexionis &c. ut non feratur etiam ad illam aliquis affectus internus, qui etiam potest dici affectus aliquis summissionis. That is, in the third place it is to be supposed, that the sole external Act of kissing or bowing &c. is not so carried to the Image, that some inward affection (aliquis internus affectus, mark that) is not also carried to it, which may be also called (potest dici, mark that also) some, or a certain kind (affectus aliquis) of submission. Now comes Dr. St. and tells us very roundly that Cardinal Lugo saith, that to the worship of Images, it is not only necessary, that the External Act be performed to the Image, of kissing or bowing &c. but there must be an inward affection which implies submission. Where, (not to quarrel the words necessary and must put into the Text,) I [Page] noted that those qualifying or diminishing expressions of aliquis and potest dici, were left out by the Dr. and the Sense by so doing rendred Absolute; This I liked so much the worse, for that he had prepared his Reader before hand to entertain this conceit of it, by telling him that Cardinal Lugo saith of the Def. p. 186. word cultus, that in approued Authors he finds it alwaies applied to signify Reverence towards Superiours; which ioined to the otherwords, as translated by him, must needs breed an Impression in the Reader, that the inward affection the Cardinal required, was of giving submission to an Image as Superior. This excited me to look into the two foregoing Positions, laid down by the Cardinal: where I found the first (which he asserts as most certain) to be, that when we worship an Image, the inward affection is not carried to the Image, after the same manner it is to the Prototype. For we worship, saith he, the Prototype absolutely, that is, for it's own proper Excellency; but the Image only with a Relative worship, cultu solum respectivo, that is for the Excellency, not of the Image it self, but of the Prototype, [Page]which kind of worship (cultus) he affirms to be farr Inferiour to that other, which is Absolute. Again we worship the Prototype, saith he, as that to which we owe that worship, and to which we pay it as a debt, and in order to which it is an act of Justice. But we do not worship the Image so, but as the term of that worship which we owe to another, that is, the Prototype.

His 2d Position is, that we haue not the same inward submission towards the Image, which we haue towards the Prototype. For we submit ourselues to the Prototype, acknowledging it to be more excellent than ourselues, and superior to us; which kind of submission we cannot prudently conceiue to belong to an Image, nor indeed any at all, by which we submit our selues to it, preferring it before us. For this would be a foolish lye &c. No man therefore can say that the worship of an Image includes such an Internal submission, nor can there be in reason any Controversy about it.

Hauing laid down these two Positions n. 35. 36. so directly contrary to the Impression which Dr. St. had giuen his Reader by his dexterity in the Art of [Page] reporting faithfully, (as he promised) the words and sense of the Authors cited by him, he immediately adds in the 3d place, n. 37. the passage alledged by the Dr. viz that the sole external act of kissing or bowing, is not so carried to the Image, but that some inward affection also goes along with it, which he saith may be called also (aliquis affectus) some kind of affection of submission. Here vpon I was drawn yet farther to seek what k [...]nd of submission this was, and n. 39. I found him to mean by it an affection of submitting our selues outwardly to the Image: for as much as the act of the will from which it proceeds is an affection of perf [...]rming those acts about their Images, which we are wont to exercise towards our superiors. And then declares himself farther in these words. J truly yeild, saith he, in point of external honour to an Image, giuing it a better and higher place, treating it honorably, and the like; but this which J do exteriourly, J do not only interiourly will, but intend also to signify that J haue an intention of performing all these things, for the word Adoro, or J worship, signifies saith he, this affection of the mind towards Holy [Page]Images; Therefore J signify some inward purpose of yeilding and submitting my self as to my outward deportment, to the Image. And this very purpose or affection is that saith he which we call Internall submission. For we intend neither to say, that we esteem it interiorly to be more perfect than our selues, or that it is superior to us, nor to haue any dominion ouer us, for which we ought to serue it. Who can say this? But only that we haue interiourly an intention of performing outwardly towards an Image for the excellency of the Prototype who is represented by it, those acts of external submission, which we are wont to perform towards those who are more excellent, and haue dominion ouer us; because all this honour is due to the Prototype also in his Image, which in reality, saith he, Sect. 4. n. 49. is no other than to say, that the Prototype in it self deserues to be treated honourably, not only in it self, but in all things which haue connexion with it, as its Image or Garment or the like. This is the Explication the Cardinal himself giues, of what he saith may be called affectus aliquis submissionis, some kind of affection of submission.

[Page] And now I pray consider what a different face of things here is, from what they were represented by Dr. St. and how farr the Cardinal is from acknowledging any submission of mind to an Image, as Superior, which is the Impression the Dr. gaue his Reader by forestalling his Judgment, with those other words of the Cardinal, viz, that he had found the word worship in approued Authors to be alwaies applied to signify Reverence towards Superiors, which may be done, by performing external acts of honour to them either in themselues, or in such things as haue connexion with them: and then endeauouring to fix it deeper by leauing out in the passage translated by him, the words Aliquis, and potest dici, vsed on purpose by the Cardinal to qualify the term submission, as applicable to an Image in the manner you haue heard. Had T. G. whom the Dr. calls a man of Tricks, play'd such a trick of leger demain as this, what sad complaints should we haue had of his want of Candour and Sincerity? What hearty wishes of his fair-dealing and Ingenuity? And afte [...] all, what a Thundershower full of Sulphur,[Page]and Nitre and darkness with a terrible Crack to his credit neuer to be repaired? What think you of this Catharinus?

Cathar:

I cannot say, that this was very fairly done, if it be as you say; And I think if men will cite Authors, they ought to do it in their own words, at least according to their own meaning: Or else to what purpose is it done?

Eun:

To a great deal of purpose I can assure you. For first, it serves to breed a high conceit of the learning and knowledge of the Alledger, especially if the Citations be many and long, and out of Authors of all Nations, and all languages, and all ages, and all Religions. 2dly It serues to captivate the assent of partial Readers, and to suspend at least the Judgment of such as are Impartial, till they haue examined the Testimonies, which in all likelyhood will be neuer. 3dly It serues to engage the Respondent (if he haue no more wit) to write a Volume in answer to them as bigg as a Church-Bible, or Foxe's Acts and Monuments, if any considerable part of them should chance to be like [Page] this out of Cardinal Lugo: and so the Book to be look'd vpon as not answered, till that be done.

Cathar.

Not so neither, Eunomius, as you put the case. But if four of fiue of them be discovered to be faulty, it will serue to crack the credit, as you say, of all the rest.

Eun:

This possibly may come to be the Result after a litle time; For I durst my self undertake to shew half a score considerable faults of this nature, in that first glorious Chapter of the Drs. Defence wherein he cites so many Authors both ancient and Modern, to proue the Heathens Jupiter to be the one true Supream God, and make their worship and that of the Arians paralel to that of the Church of Rome. And now because the Arians are come in my way, in whose aid the Dr. places so great confidence, I shall giue you another instance of his sincerity in their very case, both to confirm what I haue advanced with a double witness and to let you see the vanity of the Drs. Argument from the practice of the Arians.

Cathar.

This I should be sorry to hear for the Drs. and the Cause's sake. But [Page] for this of Cardinal Lugo though there be stretching in the case, yet I cannot belieue it was done out of design: And after all, I see very well, that he requires some inward affection of submission to an Image, which is sufficient in the present case to make the difference wide enough between him and the Dr.

Eun:

The Cardinal saith it may be called so, in regard the External Act of bowing proceeds, as he saith, from an Intention to deferr to the Image an external honour not for it's self, but for the Prototype's sake; but yet in reality, he sa [...]th, it amounts to no more, but that the Prototype by reason of it's Excellency deserues to be treated honourably not only in its self, but in all things which haue connexion with it, as an Image or the like. And if this be the Sense of the Council, as the Cardinal endeauours to proue, however Dr. St. may quarrel with him about the words, viz, whether it may be called a certain kind of Affection of submission to the Image, or no? yet I do not see but he perfectly agrees with him in the thing: when he affirms, that although Def. p. 600. 601 no irrational or inanimate Being be capable of that real Excellency to [Page]deserue any honour f [...]om us for it's own sake (as Aquinas, saith he, determines, and he might haue said, Cardinal Lugo too) yet such things saith he, may haue a Relation to matters of so high a nature, as to deserue a different usage and regard from other things: which is I suppose what he afterwards means by the Reverence he saith there is left to be shewed to p. 862. sacred Places, and with an (if I may so call it, iust like the Cardinal) a Religious respect to sacred Places and p. 603. Things. For if these things, vpon account of the Relation they haue to some thing of an higher nature, deserue Reverence and Respect from us, there must be some Intention of the mind to express it towards them, as is granted by the Dr. himself. p. 862. And if the outward Act to be giuen, be of Bowing which is a Token or Expression of submission, there must be a proportionable Affection of the mind to perform it, for example, towards the Altar. Otherwise the outward Act will be false and Hypocrytical, and no more honour will be done to the Altar, than to another Table by kneeling before it. Whether the Dr. will think fit to call this inward Act of [Page] the mind, affectus aliquis submissionis, as the Cardinal thinks it may be called, (potest dici) I should advise him to dispute it with him, but that he professes so sincerely, he loues not to wrangle about words. But whilst he bows towards the Altar with intention to show that Reverence and Respect, which it deserues for the Relation it hath to God, he doth in reality all that to the Altar, which the Cardinal requires to be done to an Image. So that if the one be Idolatry, the other must be so too; and if either be more than other, the disadvantage is on the Dr's side, at least as to the manner of Expression; First, because the Cardinal places the desert for which this external deference is performed towards an Image, in the Prototype; This, saith he, in reality is no more than to say, that the Prototype deserues to be treated honourably, not only in it self, but in all things which haue connexion w [...]th it: But Dr. St. places it in the things themselues, which he saith may deserue to haue such Reverence expressed to them for the Relation they haue to God. 2dly Because the Sect. 5. [...]. 62. Cardinal makes the same Reverence in [Page] substance, which is terminated on the Prototype to fall after an Inf [...]rior manner on the Image for his sake. But Dr. St. will haue the Reverence shown to sacred D [...]s. p. 861. 862. Places and things, (for example to the Altar) together with the Intention to express such outward Reverence to them on the account of their being sacred to God, to be distinct from the Reverence that is due to God: which is the very thing, Vasquez charges with Idolatry, if the Reverence shewn be a token or Expression of submission, as B [...]wing is: so hard a thing is it for him to meddle with those sharp-edged Tools, call'd school-distinctions, without hazarding to cut some thing more than his own fingers with them, I mean the very throac of his cause.

Cathar:

This I suppose was the Reason why my Friend the Patron Bonae Fidei, said of him, that he had endeauoured to da [...]b and smooth ouer this kind of Adoration, but levi brachio, as he expresses it.

Eun:

And in that I think he had reason: For he that can see the difference between bowing towards an Image as maintained by the Cardinal, and bowing [Page] towards the Altar as defended by Dr. St. except in words, must haue his sight sharp enough to discern Invisibles: As he on the other side must haue litle or none left him, that cannot see the difference between the practice of the Arrians, towards Christ, and that of the Chur [...]h of Rome towards the Saints.

Cathar:

This puts me in mind of the other Instance you promised, to confirm what you had said of the Dr's misrepresenting the Authors he cites. And I pray what was it?

Eun:

These are some months past, since I took notice of it: But I will look it out against our next meeting. In the mean time you may ruminate vpon his kind usage of the Cardinal.

Cath.

It hath made too great an Impression vpon me to be easily forgotten.

[Page]

THE FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

ANother Instance of Dr. Sts. reporting faithfully, shown in a passage he cites out of S. Gregory Nyssen in the case of the Arians. The doctrine of the same S. Gregory concerning an Inferiour Respect due to the Saints, and their Reliques. The Argument the Dr. brings f [...]om the practice of the Arians, shown to be Incongruous, and manifestly different from that of Roman-Catholicks towards Saints and Images. His Excellent Defence of a Testimony out of Arnobius formerly misrepresented by him: and Subtil Observations vpon the doctrine of the Council of Trent in the matter of Images. The Remedies devised by him for avoiding Idolatry in the worship of Images, equally applicable to Bowing to the Altar, or the Chair of slate.

[Page] CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

CAthar.

Well, Eunomius, haue you found the other Instance you promised to giue me in the case of the Arians, of the Drs. mis-representing (as you call it) the Authors he cites?

Eun:

I haue, and it is this. Among other Testimonies brought by him with a greal deal of Pomp to shew that the Arians were charged with Idolatry for the wor [...]h [...]p they gaue to Christ, whom They acknowledged to be a Creature, from thence to paralel their worship with that of the Church of Rome to the Saints, he cites the words of S. Greg. Nyssen Def. p 170. Orat. de laudibus Basilij, viz, that the Denil by the means of Arianism brought Idolatry again insensibly into the world, persuading men to return to the worship of the creature by his sophistry, and that Arius, Eunomius, Eudoxius, and Aerius were his instruments in restoring Idolatry under a pr [...]tence of Christianity. This is what he tells us that Father said, and as to the general truly enough. But was there no more requisite to be done in [Page] the case? Doth not S. Greg. tell us in that very place, what kind of worship it was, which the Arians gaue to Christ, and for which he charges them with Idolatry? yes he does. And his words are these, viz, that the deuil under a pretence of Christianity brought Idolatry again insensibly into the world, persuading men, saith he, not to recede from the Creature, but to adore and worship it, and think a creature to be God hauing giuen it the name of the Son; and although it were of a different nature from God, not to regard that, but placing the name of Christ vpon a Creature, to worship and seru [...] it, and also to fix hopes of salvation in it, and expect Judgment from it. Thus doth S. Greg. lay forth the nature of the worship which the Arians gaue to Christ. And then come in these other words, uiz, that Arius, Eudoxius and the rest were the Devil's Instruments in the restoring Idolatry. And now I pray tell me, was it not neatly done of the Dr. to wrap vp all this in those short words. The deuil perswaded men to return to the worship of the Creature? Had he made use of this kind of Laconism in those frequent Amplifications, [Page] where he dilates himself usque ad nauseam in things Indifferent, and I may say, Impertinent to the Question, it had been agreat Ease to his Reader, and no Prejudice to his cause. But here to suppress the nature of the worship giuen by the Arians to Christ, from whence the Paralel was to be made with that which the Church of Rome allows to the Saints was but to cast a mist before his Readers eyes with that General, (and as Mr. Thorndike calls it) equivocal term of worship to a Creature. But then again the setting down the words, as they are in S. Greg [...]ry, would haue been a great prejudice to his Cause indeed, because the world would haue clearly seen, how different the worship, which the Church of Rome giues to the Saints, is from that which the Arians gaue to Christ, acknowledging him to be a Creature. For those of the Church of Rome publickly profess that they look not vpon the Saints as Gods, but as the Servants of God; nor as Mediators of Redemption, in whom they put the Trust of their Salvation, and from whom they expect the final reward of their labours; not worship and serue them with Latria, a [...] [Page] the Arians did the Son, though they belieued belieued him to be a Creature; but that they humbly begg the prayers of those Just persons, which they know to be available with God, as a means to obtain these and other benefits from him (the sole Author of them) by his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, whom they acknowledge to be their only Redeemer and Sauiour. What the Dr. obiects concerning the Phrase suppliciter invocare Def. p. 293. used by the Council of Trent is so frivolous and school-boy-like, (not to say childish, as he does to T. G.) that a man must haue very litle to do to set his wit against it. Euery child knows how to begg his Father's prayers in a suppliant manner without making him a God. And for that farther Obiection, p. 294. which, he saith, puts the matter out of dispute with all who do not willfully blind themselues, viz, that the Council of Trent commends the making recourse not only to the Prayers of the Saints, but to their Ayd and Assistance, this pretious Obiection had been quite lost, had he but set down the end for which their ayd and assistance is there required, viz, ob beneficia impetranda a Deo per Filium[Page]ejus &c. For the obtaining benefits from God, (the word impetrare signifies to obtain by request) through his Son our Lord Iesus Christ. And if the Dr. will needs haue ayd and assistance to be taken as distinct from prayers; A man doth, J suppose answer the signification of that Phrase by desiring the Saints to employ the Fauour they haue with God, as Iust Persons, for the obtaining of them from God, without making recourse to them as to the Authors of those Blessings. He that cannot see the difference of these things (as the Dr. Def. p. 861. saith else where) hath some Cataracts before his eyes, which need couching: And I know none fitter to make the Operation in the present Circumstance, than the same S. Gregory in the Oration he made vpon the Great and Holy Martyr S. Theodore, which is not questioned euen by Rivetus himself that Caprichious Fanatick in Criticism, to be the Genuine work of that Father.

In the beginning of that Oration S. Gregory hauing commended his Auditors for their devotion to the Martyrs, which he there calleth, [...] a pure worship; and minded [Page] them, from the deliverance they had received the year before from the fury of the Barbarous Scythians by that Glorious souldier of Ch [...]ist S. Theo [...]o [...]e (ut credimus, as we belieue, saith he) to consider how great a thing a Iust man is, and how many rewards he is made wo [...]thy of, even in the things of this world, and belonging to us; He first describes the Magnificent Structure of the Temple, with the great concourse of people from other Cities and Countries to it, the curious peices of Sculpture that were in it in wood, stone, and siluer: and aboue all the Picture of rhe Martyr in the several Stages of his combat, and that of Christ our Lord assisting him in them drawn with such exquisite Art, that it caused both delight and Benefit in the Spectators to behold them. Then descending to the Shrine, where the Body of the Martyr was kept, he sets forth the great esteem the Faithful made of the very dust of the Place, and the earnest desire they had to touch the Sacred Reliques, which, he saith, was deemed a great Happiness [...] for any to be permitted to do; And in case it were obtained, They embrace, saith he, the Body as if [Page]they beheld it yet aliue, app [...]ying it first to their eyes, mouth, eares, and other Instruments of sense; and then pow [...]ing forth tears of duty and Affection vpon the Martyr, as if he were whole before them, sollicite his Supplication and Intercession, beseeching him as a Champion of God, and Invocating him, as one that could obtain Blessings, when he would, for them. After this, he dilates himself vpon the valour and Constancy of the Martyr in his Confession and sufferings, with his consummation and passage to Heaven by Fire. Then puts his Auditors again in mind of the great benefits received by him, in convocating Assemblies, instructing the Church, driving away devils, bringing back the Angels of Peace, begging of God profitable things for them, and making the very place where his Body rested, a Store-house of Remedies for manifold diseases; a Harbour for those who are tost with the Tempest of Afflictions, a Plent [...]full Treasury for the Poor, a quiet Receptable for Travellers, and a Glorious Station for such as meet to celebrate his Feast, whom there he calls the Ministers of his Honour. Having thus erected and inflamed [Page] their minds with hope of Ayd and Assistance from the Martyr in their present necessities, he addresses himself to him at the end of the Oration, in these words. We stand in need of many benefits, do Thou intercede and deprecate with our Common King and Lord for thy Country. We liue in continual fear of dangers. The Cruel Scythians are not farr off ready to invade us. Do thou as a souldier fight in our defence, and as a Martyr speak with freedome in b [...]half of thy fellow-servants. Though Th [...]u hast ouercome the world, yet thou k [...]o [...]est the Affections and necessities of our humane condition. Begg for Peace that these publick Assemblies be not interrupted by [...]he Incursion of the Barbarians. That we haue been preserved hitherto from their Fury; we acknowledge as a benefit received from thee. We desire also security for the time to come. And in case there be need of greater Intercession, call an Assembly of thy Brother-Martyrs; Let the prayers of many Iust Persons expiate the sins of Multitudes of Offenders. Admonish Peter, excite Paul, and Iohn also the Beloued Disciple, to be solicitous for the Churches they haue founded, and[Page]for which they haue suffered Imprisonments and death; that Idolatry may not lift vp it's head; that Heresies like Thorns may not ouer grow the Vineyard, nor Tares choke vp the wheat &c. But by the vertue, ( [...] by the power) of thine and thy Fellow's Intercession, O admirable Man, and Eminent among Martyrs, the Christian Church may be a plentiful Feild of Harvest, yeilding alwaies fruit of Euerlasting life conferred vpon us by our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the H. Ghost be Glory, dominion and Honour now and for euermore.

Had Dr. St. been present at this Oration how may we think, would his zeal haue vrged him, to haue cry'd out Idolatry, Flat Idolatry, very real I [...]olatry, meer Heathenish Idolatry, and in all likelyhood to haue returned vpon Gregory, what Gregory had said in the former Testimony of Arius and the rest, that he was the D [...]vel's Instrument to bring back Idolatry into the world, perswading men to return to the worship of the Creature, by making recourse not only to the Prayers, but to the ayd and assistance of the Saints; giving them thanks [Page] for benefits receiued, and expecting defence and Protection from them for the future.

Cathar.

And truly I think he would haue had reason enough to do so; For what the wary Fathers of the Council of Trent say, looks but like a peice of Reformation if [...]ompared with this.

E [...]n:

And yet this is that very Gregory, who was Brother to the great S. Basil; a man famous for his learning and Pi [...]ty, and on that account particularly Reverenced by S. G [...]go [...]y Nazianzen, and S. Hierom. He liued in that Age of the [...]hurch, of which the Dr. himself in the Epistle Dedicato [...]y to his Defence, saith, that Idolatry was then suppressed by the Imperial Edicts the Churches setled by Law under the Government of Bishops, Publick Liturgies appointed, Antiquity reverenced, Schi [...]m discountenanced, Learning encouraged, and some f [...]w Ceremonies used, but without any of those corrupt mixtures which afterwards prevailed in the Roman Church. The Bishops of that time were saith he men of that Exemplar P [...]ety, of those great Abilities, of that excellent conduct and Magnanimity,[Page]as set them aboue the contempt or reproach of any but Infidels and Apostates. For then, saith he, liued the Gregories, (of which surely this was one) the Basils, the Chrysostoms in the Eastern Church; the Ambroses and Augustins in the Western; and they who can suspect these to haue been Enemies to the Power of Godliness, did neuer vnderstand what it meant. I leaue the Doctor to apply his own words as he pleases. It is in his choice, whether he will put himself among the Contemners and Reproachers; or acknowle [...]ge the veneration of Reliques and Invocation of Saints not to be corruptions. As for S. Gregory t'is manifest he both called vpon the Martyrs for their ayd and assistance, and excited the People to do so, not as a new thing, but what they had been bred to, without fear either of being reproached by those other great Lights of that Age, who did the same, or of being vnderstood by any (for Dr. St. was not there, nor Vigilant us neither as I suppose) to make the Saints themselues the Authors of the Benefits they desired; or to place Hope of Saluation in them, or expect the reward of Eternal life from them, [Page] which is what he charged the Arians with in the other Testimony, to do towards Christ, whom they acknowledged to be a Creature. And Dr. St. by suppressing those most important words, when he cit [...]d the passage hath giuen us another very [...]regnant example of his reporting faithfully; but so much the more vnpardonable, in that he had been fore-warned of it by his Adversary T. G. (cath. no Idol. p, 126.) where he shews the Fathers of the Synod of Constantinople, who alledged that very passage of S. Gregory against the worship of Images, to haue been charged by Epiphanius in the Second Council of Nice for adulterating the words and meaning of it, viz, for putting the name of Christ for that of the S [...]n; and whereas S. Gregory's discourse there, was against the Arians, proving them to be Idolaters, because they acknowledged Christ to be a Creature, and yet adored, serued, and put their Trust in him, they wickedly perverted his words against the Images of Christ; which although Christians retain in memory, and reverence out of love to him, who is represented by them, y [...]t they neither call them Gods, nor serve them[Page]as Gods, nor at any time put their hope of Salvation in them, as the Arians did in the Son, though they believed him to be a Creature. Thus T. G out of Epiphanius, and then addes, that the Dr. thought it not to his purpose to take notice of this Iuggle of his Constantinopolitan Fathers, in putting the name Christ for Son, least it might put his Reader in mind, of his own dexterous managing the words and sense of Authors cited by himself; which any one would think might haue been a very sufficient caution to him, either not to haue meddled with this passage of S. Gregory at all, or to haue giuen it in it's fullwords and meaning. By this then, and the for [...] Instance out of Cardinal Lugo, you may ghess in part (and the world in time may see more fully) what Candour and Sincerity is to be exp [...]cted from him in his Citations, especially at such time as the very point to be proved depends vpon them: as also what a proper Argument that is, which he draws from the practice of the Arians to conclude those of the Chu [...]ch of Rome guilty of Idolatry in the worship of S [...]ints; for they do not think them to be Gods, nor worship and serve [Page] them (the word is [...]) with the worship proper to God, nor fix their hopes of Salvation [...]n them, nor expect Iudgment from them, as S. G [...]egory saith the Arians did all these things to Christ, though they believed him to be a Creatu [...]e.

Cathar:

But Dr. St. as I remember, saith that although the Arians did invocate Christ, and put their Trust in him, yet they still supposed him to be a Creature, and therefore believed, that all the Power and Authority he had was given him; So that the worship they give to Christ must be Inferiour to that ho [...]our they gave to the supream God, whom they believed to be supream, Absolute, and Independent; and in this it is he makes their worship of Christ paralel to that vsed by the Church of Rome to the Saints.

Eunomi:

This indeed is brought in by the Dr. at the convenient distance of three hundred and fifty Pages after the Passage we spoke of, and that without any particular mention of S. Grego [...]y, or relation to him. A very late Salve for so old a wound; and a very improper one too when all is done, there being so many [Page] things, which show it not only to be incongruous to make the intended Paralel, but inconsistent both with the practice of the Arians, and the doctrine of the Fathers. For

1. The Fathers in general, and particularly S. Grego [...]y in the Oration now S. Aug. li. 20. cont Faust. c. 21. S. G [...]eg. Naz. O [...]at. de Nat. Christi. S Hier. Ep ad Marcellam. cited by me, acknowledge aworship due to the Saints (and called by the same S. Gregory a Pure Worship) Inferiour to the worship due to God. And therefore could not haue condemned the Arians of Idolatry for giving only a like worship to [...]hrist, though in a higher degree, without condemning themselves of the like crime.

2ly However the Dr. now makes this plausible Apolog [...] for the Arians, yet I do not find that the Arians made it for themselves. What he saith of it himself (pag. 165.) is, that we may suppose this was the Answer of the Arians. And whereas he adds speaking of S. Athanasius, th [...]t he could not but fo [...]esee it, and a man of so much understanding, as h [...] was, would haue prevented this Answer had he thought it to his purpose. I should rather think, if a man of so much vnderstanding as he was, thought it not to his purpose [Page] then to prevent it, it were but litle to the purpose now for the Dr. to alledge it.

3ly Although the Arians believed that all the Power and Authority, which Christ had, was given him by the Supream God, whom they believed to be Supream, Absolute, and Independent; yet why might not the Generality at least, believe him to be of a Superiour Order, so as to haue true divinity in him, as the Heathens did of their lesser Gods, and that being assumed, as a Consort in the Empire, Absolute divine honour was due to him? S. Gregory seems to intimate as much in the words left out by the Doctor, where he saith, ‘that the devil under a pretence of Christianity brought Idolatry again insensibly into the world, perswading men, not to recede from the Creature, but to adore and worship it, and think a creature to be God having given it the name of the Son; and although it were of a different nature from God, not to regard that, but placing the name of Christ vpon a Creature, to worship and serve it with Latria, to fix their hopes of salvation in it, and expect [Page] Judgment from it.’ This I hope is farr enough from the Dr's Relative or Inferiour worship; and whoever reads the Fa [...]hers, shall find they euermore charge the Arians for giving absolute Divine worship to Christ, though they believed him to be of a different nature from the Supream God But if nothing will serve the Dr. but that we must suppose the Arians to haue answered, as he would haue them, viz, that the worship they gau [...] to Christ, was I [...]feriour to that honou [...] which they gaue to the Supream God; I answer,

4thly That the Fathers notwithstanding had all the reason in the world to look vpon this as a meer Sophistical Pretence, and to charge them with Idolatry for doing what they did, when they saw them avowedly giue those acts of worship to Christ believing him to be a Creature, which by the Common Consent, and publick practice of Christians, from whence Exteriour sions in the duties of Reli [...]ion receive their determination, were understood to be due only to God I [...]carnate, as calling him Go [...] when they had given him the name of the Son, putting their Trust in [Page] him as the Mediato of Redemption, and invoking him as the Judge of the Quick and the Dead &c. Which makes the case of those of the Church of Rome, even in this Supposition, to be quite different from that of the Arians; the Acts of worship which they giue to Saints and Images, being such as by the common use and Custome of the Christian world before Luther were determin'd and understood, when applied to Saints and Images, to express an Inf [...]riour degree of Reverence or worship, than what is due to God himself, as Bowings, Prostrations, burning of Incense, lighting of Candles, using certain forms of words and Expressions in prayer &c. in like manner as B [...]wing (though particularly express'd in the Commandment as forbidden) to the Alta [...] is at present determin'd and understood in the Church of England. This the Dr foresaw very well, but found no way to prevent it but by suppressing the words of S. Greg. Nyssen, in which he clearly expresses the different worship which the Arians gaue to Christ, from that which is given by those of the Church of Rome to Saints and Images. And this I said was so much [Page] the more foul, for that he had been so fairly fore-warned of it by his Adversary T. G. in the like case of his Constantinopolitan Fathers. Pray then let me desire you to keep this in memory together with the former passage out of Cardinal Lugo, till more come.

Cathar:

I fancy you haue picked out this passage, as one you judge the most faulty in the whole Book; but both this and the rest, when brought to Triall, may happily proue like that Heauy charge, as Dr. St. calls it, wherewith T. G. loads him for cogging (as he ph [...]aseth Cath. no Idol. p. 101. it) the word Divinity in the singular number instead of Adorable Deities in the plural, into a Testimony he cited formerly out of Arnobius in his Roman Idolatry p. 74. The Dr. to shew his Innocency, assures T. G. that the words he translated were these very words of Arnobius, Def. p. 471. nihil numinis inesse simulachris, that the Images haue no Divinity in them; and generously referrs himself to him, if he please to take it vpon his word, or if not, to search the place once more.

Eun:

This is to bring the business to the Test, and T. G. it seems may do [Page] as he pleases But do you your self belieue it to be so?

Cathar.

Yes without doubt; for the Dr addes, that if these words be not in that very place: and but two lines before those quoted by T. G. viz, Erras & laberis &c. be will venture his credit in citing Authors vpon T. G's. Ingenuity.

Eun:

This argues a greater Confidence in T. Gs. Ingenuity, than I could euer haue expected from one who charges him so often with desingenuous dealing. But it may be the Drs. good wishes haue wrought some good effect vpon him, However I should think him in a manner obliged for his kind offer to take it vpon his word.

Cathar:

But then again, if these very words be there as Dr. St. saith, most certainly they are, what doth such a man deserue for so notorious f [...]ir dealing?

Eun:

Here the Dr. comes briskly vp indeed to T. G. if he fail not in the Tryal of the cause, which I think he does. And to make it plain to you, giue me leaue to ask you this one Question. When Dr. St. tells us, that the Rom: Idol. p. 74. Heathens in Arnobius deny they euer thought their Images to be Gods or to [Page]haue any D [...]vinity in [...]hem, but what only comes from their Consecration to such an use, whether did he translate the words of Arnobius to the Hea [...]hens, or the words of the Heathens to Arnobius?

Cathar:

Doubtless the words of the Hea [...]hens to Arnobius, for he saith, The Heathens in Arnobius deny &c. And were it otherwise, he must haue translated the words of the Objection, made by Arnobius, for those of the Heathen's Answer, which had been no fair dealing in case they were opposit.

Eun:

And that you may see this to be in very deed the case at present, (supposing the Drs design was to proue by that Testimony, that the Heathens did not wors [...]ip the Images the [...]s [...]lues for Gods,) hear the words as they ly in Arnobius Erubescite ergo vel serò, saith he, & doceant vos animantia muta Li. 6. c [...]nt. Gent. nihil divinitatis in esse simulachris, in quae obscaena dejicere neque m [...]tuunt neque vitant. Sed erras inquitis, & laberis, nam neque nos aera, neque auri argentique mat [...]rias, neque alias, quibus signa confiunt, [...]as esse perse Deos, & religiosa decernimus numina; sed eos in his colimus, eosque veneramur, quos dedicatio infert sacra,[Page]& fabrilibus efficit inhabitare simulachri. Arnobius had objected to the Heathens the Indignities done to their Images by Spiders, Swallows and such other creatures; and bids them at length to be a [...]hamed, and learn from them, there was no divini [...]y in their Images. And what do the Heathans reply to this? 1. They deny they euer thought the Images themselues to be Gods, and adorable Deities. 2dly They grant they worshipped the deities residing in them by the vertue of dedication, and therefore tell him he was mistaken, when he said there was no divinity in them. This was the substance of the discourse p 473. And Dr. St. taking part with the Heathens, nothing can be more evident, than that the words designed to be translated by him, were the words of the Heathens, in which they deny the Images themselues to be Gods or A [...]o [...]able Deities, (which is the thing he saith he produced Def. p. 473. that Testimony to proue:) and not the words of Arnobius [viz that there was no divinity in their Images] which the Heathens excepted against, as [...]ot denying but that they worshipped adorable Deities brought into them by Dedication. [Page] For my part I think the Dr. might better haue excused himself by imputing it to a casual vndulation of the Visual Rays, incident at times to the best Transcribers, especially when the words are but two lines distant, (as he assures us they were no more in his Copy) and there is an appearance of some affinity between them; than by professing he intended to translate the words of Arnobius and not of the Heathens, in a Testimony wherein the Heathens deny the words of Arnobius to be true. But if, you haue yet Faith enough to believe it vpon his word, that the words he translated were these very words of Arnobius, nihil divinitatis in esse simulachris, that there was no divinity in their Images (not two but four lines in the Copy I haue which is of the largest sort of Folio's aboue those words of the Heathens he began to translate) he hath reason so farr to acknowledg your kindnes: but then you must grant him guilty of what T. G. lays to his charge, viz, of [...]ogging the word Divinity in the singular number▪ instead of Adorable Deities in the plural (which was quite lest out by him) into the Testimony of the Heathens; [Page] and that cortrary both to their meaning, who believed such deities to dwell in them, and to his own design in producing that Testimony, which he saith was to proue, that the Heathens denied that they worshipped the Images themselues for Gods, and not that they denied they worshipped the Deities assisting in them. Read ouer the words once more, which if you please you may take vpon my word, or if not, search the place in Arnobius, and I believe you will confess, that if the Dr. makes no better a defence for the Testimonies he cites out of Cardinal Lugo, and S. Gregory Nyssen, than he hath done for this of the Heathens in Arnobius, we are like to haue but a sad account of Citations from him; and Impartial Readers will hardly be persuaded to take them vpon his word, but rather return his own Question vpon him in downright English, What doth such a man deserue for so notorious foul dealing?

Cathar:

Before I pass my Judgment I shall with your leaue search the place in Arnobius himself.

Eun:

I commend your wariness, and wish the rest of his Readers would do [Page] the like. In the mean time, we will return if you please to what we were vpon, and see what it is he finds fault with in the Council of Trent.

Cathar:

And not to deferr it to a longer time, I remember very well; He makes three Observations vpon the doctrine of that Council, The First is : : : :

Eun:

I see you haue him at your fingers ends, but let us first if you please hear the words of the Council as set down by him.

Cathar:

You do not intend I hope to except against his Fidelity in the Relation of them.

Eun:

I am not so quarrelsome, Catharinus, as you take me to be, though I think he hath translated them also to his best advantage. But my Intention is other at present as you will understand, if you please to repeat the words.

Cathar:

That wary Council, saith the Def. p. 613. Dr. knowing very well the practice of their Church and the Opinion of Divines, only determines due honour and Veneration to be given to Images, not for the sake of any Divinity or power inherent in them, for which they are to be worshipped, or that any thing is to be[Page]asked of them, or that Trust is to be put in the Images, as it was of old by the Heathens, who placed their H [...]pe in Idols; but because the honour which is done to them, is referred to the Prototype, which th [...]y represent, so that by the Image which we kiss, and b [...]fore which we uncouer our heads, and fall down, we adore Christ and worship the Saints which they represent. Which hath been already decreed by Councils against Opposers of Images, especially the 2d Nicen Sy [...]od. These are the words of the Counc [...]l related by him.

Eun:

And what I pray do you find in them, from which it may be gathered that the Council intended to require of those of its Communion to giue the honour due to Christ and his Saints, to the Images themselues?

Cathar:

The words I confess are very warily couch'd and so much war [...]ness makes us suspect c [...]aft, as the Dr. hath very clearly discovered in the Observations I began to tell you, he makes vpon them. The First whereof is, that all External Acts of Adoration are allowed to be done to Images.

Eun:

To this I haue answered alreadly, p. 216. [Page] that the Church is at liberty to determin what external Act, she thinks fit to make vse of towards Images, and those the Church of R [...]me makes vse of (for of all She doth not) are no less (if not more) understood by common consent and custome as tokens and expressions of a Relative respect to Images, than B [...]wing towards the Altar in the Church of England.

Cathar:

But as Dr. St. obserues in the 2d place, There is not the least Intimation in the Council against giving the same kind and degree o [...] worship to the Image, which is given to Christ himself.

Eun:

But how so Ipray! Doth not the Dr. himself acknowledge that the wor [...]hip required by the 2d Council of Nice, was lo [...]er than Latria, which is due to God; and doth not the wa [...]y Council o [...] Tre [...]t as related by him r [...]f [...]rr us especially to [...]hat of Nice in this matter? how then could he say there was not the least I [...]timation in the Council against givi [...]g the same kind or degree of worship to the Image, which is giuen to Christ himself? Is it not strange he should fo [...]get himself so soon?

[Page]Cathar:

But the Divines it seems did not understand it so, and therefore as he observes in the Third Place; After pag. 614. the Council of Trent, many [...]f the most Eminent among them haue asserted the worship of Latria to be given to Images.

Eun:

This is a Feild into which Dr. St. makes frequent excursions, and triumphs exceedingly in his own Conceit. But hath not T. G. sufficiently Cah. no Idol. p. 190. shewed, that even those very Divines who call it Latria▪ do not mean by the word that proper divine worship which is due to God and terminated vpon him; but that the Act being in their Opinion One in substance to the Prototype and the Images, it is terminated absolut [...]ly vpon the Person of Christ for himself, and falls vpon the Image after an Inferiour manner, as a thing only relating to him and purely for his sake; as you heard but even now out of Cardinal

Lugo:

For which reason some of them call it Relative Latria. Others, Secondary; Others, Improper, others, Analogical; others, per accidens: And the difpute in effect, as T. G. observes, is rather de modo loquendi, than of the thing it self. For they all agree, that the [Page] worship proper to Go [...] signified primarily by the word Latria, is not to be given to Images. But now for the loue of Controversy, what is all this to the doctrine of the Council? Cannot a man giue due honour to the Image of his Princ [...], or of Christ, unless subtil disputants be first agreed by what name it must be called? What Dr. St. should haue done to maintain his charge of I [...]o [...]atry, was to proue out of the decrees of the Council it self, that the due honour and Veneration, it declares lawful to be giuen to Images, is the Latria due to God. But this was too hard a task for him to undertake, and therefore to divert his Reader he entertains him with a pleasant Counterscuffle among the School-divines, about Def. p. 610. reconciling their doctrine with the Definition of the Council of Nice, to which the Council of Trent refers; as if it were a greater wonder that they cannot ag [...]ee in this, than in those other Nice points concerning Predestination, and the like; Or as if the Church may not haue liberty n [...]t to determin either the one or the other; and so bo [...]h parties remain of the Church (as Dr. St. insinuates Gen: Pref. of the latter) as long as they contradict no [Page]received Articles in it. But something, or rather a great deal was to be said, though no [...]hing to the purpose, as I shall let you see. For what he charges the Church of Rome with in his first Paper, is that all those who are of the Communion of that Church, must by the terms of Communion with her be guilty either of Idolatry or of Hypocrisy: But the terms of Communion with that Church are not the Opinions of her School-divines, but the decrees of her Councils: And therefore for him to represent them in a pleasant counter-scuffle, may be a pleasant divertisment to some kind of Readers, but no Satisfaction to the Wis [...]; since the Divines themselues are not Roman-Catholicks for maintaining their Opinions, but for submit [...]ing, on all sides, to the Decrees of the Councils.

Cathar:

But what Security can be expected from such an Answer? when each side charging the other with Idolatry, the General Terms of Councils, (as Dr. St. saith very well) serue only Def. [...]. 849. to draw men into the snare, and not to help them out of it.

Eun,

Security enough (as T. G. tells Cath: no Idol. p. 188. us) from honest nature informed with [Page] Christian Principles, which will teach us to honour the Image of Christ for his sake, who is represented by it, with as litle danger of committing Idolatry, notwithstanding the Counter-scufsle between School-divines about the Act's being the same or distinct; as it doth a Subiect to giue a proportionable Respect to the Chair of State; or a Wife, to kiss her Husband's picture, without fear of committing either Treason or Adultery by so doing. I should be glad, you could help me out here; For for my life I cannot understand, how agood Wise (to use the Dr's old example) is e're the more in danger of committing Adultery in kissing her husbands picture, because, were she ask'd the Question, she would be mightily puzled to tell, whether the kindness she expressed to the Picture were the same with that to her Husband, or distinct from it. And I am confident, had his Maiesty after his happy Restauration found it necessary to have made an Order, that due honour and respect should be given to the Chair of State, as formerly had been done (notwithstanding any dispute, which might haue been raised about it's being the [Page] same or distinct from that due to the King; or the Parties growing hot, accusing one another of Treason if it be the same, or of submission to a meer Inanimate thing if distinct) you would not say that the General Terms of the Edict served only to draw men into the snare, and not to help them out of it.

Cathar.

For that Dr. St. tells us, that the Rules of the Court are to be observed, where there is no intrenchment vpon Def. p. 852. Divine Laws.

Eun:

And T. G. will tell us, the Rules of the Church are in like manner to be observed for the other, and the dispute about the Act's being the same or distinct will equally hinder or not hinder the practice of both.

Cathar:

Dr. St. indeed acknowledgeth P. 853. 854. the case to be alike in both; and therefore to avoid Idolatry in the worship of Images, he tells us, men must giue none at all; especially when there is no necessity at all of doing it.

Eun:

And will not your Friend, Patronus Bonae Fidei, tell us, that to avoid Idolatry in bowing to the Altar, men must giue no Reverence at all, especially when there is no necessity at all of doing [Page] it? And the like may be said of uncovering the Head, or doing Obeisance to the Chair of State. But what will become then of the Rules of the Court, which the Dr. saith are to be observed and the Rules of the Church which now as you haue heard, he affirms in like manner are to be observed, if men may be permitted to break them for such Capriches as these are? Must loue and duty be tied vp to n [...]cessity? Haue they not a larger Sphere to act in? Are not all things lawfull in the worship of God, which are not forbidden? and vpon that account, Bowing to the Altar in the Church of England? Alas poor Dr. St. (would T. G. say, returning his own p. 862. words vpon him) how doth he argue like a man spent and quite gone? T'is high time I see for us to draw to an end.

Cathar:

But before we do that, I shall giue you a cleer and full Solution of the Case, by which you will see, the Dr. is not so far gone, as you imagin; Whateuer T. G. thinks, saith he, we say, that God by his Law hauing made some Acts of worship peculiar to himself p. 849. by way of acknowledgment of his Soueraignty and Dominion ouer us, we must[Page]not use those Acts to any Creature. And therefore here, he saith, the most Material Question can be asked is, whether the Acts of worship be the same, which we are to use to God or no, i ē, whether they are Acts forbidden or lawful?

Eun:

This is a most material Question indeed, and how does he resolve it, I pray?

Cathar:

Thus, that if the Acts be the Same, they are forbidden; if not, they may be lawful.

Eun:

This is, as farr as I can understand it, as if one should say, that if the Acts be such as are forbidden, they are forbidden; and if they be such as are not forbidden, they are not fo [...]bidden. A very cleer decision of the case in the Identical way. But I pray tell me, Is not Bowing one of the Acts, nay the only External Act expressly forbidden by the Law to be used to any Creature? How comes it then, that Bowing to the Altar is not Idolatry; and the same to an Image, is Idolatry; when according to the Dr. God hauing by his Law made this very Act of worship peculiar to himself, we must not use it to any Creature, whether Image or Altar!

[Page]Cathar:

To deal plainly with you Eunomius I evermore suspected this Bowing to the Altar would spoil all. And I am cleerly of Opinion, euer since I read what my Friend, the Patron Bonae Fidei saith of it that either Himself or Mr Baxter, or some such other Inflexible man, had been a fi [...]ter Champion, to manage the charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, than Dr. St.

Eun:

However, The Dr. is a man of Tricks, as well as T. G. and may Deff. p. 4 [...]9. perhaps haue some Fetch left behind, which we know not of: You may if you please co [...]f [...]rr with him at leasure, vpon this Point, and the Premisses. Only I shall desire two things of you: The one is, to know of him, if he giue no other notion of Idolatry, than that of External Acts standing under a Prohibition, how he charges all those of the Communion of the Church of Rome, of being guilty either of Idolatry, or Hypocrisy, either of which he saith, are sins inconsistent with saluation. For if any creature, (whether Image or Altar) being made so farr the Object of Divine worship that Men do bew down before it, doth thereby become an Idol, I see they [Page] must be Idolaters who do it. But how they can be Hypocrites in doing it, and not Idolaters, (if the very doing it in case it be prohibited, be Idolatry) I do not understand. T'is an Aenigma, that deserves an Oedipus.

The other is, if you haue still courage enough to read over his Defence the Se [...]ond time (which I belieue you are the only man in the world will do) to desire you to look now and then vpon the [...]emorial I gaue you at the end of the Fifth Dialogue, and to reflect vpon what I haue shown in these last four Conferences concerning his Pe [...]formance in it. As 1. how all his long and Dial. 1. elaborate discourses are but the Clamours of Vanity, and the substance of them might haue been comprised in a Nutshell. 2. How his Notion of Idolatry's Dial. 2. consisting in External Acts of worship, as standing under a Prohibition of the Law of Moses, quite ruins the Paralel he striues to draw between the Practice of the Heathens (who were not under the Law,) and that of the Church of Rome.

3. How the Consequence he urges from the worship of Images, to the worship Dial. 2. [Page] of all other creatures is in its self useless to his Cause, and not allowed for common practice by those very divines who admit it in speculation. 4. How being Dial. 3. 4. obliged to proue his charge of Idolatry, against the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils, (as that from whence we are to take the terms of Communion with that Church) he makes it his business all along to Combate the Opinions of the School-Divines. 5 How endeavouring to evade the Instance of Dial. 2. 3. 4. bowing to the Altar urged by T. G. he must either deny any Reverence at all to be giuen to the Altar, or involve himself and the Church of England in the same condemnation with t [...]ose of the Dial 4. Ch [...]rch of Rome. 6. How diff [...]rent the Wo [...] ship, which the Arians gaue to Christ believing him to be a Creature, and for which they were charged with Idolatry by the Fathers, was from that which the Church of Rome requires to be giuen to Dial. 3. 4. Saints and Images. Lastly, how to make a show at least of answering, he is forced against his promise of reporting faithfully to pervert the words and meaning of the Authors he cites.

If you carry these Remarks along with [Page] you, & join them to his Omissions laid down in the first five Dialogues of the First Part, I doubt not but you will find all the Principal Arguments, with which he endeavours to prop vp his tottering Cause in his late defence, defeated, or returned vpon himself.

Cath.

You haue, I confess, spoken to many things, more than I did expect from you, and perhaps more, though you shrowd your self under Mr Thorndike's Authority, than the Church of England will thank you for. Yet there is one Point remaining, which you haue but sleightly only touched in passing, though Dr. St. make it the main ground, vpon which he builds his Confutation of T. G.

Eun:

Whilst I haue spoken but what Mr Thorndike did, or must haue said, in his Principles, I haue litle reason to fear any Reproof from the Church of England: Nor haue you much, to expect any thanks for your sollicitude in endeavouring to fix vpon her, as her Sense, so foul a Charge as that of Idolatry against the Church of Rome. But what is this great Point you say hath been omitted?

Cath.

It is this, that T. G. denies the [Page] Heathen's supream God Jupiter to be the One supream Being Maker and Governour of the World, and makes them to be Idolaters only for worshipping the Devil. This is a Point, which Dr. St. hath proved▪ so fully against him, that he hath reason to be ashamed of imposing such a Notion of Idolatry vpon them.

Eun:

I was in good hopes we had been at the End of our Work, and was preparing for the Countrey: But since you think this to be so main a Point and the reason, as I now remember why Dr. St. lays so much stress vpon it, is because he judges it very material toward the true Vnderstanding the Nature Def. p. 24. of Idolatry. I shall deferr my Journey a week longer, and let you see where the shame lights. Only I shall beg a day or two's respite to order some affairs; and review some Notes I cursorily made, when I perused the Drs. Book: And then, God willing I will see you again.

The End of the Second Part.

§

§

§

[Page]

THE THIRD PART OF THE JUST DISCHARGE TO DR. STILLINGFLEET'S VNJVST CHARGE OF IDOLATRY. Wherein His great Concern to make Jupiter to haue been the true God, And the Sinister ways he takes to maintain it, are laid open. And His Pretended Paralel from the Practice both of the Vulgar and Wiser Heathens, More fully refuted. By way of Dialogue Between. EVNOMIVS, a Conformist & CATHARINVS, a Non-Conformist.

PARIS, M.DC.LXXVII.

Avec Privilege du Roy.

[Page]

[Page]

THE THIRD PART.

THE FIRST DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

THe Notion of the Heathen's Idolatry imposed on T. G. by Dr. St. refuted from the Places out of which it was pretended to be gathered. The Grand Question brought to tryall, viz whether the Heathen's Jupiter were according to the Fathers, the true God, or a Devil? The former asserted by Dr. St. the latter by T. G. and proved by plain and undeniable Testimonies of more than a whole Jury of Fathers besides Origen. The Dr's mighty Argument from the Inscription to the Vnknown God, shown to be not only Impertinent, but against himself.

CATHARINVS. EVNOMIVS.

CAth.

Welcome Eunomius; Having consulted your Note-Book, and [Page] considered the Point a second time, Pray tell me, if you euer met with any thing more absurd than T. Gs. Notion of the Heathen's Idolatry, as Dr. St. hath exposed it, viz, that Idolatry is the Def. p. 3. giving the Soveraign Worship of God to a Creature, and among the Heathens, to the devil, as if the Idolat [...]y of the Heathens consisted only in their worshipping of the divel.

Eun:

A very absurd Notion indeed, if the Meaning of it be, that the Heathens had no other Object of their worship, but that Evil Spirit which we call the devil: And such an one, as evidently concludes T. G. to be no better skil'd in the Church-affairs of the Heath [...]ns, than the Dr. would make him be in those of his own Church, or of the Church of England. For S. Augustin, who I am sure understood very well the divinity of the Heathens, speaking of the many and false Gods worshipped by them, reduces them to these three Heads. 1. The Images themselues. 2. Evil Spirits. 3. Or at best some Creatures, Li. 6. de civ. Dei. c. 1. not the Creator; All which, saith he, they worshipped with that Worship, which is due only to the One true God. [Page] But Pray tell me, do you think it was T. G's. meaning to make the Heathens to be Idolaters only for worshipping the devil?

Cath.

I do not see, what other meaning Dr. Sts. words can haue, when having told us in general what he and T. G. were agreed in, viz, that Idolatry is the giving the honour due to God to a Creature; he subjoins as the Point in difference between them, that the Heathen's Idolatry according to T. G. consisted in worshipping the devil. For this latter Proposition determins the more General one to that particular Object: Just as when we say, The main Point of the Reformation consists in giving the Supream Authority in Church-affairs not to the Pope, but some other and among those of the Church of England to the King, we take the meaning to be that they acknowledge the king to be under God the only supream Head of the Church.

Eun:

The Paralel is Just, and I confess it made the same Impression vpon me, when I read it, and as many others as I haue discoursed with about it. But doth the Dr. cite any passages out of T. [Page] G's. Book to shew that he advances this absurd Position?

Cath.

A great many I can assure you from which he gathers it very plainly. Def. p. 2. 3.

Eun:

Pray do me the kindness to let me hear them.

Cath

That you shall, but litle to T. Gs. comfort or your own, if you intend to defend him.

1. Then T. G. saith, that the Worship of Images forbidden in the Commandment Cath. no Idol. p. 36. is the worshipping Images instead of God: And the reason of this Law was to keep the People in their duty of giving Soveraign worship to God alone p. 63. by restraining them f [...]om I [...]olatry.

2ly That this Law was made particularly p. 67. to forbid Soveraign worship to be given (as T. G. saith it was given a [...] that time by the Heathens) to graven Images, i. e. Representations of Imaginary Beings; or to any similitude i. e. the likeness of any thing, which although it had a Real Being, yet was not God.

3ly That the Image-worship condemned by S. Paul, was the wor [...]hipping of p. 99. Images for Gods, or as the Images of False Gods.

[Page] 4ly That Evil Spirits or False Gods p. 103. did reside in their Images by Magical Incartation.

5ly That the Supream God of the Heathens was not the true God, but a devil. p. 349. Lo here the Places, from which the Dr. saith it is no hard matter to form T. Gs. notion of Idolatry viz, that it is the giving the Soveraign Worship of God to a Creature, and among the Heathens to the devil.

Eun:

And it is well the Dr. tells us so, For had I been left to my own motherwit Def. p. 3. I should haue inferred the quite cont [...]ary from these Assertions, viz, that T. G. made the Idolatry of the H [...]a [...]h [...]ns to consist in giving the Soveraign worship of God not only to the devil, but to someting else besides him. For

In the 1. of these Assertions, he euidently supposes the Heathens to haue been Idolaters for worshipping their Images instead of God.

In the 2d the Dr. himself confesses, that T. G. asserts Soveraign worship to haue been given by th [...] Heathens both to the Representations of Imaginary Beings (of which I suppose he will not make the devils to be) or to the likeness [Page] of any thing, which although it had a Real Being, yet was not God of which kind the Heathens had good store besides the devil, as the Sun, moon, stars, Sea, Earth, &c.

In the 3d He makes S. Paul condemn the Heathens for worshipping the Images themselues for Gods, (which certainly were not devils,) or as the Images of False Gods.

In the 4th He reckons indeed the devils for one of the kinds of the False Gods, to whom the Heathens gaue Divine worship, but not the Only. And in the last he affirms the Heathens supream God Jupiter to be one of those devils. So that had I been left, as I said, to my own Mother-wit, I should haue inferred from those very Assertions of T. G. that he perfectly agreed with S. Augustin in making the Heathens to be Idolaters forgiving the worship due to God either to the Images themselues, or to Evil Spirits, or to some other of the Creatures, and not to restrain their Idolatry to the worshipping only of the devil, as Dr. St. by his Logick would make his Reader belieue. Here then you must acknowledg the Dr. [Page] to haue prevaricated from the Design he tells us he hath, of representing ma [...] ters in d [...]ff [...]rence truly, when he imposes Pref. to Rom: Idol. so false a Notion of the Heathen's Idolatry vpon his Adversary in the very Entrance of his defence; and that from passages of T. Gs. Book, which if I understand any thing, convince it to be false. But he hath conversed so much with the Poets and Painters, who represent Jupiter as the Father of Gods and Men, that he seems to haue learnt from them to faign his Adversary to say, what he pleases. And it may be it was for this Reason, that although at first he said, The notion which T. G. lays down may be gathered from these Assertions p. 2. of his, yet at last he tells us only, that from th [...]se Assertions it is no hard p. 3. matter to form T. Gs. Notion of Idolatry; an expression better suiting with the Inventive Faculty of a Poet, than the Rational Collection of a Logician.

Cath.

Be this as it will, the matter seems not great. I am sure, you cannot deny but that T. G. affirms the Supream Cath. no Idol p. 3483. 49. God Jupiter, when the Heathens called the Father of Gods and Men, not to be the true God but a Devil. An Assertion [Page] so wild, absurd, and foolish, as evidently betrays the litle Skill of the Advancer of it in the Writings of the Fathers.

Eun:

Yet you know he cited Origen for it.

Cath.

I know he did and then according to the custome of that Party, tels us very judiciously, that the Dr's Father of Gods and men was, according to the Fathers, an Arch-devil, as if p. 350. Origen, whom his own Church esteems to haue been Heretical, were all the Fathers with him. ‘But the Dr. I hope will teach both him and his Fellows here after to talk more sparingly of the Fathers. Is it not possible, saith he, for you D. s. p 23. 24. to entertain wild and absurd Opinions but vpon all occasions you must lay them at the doors of the Fathers. I haue heard of a place where the People were hard put to it to provide God-fathers for their children; At last they resolved to choose two men that were to stand as God-fathers for all the Children that were to be born in the Parish: Just such a use you make of the Fathers; They must Christen all your Brats; And how f [...]olish soever an Opinion be, if it comes [Page] from you, it must presently pass under the name of the Fathers. But I shall do my endeavour to break this bad custome of yours; and since T. G. thinks mea scarce-revolted Presbyterian, I shall make the right Father stand for his own Children. And because this is very material toward the true Vnderstanding the nature of Idolatry, I shall giue a full account of the Sense of the Fathers in this Point; and not as T. G. hath done from one single passage of a Learned (but by their own Church thought Heretical) Father, viz, Origen, presently cry out, The Fathers, The Fathers. which is like a Country-Fellow, that came to a Gentleman and told him he had found out a braue Covie of Parstridges lying in such a Feild; The Gentleman was very much pleased with the ne [...]s, and presently asked him how many there were: what half a score? No. Eight? No: Six? No. Four: No. But how many then are there? Sir, saith the Country-Fellow, It is a Covie of One. I am afraid T Gs. Covie of Fathers will hardly come to One at last.’

Eun:

I See now, Catharinus, there are many ways of writing besides with [Page] a Goos-quill. The Dr. himself represents the renowned Champion of our Lady of Loretto, writing with a Beetle. And who would not think the most renowned Champion of Jupiter wrote this with a weaker, smarter Instrument? Dionysius now turn'd Pedant neuer ranted more Magisterially with Birchen scepter in his hand; nor reforming Stepmother euer used more zealous endeavours to break the former Wife's Children of their bad customes. But what if after all this T. G. and his Fellows will not stand corrected but rather venture a fleaing, than cease to cry out vpon all occasions, The Fathers. The Fathers? you say the Dr. will giue such a full account of their sense in this Point (the moyety whereof, if we may belieue him, might be sufficient p. 785. to convince a Modest man) as may serve to break this bad custome of T. G. But were it not for spoiling the pleasant stories of the Dr's God-fathers and Partridges, I could tell you of two Testimonies more cited in that very Page by T. G. in which, had Dr. St. looked Cath. no Idol. p. 349. into them, he might haue found Theophilus Antio [...]henus and S. Augustin asserting Theoph. i. 1. ad Antol. S. Aug. in Ps. 96. the same with Origen. But how [Page] should he then haue come quit with T. G. for his story of the Count [...]y-Fellow that disputed with the Guard about the p. 186. h [...]our due to the Chair of State? No weapon so proper against a Flail, as a Flail. But since the Dr. thought not fit to take notice of those Testimonies for fear of losing his Beloved Covie of One, I shall undertake to make it appear by more than a Covie of half a score, that T. G. had reason to say as he did, that the Heathen's Jupiter was according to the Fathers not the true God, but a Devil.

Cath.

You may spare your pains, if you please: Eunomius; For I dare venture half of all I am worth vpon the Dr's credit, that you will not find two, that will stand for the Brat.

E [...]n.

You shall hazard nothing with me but a litle Patience

Cath.

Of that I will giue you, as much as you please.

Eun.

First then for Origen, (the only Fa [...]he [...] cited by T. G. as Dr. St would haue it believed) noth [...]ng can be more express, than what he saith in the name of the Christians of his time. We are Li. 5. cont. less. ready, saith he, to undergo any torments [Page]rather than conf [...]ss Jupiter to be God. For we do not believe Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same, nor indeed to be any God at all, but a devil who is delighted with the name of Jupiter, an Enemy to Men and God. This is so clear a Testimony, that Dr. St. himself is forced to acknowledg it. I grant, saith he, that Origen doth say so. pag. 8.

Cath.

But, he presently addes, Suppose S. Paul and Origen contradict one another, I desire to know whom we are to follow: and withall tells T. G. that though Origen were a learned Father, yet he is thought by their own Church to be Heretical.

Eun:

For S. Paul I suppose you will giue me occasion to speak of him hereafter: And for Origen's being thought Her [...]tical, I hope your self will be satisfied it was not sor his asserting Jupiter to be a devil, if I shall show, that in this he speaks not his own Sense alone, but the Sense of the Fathers that went before him. Those whose writings against the Heathens are come to our hands were chiefly Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus Antiochenus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and [Page]Minucius Felix. I shall take them in order as they lye.

First Justin Martyr giues this account Apol. 2. of the Heathen's Idolatry, that wicked devils of old appearing in Counterfeit shapes conversed with women, and wro [...]ght such strange prodigies in the world, that men astonished with fear, and not knowing them to be wicked devils, took th [...]m for Gods, and called every one by that name, which each devil had taken to himself. And a litle after he saith, The Images of the Heathens, did not carry the marks and form of God, but of [...]hose wicked devils who had appeared. And then again, that He that was called Jupiter was one of them, he asserts in his first Apology, where he saith, that the Poets and Mythologists, not knowing that the Angels, and Doemons begotten by them had been the Authors of the Infamous practices he there speaks of, attributed them to God himself, (by whom he means him, whom they esteemed their chief God and called him Jupiter, as appears by what he addes) and to the sons begotten by him, and to those who are called his Brothers, Neptune and Pluto. For they called every one by that [Page]name, which each of the Ang [...]ls (i. e. Evil Angels) had imposed on himself and those begotten by him. From all which it is evident, that whatever Judgment later writers make of this Opinion of Justin concerning the Angels conversing with Women, yet it was his Sense, that the Gods of the Heathens were devils, and among them Jupiter the Supream.

2. Athenagoras first shows from what the Poets and Historians relate of the Legat. Heathen's Gods, that there was nothing pro Christ. in them that might induce us to believe, Saturn, Jupit [...]r, Proserpine, and the rest p. 64. of them to be Gods: And then from the Interpretations of the Philosophers, pretending they meant by Jupiter, the Fire; p. 66. by Juno, the Earth: by Pluto, the Ay [...] &c. having convinced them not to be Gods, neither Jupiter, saith he, nor Juno, nor Pluto: He concludes that those Gods, whom the Vulgar were delighted with (of which Jupiter no doubt was one) and bare the same names with the S [...]atues or Images, were Men, as appears out of their History. But that they were indeed Divels, who assumed to themselues the names of those men, may be proved, saith he, from their Actions.

[Page] 3. The same is asserted by Theophilus Antiochenus, (cited by T. G. in the Li. 1. ad Au [...]olic. same Page with Origen) where he saith, that neither She who is called the Mother of the Gods, nor her Children, are Gods, but Idols, the wo [...]ks of men's hands, and most impure devils.

4 After him follows Tertullian, and tels us. W [...] know the names of dead men [...]i. de Spect. c. 1. & Apol. c. 27. to be nothing, as well as their Statues. But we are not ignorant that those who act, and are pleased, and counterfeit a divinity under those names and consecrat [...]d Statues, are wicked Spirits that is, devils. Again, We worship, saith he, one God whom yee all know by the light Li. ad Scap. c. 1. of nature. As for the rest whom yo [...] think to be Gods, we know them to be devils. And that he esteemed Jupiter to be one of them, and not the true God, is manifest from what he saith in his Apol [...]g [...] tick, where speaking of the Supplications Apol. [...]. 40. made by the Heathens to Jupiter in the Capitol, he saith, they were in so doing averse both from God and Heaven. And in the 23. chapter of the same Apologetick he saith. We are esteemed not to be Romans, b [...]t Injurious to them, because we do not worship the God of the[Page]Romans. T [...]'s well, saith he, He is the God of All, whether we will or no. But among you, t'is lawful to worship any thing but the true God; as if He were not the Great God of all, whose We are All. What could be said more express to remove that abominable pretence of the Drs. that the God of the Romans was the true God.

5. In the fifth place comes Clemens Alexandrinus, and agreably to the rest [...]otrept. p. 55. 16. Edit. [...] [...]asil. affirms of all the Gods of the Heathens that they are the Idols of Devils; and of the most honoured among them, that they were great Devils, viz Apollo, Diana, Latona, Ceres, Proserpina, Pluto, Hercules, and Ipse Jupiter, Jupiter himself. This he proves from the delight they took, as they professed, in the steam and Odour of the Sacrifices; and exacting men to be offered in sacrifice, to them, of which he giue for examples, Diana, and Jupiter. So farr was He from thinking Jupiter to be the true God.

6. But none speaks more home to the purpose than Minucius Felix: for, having Pag. 87. Edit. Oxon. described the several Arts and Cheats, by which these impure Spirits [Page]lurking (as he saith) in the Consecrated Statues gained to themselues the Authority and Esteem of a Deity that was there present, He addresses himself to the Heathens in these words, All these things many of you know that the Devils confess of themselues, as often as by us Christians P. 89. being cast out of the bodies they possess, by the tormenting efficacy of our words and the Fire of our Prayers. Even Saturn himself, and Serapis, Jupiter (mark that) and whateuer Devils you worship, Theodoret. li. 3. c. 13. being overcome with the torture, openly declare what they are. Nor is it to be S. Hieron. c. Vigil. S. Aug. de civ. Dei li. 8, c. 26. conceived they lye to their own confusion especially some of your selves being present. Believe their own Testimony then, when they confess the truth of themselves, that they are Devils. What would Dr. St. haue said to this argument, had he been one of the Standers by, and heard Jupiter and the rest confess themseves to be devils? T'is hard to imagine. unless he will grant his true God Iupiter to haue belied himself, or deny the matter of fact to be true, which yet is avowed by Tertullian also in his Apologetick cap. 23. where he presses the Heathens with the same argument. You who believed[Page]them, saith he, when t [...]ey lyed, Belieue them when they speak Truth. No one lies to his own shame, but for his honour. T'is much more reasonable to belieue them conf [...]ssing against themselues than denying for themselues. These Confessions of your own Gods haue made many Heathens become Christians. And I do not see, what the maintaining them not to be devils, when they confess it of themselues, can do, but dispose Christians to become Heathens. What think you of this C [...]tharinus? Here you haue a Covie of half a dozen Fathers before Origen, who affirm the same that he doth. Had not T. G. reason then to say at he did, that the Heathen's Supream God Iupiter was according to the Fathers an Arch-devil?

Cath.

But doth not Dr. St. from these very Fathers proue that he was the true God? Do the Fa [...]hers blow hot and cold, say, and unsay, as they please? You haue learn't I hope of T. G. to play tricks▪ Doubtless there must be One in this.

Eun:

Yes And I hope to make you see where it lies before we haue done; if you will but comply with your promise, and haue a litle more patience, [Page] whilst I giue the Sense of the most Eminent Fathers also who lived after Origen. And first,

Eusebius; who wrote his Books de Praeparatione Evangelica expressly against Li. 4. c. 8. the Heathens, and than whom no man understood their Principles better, tells them to their Faces, that they ley, when convinced by the wicked Practices of those they worshipped, they deny that they sacrificed to devils. For to them, saith he, they gave wor [...]hip; to them they Sacrificed men, and committed most abominable things in honour of them whom they deemed and called, the most Great Gods, viz, Saturn, Iupiter, Mars, Dionysius, Iuno, Minerva, Venus, and the most Wise and Beautiful Apollo, to all whom the Heathens gaue the Titles of Dij Optimi Maximi, & Salvatores, of the most Good and most Great Gods, and Saviours: But Eusebius proves them to be most Pernicious devils, For if they be such, saith he, as take delight in the slaughter of men, (and it is plain they are delighted with it, when they cannot be satisfied but w [...]th human Sacrifices) they are certainly convinced to be most wick [...]d Spirits.—Nay farther, when by[Page]their Oracles and Answers they required Men to be Sacrificed to them, and most horrible Impieties to be offered in their Temples, it appears invery deed that they are by nature most pernicious and wicked. Now if you ask who they were whom he chargeth with these things, consult, saith he, but their own Historians, and you will find the whole world to haue been subject to these wicked Spirits Greece, Africk, Thrace, Seythia, the most wise people of Athens, and the Great City it self, for even there also in the Dialia men were offered in Sacrifice: Moreover Rhodes, Salamina, all the Islands, Chio, Tenedus, Arcadia, Lacedemonia, Aegypt. Phaenicia, Libya, Syria, Arabia, In fine every where untill the coming of our Saviour, they appeased the most pernicious devils with the slaughter both of beasts and Men, and by most detestable abominations. F [...]r we haue heard their own Historians ackn [...]wledge that these abominations were practised and continued untill the time of Adrianus, and that then all these horrible practices were understood and laid aside; that is, when the Preaching of the Gospel of Salvation had dispersed its beames through the[Page]world. This was the Judgment of Eusebius concerning the divinity of Iupiter: but it may be he was an Heretick as well as Origen; And so indeed he is esteemed by S. A [...]hanasius, but not for proving Iupiter and the Rest to be most wicked devils in the manner he doth: for S. Athanasius himself makes use of Orat. contr. Gent. c [...]n. med. the same discourse, and for the same End, when speaking of the custome of the S [...]ythians in offering part of the Prisoners taken in warr to their Gods, he saith this Tragical cruelty was no [...] to be imputed only to the natural Barbarousn [...]sse of those People; but that it was the Proper Effect of the wickedness of the Idols and devils; For the Aegyptians also saith he, were wont of old to offer such kind of victimes to Iuno. The Phaenicians lik [...]wise and those of Creet make Saturn propitious by immolating their children; And the ancient R [...]mans also wo [...]hipped Iupiter Latiarius with sacrificed men. By this you see in what esteem Iupiter was for a God with S. Ahanasius; and with him agree the rest of the Fathers.

S. Cyprian in his Book of the Vanity De Idol. van. of Idols, makes use of the very arguments [Page] and words of M [...]ucius Felix to prove them to be wiked Spirits that lurk under the consecrated Statues and De Idol. van. Images. S. Chrysostome saith that the Idols of the Heathens are Stone, and Wood, In 1. Cor. 8. and Devils. St. Hierom that unclean In Abac. 2. Spirits assist in all their Images. Arnobius Li. 1. adv. Gent. Senior that Jupiter whom they called Op [...]. Max. and to whom they dedicated the Capitol, was not the true Omnipotent God. A [...]nobius Junior, that all In Ps. 95. the Gods of he Gentils, which were placed in the Temples, were inhabited by Devils. Lactantius, that Incestuous Spirits feigned many C [...]lestial (Gods) and Li. 2. c. 16. one the King of all Jupiter, because there are many Angelical Spirits in heaven, and one Father and Lord of all, God. But they haue taken a way, saith he, the truth from the eyes of men by involving it under counter feit and lying namer. These, saith he c. 14. are the Authors of the Evils which are acted, whose Prince is the devil; whence Trismegistus cals him [...], the Arch-Devil: and these they take to be Gods. Lastly, not to keep your patience too long stretch'd, for I perceive you are uneasy, S. Augustin In Ps. 16. in the place cited by T. G. a [Page] litle after Origen, replying to one of the Dr's subtiller Heathens, who pretended as He doth, that they did not worship the Image it self, but the Invisible deity which presided ouer such an Image. Ego dico, I assert, saith he, that in your Temples none but wicked Spirits are worshipped. And a litle below, such, saith he, were D [...]abolus (the Devil himself or Arch-Devil) & Daemonia ejus, his Angels. He arrogated divine honour to himself and to all the Devils, and filled the Temples of the Heathens, and perswaded simulacra Statues to be dedicated, and Sacrifices to be offered to them. In like manner in his 4th Book of the City of God A way, saith he, with this rabble C. 25. of Innumerable Devils. He that thinks it enough for him to be Happy, let him serve the One God, who is the Giver of Happiness. That is, according to Dr. St. J [...]piter, but not so according to S. Augustin, for he presently addes, Non est ipse quemnominant Jovem. It is not He wh [...] they call Iupiter. No; He puts him in among the rest when he saith, that none but wicked Spirits or Devils are worshipped in their Temples.

Thus for a Covie of one (which the [Page] Dr. almost despair'd of too (I haue presented you with more than a whole Jury besides Origen, of Eminent Fathers who all assert with him, that the Heathen's Supream God Iupite [...], that is, (as himself describes him) He that was Def. p. 41. worshipped in the Capitol at Rome with the title of Iupiter O. M. was not the true God but a Devil. And it were easy to adde more to them if need were; But these I hope may serve to break that bad custome in the Dr. of ranting and vapouring without a cause, and we shall hear no more of his pretty storys of the two God f [...]thers, and ridiculous Covie of one. Yet I cannot omit, for the great [...]useb. de Praep. Evang. li. 4. c. 11. Esteem he hath for the Wiser Heathens to adde one Testimony more out of Eusebius, and that is of the great Porphyrius, who confesses it to be the work of the Devils to draw the multitude by the allurements of Riches, Pleasures, Power, and Vain glory from the true Opinion concerning the worship of the Gods, to conferr it vpon them; and what is worst of all, to perswade not only the Vulgar, but many of the Philosophers also (as in effect they did) to believe, that the Gods thems [...]lves, even the Supream God of the Vniverse[Page]were obnoxius, to the same Vices: which was, saith Eusebius, to perswade them that the first or chief Spirits among them was the Supream God. And had not the Fathers then reason to affirm, as they did, that the Heathens Supream God was an Arch-Devil, when so great a Patron of their cause, as Porphyrius, convinc'd by the Evidence of truth, was forc'd to confess it? What had become of half of all you are worth, Catharinus, had I permitted you to venture it vpon the Dr's credit?

Cath.

You haue taken a great deal of pains, Eunomius to make so many God fathers stand for this Brat. And I cannot but thank you for your kindness in not accepting my Offer. But when all is done you haue done just nothing, unless on the other side you can make it appear that the Passages cited by Dr. St. to prove the Heathen's Jupiter [...]o be the true God are impertinently alledged, or their Sense mis-represented, or their words corrupted by him. Is you can do any or all of these, I must knock under the Table.

Eun:

I readily embrace the Overture. And if I fail in the performance,—

[Page]Cath.

Hold Eunomius, You shall lay no wagers neither. Nor will it be safe for you, while the Testimony of Scripture Def. p. 6. is so plain in this matter to any unbyassed mind, as appears by S. Paul's saying to the Men of Athens, when he sow the Altar to the Vnknown God; Whom you ignorantly worship, Him I declare to you. Pray hear the Dr's Paraphrase vpon this Text. Did S. Paul mean the Devil by this? Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach the Devil to p. 7. the world? Yet he preached him, whom th [...]y ignorantly worshipped, i. e. the Devil, saith T, G. although S. Paul immediately saith, It was the God that made the world and all things in it. And asterward quotes one of their Poets for saying [...]. For we are his Offspring, and it is observable that the words immediatly going before in Aratus are [...]; And he useth [...] twice more in the Verses before Ex [...].— [...], which is the very word that T. G. saith doth signify an Arch-Devil, doth S. Paul then say, We are all the Devil's Offspring? and not an Ordinary one neither, but the very Arch-Devil's? Was [Page]this his way of perswading [...]he Athenians to leaue the worship of Devils, to tell them, that they were All the Devil's Offspring? No. It was farr enough f [...]om him, for he inferrs from that saying of Aratus, th [...]t they were the Offspring of G. d. [...] So that if S. Paul may be credited rather than T. G. their Iupiter was so farr from being the Arch-Devil, that he was the true God, Blessed for evermore.

Eun:

A very Godly Paraphrase no doubt: but such an one as plainly contradicts the meaning of S. Paul, if that Altar were not dedicated to Iupiter: as it appears most Evidently it was not, from the very Inscription: which was not Iovi Opt. Max. whom they all knew very well, and to whom they had Altars particularly dedicated; but Ignoto D [...]o to an Vnknown God, whom they were ignorant of. And S. Paul himself gives this for the reason, why he cals the Athenians [...] more Superstitiously Religious, than others, because not content with the commonly known Gods, (of whom Iupiter was certainly One,) they had erected an Altar to One, they knew not who. Could any [Page] thing then be more cōtrary to the meaning of S. Paul, than to argue from this Inscription, that S. Paul came to preach their Iupiter to the Athenians, when he expressly tells them, he came to declare to them a God whom they did not know? This had been a better Argument for T. G. to prove, that this Vnknown God was the only true God according to S. Paul, and that Iupiter and the rest whom they worshipped, were False Gods or Devils. But the Dr. hath a Faculty of doing greater wonders with two words (Ignoto Deo) than those of the Church of Rome with Five when he can thus easily change the Devil himself into God. Lucifer once attempted something like it, but failed in the design, and can only transform himself into an Angel of Light.

Cath.

I confess the Observation you make from the Inscription (Ignoto Deo) is so plain and Obvious, that I wonder so acute a man, as Dr. St. could oversee it.

Eun:

T'is the Glory of great Wits not to see that, which every one can see: but to discover that which none can see but themselues.

[Page]Cath.

But what do you say to that Obseruation of his, that S. Paul cites the words of Aratus, We are his offspring, when the Poet had thrice used the word Iupiter before those cited by the Apostle?

Eun:

I say, that for a Heathen Poet to apply the Attributes of the true God to Iupiter is no great great wonder; And if A [...]atus knew the true God, he might think fit to apply the name of Iupiter to him, as being the name of that Deity which was Supream among them, as S. Augustin saith of Varro; but it doth not Li. 1. de cons. Evang. c. 22. follow, that S. Paul, because he cited him, thought their Iupiter to be the true God. This was so farr from his thoughts, that he left out the words of Aratus (though as much for his purpose) in which mention was made of Iupiter; and made use only of those, in which Iupiter was not named, ( [...], For we are his Offspring) as being applicable in that Abstraction to the true God only, whom he had taken occasion from the Inscription, To the Vnknown God, to declare unto them. And although the Relative, [...] (His) in Aratus referr to Iupiter, yet in S. Paul it referrs [Page] to him of whom he had spoken before, viz the God who made Heaven and Earth, in whom we liue, and move, and haue our Being, as some of your own Poets saith he, haue also said. Fo [...] we are his Offspring. And that we might not think, as Dr. St. doth, that he spake of Iupiter, he immediately repeats the words assigning them their true and proper Substantive [...]. Being therefore the Offspring of God, not [...], of Iupiter. What means this changing of the name, if according to S. Paul, as the Dr. saith, their Jup [...]ter was so farr from being an A [...]ch-D [...]v [...]l, that he was the true God, Blessed for evermore? you cannot but remember what the same S. Paul saith 1. Cor 10. 20. that What [...]he Heathens offer in Sacrifice h [...]y offer to Devils, and not to God. And however the Dr. will haue S. Paul and Origen to cont [...]adict one another, yet I suppose he will not say, that S. Paul contradicts himself. Nor can you haue forgot, how when at Lystra, the Priest of Iupiter would haue offered Acts 14. Sacrifice to him as Mercu [...]y, and to Barnab is as [...]oue, in whose shapes they supposed those Gods to haue appeared, [Page] he not only forbad them to do it because they were men of like passions w [...]th them; but with all told them, that the end of their coming was to preach to th [...]m, that they might be converted from those vain things (that is, in the Phrase of H. Scripture from their False Gods) to the Living God. And now Catharinus (to return the Dr's own Figure of Rhetorick vpon him) pray tell me what you think: Did S. Paul mean Iupiter by this Living God? Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach Iupiter to the world? yet he taught them to convert themselves from those vain things (their False Gods) to the Living God, i. e. to Iupiter saith Dr. St. Was this his way to perswade the men of Lystra to leaue the worship of their Gods, to tell them that he came to teach them to worship Iupiter? No. It was farr enough from S. Paul, for by saying▪ these vain things he expressly tells them, that Mercury and Jupiter were two of those vain and f [...]lse Gods, and that he came to convert them from the worship of them to the Living God. So that if S. Paul may be credited, rather than Dr. St. their Iupiter was so farr from being the true God Blessed for [Page] evermore, that he was the Arch-Devil, damned for evermore. What think you of this, Catharinus?

Cath.

Marry, I think this Rhet [...]rick to be a very dangerous thing, when the same Figure conveniently applied will serve to prove the Heathen's Iupiter to be the true Supream God according to Dr. St. and to be an Arch-Devil, according to T. G.

Eun:

The thing is good in it self, but may be abused, as it is here by Dr. St. to put a Glosse vpon the words of S. Paul quite contrary to his meaning, as I haue shewed from the very Text it self, and other passages of the Apostle. And if he durst treat S. Paul himself in this manner to make him stand as God-Father to this Infamous Brat, what may we not expect he will do with the Fathers?

Cath.

That is what I long to hear: What you can say to that full Account, which the Dr saith he hath given of their Sense in this matter.

Eun.

Nor shall it be long before I giue you satisfaction in that Point.

[Page]

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

THE ARGVMENT.

THe greatest part of the Testimonies of the Fathers produced by Dr. St. that is, All those which import no more, than either that the Heathens had a natural knowledge of one Supream God, or that it was their Sense that their Inpiter was He, shown to be Inpertinent to the Dispute between him and T. G. from the true State of the Question. His injurious usage of the Fathers, blaming them for charging the Heathens with more than they were guilty of, or themselves could prove, (being indeed atacite Conf [...]ssion that he look'd vpon them as Opposit to him) laid open in a clee [...] Account of the Heathen's Theology, and the several ways, the Fathers took to ref [...]te it, all of them convincing, as is made manifest both from the arguments themselues being rightly applied to their due subjects, and the success they had.

[Page] CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

CA [...]h.

T'is now, Eunomius, that I expect the performance of your p [...]omise, which was to shew, that the Dr's Citations out of the Fathers, to prove the Heathen's Iupiter to be the true God, are all either impertinently alledged, or [...]heir meaning mis-represented, or both their words and Sense corrupted by him. If you can do this, the Dr. fot ought I can see must stand for his own Child.

Eun:

This I confess is what I promised; and to perform it, it will be necessary in the first place to set down the true State of the [...]uestion between the Dr. and T. G. in this Point, which I take to be this, viz, Whether the H [...]athen's I [...]piter were according to the Fathers the true God, that is, whether it were the Father's own Sense that Iupiter was the true God? That this is the true State of the Question between them, is evident from the D'rs own words; For having sufficiently reproached T. G. for affirming the Heathen's Iupiter to be according [Page] to the Fathers, not the true God, but a Devil, what he saith he will undertake to do is to break h [...]m and his fellows of he p. 24. bad custome▪ they have got of passing their own foolish Opinions under the name of the Fathers, by giving a full account of the Sense of the Fathers in this Point, and not as T. G. had done from one single passage of a learned, but by their own Church thought Heretical Father. Now what he resolved to correct in T. G. at present was his pretending the Sense of Origen to be the Sense of the Fathers. And therefore in another place, I commend, saith he T. G. f [...]r his Modesty, p. 78. that when he had said this was the Sense of the Fathers he produces no more but good Father Origen, and with great judgment supposes, that what he said was the Common Sense of the Fathers. This appears yet farther from that Religious Assertion p. 7. of his, that i [...] S. Paul may be credited rather than T. G. the Heathen's Iupiter was so farr from being an Arch Devil, that he was the true God, Bless [...]d for evermore: where you see he makes it to be S. Paul's Sens [...], that Iupiter was the true God, and therefore in the next page, having granted it to be Origen's Sense, p. [...]. [Page] that he was a Devil, he fupposes Origen therein to contradict S. Paul. So that the Question between them as I said, is whether it were the Sense of the Fathers, that the Heathen's Iupiter, that Iupiter O. M. for example, to use the Dr's own words, that was worshipped in the Capitol at Rome, were the true God? p. 14.

Cathar.

This I easily grant to be the true State of the Question. But why are you so sollicitous about it?

Eun:

Because there are many other Questions, which seem to bear some affinity to this, and yet are very different from it, as 1st. whether the Heathens did not acknowledge one Supream God? 2ly. Whether themselues did not pretend that they understood this Supream God by Iupiter, and accordingly gaue to him the Titles due to the Supream Go? 3dly. Whether the Fathers do not acknowledge that this was pretended by the Heathens? All these Questions I say, how speciously soever connected they may seem to you, yet in truth they are very different from the point in debate between the Dr. and T. G. viz, whether it were the Father's own [Page]Sense, that Iupiter was the Supream God? For 1. Those very Fathers who assert the knowledge of the true God to be in all men by the light of nature, condemn the Heathens for worshipping the Creatures instead of the Creator, and particularly for worshipping Iupiter, whom they affirmed to be a Devil, as you heard before. 2ly Though the Heathens might pretend, they understood the Supream God by Iupiter, yet this was but the Sense of the Heathens, not of the Fathers. And 3ly though the Fathers acknowledge that this was pretended by the Heathens, yet they might be farr enough in their own Iudgments from thinking Iupiter to be the Supream God. From whence it follows, that as many of the Drs. Testimonies as shall be found to carry no farther, than either to prove, that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supream God; or that they themselues owned Jupiter to be the Supream God; or that the Fathers related only some sayings of theirs, in which they did so; do evidently fall sho [...]t of the Question, which was not whether it were the Sense of the Heathens, but of the Fathers themselues that Jupiter was the true God? And here lies [Page] the Trick which I promised to let you see.

Cath.

T'is a Subtilty I confess which as yet I do not fully comprehend: and therefore desire you will explicate your self a litle more vpon each particular.

Eun:

First then I say, that all those Testimonies of the Fathers, cited by the 1▪ Dr. which serve only to prove that the Heathens had a knowledge of one Supream God, are altogether impertinent to prove it to be the Sense of the Fathers, that Iupiter was the Supream God; because those very Fathers, who affirm this of them, deny Iupiter to be the true God, and condemn the Heathens for giving the honour due to the true God, to him. And that you may fee this to be so I shall cite you some of their own words. We Li. 1. Adv. Gent. p. 9. know, saith Arnobius that the knowledge of God is in all men by nature, but He is not Iupiter. Such is the force of the true Divinity, saith S Augustin, that it cannot Tract. 106. in [...]. be altogether hidden to a Rational Creature in possession of the use of reason: For excepting a f [...]w in whom nature is too too much depraved, all mākind conf [...]sses God to be the Author of the world. But that this was not the Roman's Iupiter he expressly affirms li. 4. de Civ. Deic. 17. 25. Non est Ipse qnem Iovem nominant. And in his [Page] first Book de cons. Evang, he proues the Heathens did not worship the true God, c. 2 [...]. because they did not worship the God of the Iews. That there is one Supream Governour of the world, saith Minucius Felix, p. 54. whom we call God, I haue the consent of all men: But as for Iupiter, he p. 89. reckons him as you heard before, among the Devils. When we see, saith Lactantius, the Worshippers of False Gods [...]ftentimes Li. 2. c. 1. confess the One Supream God. what pardon can they hope for their Impiety, in not acknowledging the worship of him who cannot possibly be altogether unknown to Mankind: When they swear, or wish, or giue thanks, they do not, saith he, name Iupiter or their many Gods, but God. Thus doth Truth by the sorce of nature break f [...]om their relucting hearts. Lastly, not to strain your patience too much, That God hath given such or such a Benefit, saith Tertullian, is the Apol. c. 17. Voice of all, as also those other Common Expressions, when they appeal to him as Iudge, God seeth, and I commend it to God, God will restore. O testimony of a Soul, saith he, naturally Christian. But then remarks, that when they say these things, they lift not vp their Eyes [Page]to the Capitol, but to Heaven, which they k [...]ow to be the Throne of the Living God. In like manner in his Book de Anima, Giue testimony, saith he, O soul, if thou knowest one only God from whom all things [...] 5. are: For we hear thee also saying that God hath given &c. By which Expression thou signifiest there is some such One, and that all power belongs to him; but at the same time thou deniest the rest to be Gods, whilst thou callest them by their own names, S [...] turn, Iupiter, Mars &c. For thou confessest him alone to be God, whom alone thou callest God. So that when thou sometimes callest those other Gods thou dost but borrow, or rather steal that name from another, whose properly it is. And again, at the end of the Book, In the very Temples, saith he, thou callest vpon God as Iudge, but dost not appeal to any of the present Gods, that is, who are worshipped in those Temples. O Testimony of Truth which gives Evidence for Christians in the presence of the Devils themselues! Many other passages could I cite to the same purpose out of Iustin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Cyprian, and others, were I minded to amuze the world with a great Book: but these may suffice to let you see how Impertinent it [Page] was to the point in debate (viz whether it were the Sense of the Fathers, that Iupiter was the Supream God?) for Dr. St. to stuff out so many Pages with Testimonies to prove that the Heathens had the knowledge of one Supream God ingrafted in them by nature, when those very Fathers, who affirm it of them, deny Iupiter to be the Supream God, and show from the very Expressions and actions of the Heathens, that they themselves acknowledged another distinct from Iupiter to be the true God.

Cath.

Thus farr I think I comprehend your meaning, and must confess that had the Dr. done no more, he had done but litle to the purpose. But there are other Testimonies produced by him, which evidently prove that the Heathens by Iupiter understood and worshipped the one Supream God.

Eun:

This is the 2d Question, which 2. I said might be proposed. And to say the Truth, Dr. St. gives us a pretty full account of the Fathers in this matter. But what Fathers are they? The first (in dignity at least) are the two most Reverend Fathers in Iupiter▪ Father R [...]mulus, p. 3 [...]. 34. 39. and Father Numa, whom he makes litle [Page] Inferiour to Moses and Aaron in their care to instruct the People in the knowledge and worship of the One Supream God. To them he joins Father Livy, Father Varro, Father Ennius, Father P. 35. 36. Plautus, Father Virgll, Father Ovid, Father Tacitus and Father Pliny, who give to Iupiter the Titles of Opt. Max. and of Father of Gods and men. But then for fear these should not be strong enough to do the work he comes in with an Arrier-ban of other Fathers, who bestow vpon him the Titles of Omnipotent, and Chief of the Gods, viz, P. 44. Father Balbus, Father Cicero, Fath [...] Seneca, Father Virgil, Father Soranus, Father Dio Chrysostom, and Father Dionysius Halicarnassaeus. And then to put the matter out of all dispute, he comes over again with Father Plautus, because he affords us many Instances of prayers to P. 46. 49. the Supream God, as when the Punick Nurse, cry'd out Proh Supreme I [...]piter! Poenul. Act. 5. Sc. 3. though like a Sawcy Miller he ioyn the Title of Versipellis at the same time to that of Summus Iupiter for the lewd In Amphitr. Prol. trick he play'd Alcumena in her Husbands absence, leaving her Vtrinque gravidam & ex viro & ex S [...]mmo Iove.[Page]Father Virgil also is brought in a third and a 4th time. (No doubt because he was, as the Dr. tells us particularly observed by the ancient Criticks, to be so Nice p. 46. and exact in all matters that concerned their Religion, as if he had been Pontifex Max.) and then addes to them, to compleat the number, Father Silius, Father Persius, Father Horace, Father Valerius Maximus, and lastly the diminutive Father, Father Paterculus, for p. 54. concluding his Book with that Religious Invocation, Iupiter Capitoline, Auctor & Stator Romani Nominis. By this you see what Fathers they are, that Dr. St. is conversant with. But what is all this (in case the Heathens did give the Titles of the true God to Jupiter and that in the midst of all his mad pranks, as Father Plautus doth, for which reason I remember I was taught Amphitr. in Prol. & Act. 5. Sc. 1. Summus Imperator Divum atque hominum Iupiter, Is se dixit cum Alcume [...]a clam [...]onsuetum cubi [...]bus. at School to look vpon them as Prosane Blasphemers,) what is all this I say to the Question between the Dr and T. G. which was not as I suppose, whether it were the Sense of the Heathen, but of the Ch [...]istian Fathers, that their Iupiter was the Supream God? All these Testimonies therefore ought to be laid aside [Page] also as Impertinent to the present purpose.

The same I affirm also of those other Testimonies relating to the 3d Question, 3. in which the Christian Fathers are cited by Dr. St. as acknowledging that the Heathens pretended they understood by Jupiter the Supream God: For they might cite some sayings of the Heathens to that purpose, and yet be of a contra [...]y Judgment themselues; as if One should tell you, that Dr. St. saith he sits down w [...]th this contentment, that he hath defended a righteous cause, and with an honest mind, He may think otherwise himself for ought you know. Now that the Fathers were of a contrary Judgment themselues in this Point is manifest, because (as you heard before) they affirmed Jupiter to be a Divel, and proved him to be so from his actions; and rejected that pretence of the Heathens as vain and Impious: and consequently all the Testimonies of this kind also, cited by the Dr. are altogether as Impertinent as the Former. These things Dr. St. was not ignorant of, and thinking to mend the matter, has made it worse. For what do you think he does? Very fairly he [Page] takes part with the Heathens against the Fathers by endeavouring to make them appear either Impertinently obstinat [...] in not believing the Heathens; or if they did believe them, so perversly I [...]sincere, as to make them Idolaters wh [...]ther they would or no, for worshipping Jupiter, and this by such kind of arguments, as according to him gaue the Advantage to the Heathens: And yet this is the man that undertakes to maintain it to be the Sense of the Fathers themselues, that Jupiter was the true God.

Cath.

Here you must giue me leaue, Eunomius, to tell you, that I think you are too Severe vpon the Dr. for no man of an Ordinary Mother-wit would betray his cause by such a Tacit Confessio, as this is, that he look'd vpon the Fa [...]hers as Opposit to him.

Eun:

yet I shall prove what I haue said from his own words. For what else doth he mean, when having varnished over the most Obscene and abominable Ceremonies used by the Heathens in the worship of their Gods, with the gentle name only of Indecencies, which the Fathers, saith he, charge the Practice of their Religion with, he addes with a But. p. 40. 41. [Page] that as they were not to be excused in other things, so we ought not to charge them with more than they were guilty of? And what that was, he tells us in the next words; I mean, saith he, when all the Poetical Fables of Jupiter, are applyed to Jupiter O. M. that was worshipped in the Capitol at Rome. You are satisfied now, I hope, Catharinus, that the Dr. makes the Fathers charge the Heathens with more than they were guilty of, which they could not do, but either they must not believe them, when they pretended Jupiter to be the Supream God; or if they believed them, must act against their consciences, and betray their own cause, by applying the Po [...]tical Fables of Jupiter to Jupiter O. M. who was worshipped in the Capitol. Now that this was done by all the Fathers, Dr. St. very well knows. But meer shame would not permit him to lay so great a reproach vpon them all at once, and therefore he picks out two at fi [...]st viz, A [...]nobius and Lactantius, with whom he thought he might be more bold, and goes on in this manner. But some Writers, are to be excused, who having been bred vp in the Schools of Rhetoricians, and practising[Page]that Art so long before, when they came to be Christians, they could not easily f [...]rbear giving a cast of their f [...]rmer employment, As when Arnobius, saith he, had been proving the natural Notion of one Supream God in the minds of men, he brings in the Romans answering, that if this were intended against them, it was a meer calumny, for they believed him, and called him Jupiter O. M. and built a most Magnificent Temple to him in the Capitol: which he (i. ē. Arnobius) endeavours to disprove, (mark that) because God is Eternal, and their Jupiter was bo [...]n, and had a Father and Mother and Vncles and Aunts, as other M [...]tals baue. Which indeed, saith the Dr. was an Infallible Argument, that Jupiter of Cr [...]te could not be the Supream God, but for all that, might not the Romans call the Supream God by the name of Iupiter Opt. Max? where he evidently disallows the discourse of Arnobius, and shows how it was, or might haue been avoided by the Heathens, had he been to answer for them. In the same manner he treats Lactantius, for ripping vp, (as he calls it) all the Extravagancies of the p. 42. Poets concerning Iupiter, interposing [Page] presently in their behalf, as though the Romans at the same time believed him to haue done all those things, and to haue been the Supream Governour of the world. And when Lactantius to enforce his argument, and confute this pretence of theirs alledges, that th [...]y themselues confess he same Iupiter to haue been bo [...]n of Saturn and Rhea, the doctor replyes vpon him, that he might haue done well to haue explained himself a litle more. And what is this I pray, but to tell us, that these F [...]thers cha [...]ged the Heathens with more than th [...]y were guilty of, and that not being able to make good what they charged them with, they thought to fob them off with a cast of their former employment▪

Having thus broken the Ice he now dares venture to fix the same reproach, though more covertly, on Clemens Al [...] xandrinus p. 74. also: for having told us, how he understood the Principles of the Heathen Theology as well as any, and exposed all their P [...]e [...]ical Fables, and Greek mysteries w [...]th as much advantage as any Christian Writer, he gives us this very honourable account of his performance. After he hath sufficiently, p. 75. [Page] saith he, derided the Poetical Theology and the Vulgar Idolatry, he comes to the Philosophers, who did he saith make an Idol of matter; and after reckoning vp Thales, Anaximenes, Parmenides, and others, he calls them all Atheists, because with a foolish kind of Wis [...]o [...] they did worship Matter, and scorning to worship wood and Stones did d [...]ify the Mother of them: And so runs out, saith he, after his way (which in the Dr's. Rhetorick signifies he run out of the way) i [...]to a discourse about the Several Nat [...]ons, that despised Images, and worshipped the Several Parts of [...]h [...] Vniverse, and the Symbols of them, as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, and Macedonians. And then reckons vp other Philosophers that wors [...]ipped the Starrs, as animated Beings; Others, the Planets and the world, and the Stoicks who said, God passed through the meanest parts of Matter. By this account the Dr. gives of Clemens his performance (however he treat him with more respect than he had done A [...]nobius and Lactantius) yet it is evident he looks vpon his way of confuting the Heathens, as inept and frivolous also.

[Page] But none is represented by him to haue been so much baffled by the Heathens in the Point of I [...]piter's divinity as S. Augustin, of whom he saith, It is p. 94. true, that He argu [...]s against the Heathen's pretence of Iupiter's being the true Go [...] from the Poetical Fables about Saturn and Iuno, but conf [...]sses withall, that they thought it very unreasonable for their Religion to be charged with those Fables, which themselues diso [...]ned. And hitherto S. Augustin goes along with his Fellows, that is, he argued just as wisely as they had done before him. But this last acknowledgment of the Heathens Pretence it seems wrought a different effect in him, from what it had done in them. For whereas they were so Obstinate as to persist in rejecting and impugning this pretence of the Heathens as vain and absurd, S. Augustin, according to what the Dr. addes of him, was so convinced of the evidence of it, that theref [...]e at last he could not deny that they believed themselues, that by the Iove in the Capitol they understood and worshipped the Spirit that quick [...]ns and fills the world, of which Virgil spake in those words, Iovis omnia plena. And [Page] had not one Wise word to answer for himself, but sit down and wonder, tha [...] since they acknowledged this to be the Supream, if not the o [...]ly Deity, the Romans did not rather content themselues with the worship of him alone, th [...]n run about and m [...]ke so many addresses to the Pe [...]ty and Inferiour Deities. Thus had Dr. St. been constituted Vmpire, the Victory had been given to the Heathens; and S. A [...]gustin (at least whilst he argued against them from the Poetical Fables,) and the rest of the Fathers had been condemned as Imposto [...]s, for charging the Heathens w [...]th more than they were guilty of, or themselues could prove. This kind of procedure would haue suited much better with the design of Iulian, than of the Reformation, and it cannot be presum'd, but that that Religious Emperour, who utterly also rejected the Poetical Fables concerning the Gods, would haue had avery high p. 88. esteem for such a Champ [...]on.

Cath.

These passages I must acknowledge, argue agreat deal of kindness and tenderness in the Dr. for the poor Heathens, to see them so ill treated by the Fathers. And it was but Christian Generosity [Page] in him to do them right; especially when the Papists themselues confess they do not take all the Arguments of the Fathers to be Infallible demonstrations.

Eun:

But where was his Christian Generosi [...]y, when himself charges the poor Papists with mo [...] than they are guilty of, if their Publick Professions are to be believed; at least with what themselues deny? They must be made to take the Saints for Gods, and worship the very stock [...] and Stones as such, whether they will or no. Was all his tenderness spent vpon the Heathens, and none left for his Fellow Christians? Not one kind Parenthesis for them, as well as for the Heathens, (as though there ever had been such F [...]ols in the world; or p. 541. p. 706. if at least any considerable number of them ever did so?) Kissing I see goes by Favour, and the Heathens are more beholden to him, than those of the Church of Rome, though he acknowledge it to be a true Church, as holding all the Essential Points of Faith. As for what you adde of them, that they do not take all the Arguments of the Fathers to be Infallible demonstrations, I think [Page] it very unreasonably applied to the present case. But am very well assured, your self cannot deny this to be an I [...]f [...]llible demonstration, viz, that the Fathers, while they would not admit the pretence of the Heathens, affirming they worshipped the true God under the name of Iupiter, but set themselues by such arguments, as they (poor men) were able, to consute it, did not themselues believe that Iupiter was the true God, which was what Dr. St. had undertaken to prove against T. G. Or else that they were not as he describes them, M [...]n of Ep. D [...] dic. that Exemplary Piet [...], great Abilities, and Excellen [...] Conduct and Magnanimity, as s [...]t [...]h [...]m aboue the contempt and reproach o [...] any but I [...]fidels and Apostates; when himself, as you haue seen, exposes t [...]em to the contempt and reproach of being Vnequal Matches to the Heathen Achillesses; or which is worse, down right Prevaricators. By this you see what a Full account the Dr. gives us of the Sense of the Fathers in this Point, when the greatest part of the Testimonies he brings reach no farther, than to prove that the Heathens had a natural Notion of one Supream God, or [Page] at most that it was the Sense of the Heathens, that I [...]piter was He (all which I haue [...] to be Impertinent to the Point in debate) and reproaches the Fathers for endeavouring to disprove them; which is as much, in plain English, as to tell us, that it was not their Sense, that Iupiter was the true God.

Cath.

You are too rigorous, Eunomius, in tying vp an Author alwaies to the strict Method of close arguing. There is a Libe [...]ty to be given to Writers to make use some times of Rhetorical Ornaments and Amplifications. And such I take these passages cited by the Dr. to be, which though they come not home to the Question, and therefore are rejected by you as Impertinent; yet they serve to illustrate those other Testimonies, that do▪ of which the Dr. hath alledged good store out of the Fathers.

Eun:

This is what I deny; and if you think fit to produce them, I do not doubt, but to make good my promise, that is, to shew, that either the meaning of the Fathers is mis-represented, or both their words and Sense corrupted by him.

Cathar.

But before you proceed to [Page] that, which I am well assured you will never make out, I would gladly receive satisfaction from you in a Point relating to our former discourse; viz, what Iudgment your self make of the Arguments produced by the Fathers to convince the Heathens of Idolatry, and particularly of those from the Poetical Fables, which seem to me to be Ironical and Trivial, rather than Serious and Solid.

Eun:

Could I transcribe the Arguments used by the Fathers vpon this Occasion, I durst leaue them to speak for themselves at the Bar of your Judgment. But this would require a Volume, or rather many Volumes to do, they being well nigh Infinite. I shall therefore at present reduce so many of them as occurr to my Memory to some certain General Heads, from whence you may take a sufficient Prospect not only of the Fathers designs, and the force of their Arguments, but vpon what account alfo it was that they charged the Heathens with Idolatry. To do this with greater clearness, I must desire you to take notice, that as the Heathens had many kinds of Gods for the worshipping [Page] of which they were charged with Idolatry so the Fathers had not one only sort of Adversaries to deal with, but many. And

First for the Gods, S. Augustin tells us out of Varro, and Scaevola that the Li. 6. de civ. Dei c. & li. 4. c. 27. Euseb. li. 4. de Praep. Evang. in Praef. Heathen's Theology gaue a threefold account of them, the one Fabulous, used by the Poets; the 2d Natural, used by the Philosophers, and the 3d Civil used by the Priests and People in their publick worship. The first they said was accomodated to the Theater, the 2d to the Philosophers, the third to the People. But S. Augustin shows the first and the last viz, the Fabulous and the Civil, not to be well distinguished, because the same Gods who were exposed to Derision in the Theaters, were p [...]oposed as Objects of Ado [...]ation in the Temples, and had Sacrifices offered to them. So that in reality they had but two kinds of Gods, the Fabulous or Civil used by the Priests and People, and the Natural by the Arnob. li. 1. Tertull. Apol. c. 10. lact. li. 1. c. 8. S. Aug. li. 8. de civ. Dei. c. [...]6. Cic. Philosophers. The Former of these were Originally Dead men, whom the People out of flattery or Affection had place [...] in heaven, and the Images erected to their memory; but consequently Evil [Page]Spirits, which as it were incorporated li. 2. de nat. Deo. themselves in the Images, and as Minucius Felix saith, by exhibiting themselves present in the Temples, inspiring the Vates, animating the entrails of beasts, governing the flight o [...] birds, directing Lots to fall where they pleased, and the like Prodigious effects, gained to themselves Vid. S. Aug. de civ. Dei li. 8. c. 22. the Authority and Esteem of Gods, assuming with all to themselves, as Athenagoras saith, the same names with the p. 66. Statues or Images in which they assisted. Hence the Poets took occasion sometimes to subject them to the Passions of Men, sometimes to give them the Titles due only to the true divinity; The Priests also, to make a strange mixture or confusion of Poetical Fables and Religious Ceremonies in their publick worship, at once to delight and S. Aug. li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 27. 32. delude the People: And the Philo [...]ophers, to invent new Interpretations to avoid the shame of those foul Practices, which not only the Poets, but the Historians also attributed to them, Lict. li. 1. c. 8. & 11. as Lactantius shows. And this was the Origen of that sort of Gods which S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. Evang. c. 23. they called Fabulous or Civil, first the favour of the People, and [...] the [Page] delusion of wicked Spirits.

The 2d kind, which they called Natural, had for it's Object the parts of the Vniverse, as the Sun, Moon, and Starrs, the Fire, the Ayr, the Earth &. And although it be appropriated to the Def. p. 15. Philosophers, yet as Dr. St. himself tells us out of Clemens Alexandrinus, there were Several Nations, that despised Images, and worshipped the Several parts of the Vniverse, and the Symb [...]ls of them, as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, and Macedonians, (among whom the Aegyptians may be reckoned for that part of their Religion, which concerned the worship of creatures) whom the said Clemens makes to haue been the Phil [...]sop [...]er's Masters in the worship of these Inf [...]riour Elements, which were made to be Serviceable to men; And then reckons up other Philosophers, that worshipped the Stars, as animated Beings; Others the Planets and the World, and th [...] Stoicks who said, God passed through the meanest parts of Matter. If you ask from whence this kind of Idolat [...]y took it's rise, Vossius, as you heard before assigns it to the Ignorance and Inadvertency of men, in De Idol. Praefat. 1. [Page] not distinguishing the Divine Power which is from God, from that other which is in God, and therefore from the wonderful works which they discovered in nature, concluded Nature it self to be God, and the parts of it also to be Deities, (very agreably to what the Author of the Book of Wisdome relateth of this matter in his 13th Chapter) though both the said Vossius and Others adde many other impulsive Causes which concurred to plunge the Heathens in this kind of Idolatry; among which Lactantius maketh the chief to be the Devil, who being alwaies an Enemy to Truth, takes Li. 2. c. 1. pleasure in the Errours of men, and makes it his continual and only business to pour darkness vpon their minds, and blind their Vnderstandings, that they may not look vp to Heaven.

These things premised, it follows clearly that as the Theology of the Heathens (if I may so call it) was manifold, so the ways of defending their worship were divers; and consequently the Arguments produced by the Fathers against them could not be all of one kind, but must needs be different proportionably to the Subjects they were to treat of. [Page] Hence when they were to impugn those who worshipped the [...]mages for Gods, they argued from the vileness and Impotency of the matter, of which they were made, from the nature of the Artificer that made them, the Indignities they sustained from the vilest of creatures, as Bats Flyes, Spiders &c. their having eyes, but not seing, Ears, but not hearing &c. And these Arguments I hope you will grant did conclude that for which they were brought, viz, that the Idols or Images of the Heathens were not Gods.

Cathar.

You need not doubt of it at all: I readily grant them to be absolutely conclusive. But with all I must tell you that I think you haue brought your self by your defending the Image-worship of the Church of Rome, into a snare out of which you will not easily get free: viz, that you will be forced to grant the aforesaid Arguments to be altogether as conclusive against the Images of that Church: for the Absurdities objected agree every Jot as well to them, as to the Images of the Heathens, as the Dr. hath very well obseru'd: They also are made of wood or stone or mettal, haue [Page] eyes and see not, eares and hear not &c.

Eun.

But this with your leaue, Catharinus, I shall deny, viz that the Arguments of the Fathers are equally conclusive against the Images of the Church of Rome, as against those of the Heathens; and I think it no hard matter to free my self of this snare. For the Fathers did not found their Arguments meerly vpon the matter of the Images, and the Art of the Artificers; but vpon these two conditions conjointly taken, viz, that they were held to be Gods, and neverthe less took their Being from wood, or stone, or some kind of mettal, and the Art of the Workman, whereas those of the Church of Rome do not belieue their Images to be Gods, not worship them as such, as the Heathens did. And therefore it was but a Slip-knot which the Dr. tied, when he suppressed the former of these conditions, viz, that the Heathens held their Images to be Gods, and applied the reproaches of the Latter to the Images of the Church of Rome, which, as you your self know very well, declares it belieues no divinity to be in them, for which they ought to be Concil. Trent. Sess. 25. [Page]wo [...]shipped.

Cathar.

This I confess alters the case something, if here ever were such Fools in the world who worshipped their Images as Gods, or if at least any considerable Def. p. 541. p. 706. number of the Heathens ever did so, which I perceive is no Article of Faith with Dr. St.

Eun:

Yet nothing, as you know very well, is more plain and Express in Scripture, than that they did so. And because the Dr. is ever now and then casting in Parentheses to insinuate the contrary, it will not be amiss to repeat a few of the many Texts, that occurr in it: as Levit. 19. 4. Turn ye not unto Idols, nor make to your selves Molten Gods. 2. Kings. 19. 18. They haue cast the Gods of the Nations into the Fire for they were no God, but the work of mens hands, wood and stone; All the Gods of the Nations are Idols Isai. 44. 16. 17. He (i ē the Carpenter) Ps. 69. 5. burn [...]th part of the wood in the Fire &c. And the residue thereof he maketh a God, even his Graven Imag [...]: He falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, deliver me, For thou art my God. The same is avowed by the Prophet Jeremy. [Page] 2. 27. They haue said, to a stock, Thou art my Father, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth▪ With them agrees the Author of the Book of Wisdom, (if you think he may be credited) when he saith ch. 14. that One preparing to sail, calleth vpon a peice of wood more r [...]tten than the Vessel that carrieth him; and again. c. 15. v. 15. They counted all the Idols of the Heathens to be Gods, In fine the chief argument which Demetrius the Silver-smith. Acts. 19. 26. availed himself of to raise a tumult against S. Paul at Ephesus, was to tell those of like occupation with him, that h [...] perswaded and turned away much people saying, that they be no Gods, which are made with hands. And can any thing be said more expressly, than it is in these places that the Heathens worshipped their Molten Images, as Gods? surely if Dr. Still's words, when he saith, It cannot enter into his mind how God should haue declared a thing by more Express and Emphatical words, than he hath done, may be applied without temerity to any Texts of Scripture, it may be to these: And therefore if Scripture be the Rule of his Faith, and his meaning be [Page] Express Scripture when it is to be had, I see not but it ought to be an Article of Faith with him, that the Heathens, (not an inconsiderable number of them neither, but the Generality of them) worshipped their Images as Gods. This I dare affirm, that He that sees it not plainly assirmed in these Texts of Scripture, (to which I could adde many out of the Fathers no less cleer and Express,) must haue no better eyes than the Images [...]. Iren. Li. 3. c. 6. S. Cypr. li. 3. ad Quir. themselues. But Dr. St. is none of those, for in the very place (p. 700.) where he thrusts in that kind Parenthesis Arnob. li. 1. min. Fel. in Oct. S. Aug. in Ps. 41. & li. 2. q. sup. Exod q. 71. S. Cyril. li. 6. cont. Jul. (if at least any considerable number of the Heathens ever did so) speaking of the Idolaters who worshipped their Images as Gods, he tells us it was vpon this account, that they supposed some Spirit to be incorporated in the Image, and so to make together with it a Person fit to receive worship. And here though he cite not so much as a Covie S. Aug. li. 8. de civ. Dei. c. 23. 26. of one Father, yet I shall do him that right as to acknowledge he speaks their Sense; yet cannot but question his Sincerity, Arnob. li. 1. adv. Gent. Euseb. li. 3. de vit a Const. S. Athan. Orat. cont. Gent. S. Chrysostin Genethl. apud Theodoret. Dial. 1. who when he knew that the Arguments of the Fathers against the Images of the Heathens, taken from [Page] the vileness of the matter of which they were made, &c. went all vpon this Supposition (at length too acknowledged by himself) viz, that the Heathens held them to be Gods; could yet throw all the same reproaches vpon the Images of the Church of Rome, which he knows expressly denies any divinity to be in them, Def. p. 613. for himself relates the very words of the Council of Trent in which it is denied.

Cathar.

I confess I know not what can be opposed to such express Texts of Scripture. And therefore granting the Arguments of the Fathers to have been conclusive against the first sort of Idolaters who worshipped their Images as Gods, I desire you to proceed to the rest.

Eun:

But first for the same reason, you must grant them also not to be conclusive against those, who do not worship them as Gods.

Cathar.

Pray content your self,) Good Eunomius) with what I haue granted in relation to the Heathens, and proceed in your designed Discourse.

Eun:

I shall obey you The Generality of the Heathens, and their publickly-authorized worship being thus beat [Page] down by the Arguments of the Fathers, some of Dr. Sts. Wiser ones came in to their ayd, and affirmed, that they did not worship the Images as Gods, but the Deities represented by them. To this the F [...]thers returned, that Jupiter himself and the rest of that rabble were Originally Men: that they had Fathers and Mothers, and Vnkles, and Aunts, as other mortals haue: that the Places of their Birth were known, their Sepulchers extant, and their Practices known to be such, as showed them to be Monsters or devils, rather than Men. And when the Heathens to remove these reproaches from their Gods, and from themselves replied, that these were the Fictions of the Poets: The Fathers proved the Pretence to be false. 1. From the common belief of the Heathens, who Lact. li. 1. c. 11. acknowledged Jupiter to be the Son of Saturn and Ops, Aesculapius to be the Son of Apollo &c. 2ly From the nature of Poetrie, which is not to invent down-right Lactan. li. 1. c. 11. lyes, but to set off things that were done, with certain Artificial Representations; S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. Evang. c. 23. & S. Athanas. [...]rat. as also from the Iatent [...]on of the Poets, which certainly was not to defame their Gods, but to adde [Page] lustre to their Actions by the Additional Lact. S. Athan. contr. Gent. advantage of some counterfeit colours: By which it appears that in reality, they were not the Actions of Iupiter and the rest, which were the Fictions of the Poets, but the Titles they gaue to them as Gods, and to him as the Supream God, as Lactantius shows by many Examples. Loc. Sup. Cit. And here I cannot omit to give you the words of S. Athanasius vpon this subject they are so full to the purpose, Some Orat. contr. Gent. of the Heathens, saith he, are wont to affirm, that the Poets [...]y whē they relate any wicked actions of the Gods: but that in setting forth their Praises they do not faign, but speak truth, as when they give to Jupiter the titles of Father of the Gods, and of Supream, and Caelestial, and make him raign in heaven. This I hope is just as the Dr. would haue it; But what saith S. A [...]hanasiu [...]? That n [...]t only himself (a man of so much vnderstanding, as he was) but every man of common Sense will easily see this very reason principally to make against them. For Truth will again d [...]f [...]nd it self against them with th [...] former demonstrations, I haue b [...]ought; because the Actions indeed conv [...]nce them to haue been men; but the Praises transcend[Page]the measure of Human Nature. But these two are contrary and inconsistent with each other: For neither is it proper for Celestial Gods to doe such things, nor lawfull to Supplicate such Gods as do them. What then remains to be understood but that the Praises were false, and faigned out of Flattery, but that the Actions were truly delivered to their perpetual shame. And this the common custome easily shows to be true: For there is hardly, any one to be found, who intending to praise others, accuses their life and manners; but rather extolls them with praises [...]o hide the foulness and wickedness of their actions. 3dly From the Relations Lact. Aid. S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. Evang. c. 23. of their own most Ancient and most Authentick Historians. 4thly From the Judgment of the most learned among S. Aug. li. 4 de civ. Del. c. 23. them, as Varro, Scaevola, Cicero, &c. 5thly From the Images of their Gods and Goddesses in their Temples, particularly Lact. in Loc. cit. that of Juno, as sister and Wife to Jupiter S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. Evang. c. 23. & de civ. Dei. [...]. 4. c. 30. and of Jupiter himself with an Eagle at his feet carrying Ganimede vpon his back. Lastly from the Plays which were instituted for their worship, in which those very debaucheries were represented S. Aug. li. 4. de Civ. Dei. c. 26. in honour of them. These I take to [Page] cleer and solid Convictions, that Jupiter and the rest whom they commonly worshipped were not Gods, but Men and the most wicked of Men. And therefore.

The Philosophers to ward off the blow, took another way, which was to turn the Gods with their Images, and the Stories related of them to Natural and Mystieal Interpretations, as that by Jupiter they meant the Fire, by Juno Athen [...]g. Legat. p. 66. the Ayr, by Neptune the Sea, &c. But here also the Fathers show [...]d evidently S. Aug. de cons. Evang. li. 1. c. 23. & li. 20. cont. Faust. c. 9. 19. from the very Interpretations which themselves gaue, that they did not serve Creator, but the Creatures, viz, the Fire, Ay [...], water, &c. And when others, who thought themselves yet more learned and Wise pretended that they did not worship either the Images, or the Creatures which they said were signified by them, but the I [...]visible Deities which resided in the one, and presided over the Other, the Father▪ evinced those supposed Deities to be no other than Wicked Spirits or devils, from their exacting Sacrifice to be offered to S. Aug. in Ps. 96. & 113. & li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 26. & li. 10. c. 4. them which was due only to God, and commanding Obscene Plays to be represented [Page] in their honour. And for Jupiter in particular they proved him not to be the true God, (as Dr. St. would haue him thought to be) 1. From the Testimony of Nature forcing the very Heathens Tertull. de Testim. Animae. in the midst of their Idolatries in all their dangers or necessities to recu [...] to God, not to Jupiter. 2. From the Al [...]ars they erected and Sacrifices they Minuc. Fel. p 17. Agell li. 2. c. 28. apul. Voss li. 1 de I. dol. c. 2. offered to the Vnknown God in time of Earth-quakes &c. the manner whereof is related by Agellius. 3. From the C [...]ntradictions they run themselves into, who made him to be the Supream God, as when Virgil (who, as you heard before, was so Nice and exact in all matters th [...]t concerned their R [...]ligion, as if h [...] had been po [...]t fex Max.) gives him the Title of Fath [...]r Almigh [...]y, and at the same time makes im to be the Aether, and to haue a Wif [...] also.

Tanc P [...]te [...] Omnipot [...]us faecundis imbribus Aether

Conjugis in gremium latae descendit.

And Plau [...]us in like manner in the same verse makes him to be the Supream God, and an A [...]ulterer when speaking of Alcumena he saith.

Vtrinque g [...]avida & ex viro & ex Summo Jove.

[Page] —Et hic nunc intus hic cum illa cubat.

4. From the filthy and abominable Actions he not only permitted, but exacted S. Aug. li. 2. d [...] civ. c. 13. & li. 4. c. 26. to be represented in his honour. And lastly from the Confession of Jupiter himself, that he was a devil, as you heard before out of Minucius Felix and Tertullian. And I take his own Testimony in this matter to out-weigh all those of the Poets and Orators cited by Dr. St.

As for those who seriously and soberly asserted one Supream Being, Creator and Governour of the world, Invisible, unbegotten, Omnipotent &c. but called him by the name of Jupiter, the F [...]thers 1st Proved by the aboue said and other Arguments, that it as not He who was worshipped in the Capitol, as you haue heard; and then condemned them not only as absurd in so Orig. cont. Cels. li. 4. & 5. Lact. li. 1. c. 11. S. Aug. li. 4. d [...] civ. Dei. c. 27. doing, but as contum l [...]o [...]s and [...]ap [...]ous for applying to the true G [...]d the name of [...]o abominable a Wretch, whether man or lev [...]l Lastly they justly charged even Plato himself and the rest of them, at least with external Idolatry for concurring with the Vulgarin the worship S. Aug. li. 10. de civ. Dei. c. 3. of many Gods. And the matter of fact [Page] is confessed by Vossius. Li. 1. de Idol. c. 4. p. 12. 13. & li. 1. c. 41. p. 151.

And now, Catharinus, I hope by this time you see, that which way soever the Heathens turned themselves they were unanswerably confuted by the Fathers; And the very Sequel makes it manifest, viz, the Subversion of all the Severall kinds of Idolatry, and the Conversion of the world to Christianity, which certainly had never followed had the Fathers been such unequal Matches to the Wiser Heathens, and their arguments even those from the Poetical Fables to weak and frivolous as Dr St. would haue them thought to haue been, that he might estab [...]ish Jupiter Capitolinus in the throne of the Supream God. For, as S. Augustin saith, if those relations were true, they prove him to haue Li. 2. de civ. Dei. c. 1 3. & li. 4. c. 26. 27. 28. & li. 6. c. 6. been a most wicked man; and if they were False, and only faigned by the Poets, they prove him to be a devil, who exatted and took delight to haue such abominable practices ascribed to him and represented in his honour.

Cath.

I cannot but thank you for this Short, yet cleer Account you haue given me of the Heathens Theology, and the Several ways which the Fathers took to [Page] refute it. Had you deduced the whole matter at large, cited the Passages of the Fathers, and dilated vpon them with your own Animadversions, I think you might haue out done the Dr. himself in being Voluminus. Yet whilst you studied brevity, me thinks there is one Principal part of it omitted by you; And that is Varro's Opinion who believed the same God to be worshipped by the Jews and the Romans, as S. Augustin confesseth, but under another name, and with Li 4. de civ. Dei▪ c. 9. & li. 1. de Cons. Evang. c. 22. this difference, that the Romans worshipped him by an Image, but the Jews would admit of no Image in his Worship.

Eun:

You haue done well to mind me of this, because he was, (as the same S. Augustin calleth him) the most Acute and learned of all the Romans. And if such a man erred, much more may we think the Vulgar did. Now that what he asserted was not true, S. Augustin shows by Arguments which cannot be answered. 1. Because the Romans, who received the Gods of other Nations S. Aug. de Cons. Evang. li. 1. c. 17. 18. whom they had conquered, would never admitinto their Religion the worship of the God of the Jews. 2. Because the God Ibid. c. 18▪ & 22. of the Jews forbad any other Gods to be [Page] worshipped besides him; but Iupiter forbad not even Saturn himself, and that, after he had driuen him out of his kingdome, to beworshipped as a God, though he stood in competition with him for the Title of Supream; as being thought by others to be the God of the Jews, Ibid. c. 22. 23. and that Deity, into whom the Philosophers resolved their Interpretations. 3. Because, had the Romans believed Jupiter Id. li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 9. to be the same with the God of the J [...]ws, they would not haue treated him so contumeliously at Rome, as to make a Simulacre to him. Perhaps you will check at the new-fashioned word Simulacre, but you must know, first that it comes from France where it is in use, among Authors of great note. 2. That the fashion of it is the same with that of Spectre, used by Dr. St. p. 682. and 3. That the word Simulachrum seems to be used here by S. Augustin in the common acception of the Heathens, that is, for such an Image as by Dedication was believed by them to haue some divinity incorporated in it, for which it ought to be worshipped, and the making such an one to Jupiter, had the Romans believed him to be the same with [Page] the God of the Jews is what as S. Augustin saith, would haue been a contumely to him. 4. Because Varro, who, had he been free from the prejudice Ibid. cap. 31. of custome which involved him also in the worship of many Gods, would haue asserted the Worship of one only God, and that without a Simulacre, yet himself believed and taught this God to be no other than the Soul of the world, whereas the true God, as S. Augustin replyes vpon him; was not the Soul of the world, (if there were any such thing) but the Maker and S. Aug. de cons. Evang. li. 1. c. 23. Creator of it. And then lamenting as it were that so great a man should come so neer the Truth, and miss it, he expresses that favourable Opinion of him, that had he been advertised of the Mutability of a S [...]ul, together with the Impious and Irreligions Consequences, which followed Li. 4. c. 12. from his Assertion, and could haue born vp against the Tyranny of an old Errour, he would in all likelyhood much rather haue believed that Incommutable Being, which created the Soul it self, to be the true God. And with these and the like Arguments he [Page] triumphed over that great Dictator of the Romans in all kind of learning.

Cathar.

These Arguments indeed seem to me convincing. But I am yet to seek, whether these and the rest also produced by the Fathers may not be looked vpon by Dr. St. as casts of their former employment, when he so carnestly maintains Jupiter Capitolinus to be the true God; and I doubt whether they would haue had the same success, had he been then alive to manage the Cause.

Eun:

You may think as you please of the Dr's wit and abilities in this Point. But thus much I think is evident to any man of Common Sense, that if the Fathers did not most grossly contradict themselves, or were not (to use the Dr's Phrase) such a pack of Def. p. 494. 495. Hypocrites and Impostors, as to impugn in others what they believed themselves, the Passages alledged by him out of them, to show it to haue been their Sense, that Jupiter who was worshipped in the Capitol was the true God, must be mis-represented, or corrupted by him.

[Page]Cathar.

That if you please shall be tried at our next meeting.

Eun:

Pray pick out the choicest and most convincing Testimonies you can. For you know, as the Dr. himself hath told us, that this Point is very material toward the true understanding the nature Def. p. 24. of Idolatry.

Cathar.

You need not recommend that to my care, I shall give you enow to make a full consent of the Fathers.

[Page]

THE THIRD DIALOGVE.

THE ARGVMENT.

THe Particular Testimonies of Minucius Felix, Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Augustin, and T [...]rtullian, cited by Dr. St. to prove it to haue been their Sense, that the Heathen's Jupiter was the true God, brought to the Test; And the design of the said Fathers shown to be either mis-represented, or both their Words and Sense corrupted by him.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

EVn:

Good morrow, Catharinus: I see you are breaking your Fast this morning with the Dr. Haue you met with the Places you desired.

Cath.

I haue, though with more difficulty, than I imagined, they were so [Page] intermingled with those other passages, which as you observed, proved no more, than either that the H [...]athens acknowledged one Supream God: or that it was the Sense of the Heathens, that their Jupiter was He. Yet I haue met with some, and those of great Authority, which prove it so clearly to haue been the Sense of the Fathers also, that Jupiter was the Supream God, that I think it cannot be denied.

Eun:

And was it not artificially done of the Dr. to in-lay his Testimonies in such a manner, that the unwary Reader, hearing the Supream God spoken of in some of them, and Jupiter in others, might think the Fathers acknowledged Jupiter to be the Supream God. But this is what I deny. And doubt not before we part to make you see, either that the meaning of the Fathers is mis-represented, or both their words and Sense corrupted by him. You may produce them if you please.

Cath.

Well then Eunomius, what can be more clear than the Testimony of Minucius Def. p. 8. Felix? when he saith (and as Dr. St. observes) wisely in this case. They who make Iove the chief God, [Page]are only deceived in the name, b [...]t agree in the Power. Surely he was farr enough from thinking their Iupiter Father of Gods and Men (which he applauds the Poets for saying) to haue been the Arch-Devil

Eun:

This indeed comes something more home to the purpose, if it be true what the Dr. saith. But what if he haue corrupted both the Sense and words of Minucius, to make him speak as he would haue him? To make this out, there will need no more, than to acquaint you with the design of Minucius in that place, and to set down his words exact [...]y as they are in the Oxford Edition 1631. His design was there to convince the Heathens, that p. 51. 52. 53. 54. the world was governed by one only God▪ not many. To do this he makes use of the Examples of Monarchical Government among men, of one king among the Bees, and one Leader amongst the heards of Irrational Creatures: from whence he inferrs, that much more ought we to acknowledge one Supream and undivided Power in Heaven. This he confirms again from the Practice of the Heathens themselves, [Page] who were wont to lift vp their hands to heaven, and say, God is Great, and God is true. And then addes for their further Conviction, the words (as they should haue been) cited by the Dr. viz, Those also who will haue Iupiter to be the Prince or Chief, are dece [...]v [...]d in the name, but agree as to the Vnity of Power: I hear the Poets also ext [...]lling One Father of Gods and Men. By which it is plain, that himself intended nothing lesse than to assert Iupiter to be the one Supream God; but that he argued only ad hominem (as we say) from what the wiser Heathens pretended they thought of Iupiter, that they ought to acknowledge, but One Supream God, Maker and Governour of the world. As for his own thoughts concerning Iupiter, you haue heard before what they were, p. 89. where he expressly affirms Saturn, Serapis, and Iupiter himself to be Devils; and proves them to be so from their own Confessions. So farr was He from thinking the Heathen's Iupiter to be the Supream God, as Dr. St. would make his Reader believe; which he could not otherwise do, than by corrupting the [Page] very Text. For the words in Minucius are these. Et qui Iovem Principem volunt, f [...]lluntur in nomine, sed de una potestate consentiunt, that is, Those also who will haue Iupiter to be the Prince o [...] Chief, are deceived in the name, b [...]t agree as to the Vnity of Power, i. ē. that there is one Supream God by whom the world is governed: and not as they are translated by the Doctor. They who make Iove the Chief God, are only deceived in the name, but agree in the Power. Where if you compare the English with rhe Latin, you will find, that first he translates the word Volunt (by which Minucius intimates what the Heathens would haue, but he would not grant,) by the term mak [...], as if Minucius assented to it. Then he coggs the word ONLY into the Text, They are only saith he deceived in the name, as if the name did not carry the Person along with it in his Judgment who makes Iupiter to be a Devil: And lastly leaues out the word VNA, s [...]il potestate, which plainly shew'd the design and Sense of Minucius to be, that although they were deceived in their pretence of assigning Iupiter to [Page] be the Supream God; yet by what they affirmed of him, viz, that He was the Prince or Chief, and the Poets setting forth one Father of Gods and Men, they were sufficiently convinced, that they ought to acknowledge but one Supream and un-divided Power, not many, by Which the world was made and governed; which was the Point that Minucius was proving in that place. Here then you see, Catharinus, that the Dr. hath not only mis-represented the meaning of Minucius, but corrupted the very Text, by put [...]ing in and leaving out what he thought might make for his advantage. Neither doth he applaud the Poets for their magnifying Iupiter as the Father of Gods and men, but cites them against the Heathen's Opinion of Plurality of Gods, as acknowledging o [...]e Father of All. The Dr. observes that what Minucius said was wisely said; and so it was, because he convinced the Heathens, by the Testimony of those who were esteemed the wisest amongst them: But whether it were Wisely or Honestly done of him thus to corrupt the words and Sense of Minucius, I leaue to your Judgment; But am very [Page] sure, that this is not the way to break T. G. of his bad custome.

Cath.

But the following Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, who allows Defence p. 77. 78. and applauds the Heathens for giving to Iupiter the Title of the Supream God, both in his Admonition and Misce lanies, may I hope serve to do it. For having shown that Thales conf [...]ssed God's Omnipotency and Omnisciency, that Epicharmus attributed Omnipotency to him, and Homer the Creation of the world, which he described in the Shield of Achilles, he makes this Observation, (as if it w [...]re purposely intended saith he for T. G.) He that is called both in Verse and Prose Iupiter carries our apprehension to God, (not to the Arch-Devil as T. G. saitb.) And then cites the Testimonies of Euphorion and Aeschilus about Iupiter, which for T. G's better information he sets doWn both in Greek and English, viz, Iupiter is Aether and Earth and Heaven and all things, and if there be any thing aboue all, Iupiter is it: Which Clemens is so farr from thinking an improper speech, that he saith it was spoken with a great deal of decency and[Page]Gravity concerning God. And now I pray tell me, Eunomius, if Dr. St. had not a great deal of reason to subjoyn as he doth; By this it appears that those who boast so much of the Fathers are not over-conversant with them; but Father Bellarmin, and Father Coccius serve them for a whole Jury of them. And then commends T. G. for his modesty, that when he had said, this was the Sense of the Fathers, he produced no more but good Father Origen; and is so kind-hearted to him, that though I believe, saith the Dr. he hath heard how he hath been condemned for an Heretick, yet he with great judgment supposes that what he said was the Common Sense of the Fathers. What say you to this Eunomius.

Eun:

That we haue here a Second Part to the same tune, or another Fit of ranting like that of the two God fathers, and Covie of one, But what hath Clemens done either in his Admonition or Miscellanies to put the Dr. into it? He saith indeed that what the Poets say about Jupiter's being all things, was spoken with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God, and that [Page] He who is called both in Verse and Prose Iupiter, doth under the glorious Titles Attributed to him of Omnipotent, Omniscient &c. carry our Apprehension to God; but doth it follow from hence, that it was the Sense of Clemens himself that Iupiter who was worshipped in the Temples, was that true God? Cannot I say, it was spoken with a great deal of decency and Gravity by Dr. St. of himself, that his design, as he saith, is to represent the matters in difference truly, to report faithfully, Praef. to Rom, Idol. and to argue closely, and that these things spoken of him carry my Apprehension to an Ingenuous and Sincere Writer of Controversy, but it must be my sense, that Dr. St. of whom they are said, must be the Man? This was the case of Clemens. His design in his Admonition was (and the Dr. could not be ignorant of it, for he cites the words) to shew that there is a certain Def. p. [...]6. Divine Influence distilled vpon all men, especially on those who apply themselves to learning, by vertue of which they are forced to confess One God, incorruptible and unbegotten, who abides for ever aboue the highest Heavens. And in the Fifth [Page]Book of his Miscellanies he falls vpon the same Subject again, viz, that there is a Natural knowledge of one Omnipotent God among all considering men. For proof whereof he cites many passages of the Philosophers and Poets, and some of them applying to him under the name of Iupiter, those things which truely and only belong to the One Supream God: From whence he draws this Conclusion at the End of the Book, that the East and West, the North and South haue one and the same inbred notion of the Government of one Supream Disposer of things. But farr more the Inquisitive Philosophers of Greece, who attribute a Wise Providence to him who is Invisible, and the only most Powerful, and most Skilful Contriver of things. By which it appears, that when Clemens said, that He who is called Iupiter both in Verse and Prose carries our Apprehension to God, and that what Aeschilus said of Iupiter's being all things was spoken with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God; his meaning was not to assert Iupiter to be that Supream Being; but from the Epithets and Titles of Omniscient, Omnipotent [Page] &c. (Which their own Philosophers and Poets attributed to Iupiter, or to God under his name,) to convince them, that there was but one only Supream Being, Maker and Governour of the World. For, whether they did Wisely or no in calling him Iupiter, yet the things they said of him, did evidently oblige them to acknowledge such a Being to be the Contriver and disposer of all things; not that Clemens himself asserted them to belong to the Iupiter, who was worshipped by them: As (to make use of the former Paralel) when Dr. St. ascribes to himself, Fidelity, Exactness, Closeness in arguing &c. whether he do wisely or no in doing so (of which by this time you may have some cause to doubt) yet most certainly it follows from his applying them to himself that he acknowledges them to be the true and laudable Qualities of a Cont [...] vertist; not that I who cite him saying so of himself, acknowledge them to be found in him: For I think I haue evinc'd the contrary by many Arguments already, and foresee if you hold on in your design, I shall haue occasion to do it farther. As for the Judgment [Page] which Clemens himself made of the Heathen's Iupiter, you heard before, how he affirms not only the lesser Gods p. 29 [...]. to be Devils, but the more Honourable among them, viz, Apollo, Diana, Latona, Ceres, Proserpina, Pluto, Hercules, and (as though [...]t were purposely intended for Dr. St.) ipse Iupiter even Iupiter himself, to be Magni Doemones, Great Devils, and not that He was the true God, Blessed for evermore, as Dr. St. saith. Here perhaps the Dr. will say, that Clemens runs out after his way; because he runs not the same way Def. p. 75. with him. But by what hath been said it appears, that they who boast so much of giving a full account of the Fathers, are not overconversant with them, unless the meaning be that they are too bold with them, in making them speak quite contrary to their meaning as the Dr. doth here with Clemens. Are there any more, whom you think fit to produce?

Cathar.

I know not what to say to these things, unless I should take the pains my self to examin the Books, which I think I shall not do.

Eun:

And so did Dr. St. too; otherwise [Page] he would never haue given us such a full account of them, as he hath. But pray tell me, Are there any more, whom you think fit to produce?

Cath.

Yes: The Great S. Augustin, Def. p. 44. in his 4th Book of the City of God. cap. 9. where, as Dr. St. saith, he confesses that the Romans believed him whom they worshipped in the Capitol to be the King of the Gods as well as Men: And to represent that, they placed a Scepter in his hand, and built his Temple vpon a high Hill; and that it is he of whom Virgil saith, Jovisomnia plena; and the same in Varro's Opinion that was worshipped by some without an Image, by whom the same S. Augustin saith, he meant the Iews. Can you deny these to be the words of S. Augustin? And if not, can any thing be more plain?

Eun:

What to do? To prove it to be the Sense of S. Augustin, that Jupiter whom the Romans worshipped in the Capitol, was the true God? This Ideny. They prove indeed that the Heathens endeavoured to save themselves from the shame of worshipping a Devil by these pretended Arguments; But what is that to the Question, which is not what was the Sense of the Heathens, but of the Fathers?

[Page]Cath.

You are very precise I see in keeping to the State of the Question.

Eun.

And it is but necessary, when if a Father chance, (though but by way of an Objection, as these words of S. Augustin are) to cite the Testimony of a Poet or Philosopher, wherein they either prophanely ascribed to Jupiter the Attributes of the true God, or fondly and absurdly applied to the true God the name of Jupiter, presently it must be believed that the Fathers acknowledged Iupiter that was worshipped in the Capitol, to be the true God. But S. Augustin was so farr from thinking him so, that he looks upon it as no other than a Pretence of the Heathens to save themselues from confusion, as manifestly appears. 1st From the word Volunt (for we haue that unlucky word here too, Ipsum, (se. Iovem) Deorum omnium dearumque Regem esse volunt:) which as I said before signifies what they would haue, but S. Augustin would not grant, viz, their Iupiter to be the King of the Gods as well as Men, as the Dr. reads it. Hence in the 17th chapter of the same Book, he saith, Iovem Deorum Regem pro sua Opinione confingunt, that they faign Iupiter in their [Page]own Opinion, (not his) to be the King of the Gods: and in the 25th chapter he shows that themselves believed Happiness not to be given by Iupiter, but by some God whom they did not know. And if he proved the very pretence in them to be false, surely he was farr enough himself from thinking the thing to be true, viz that their Jupiter was the true God. 2. From the words immediately foregoing those cited by the Dr. For there he derides the Heathens, (and it was his way too) for ascribing the greatness and conti [...]uance of the Roman Empire to Jupiter: Nimirum ergo Jovis hoc opus est. This then, without any peradventure saith he, is the Work of Jove, for they will haue him to be the King of all the Gods and Goddesses, and then 3. Having in the same Ironical way proposed the Arguments, made use of that time by the Heathens to support their pretence (and now brought in anew by the Dr. to support the same) viz, that they put a Scepterin his hand, and built his Temple upon a high hill &c. he sets himself to confute them as absurd and foolish. And first he shews the Opinion of Varro, (who believed Iupiter to be the [Page] same with the God of the, Iews, to be contradicted by the practice of the Romans; If it be so, saith he, why is He so ill treated Li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 9. at Rome, as to make or dedicate a Simulacre to him? Then in the very next chapter He proves at large that which way soeuer they take Iupiter, either as c. 10. the Son of Saturn, and the Brother and Husband of Iuno, according to the Poets and Historians; or so as to understand by Iupiter the Fire, and by Iuno the Ayr according to the Philosophers, non est ille de quo dictum est, Iovis omnia plena, It is not He of whom it is said, All things are fill'd with Iove, if Iuno also fill some part, and therefore Virgil must contradict himself, when he said not as a Poet, but as a Philosopher, as S Augustin notes.

Tunc Pater Omnipotens foecundis imbribus Aether

Conjugis in gremium laete descendit.

After this he proceeds for divers chapters together to refute the Several Interpretations, which the Learneder Heathens had devised to make their Pretence appear plausible, as that all the Gods were but one and the same Iupiter; that God is c. 11. the Soul of the world, that those whom they c. 12. c. 24. [Page]called Gods, were but Divine Gifts &c. And although the Dr. may sleight these arguments of S. Augustin also as casts of his former employment, (for I believe he hath heard of him that he was a Rhetorician before his Conversion, as well as T. G. of Origen that he was thought to be Heretical,) yet they evidently evince at least, that it was not his own Sense, that the Heathen's Iupiter was the true God. And if what I haue said here, and before, be not sufficient p. 296. 297. to convince you of it, hear what he saith in the 17th chapter of the same Book c. 17. where he argues against Iupiter's being the Supream God from their making Victory a Goddess. Will they say, saith he, that Iupiter sends the Goddess Victoria, and she in Obedience to the King of Gods takes part with them to whom she is sent, this saith he, is truly said, not of that Iupiter, whom in their Opinion they faign to be the King of the Gods, but of Him who is the true King of Ages. As for their Iupiter you heard befor [...] what his Verdict was, where he said, Psal. 96. that none but wicked Spirits, or Devils, were worshipped in their Temples; not so much as King Iupiter himself excepted. [Page] And now, pray tell me Catharinus if the Dr. had not great reason to vaunt, that he had given a full and clear Evidence Def. [...] 102. of the consent of all the Fathers in this matter, and that not taken from any single or incoherent passages, but from the Series and Design of their discourses, when he imposes vpon us for the Sense of S. Augustin, what S. Augustin proposes as an Objection of the Heathens and sets himself to confute with all the wit and learning he had. And your self as yet haue not been able, nor I am confident, ever will be able to pick out of all the Testimonies of the Christian Fathers alledged by him, so much as a Covie of one, who asserts it as his own Sense, that the Heathen's Iupiter was the true God?

Cath.

Here you bring the matter indeed to a Pinch. But giue me leaue to tell you, that for all your confidence you may be, and are mistaken. For there is one yet behind whose Authority may stand for many.

Eun:

Who is that I pray?

Cath.

No lesse a man than Tertullian.

Eun:

Tertullian? Though I believe [Page] the Dr. hath heard how he also hath been condemn'd for an Heretick, as well as Origen; yet if you can show, that he acknowledged Iupiter that was worshipped in the Capitol to be the true God, I shall resign my Iudgmens so farr, as to suppose that what he said was the Common Sense of the Fathers.

Cath.

And if I do not manifestly prove it out of him from the Testimonies alledged by the Dr. I shall willingly, for what I am concerned in it. yeild up the Cause.

Eun:

Let us then bring the matter to an Issue, and hear what it is, that Tertullian saith.

Cath.

First, as Dr. St. observes, He appeals to the Consciences of men for the Def. p. 62. Tertull. Apolog. c. 17. clearest Evidence of one true and Supream God. For in the midst of all their Idolatries, saith he, they are apt vpon any great occasion to lift vp their hands and Eyes to heaven, where the Only True, and Good God is. Then he mentions Id. de Test. Animae. their common Phrases, God gives, and God sees, and I commond you to God, and God will [...]estore: All which do shew the Natural Testimony of Conscience as to the Vnity and Supream Excellency of[Page]God. And in his Book ad Scapulam, (Pray mark it well) God, saith he, Ad Scap. c. 4. shewed himself to be the Powerful God, by what he did vpon their Supplications to him under the name of Jove. Now although the two first passages prove no more, but that the Heathens had a Notion of one Supream Being ingrafted in their minds by nature, (which you will not allow to come home to the Question) Yet this last clearly evinces that Jupiter, whom they worshipped in the Capitol, was this one Supream Being, both from the Testimony of Tertullian, and of God himself, by the Miracle he did vpon their Supplications (i. ē. the Supplications of the Heathens) made to him under the name of Jove.

Eun:

A Miracle! Here you haue brought the matter to a brave Issue indeed. But did Tertullian then in good earnest say that God did a Miracle to shew himself the Powerful God vpon the Supplications the Heath [...]ns made to him under the name of Jove? Dr. St. you know is not over fond of proving doctrines by Miracles, and I cannot but wonder he should now make [Page] use of one to establish a doctrine so contrary to that of the Holy Scriptures both Old and New. For what I read there is, that All the Gods of the Heathens Ps. 96. Ps. 105. are Devils, as the Septuagint translate it, that they sacrificed their sons and daughters to Devils; and again, (as if Dent. 32. 1. Co [...]. 10. it were purposely intended for Dr. St.) They Sacrificed to Devils, and not to God. What the Heathens offer in Sacrifice, they offer to Devils, and not to God. Methinks it might haue sufficed to haue laid this Infamous Brat of Jupiter's being the true God Blessed for evermore, at S. Paul's door, and not to father it vpon God himself. Such bad customes as these are to be broken, least they grow vp into open Blasphemy; and I shall endeavour to make the right Father stand for his own child. But first are you sure Catharinus, that it was vpon the Supplications of the Heathens that the Dr. avouches Tertullian to say, that God did this Miracle?

Cath.

Yes▪ for he makes this Preface before the Testimony of Tertullian, that he will now look into the Sense of Writers of the Latine Church against the Heathens Idolaters; and accordingly it [Page] is of them that he speaks in the two former passages, and the particle their (viz Supplications) evidently relates to them. Besides, when was it ever heard that Christians made their Supplications under the name of Jove? Origen, as th [...] Dr. notes, saith that by reason of the abundance of filthy and obscene Fables, Def. p. 9. Orig. contr. Cels. li. 4. which went of their Jupiter, the Christians would by no means endure to haue the true God called by his name. And S. Paul, as your self observed, though he cited a place out of Aratus, where he had mentioned Jupiter twice before, yet would not himself make use of the name. Nor do I believe that Dr. St. himself will ever think fit to put into his Letany, or to conclude any of his Works with that Invocation of Paterculus, Jupiter Capitoline, Auctor & Stator Romani nominis. There is a decorum to be observed in the use and application of words by reason of the change they are subject to from time and other Circumstances; as it would be absurd at present to make use of the Old Translation of those words of the Apostle, Paulus Servus Jesu Christi, Paul the Knave of Jesus Christ.

[Page]Eun:

Very well. It was then vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to God under the name of Jove, that Dr. St. avouches Tertullian to say, that he did the Miracle. But what will you say, Catharinus, if Tertullian expressly affirm, that it was done vpon the Supplications of the Christians made to God, but that the Heathens after it was done, would haue ascribed it to Jove?

Cath.

Marry then will I never trust Testimony of Father more for Dr. St's sake.

Eun:

You mean I suppose cited by him; and you haue reason to do so from the experience you haue had in [...]ther Instances, but in none more f [...]lly, not more foully than in this, where he hath corrupted the words and Sense of Tertullian, in so subtil, and yet palpable a manner, as is not easy to be found in any other. Haue you the works of Tertullian?

Cath.

Yes, here they are, the Place cited by the Dr. is Lib. ad Scapulam. cap. 4. Pray turn to it.

Eun:

Lo, here it is. And the words are these. Marcus quoque Aurelius in Germanica expeditione, Christianorum militum[Page]Orationibus ad Deum factis, imbres ins [...]i illa impetravit. Quando non geniculationibus & Jejunation [...]bus nostris etiam siccitates sunt depulsae? Tunc & Populus adclamans Deo Deorum & qui solus Potens, in Iovi's nomine Deo nostro testimonium reddidit, that is to say if I haue not forgot my Grammar, that Marcus Aurelius in the German Expedition, when his Army was ready to perish for want of water, obtained rain by the Supplications of the CHRISTIAN SOVLDIERS made to God. And indeed saith he when were not such Kind of calamities removed by the Prayers and Fasting of us Christians? Then the People also with their Acclamations to the God of Gods, and who alone is Powerful, gaue Testimony to our God under the name of Iove. These are the words; and the design of Tertullian if I mistake not, in this passage was to convince Scapula, that he ought not to persecute the Christians, by whose Prayers so miraculous a [...] Benefit had been obtained of God; and the more, because the very Heathens themselves, though according to their custome, they made their acclamations to [Page] Iove, yet under that name by the Titles they gaue him of God of Gods, and alone most Powerful, they gaue Testimony to the God of the Christians, who had wrought the Miracle. Now what does Dr. St? He jumbles together the Supplications of the Christian Souldiers, and the Acclamations of the Heathens, the God of the Christians and Iupiter, and makes the Sense to be, that God shew'd himself to be the Powerful God by what he did vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Iove. And can any thing be more contradictory to the words and Sense of Tertullian than this is? Tertullian saith expressly that what God did, was vpon the Supplications Christianorum militum Orationibus ad Deum factis. of the Christians made to him. Dr. St. makes him say, it was vpon the Supplications of the Heathens. Tertullian saith that the Heathens by the Acclamations they made to the God of Gods as they called Iove, gaue Testimony to the God of the Christians under that name. Dr. St. makes him say, that God wrought the Miracle vpon their Supplications to him under the name of Iove.

Cath.

The First part of this is plainer [Page] than I could wish it for Dr. St's. credit. For I see the words in Tertullian are, Orationibus CHRISTIANORVM ad Deum factis, by the Prayers of the Christians made to God, not of the Heathens. But I do not so well understand the latter. For when Tertullian saith they gaue Testimony to our God under the name of Iove, what can his meaning be, but that they intended to honour him under that name, to whom they had before addressed their Supplications?

Eun:

No such matter I can assure you, Catharinus: but what the Heathens meant was to rob the God of the Christians of the honour, and transferr it to their Iove by giving to him the Title of God of Gods &c. but in so doing, they gave Testimony to our God that he alone was the most Powerful, who had done this Miracle vpon the Supplications of the Christians; This is what Tertullian meant to tell us not that the Heathens, had addressed their Supplications to the true God under the name of Iove. And that you may see this was his Sense, pray hear what he saith in the 40th chap. of his Apologetick against the Heathens, where he describes both the [Page] manner of their Supplications, and to whom they made them, and reproaches them with their bad custome of ascribing to their false God Iupiter, what the Christians had obtained of the only true God by their Prayers When there is fear, saith he, of a bad year through too much drouth, you (speaking to the Priests of the Heathens) wallowing in luxe and wantonness, offer sacrifices for rain to Iupiter, command the People to go barefoot, and seeking Heaven in the Capitol, expect the Clouds to showr down from the Roof, averse in so doing both from G [...]d and Heaven. But we (Christians) in the mean time depriving our selves of all sustenance, and even dry'd vp with fasting. and rowling our selves in Sack-cloth and Ashes, strike Heaven with Envy, and move God himself with compassion. Et cum misericordiam extorferimus, Jupiter honoratur. And when we haue by these means extorted mercy, Iupiter must haue the honour. Where you see he evidently distinguishes the God of the Christians from their Iove to whom they intended the honour. And that it was so in this very passage we are vpon, is acknowledged by Dr. St. himself, Def. p. 47. [Page] when speaking of it in another place, he saith, that by those words of Tertullian, [Then the whole Army made this Exclamation, Deo Deorum] it is evident, saith he, they intended this honour to their own Iove: And now I hope Catharinus, you are satisfied of the Sense of Tertullian, that he makes both the Acclamations, and Supplications of the Heathens to haue been directed not to the true God under the name of Iove, but to that Deity whom they belieued to reside in the Capitol, as distinct from him. But what will the Dr. do to save himself from the shame of so notorious a Falsification of the words and Sense of Tertullian, as to make him ascribe that to the Supplications of the Heathens made to Iove, which Tertullian expressly saith was obtained by the Supplications of the Christians made to God?

Cath.

I doubt not but he will find a elew to bring himself out of this Labyrinth, though I confess I am lost in it my self.

Eun:

Will he cite Iulius Capitolinus and Dio? The former of which attributes the miracle to the Prayers of M. [Page]Aurelius himself; the latter to a particular Providence of God, yet mentioning withall a report that it was done by the Magical Operation of one Arnuphis. These indeed are two of his Faihers, but will not serve his turn, so well as Father Bellarmin, and Father Coccius do T. Gs. For Eusebius tells us, that this miraculous Event was delivered Hist. Eccl. li. 5. c. 5. to Posterity, both by the Heathen and Christian Writers, but with this difference, that the Heathens as being averse from Faith, relate it in such a manner, as it doth not evidently appear, that it was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians; But the Christian Writers, as being Lovers of Truth recount the matter plainly, but truly as it was done; viz vpon the Supplications of the Christian Souldiers, and then cites Apollinarius and Tertullian for it. So that if the Christian Fathers may be credited rather than the Heathen, this miraculous deliverance was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians.

But now, (as I remember he saith of Def. p. 6. T. G. (I haue reason to consider the temper of the Person I haue to deal with. [Page] Who knows but the Testimony of one Heathen Father, (especially such a one as he describes M. Aurelius to be) may weigh more with him, than the p. 11. 31. 32. Testimonies of t [...]enty Christian, whom he can send to school again, when he pleases, to learn to explain themselves better, as he doth the Christian Cicero Lactantius p. 43. Let us then hear how M. Aurelius himself relates the matter in his Letters to the Senate. ‘And thus it was, that being in great distress for want of water, he sent for those who are called Christians in his Army, and intreated their help. And when they had cast themselves vpon the earth, they not only prayed for me, saith he, but also for the whole Army, that some Redress might be given to the Hunger and Thirst, with which we were pressed, for it was five days, that we had not taken so much as a litle water, because none was to be had, we being then in the midst of Germany shut in with Mountains on every side. But as soon as they had cast themselves vpon the earth, and made their Supplications to that God, whom I was ignorant of (it seems then it was not [Page]Iove,) presently there fell vpon us from heaven a very cool and refreshing shower, but vpon our Enemies Hail in the likeness of Fire, and Flashes of Lightning. And that God who cannot be resisted nor overcome presently heard their Prayers and Supplications. Wherefore, saith he, let us from henceforward permit them to be Christians, least by their Prayers they obtain like Arms against us. And then commands that no man presume to inform against Vid. Euseb li. 5. c. 20. apud Baron. them vpon the account of their being Christians, under the penalty of being burnt alive.’ This is what M. Aurelius himself related to the Senate. And what An. 176. & Rescriptum l. apud Pamel. in Tertull. Apol. c. 5. will the Dr. say to the Testimony of so Eminent a Father? Will he criticize as his custome is in like cases, vpon the Mountains, and the five days want of water, and the Hail in the likeness of Fire, to make the story seem Improbable, and the letters to haue been forged by the Christians? That will not do his work; for Dio another of his Fathers confesses that M. Aurelius did write of this miraculous deliverance to the Senate, though he omit to set down the words of the letter, out of the like good [Page] will, we may suppose, to the Christians, as he had before omitted to declare that it was obtained by their Prayers, although he went not so farr (as the Dr. does) as to affirm it was done vpon the Supplications of the Heathens. But Tertullian in his Apologetick against the Heathens affirms expressly, that the Cap. 5. Letters of M. Aurelius were extant in his time, in which he ascribes his deliverance to the Prayers of the Christians, who, as it happened, served in that Expedition. And in this he is approved by Eusebiu [...] in his Chronicon. Now I appeal to your self, Catharinus, if you can imagin, that so grave a man as Tertullian, who evermore made the Sincerity of the Christians one main Article of his Apology, would tell a lye in so notorious a matter of Fact, and of which there were some yet alive who might convince him; or insolently dare, vpon an uncertain report of letters written by M. Aurelius attribute that Victory to the Prayers of the Cbristians, which had been obtained by his own prayers, were it true what Father Julius Capitolinus relates, or vpon the Supplications of the Heathens, as Dr. St. will haue it.

[Page] This is the Summe of what Baronius hath delivered at large concerning this Baron. ad An. 176. matter, with so great Evidence, that which way soeuet the Dr. turn himself, he must needs find himself like M. Aurelius, shut in with Mountains, and stand in need of the Prayers of good Christians to God to help him out; unless he think the Supplications of the Heathens to Jove, may be as available for him, as he makes them to haue been for Aurelius. And indeed whoever considers, how prodigal he is both of his pains and credit to Apologize for them, must needs see the great obligation they haue to give him the Assistance of their Prayers.

But I haue not yet done with the Dr. vpon this Point. Scapula to whom Tertullian wrote that Book was President of Carthage, a man that threatned utter destruction to the Christians, unless they would renounce Christ, and offer Sacrifice to the Gods. To appease his fury Tertullian writes this Book, wherein he first exposes the Innocent life of the Christians, and then the Li. ad Scap. Punishments, which had fallen vpon many of those, who had persecuted them, [Page] and the great Blessings and Benesits, which others had received, who had treated them with clemency, and amongst the rest the miraculous Victory given to M. Aurelius in the German expedition, the passage cited by Dr. St. This being the Scope of Tertullian in that Book, I would gladly know if any man of Common Sense can conceive him to haue been so Sensless, as to think to perswade Scapula not to compell the Christians against their Conscience to burn Incense to Jove, by telling him that God had shown himself to be the Powerfull God by what he did in the aforesaid Expedition vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Jove. This surely had been the ready way not to allay, but to enslame the Fury of the Persecuter, to see a People so obstinate that whereas they acknowledged the miraculous effect of Prayers made to God under the name of Jove they would not burn Incense nor sacrifice to him under the same name. Nor can I see how the Primitive Christians were excusable in their sufferings, any otherwise than as Weak Brethren who wanted good information, when as Origen saith, they [Page]were ready to undergo any torments rather than to confess Jupiter to be God. Was this then an Apology for so Wise a man as Tertullian to make? No; But it is such an One, as Dr St. it seems would haue thought fit to make had he been in those Circumstances. Otherwise he would never haue taken so much pains to fix it vpon Tertullian, though he could not do it but by corrupting his words as you haue seen, and affirming what He saith was done by the Prayers of the Christians to God, to haue been done vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Jove. So foul a Passage as this was never fetch'd from the Store-houses of Father Bellarmin, or Father Coccius, but of a much more Primitive Father, than either of them; of whom the Prophet Esay cites a saying [I will be like to the most High] which afterwards serv'd for an Original for the Poets and Orators to write by, when they gaue to Jupiter the Title of Pater Omnipotens & Supremus.

Cath.

Hold there, Good Eunomius. You know very well Humanum est labi. Every slip. is not a kick with the [Page] Cloven-foot. The Wisest man may be over-seen in the Sense of an Author, through hast or inadvertence, or heat of disputation: And this is the utmost which I think you ought or can impute to Dr. St. in this case.

Eun:

In this I confess you speak like a Good Christian. And I should be ready to close with you in the same Judgment, were I not well assured, that Dr. St. knew the contrary of what he affirmed, to be the Truth. What if I shew you his own words some pages before in which he affirms expressly, that what was done at that time, was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians to God, and that the Heathens intended to rob him of the honour, and give it to their own Jove, and that this was the Sense of Tertullian in the very place cited now by him in favour of the Heathens?

Cath.

This will seem to me as strange, as the Hail which fell in the likeness of Fire.

Eun:

Pray take his Book; It lies there before you, and read what he saith of this matter. Pag. 47.—Pray read it out.

[Page]Cath.

When the miraculous Victory was obtained by M. Antoninus over the Dr. St's. Def. p. 47. Marcomanni by the Prayers of the Christians, (as Tertullian and Apollinaris say vpon good grounds, although the Heathen Historians attribute it to the vertue of Antoninus, or to some Magicians with him) the whole Army made this Exclamation, saith Tertullian, Deo Deorum & qui solus Potens, whereby they did saith he, in Jovis nomine Deo li. ad Scap. c. 4. nostro Testimoninm reddere: by which it is evident they intended this honour to their own Jove; for in the whole Army only the Legio Fulminatrix are supposed to haue been Christians; And besides this vpon Antoninus his Column at Rome, Baronius tells us there is still to be seen the Essigies of Iupiter Pluvius, destroying men and horses with Thunder and Lightning.

Eun:

Behold here a very fair Confession, and Conviction too from Dr. St's. own mouth. For 1st it is here confessed by him, that the Victory was miraculous. 2ly That it was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians made to God.

3. That this is so affirmed by Tertullian in the very place alledged by him.

[Page] 4. That he acknowledges it was so affirmed by him upon good grounds, which were chiefly the letters of M. Aurelius to the Senate. 5. That he judged the Grounds vpon which he spake to be Good, notwithstanding that the Heathen Historians attributed it to the vertue of Antoninus, or to some Magicians with him, as you heard before out of Julius Capitolinus and Dio. 6. That the whole Army by their Exclamation Deo Deorum & quisolus Potens, intended to give the honour to their own Jove; and confirms it farther himself from the Effigies of Jupiter Pluvius still to be seen vpon Antoninus his Column at Rome. And now after so clear a Confession of all these things, what could move so subtil a [...]it as Dr. St. to make Tertullian say, that God shewed himself to be the Powerful God by what he did vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Jove? Had he first said this, and afterwards told us, that the Victory was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians, as he confesseth Tertullian saith vpon good grounds it was, I might haue thought he had corrected himself vpon a Second Consideration of [Page] the Grounds, vpon which Tertullian saith it. But having first acknowledged them to be good (notwithstanding the Pretensions of the Heathen Historians) after this I say in spight of those grounds, to make Tertullian say, that God gave the Victory vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Love, is an argument to me not so much that Dr. St. was grown very sl [...]epy when he wro [...]e this, or that be wrote it in a dreā, Def. p. [...]20. (as he saith of T. G.) as that he wilfully shut his eyes, when he was broad awake. And therefore I hope, Catharinus, you will not forget. 1st What you stipulated with me, when we entred vpon the Examination of this Place, viz, never more to trust Testimony of Father cited by Dr. St. For were not the Instances so many, and so pregnant, as hath been shewed, of his f [...]ul Play in this Kind; yet th [...]s alone is so notorious, that it may suffice in the Judgment of all Impartial men to implead him guilty of having forf [...]ted all R [...]ght of ever hereafter being believed in any Testimonies he alledges. 2dly That vpon the whole you will confess, that after all his vapouring of the fall Account he would give us of the Sense [Page]of the Fathers in this Point, and after the brave Covie of Partridges he tells us he had found, he hath not produced so much as a poor Covie of one Christian Father, who asserts it to be his Sense, that the Heathen's Iupiter (or as he calls him, their own Iove) was the true God; but all the Testimonies he brings out of them are either impertinent to the Question, or their design mis-represented, or the very Text it self corrupted, as hath been shewed. And so with your leave I bid you once more Farewel.

Cath.

For the present I am content. But I cannot let you go so for good and all. You must promise to let me see you again.

Eun:

And again if you please. Now I haue pass'd my time, a day or two or three more or less will break no squares. I will attend you.

[Page]

THE FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

CAtharinus waves the Question of Jupiter's being the true God: and inforces the Parallel from the Heathen's acknowledgment of one Supream Being, to which Dr. St. contends, that they ref [...]rred the worship of their Inferiour Deities. Another notable Instance of his unfaithful reporting a passage of Thomas Aquinas; and the Generality of the Heathens shown by most evident Arguments to haue believed and worshipped a multitude of Gods properly so called and esteemed by them. What kind of Notion the Vulgar Heathens had of the Divinity explained, and the Parallel between their worship, and that of the Church of Rome shown to be unjust, and rejected as such by Eminent Divines of the Church of England.

[Page] CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

EVn:

I perceive by the desire you express'd of seeing me again, there is something still behind, which you haue a mind to propose. I shall bewilling to hear it, but hope you will not trouble your self or me any more with the Dr's Fathers; I dare assure you, it will not be at all for his Credit.

Cathar.

T'is a Transport which Great Wits are too often subject to out of a desire of Glory, to advance a Paradox, and endeavour to make it plausible by Artifices of Rhetorick and gain credit to it by unexpected Explications of Ancient Authors, especially when they haue a fair Occasion of catching an Adversary nodding, if not fast a sleep. as Dr. St. presum'd he had done T. G. when he asserted the Heathen's Supream God Iupiter, to be according to the Fathers an Arch-devil, and produced none for it but Father Origen.

Eun:

Wits then you see as well as Souldiers must haue care how they go a catching of Tartars, as I think Dr. St. [Page] hath done, whilst he endeavoured to set Iupiter in the Throne of God. But what is it, that you haue to propose?

Cathar.

Perhaps I may be mistaken in the Conjecture I haue made; but whatever it were that engaged the Dr. in that Controversy, I do not see but he might haue wav'd it without any prejudice to his main Argument against T. G. For whether the Heathen's Iupiter were the Supream God or no, it is certain from the Testimonies of the Fathers, that the Heathens acknowledged a Supream Being, Maker and Governour of the world. And if they worshipped their Inferiour deities, but as his Ministers, and their Images, but as Symbols or Representations of Him and Them, and yet were charged by the Fathers with Idolatry for so doing, t [...]is evident that T. G. will never be able to excuse himself, and those of the Church of Rome from Idolatry, by pretending they referr the worship they giue to Saints and Images to God, but He must vpon the same Principle excuse the Heathens also. This I take to be the Summe and Force of the Dr's discourse, and I think it will prove a Tartar to T. G.

[Page]Eun:

A Tartarian Argument indeed, or such an one as a Tartar, were he as subtil a Disputant as Dr. St. would bring to defend himself from becoming a Christian. But where the force of it lies I cannot see. For if we consider the Whole, it can be no Just Ground to charge either the Heathens in that Supposition, or the Romanists, with Idolatry, till it be proved to be Idolatry to give an Inferiour degree of Worship or Veneration to any thing for the relation it hath to the only true God. Here it was, he should haue laid the Axe to the root, but it was impossible for him to make it enter, either in respect of the Heathens in the aforesaid Supposition, or of those of the Church of Rome.

1. Not in respect of the Heathens. For from whence should he show it? Not from the light of nature; for that teaches us, that although no Irrational and Inanimate Beings be capable of that real Excellency, as to deserve any honour from us for it's own sake, much less divine, yet even such things may haue a Relation to matters of so high a nature, as to deserve a different usage an I regard from other things, yea a Reverence, [Page] and if I may so call it, with the Dr. a Reli [...]ious Respect. Nor from the Law of Moses, at least for all those Heathens who lived before it was given, and consequently could not be judged by it. Nor yet for the rest, because the Apostle declares them also not to be under the Law, any farther than the light of Nature manifested to them, that what they did was Good or Evil in its self, Of which kind the Dr. supposeth the knowledge of Idolatry as to the Heathens ro be none, when he saith, From whence should they kn [...]w the sinfulness of it, but from the Law of God?

2 Nor in respect of those of the Church of Rome. 1 Because the Law of Moses no where forbids to give an Inferiour degree of Reverence and respect to other things for the Relation they bear to God. 2. Because in case it had, the Law is evinced in that part to be a Positive Precept only, by God' [...], dispensing with the Iews to give it to the Ark, with relation to him; and so not to oblige Christians. 3. Because those of the Church of England, and all others who give an Inf [...]riou [...] respect and Veneration to Sacred Things and Places for the relation they [Page] haue to God, must be Idolaters on the same account, and therefore Eminent divines (as I show'd before) of the Part. 1. p. 33. 34. Church of England free the Church of Rome from Idolatry in that respect. This then was first to haue been done by the Dr. to make those of the Church of Rome Idolaters by paralleling them with the Heathens in the aforesaid Supposition viz, he ought to haue shown it to be Idolatry in the nature of the thing independently of any Positive Prohibition, (in case there were any such, which is denied) to give an Inf [...]riour degree of respect or Veneration to other things besides God for the relation they haue to him But this he neither hath done, nor ever will be able to do, and consequently this mighty Argument, which the Dr. spent so much time and pains to build vp and adorn with the choicest Paint [...]ng and Sculpture his Wit and Ar [...] could devise, falls to the Ground for want of a Foundation to bear it up.

Cathar.

Yet still me thinks the Argument holds good against T. G. unless he will set as litle by the Fathers, as you make Dr. St. to do. For if they acknowledged one Supream Being, and referred [Page] all their worship both of Inferiour [...] and Images to him, and were notwithstanding charged by the Fathers with Idolatry for so doing, those of the Church of Rome must fall under the same charge.

Eun:

To this I thought I had given you a sufficient Answer in the Account Part. 3. p. 330. &c I gaue you of the Heathen's Theology, and the Arguments made use of by the Fathers to impugn it; from all which it appears, that it was not their design to charge them with Idolatry for giving an inferiour degree of worship to things relating to God, but for worshipping the Creatures, not the Creator, (mark that, Li. 6. de Civ. Dei c. 1. though they could not but have a natural and inbred knowledge of him) with that worship which is due only to the One true God, as S. Augustin expressly layes the charge. But because I see you are not yet fully satisfied in this Point (so hard it is to shake off a prejudicate Opinion) I shall desire you as you are a Lover of Truth to answer me ingenuously but to this one Question, which I take to be very material toward [...] the true Vnderstanding the nature of Idolatry, viz, Whether you do not think, that the [Page] Heathens, at least the Generality of them (Those I mean who followed the Religion of the State, and squated both their belief and worship according to the Rules of it, for of the Wiser one we may haue occasion to speak afterwards) did not acknowledge and worship more Gods than One?

Cath [...]r.

To this I shall give you a very cleer and direct Answer, in the words of One, against whom T. G. himself will not except. I mean Thomas Aquinas, in the Book he purposely wrote against the Gentiles, li. 1. c. 4. Where as Dr. St. Def. p. 12. hath well observ'd he confesses, that most of the Gentiles did acknowledge One Supream God, f [...]om whom they said all those others whom they called Gods did receive their being; and that they ascribed the name of divinity to all Immortal substances, chiefly by reason of their Wisdome, Happiness and Government. Which custome of speaking, saith he, is likewise found in Scripture, where either the Holy Angels or men, and Judges are called Gods, I haue said, yee are Gods, and many other places. By which you see, that if those of the Church of Rome will give any credit to their own great Dr. [Page] Aquinas, in his Book so highly applauded Des. p. 18. by Possevin and others for the best account of the Christian Religion in opposition to Heathenism, they must confess also that although the Heathens gave the name of Gods, to others besides the Supream God, yet they did not belieue them to be properly Gods, but Analogically only and by participation.

Eun:

What I expected, Catharinus, was your own Judgment in the case, and not of Thomas Aquinas; and I was in hope you would haue troubled us no more with the Dr's citations. But by what I now experience in you, I see I had done well to haue kept you in the good humour you were in of laying wagers, though you had staked but a Guiney at a time.

Cathar.

I suppose you would haue gotten but litle by the bargain at present, had you done so. For the Book is so frequent among all those of the Church of Rome who pretend to learning, that I cannot believe the Dr. would hazard his credit so apparently, as either to corrupt the Text, or cite the passage in such a manner, as to mis-represent the design of the Author.

[Page]Eun:

This is indeed what ought to haue weighed with him. But haue you [...] seen the Place your self? for you promised me from the former discoveries I had made of his Insincerity, in this kind, never to trust Testimony more cited by Dr. St.

Cathar.

I confess I haue not.

Eun:

Give me leaue then to tell you what it was, that Aquinas was treating of in that place, and your self shall be Iudge, whether [...]he Dr. haue dealt fairly by him or his Readers in representing him in the manner he doth. The Title of the Chapter cited by the Dr. is, Quod Deus sit unus, that th [...]re is but One God. Tlo [...]. Aquin. [...]i. 1. cont. Gent. c. 42. This Aquinas proves by many Excellent reasons, to which he shows the Testimonies of H. Scripture to be agreable. And among other reasons he gives this for one; because if there be two Gods, the name of God must be attributed to both, either Aequivocally, or Vnivocally. If equivocally, saith he, it is beside he present Intention (mark that) for nothing hinders, but that any thing may be called equivocally by any name, if the use and custome, of the Speakers admit it. But if it be said of both Vnivocally,[Page]the reason for which it is said, must be the same in both, which he shows there to be Impossible. Having thus declared his Intention to be to prove that there is but one God properly so called, and established it by the plainest demonstrations, as a most certain Truth, the Corollary he inferrs from these Premisses is, that by vertue of this Truth Hac veritate [...]epelluntur Gentiles Deorum multitudiuem confitentes; quā vis plures eorum unum Deum Sum mum esse dice [...]ent, a quo omnes alios, quos Deos nuncupabant, creatos esse asserebant, omnibus substantiis Sempiternis Divinitatis nomen ascriben [...]es & e. Quae quidem consuetudo loquendi etiam in S. Scriptura invenitur, dum Sancti Angeli, [...]ut etiam homines vel Judices Dij nominantur. the Gentiles who acknowledged a multitude of Gods, were convinced to be in an Errour, although, saith he, (and then follow the words cited by the Dr) plures eorum, many of them did acknowledge one Supream God, from whom they said all those Others, whom they called Gods, did receive their being; ascribing the name of Divinity to all Immortal Substances, and that chiefly by reason of their Wisdome, Happiness, and Government, which eustome of speaking, he saith, is likewise found in Scripture.

This is the Summe of Aquinas his discourse in that Chapter: And what can be more plain, than that his meaning was to tell us, that although the Philosophers, [Page] particularly the Platonick [...] (whom he means by his quamvis plures eorum) did aknowledge one Supream God, from whom they said all those others, whom they called Gods, did receive their being, and therein agreed with the like custome of speaking found in Scripture; yet the Generality of the Heathens did acknowledge a multitude of Gods properly so called: and consequently that this was the Errour which he had convinced them of, by showing that it is impossible there should be more than One God properly so called. This I say is plain both from the declaration he makes, that to speak of Gods equivocally so called was beside his purpose, and from his opposing the Opinion of the Philosophers to that of the Generality of the Heathens, as an Exception from the General Opinion they had of them. And now I pray Catharinus be Judge your self whether it were fairly done of the Dr. to suppress the General Proposition, viz, [The Heathens erred in acknowledging a multitude of Gods] and the word Quamvis, although, which made the Exception, and then translate the words Plures eorum, by the most of [Page]th [...] Gentiles, as if Aquinas had spoken of the Generality of them, when he spake only of the Philosophers, who though they were many, or if you will, a great many, which is the most can be made of the word Plures in that place, yet they were farr from being the most of the Gentiles, as Dr. St. according to his excellent faculty in translating renders it. Is it not plain that here he mis-represents, to say no more, the meaning and design of Aquinas? And yet vpon such perverted Testimonies as these it is, that he builds his Chimerical Assertion, that the Generality of the Heathens were charged with Idolatry by the Fathers for giving an Inferiour degree of worship and Veneration to others besides the one only true God, for the relation they bare to him; when it is evident from the very Testim [...]ny he cites, that they were charged with Idolatry for acknowledging and worshipping more Gods than One, properly so called. I could here give you as good an account of the Admirable work he makes for 15 Pages together with the Testimony of Athenagoras, from whose discourse he pretends chiefly to inferr the Heathen's Relative[Page]worship, as 1. how he omits some of Deo praetermisso, Elementorum m [...]tationes deificant; perinde ac si Navigium aliquis quo vectus sit, gubernatoris loco haberet. Athenag. p. 61. 68. Def. p. 69. 62. the expressions of that Author which evidently show that they did not referr their worship to the true God. 2. How he employs all the litle arts of Sophistry and Rhetorick to debauch his Sense in others; and lastly how after all finding the whole Series and Design of that Father point blank opposit to what he would haue it, he sormes the very Assertions of Athenagoras into Objections under the name of T. G. and sets himself to confute him as a down right Adversary: But as I said before I hope we haue done with the Dr's Testimonies; and you will tell me now wha [...] you think your self of the Question, Whether the Heathens did believe and worship more Gods properly so esteemed by them, or not?

Cathar.

I see it is troublesome for an Author to fall into the hands of such Readers, as haue both Curiosity and Patience to examine his Citations, and therefore shall trouble you no more vpon that account. But for the Question you propose; I had rather hear what you will say of it, than produce my own thoughts, which I confess are somewhat [Page] perplexed by what you haue already discoursed.

Eun:

Well then, since you put me to answer my own Question, I shall not trouble you with long discourses, but only offer to your consideration these few following Observations, which I hope will be sufficient to satisfy you, that the Generality of the Heathens did believe them whom they publickly worshipped to be truly and properly Gods, and not in name only.

The First is, that the whole Christian world till Dr. St. did ever condemn the Heathens as guilty of Polytheism; which they could not justly haue done, had the Heathens believed one only true God, and the rest to be only called so: For vpon the same account both the Iews and Christians might be accused of Polytheism for giving the name of Gods to Angels and Men; yea even God himself, for it was he that said, I haue said ye are Gods.

2. That the Heathens accused the Christians of Atheism, because they denied Athenagoras legat. pro Christ. p. [...]3. them to be Gods who were publickly worshipped.

3. That they persecuted the Christians [Page] to death, and the Christians willingly suffered death, for maintaining there was but one only true God, who deserved Divine Honour to be given to him.

4. That they erected Temples, instituted Priests, and appointed Sacrifices to be offered to them, which if not by the Law of nature, yet by the common consent of mankind were the Exte [...]our Signs of the acknowledgment of true divinity; and therevpon is so often urged by the Fathers against them, as who affirmed them to deserve those honours.

5. That 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.

6. That those who made use of these arguments against them, had many of them been Heathens themselves, as Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Lactantius, and Arnobius, who without doubt understood very well what themselves were taught and had practised while they [Page] were Heathens, and cannot in reason be supposed to haue charged them with more in this matter than they were guilty of, only that they might haue occasion to give some casts of their former employment.

7. That the Divels, as S. Augustin saith, by prodigious but fallacious signs and De civ. Dei. li. [...]. c. 22. & li. 10. c. 1. predictions, perswaded maximae parti, which I think may be truly translated, the most of the Heathens, that they were Gods, and although the Platonists knew them, not to be so, from their vitious practices, yet they durst not pronounce them neither, to be altogether unworthy of divine honour, for fear saith S. Augustin, of offending the People by whom they saw them served with so many Rites and Temples.

8. That the Wisest of the Heathens, as Varro, Scaevola, Seneca and Cicero, not only concurred with the Vulgar in the external practice of worshipping many Gods, (as the Platonicks also did) but look'd upon it as a Point of prudence or State-Policy, to keep the People in S. Aug. [...]bid. li. 8. c. 12. Ignorance, and not let them know, they were no Gods whom they worshipped. The first part is evident from what S. [Page] Augustin saith of Varro, that knowing Li. b. c. 2. the Vanity and falsi [...]y of the Gods who were publickly worshipped, yet for fear of offending the people he worshipped them himself, and maintained that they ought to be worshipped; and therefore reproaches him for suffering himself to be overborn wi [...]h the custome and Laws of the City; as he doth Seneca also for that saying of his, Omnem istam ignobilem Li. b. c. 10. Deorum turbam, All this ignoble multitude of Gods, which long Superstition hath for a long time heaped together, we will so worship, as remembring the worship of them to belong more to custome, than Truth. And whereas Philosophy had in a manner set him at liberty to deride the Errours of the Vulgar, yet because he was an [...]llustrious Senator of the Roman People, over-awed by the Laws of the City and the customes of men, he worshipped what he reprehended; practic'd, what he reproved, and adored, what he blamed, and this, not as Actor vpon the Theatre, but as a devote in the Temple, so much more culpably, saith S. Augustin, for that he performed, those actions against the inward Sense of his mind, in such a manner that [...]he People[Page]judged him to doe them with a real intention. The 2d part also is no less manifest Li. 4. c. 17. from what the same S. Augustin saith of Scaevola, that he affirmed some things would be hurtful for the people to be informed of, as that Hercules; Aesculapius &c. were not Gods; and of Varro, that it was expedient the People should be deceived in Religion. And vpon this account Li. 2. c. [...]. n. 3. it is, that Lactantius declaimes in this wise against Cicero. To what purpose is it, saith he, to preach in this sort to the Vulgar, and Illiterate. People, when we see Learned and Wise men, who understood the Vanity of these Religions, to persist nevertheless, by I know not what perversness, in worshipping the very things they condemn? Cicero understood these things to be false which men adored, and yet after he had advanced many things, which were of force to overthrow the Common Religions, he saith that those things were not to be discoursed to the Vulgar, least such kind of disputations should extinguish the publick received Religions, or worship of many Gods. Nothing the [...] I think can be more plain, than that the Generality of the Heathens did not only give the name of Gods, according [Page] to the custome found in H. Scripture, but did really and truly believe them to be Gods, whom they worshipped, and that it was the State-Religion of that time to believe and worship them as such. Yet least any doubt should yet remain in you from the confusion, which the Dr every where makes between the Vulgar and the Wiser Heathens, I shall adde one Observation more, which I am sure ought and will weigh more with you than all the rest. And it is this.

9. That God himself forbids the J [...]ws to haue any other Gods besides him, and yet was so farr from forbidding the name of Gods to be given to Angels and Men, that himself by the mouth of David pronounceth of the Rulers, I haue said, Ps. [...]. Exod. 22. 28. yee are Gods, and accordingly Moses forbids to revile the Gods, or curse the Ruler of the People. By which it appears that the meaning of the Commandment was not to forbid them to give the nam [...] of Gods to others besides himself, but to esteem them to be truly and properly Gods, as the Heathens did.

Cathar.

These Observation. I confess are so clear and home, that I think [Page] what you inferr from them cannot be denied or doubted by any man of Common Sense. And so I freely grant that the Vulgar Heathens did truly and really S. Hi [...]ron [...]n Dan. 2. Error. Gentilium omne quod supra se est, Deos putant. S. Aug. li. 1. de Cons. Evang. c. 27. Majores & Minores Deos colun [...] quos Deos pu [...]. esteem them to be Gods, whom they worshipped. But I see not yet the reason, why you were so earnest with me to speak to this Question.

Eun:

Pardon me there, Good Catharinus; What was it made you so backward to speak to it, but that you saw, that to answer this Question would be to answer the Argument you proposed, in which you supposed the Heathens to referr all their worship, both of their Inferiour Deities and Images to the true God, and vpon that account to haue been charged by the Fathers with Idolatry, that so you might make the Parallel compleat between the worship of the Heathens, and that of the Church of Rome? For if the Generality of the Heathens did truly and properly esteem those to be Gods, whom they worshipped, as hath been shewed, tis evident that they did not referr the worship they gaue to them to the true God, but worshipped each of them as an absolute Deity. And this being the Fundamental Principle of [Page] the State-Religion at that time, was that with which the Fathers primarily charged the Heathens, and that in such terms as evidently exclude from their thoughts the Dr's Chimerical Imagination of Relative worship; as when S. Athanasius Oratcon [...] Gentil. charges them, for turning away from the true God, and giving all the honour of the Divinity to the creatures; S. Augustin for giving divine honour creaturae, De civ. Dei li. 6. c. 1. non Creatori, to the creature, not to the Creator, and praetermisso vel praeterito Deo, passing by God, and making Gods of the Elements, in like manner as if one should take the Ship in which he [...] Leg [...]. pro C [...]r. p. 61. is carried, for the Pilot that governs it, as Athenagoras expresses it. And the same is confessed by Vossius in his first Preface, where he acknowledges that the Heathens did relicto Deo in naturae Veneratione consistere, forsaking God stay in the worship of the creatures. By all which it appears, that the Paralel between the worship of the Heathens, and that of the Church of Rome, like a House built of Cards, when one of the Suppo [...]ters is drawn away, falls down in great confusion. And this is confessed also by Eminent Doctors of the Church [Page] of England; as [...]. Hāmond, who makes the Heathen Idolatry to haue been the Of Idolatry p. 42. worshipping of the many false Gods first, and then of the Images of them; and then addes, that those of the Church of Rome are not said or thought to be guilty of the former, He might haue added, nor vpon the same account of the latter neither, for if they do not worship many false Gods, they do not worship the Images of them. And Arch Bp. Whitgift, (whom Dr. St. will by no means suffer to be thrown away to the Puritans,) when he makes his third kind of Idolatry to be, the worshipping false Gods either in heart, mind, or in external creatures Dr. St. [...]n his Pr [...]f. to Rom. Idol. living or dead, and altogether forgetting the worship of the true God; ingenuously confesseth, that for all that he can see or learn, the Papists are not in this third kind of Idolatry.

Cathar.

And I can be contented to hope at least with these Learned men, that taking Idolatry in this Sense the Paralel doth not hold with the Papists: but yet not so as to free them from the guilt of Idolatry vpon another account, if it be true what T. G. saith, that it is the giving the Soveraign worship of God to a creature; [Page] For though the Heathens gaue divine worship to their Inferiour deities, yet they gaue Soveraign worship only to the Supream God, and the Mat [...]rs sacrificed their lives on this Principle, Def. p. 70. that divine worship (and not meerly Soveraign worship) is to be given to none but the Supream God. So that either the Heathens must be excused from Idolatry in what they did, and the Primitive Martyrs not be deemed so wise as they might haue been; Or the Papists, at least those who give Latria to the Crosse and the Images of Christ, must be involved in the same crime.

Eun:

I cannot easily think that the Dr. intended to be serious when he put in that subtil Parenthesis (not meerly Soveraign worship) and yet because it is a string he often harps vpon, I must not passe it by as a Trifle, though in reality it be no other, as to the present dispute, whether we consider it with respect to T. G. or to the Heathens. And first for T. G. Def. p. 5. the Dr. having been so charitable to him as to suppose him to believe the Supream Being Maker and Governour of the world to be the true God, it seems plain to me that he meant the same by Soveraign, [Page] and by divine worship. Nor do I see what ground Dr. St. had to fancy he made any distinction between them, when he confesseth the definition of Idolatry according to T. G. to be, the giving the worship due only to God to a p. 4. creature, more than he has to make him distinguish between God, and the Supream Being, which in this case is just none at all. For if God and the Supream Being be adequately the same with him (and I never heard he made more Gods than On [...]) t'is manifest that by the worship due to the Supream Being (that is, Soveraign worship) he meant no other than the worship due to God alone, i. ē. divine worship. By this it appears that the distinction had no ground in any thing that T. G. said: It was the Dr's Proper Invention; and so if he please, [...] Def. p. [...]19. let it be writ vpon his Monument, that he may not be unprovided of an Inscription, as well as T. G. Hic jacet Author hujus distinct [...]onis.

Cathar.

But if T. G. intended no distinct on by these terms, why does he call it Sov [...]raign worship?

E [...]n:

Not to distinguish it from the worship due only to the one true God, [Page] but with intention to haue avoided, if possible, the Equivocation the Dr. had brought vpon the word, divine, by his applying it to that Relative and Inf [...]riour kind of worship, which some of the School men call latria and assert to be due to the Cross and the Images of Ch [...]ist. And I should haue thought he might haue expected to haue found the Dr. favourable here, after so serious a Profession that he loves not to wrangle abo [...]t words; but I see that rocks sometimes lye under the smoothest waters: and a man through too much care may fall vpon Scylla, whilst he endeavours to avoid Charybdis.

2. As for the Heathens, they may indeed be conceived to mean by divine worship, not only the worship due to their Supream God Jupiter, but the honour due to any thing, which according to their Erroneous Fancy they believed to haue true divinity in it, of which sort they had good store, whom they believed to be truly and properly Gods, as I shewed before. But what was this to the Christian Martyrs? who were not to regulate their actions by the Errours of the Heathens, but by the truth of [Page] Christianity, which as it believes, that true divinity belongs to none but to the only one Supream Being so it teaches that true divine honour is to be given to none but him. And therefore vpon the same account, that they were bound to Sacrifice their lives on this Principle, that there were no more true Gods but one; they were bound also to do it vpon that other that true divine worship is to be given to none but the Supream God: But then again, what is this to those of the Church of Rome, who do not believe either the Saints or Images to be Gods, or to haue any divinity in them; but give an Inferiour respect or Veneration only to the former for the Sanctity they haue received from the only true God, and to the latter for the relation they beat to their Prototypes, viz the same true God, or his Servants?

Cathar.

I must confesse I was afraid there was something like that we call Scholastick Fooling in this distinction as applied to T. G. when I first read it. But still there remains a Scruple with me, concerning the Heathens, and I should be glad you could remove it; how, if they acknowledged one Supream Being. [Page] Maker and Governour of the world, they could think any others to be truly and properly Gods besides him? For this seems to me so palpable and gross a Contradiction, that nothing that hath the use of reason could fall into it.

Eun:

For the Heathens contradicting themselves, I think we need not be much concerned, when we see some Christians can so easily run into it. But by this Scruple of yours, Catharinus, I perceive you imagin the Generality of them to haue had as cleer and distinct a Notion of the one Supreā Being, maker and Governour of the world, as the Wise Philosophers had, if not as we Christians haue now adayes. And this indeed is what Dr. St. hath laboured to instill into the minds of his Readers, by representing what the Philosophers said of God, and the wisest too among them, as if it had been the constant belief of the Vulgar, or as if they had as thoroughly believed the first Article of the Creed, I believe in one God Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things Visible and Invisible, as Christians do. That this was his Practice, to dress vp the Paralel he intended to make between [Page] their worship, and that of the Church of Rome, is manifest frō the very Testimonies he cites to prove that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supream Being; as you haue seen already in that of Thomas Aquinas, who speaks not there of the most of the Gentiles, as the Dr translates it, but of the wisest of the Philosophers. And the like is to be observed in the Testimonies he cites out of Justin Martyr. Def. p. 25. Athenagoras p. 60. Clemens Alexandrinus p. 76. Origen. p. 81. S. Augustin p. 97. For what these Fathers alledge out of the Philosophers and P [...]ets concerning the V [...]n [...]ty of God &c. to prove against the common Religion that more Gods than one were not to be believed and worshipped, the Dr. very artificially insinuates into his Reader, as the N [...]tion of the Heathens in general, as if they had as cleer and distinct a knowledge of the one Supream Being, as the Wisest of the Ph [...]losophers. And had this been so, supposing the Wisest to haue had a right notion of the one only t [...]ue God, it is a hard matter indeed to conceive, how this Judgment remaining entire in them, they could fall into so manifest a Contradiction, as the believing [Page] many Gods properly so called: or how Idola [...]ry, (as the Dr. himself observes Def. p. 63.) for that part of it which lies in the inward esteem of our minds, could consist with such an Acknowledgment of one Supream Being.

But whether this were possible or no, 1st it is nothing to the Question we are now vpon, for whether it be or be not, the matter of Fact is certain, as I shewed before, that the Genera [...]ity of the H [...]athens did believe and worship many God properly so esteemed by them, and were vpon this account charged with Idolatry by the Fathers, which is sufficient to show the disparity between their belief and practice, and that of the Church of Rome, as you heard but even now confessed by divines of the Church of England.

2. It concerns not the case of the Vulgar Heathens, for the notion they had of the divinity, was not cleer and distinct like that of the Philoso [...]hers, who therefore denied [...]hose whom the People worshipped to be Gods; but rude, confuse and imperfect, Tertull. li. de spect. non penitus Deum norunt, nifi de longinquo, non de proximo. like that of men, who see a thing at a distance, but know not what it is, or ² like that of blind men who [Page] feel something of the Sun's Influence, but see not the body of light, Lactant. li. 2. c. 1. Adeo ipsa veritas, cogente natura, ab invitis pe [...]toribus erumpit. Clem. Alex. in Protr. vel inviti fatentur. Athenag. p. 15. vel inviti consentiunt. a knowledge not setled and cultivated by sober and serious Reflexion, but constrained by the force of nature, like the Natural Testimony of Conscience which the 2. S. Aug. Ep. 120. ad Honor. sicut nec ilia lux videtur, oculis praesentata coecorum. most Atheistical and debauch [...]d sinners fee at times, even against their Wills; Tertull. ubi supra. Deum non penitus no [...]unt. S. Aug. Tract. 106. in [...]o. Non omni modo esse potuit hoc nomen (Deus) ignotum, non omnino ac penitus possit abscondi Lactant. li. 2. c. 1. Quem p [...]o [...]us igno [...]ari ab homine fas non est. not a cleer light but a faint glimmering▪ In fine, Tertull. li. de Test. Animae. E [...] voce (s [...]il, Deus) & aliquem esse significas, & omnem ilii confite [...]is potestatem. Clem. Alex. in strom. propefinem. Potestate quidem Dominus & Deus omnium, cogniti [...]ne autem non omnium, neque enim id quod est, neque quo modo Dominus & Pater & creato [...], no [...]unt, nisi ab ipsa veritate didicerint. vid. S. Aug. li. 1. de Cons. Evang. [...]. 25. not a c [...]rtain and steady knowledge of him who is the true God, but a General Notion of a divine Power, hanging as it were in the ayr like an Ind [...]viduum Vagum, and so differently app [...]ied by each one to the God, or Gods he worshipped.

This is the Account which the Fathers give of the Notion, which the Vulgar Heathens had of the divinity, Li. 1. de Idol. c. 2. & 4. with whom Vossius also agrees, affirming [Page] the knowledge they had [...]f God, to be C [...]gnitus confuse & potentiá, Ignotus distinctè & actu, &c. confused and undetermined, and that in part they received him, but in part rejected him, so that even when they knew God, they knew him not to be Go [...]. And it cannot be doubted but so dim and imperf [...]ct a N [...]tion as this was, would easily be laid aside o [...] f [...]rgotten, where Fancy, Passion and Intere [...]t gave Laws to R [...]ason, though vpon occasions it would show it self in their words and actions, against their wills. And what Errours would not such Masters lead them into, especially under the direction of so cunni [...]g a Sophister, as the Old Serpent? One of the first Propositions he made to our first Parents, was that they should be lik [...] Gods, inspiring into their minds an affectation of divinity. And they being delighted and pl [...]ased with it, as S. Augustin saith, what was the consequence like to be in Li. 14. de civ. Dei c. 13. their Posterity, but that they should be seduced to believe more Gods than One.

That this was their belief de facto is undeniable, and supposing what hath been said of the confused notion they had of God, that they knew him but in part, and that so rudely, that the Apostle of the Gertiles oftentimes affirmeth, [Page] that they did not know him, and Gal. 4. 8. 2. Thess. 4. 7. the Inscription to the Vnknown God, will stand as an E [...]ernal Memorial of it, it is no hard matter I think to conceive, how they might fall into the Ervoneous Belief of many Gods. For as men who never had seen that body of light which we call the Sun, beholding only the beams he sends before him at his r [...]sing could not but inferr from thence, there was a Light which enlightned the world, but would be to seek whether it were one or many, or rather apt to believe from what they experienced in sublunary Lights, that one Taper alone was not sufficient for the whole Vniverse, So though the Heathens before the rising of the Sun of Justice, could not but see by the beams he sent before him in the Creation, that there was a Superiour Power which governed the world, yet being led wholly by Sense, and judging of Heavenly things by what they saw pass in Humane, they might be at a loss to know whether this divine Power resided in one or many; or if one were Chief, whether there were not others, who had the right and power of Absolute Lords and Governours over [Page] such and such things, or such and such parts of the Vniverse; And not being able to comprehend, how so vast a Machin as Heaven and Earth with the variety of creatures in them, could be governed by One, they inclined rather to assign him Partners in the Government of it, some of whom, (as Godwin observeth in his Roman Antiquities) they I i. 2. Sect. 1. c. 1. fancied to haue possession of Heaven by their own Right, and these they called Dij majorum Gentium o [...] Select Gods; and others, no otherwise than by right of donation, as the Semidei or Indigetes.

Cathar.

You haue given us here Eunomius a pleasant kind of Hypothesis, not unlike those invented by the Philosophers to explicate the alterations which appear in the Vniverse, some of them placing the cause of them in the motion of the Heavens, others of the Earth and others of both. But how doth it appear that this was the Conceit which the Heathens made?

Eun:

If a Second cause, not cleerly and distinctly known haue given occasion to the Wise Philosophers to frame such strange (and some of them such odd) hypot [...]eses [Page] to explain the common Phaenomena of the world, how can it be expected, but that the Vulgar Heathens, must haue raised much stranger concerning the Government of it, vpon so dim and confuse a knowledge as they had of the divinity. As for the Hypothesis it's self, of the Divine Power residing in many, it appears to haue been theirs from the defences they made for themselves, when the Fathers pressed them with the absurdities they run into by asserting more Gods, than One; For as Lactantius saith, some of them said, Li. 1. c. 3 that their many G [...]ds were such, (or as much) is Christians would haue the one to be: And others that they presided so over several things and parts of the Vniverse, that there was but one Rector Eximius, Supream Ruler. And therefore speaking afterwards of the division of kingdomes between Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, [...]. 11. and having compared the share which sell to Neptune to that of M. Antonius to whom the Senate had given the command of all the Sea Coast, he showe'th how the Poets (to whom the People as Varro saith, were apt to give credit) by giving the name of Heaven to the Eastern[Page]Part which belong'd to Jupiter, and of Hell to the Western, which was the Portion of Pluto, and by other Fictions they added, raised it from a terrene power to a divine in the Apprehension of the Vulgar; which was the more confirmed in them by the many prodigious, but fallacious signs, as S. Augustin saith, which Evil Spirits wrought in their names, and their exacting sacrifice, which by the common consent of mankind was held only due to divinity, to be offered to them. Hence the Question between the Heathens and the Fathers, was not whether the One Supream God used the Ministery of Angels to execute his commands, for in this, Lactantius saith, that the Christians were ready to agree Id. cap. 7. with them as to the thing, though they denied those whom the Heathens worshipped to be those Angels or Ministers; but whether their many Gods were not the same which Christians would haue their One to be; or as Minucius Felix states the Question to his Friend Caecilius p. 51. 52. whether the Heavenly Empire were governed by the (undivided) power and Authority of one or by the A [...]bitrement of many; by which he understands, and [Page] he understood the Heathens to do the like, not a Ministerial Power, such as Tu in caelo summam potestatem dividi credas & scindi ve [...]i illius ac divini Imperij totam potestatem? is given to the Angels, but a sharing of the One true and divine Empire, by a division of the whole Power among many? And that which made them fall into this Errour, was as I said before, that they could not comprehend, how the Vniverse could be governed by one, but look'd vpon it as the most extravagant and Sensless Position in the world, as appears by the Objection made by Caecilius, What monstrous things, saith he, do the p. 29. Christians faign of that their One God, when they make him busily pry into the manners, the actions, the words, and even the Secret thoughts of all men, as one that runs up and down, and is every where present. They will haue him to be unquiet, importune, and curious even to Impudence: For they make him present to all that is done, and to insinuate himself into all corners, whereas he can neither sufficiently provide for Each particular, being incumbred with all: nor haue sufficient care of all, being intent vpon particulars: Here you see the Fundamental Errour of the Heathens and that which made them multiply the number of their Gods without [Page] number, assigning the care of each S. Aug. li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. [...]. thing to the proper office of some Deity, as to the Goddess S [...]getia the care of the corn to Flora of the Flowers, to Rusina, of the Hills, to Vallonia, of the Vallies, and so of the rest, which Varro affirmeth to haue exceeded thirty thousand. And Id ibid. c. 22. the same Varro thought he had done a singular peice of service to the Romans, in not only giving them a Catalogue of the Gods they ought to worship, but in teaching them also, what was the particular Power and Vertue of each Deity in order to the Parts of the Vniverse. For by this, saith he, we may know, what God we ought to invocate for each thing, and not do, as Comedians are wont, when they jest, aske water of Bacchus, and wine of the Nymphs. A great benefit doubtless, saith S. Augustin deriding after his way the fopperies of this great man; but withall adding, that he had deserved thanks indeed, had he showed what was Truth, and taught the One true God, from whom all good things are, to be worshipped by Men.

Cathar.

You are carefull I see to avoid the rock which T. G. run vpon, when citing the Testimony only of good father [Page] Origen, he cry'd out the Fathers, the Fathers. But admitting all this to be so, as you haue said, I do not see yet how the Heathens were chargeable with Idolatry in T. Gs. Principles, 1. because they gaue but divine worship to their Inferiour Deities, and Soveraign alone to Jupiter, 2 because however they imagined the divine Power to be divided among many, yet without doubt what they referred their worship to, was that which they had in their minds when they pronounced the word God, how rudely soeuer conceived by them.

Eun:

Much good may the Spoils of such a wrack do the Dr. I know none will envy them. But for what you object, to the first I answer, that by what name soeuer you call the worship the Heathens gaue to their Inferiour Deities, yet professing, as they did, that they worshipped them as Sharers with Jupiter in the Divine power and Authority and vpon that account believed them to be t [...]uly and prop [...]rly Gods, in whose power it was to bestow those benefits vpon them, which they desired, they were justly charged with Idolatry by the Fathers for so doing. For this being a Perfection peculiar [Page] to God, that he is the Sole Author of every good Gift, the giving worship to any other besides him, as a Sharer with him in it though but in this or that particular, will be Idolatry: And in this consideration, (were there no other) they might be justly charged with it by the Fathers. But the case is farr different with those of the Church of Rome, who believe and profess every good and perfect Gift to descend from the Father of Lights, whom they acknowledge to be the only true God; and address themselves to the Angels and Saints, as his Ministers and Servants, not to obtain of them the benefits they desire, but of God alone by their Intercession through his only Son and our only Redeemer Jesus Sess. 25 [...] Christ, as the Council of Trent hath declared.

As for what you add of the Heathens referring their worship to what they had in their minds, when they pronounced the word God, how rudely soever conceived by them: I answer that as the Manichees, Manichaei Solem istum oculis carneis visibilem expositum & though they professed to believe and worship Christ, yet for giving that worship to the Sun, whom they believed to be him, were charged with Idolatry: [Page] publicum non tan [...]um hominibus sed etiam pecoribus ad videndum, Christum Dominum esse putaverunt. S. Aug. Tract. 24. in Io. So the Heathens also though they pronounced the word God, yet fixing the notion they had of him, vpon Jupiter, as the Dr. saith they generally did, (at least the Greeks and Romans) or vpon the Sun as the Persians, or vpon the Soul of the world as the Stoicks, or vpon any other created person or thing, they were in like manner guilty of Idolatry: And the reason of both is, because what the Manichees and Heathens had in their minds and Intentions to worship was not Him, who was the true God; but in reality a man, or a devil, or some other creature, to whom they applied the notion, and whom they erroneously, and without reason, believed to be him. And here the case also is quite different with those of the Church of Rome: For they neither believe the Saints to be Gods nor any divinity to be in Images, nor Bread in the Eucharist to be Christ, but believe the Saints to be but his Servants, the Images but Representations, and the Bread not to be at all, but to be changed into the Body of Christ: so that the Object of their worship, that is, what they haue in their minds and purposes to give divine worship to, being no other than [Page] the one only true God they can never be justly charged with Idolatry, as T. G. hath f [...]lly and cleerly shown, Cath. no Idol. p. 327. &c. As for the Heathens, if at any time they worshipped God under the general notion of a Power Superiour to the Universe, or as Maker and Governour of the world, without placing it vpon any creature, to make that the Object of their worship, as it is likely they did not, when they used those expressions, God sees,, and I commend it to God, and God will restore, and the like: for t [...]e [...] as Tertullian O Testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae. Tertull. Apol. c. 17. saith, they lifted vp their Eyes to Heaven, and not to the Capitol, and so calls it the Testimony of a Soul naturally Christian, I do not find they were charged with Idolat [...]y by the Fathers in this precise consideration, Nor do I see any reason why they should, if they joyned nothing to that notion which was destructive of it. And thus much I hope may suffice to remoue the prejudice you had taken against those of the Church of Rome, from the imaginary Parallel of their worship with that of the Vulgar Heathens. I know you haue a mind to be [Page] doing also with the Philosophers, but I shall begg you will let them alone till to morrow.

The End of the Fourth Dialogue.

[Page]

THE FIFTH DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

THe Dr's Parallel from the Practice of the Wiser Heathens, shown to be Un-parallel vpon many accounts: and the Argument from God's Appropriation of certain external Acts to his Worship, a meer Sophism made vp of Equivocations, False Suppositions, and Self-contradictions, and after all to conclude nothing against the doctrine of the Church of Rome, or the definition of Idolatry given by T. G.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

CAthar.

However the Vulgar. Heathens were such Fools, as to believe their Inf [...]riour deities to be truly and properly Gods, and to worship them as such; yet the Wiser of them did not so, [Page] at least the Platonicks, of whom Aquinas according to your own Interpretation of his words confesseth that they did acknowledge one Supream God, from Supr. p. 403. whom they said all those others, whom they called Gods, did receive their Being, and that they ascribed the name of divinity to them, in the manner that Holy Angels and men in Scripture are called Gods. Nevertheless the Fathers charged them also with Idolatry for the worship they gaue to these Gods, and to their Images as Symbols and Representations of them. And vpon this Supposition it is, viz, that they were not mistaken as to the Objects of their worship, that the Dr urges T. G. to answer whether they were to blame, or no, in the manner of serving God by Images, in such a way as they describe. For if they were not to blame, the Fathers certainly were for charging them with more than they were guilty of; and if they were to blame, how come those of the Church of Rome to be excused?

Eun:

Here indeed I think you haue driven the Point to the head. ‘And admitting the Supposition to be as Dr. St. would haue it, me thinks T. G. gaue [Page] a very direct Answer to the Question, when he said that they were yet to blame Cathno Idol. p. 108. vpon a double account. 1. Because the Images being instituted by publick Authority for the worship of false Gods they concurred, (as the Dr. himself acknowledgeth) with the Vulgar in all the external Practices of their Idolatry, and consequently were guilty at least of the exteriour Profession of Idolatry. 2. Because though in the Schools they denied them to be Gods, yet as Origen answered Celsus, (one of the Dr's wiser Heathens,) they gaue divine honour to them so farr, as that the People by their example, who were esteemed Wise and knowing men, were led into errour, and their Souls so far depressed with a False Religion that they could not endure to hear any one deny them to be Gods, whom they were accustomed to worship. And this saith Origen is the crime with which we charge Celsus, and all those who confess they are no Gods.’

Cathar.

A very learned Answer doubtless, but as Dr. St. saith hath not one wise word in it. For as he tells T. G. All Def. p. 468. p. 4 [...]. the Question is, how this External worship[Page]comes to be Idolatry, supposing they acknowledged one Supream God, and gave only a Relative and Inferiour worship to other Beings created by him, or to the Images of them. Wherein I pray did this Idolatry consist?

Eun:

A very learned Question indeed, but such as either hath no Sense at all in it, or it must be in the present circumstances, how the Philophers complyance with the Vulgar in the External practices of their Idolatry, comes to be the External Prof [...]ssion of Idolatry? For Internal Idolatry being excluded from their minds by the very Supposition of their acknowledging one Supream Being and giving only a Relative worship to other Beings, to ask how they come to be guilty of Internal Idolatry, will be non-Sense at best, if not a perfect Contradiction. T'is to the Question then in the former Sense, viz how the compliance of the Wiser Heathens with the Vulgar, comes to be an External Profession of Idolatry, that T. G. is to answer; and I think there needs no more than a litle Mother-Wit to do it. For this External worship being given to those who were believed by the Vulgar, to be truly and [Page] properly Gods, and were by publick Authority worshipped every where as such, t'is manifest I think to any man of the meanest Understanding, that whatever esteem the Wiser ones had of them, or however they directed their Intention, yet the complying with the People, (who were internally also Idolaters) in all the external Practices of their Idolatry, and that in such a manner, that they were judged to do that really, which they did but counterfeit, was at least an Exteriour Profession of Idolatry; as much as, and indeed much more than going to Church once a month here in England, and doing all other Religious Actions exteriourly as Protestants do, whatever the inward Sense of the Doer be, is an Exteriour Profession of Protestantism, This is a very cleer Solution of the Question as I take it in T. G's. Principles, who makes Internal Idolatry to depend vpon the Intention or Interiour acts of the Vnderstanding and Will terminating the exteriour worship vpon something, as esteemed worthy of divine honour, which in reality hath no Excellency in it to deserve it. For as the doing of this is true Internal Idolatry, [Page] and External also, so the complying with those who do it, in the manner before expressed, will be an External Profession of Idolatry. But it were worth the while to know how the Dr. will solve the Question in his own Principles; [...]or it being Idolatry according to him, to make any thing so farr the Object of Divine worship, that Men do bow down before it, it must be so either in the nature of the thing▪ and then Bowing before the Altar also will be Idolatry; or by vertue only of the Positive Law of God, and then the Heathens who did it to their Idols, were not vpon that account guilty of Idolatry, because not under the Law.

Cathar.

I shall not digress at present to answer for the Dr. But if this be all the defence you can make for T. G. in answer to this Question, viz that the People had other notions of the False Gods, than the Philosophers had, and yet these latter also were justly charged with Idolatry for complying with the People in the external acts of worship; I think you haue brought the business home enough to the Papists, and in particular to T. G. himself. For as Dr. St. hath well observed vpon this answer, [Page] This is just the Case of the Roman Def. p. 4 [...]5. Church: Their learned men haue complained that the People worship the Images as Gods among them. But doth T. G. saith he think himself guilty of external Profession of Idolatry in using the same external acts of worship with the People, though with another Intention? If not, why shall not the same excuse hold for Titius, which holds for Sempronius?

Eun:

Were the case the same, it were but reason the same Excuse should hold or not hold for both. But here the case is so different that nothing but the Admirable Faculty which the Dr. hath of making Parallels could haue put them together. For supposing the matter of the complaint to be true, what consequence is it, because the publick custome among the Heathens of worshipping Jupiter, Juno, Venus &c as Gods, made it an Exterionr Profession of Idolatry in some private men to comply with them in their practices; therefore the abuses committed by some private men in the Church of Rome, where the Publick Profession is quite contrary, make the common custome to be an Exteriour Profession [Page] of Idolatry? A wider Consequonce surely was never seen. But with your leave, Catharinus, I shall give you a case in the Church of England, much more paralel to the Dr's. than his of the Divines of the Church of Rome to that of the Philosophers. And it is this. Some learned men of the Reformation haue complained that not only the People, but the Wiser sort make an Idol of the Altar in making it so farr the Object of Divine worship as to bow down before it. But doth Dr. St. think himself guilty of external Profession of Idolatry in using the same External act of worship with them? If not, why shall not the same excuse hold for Sempronius, that holds for Titius?

Cathar.

Methinks you haue as good a faculty in making Paralels, as the Dr. ‘But I pray tell me, Eunomius, what excuse can those of the Church of Rome give for themselves, which the Philofophers might not haue given? Will they undertake (as Dr. St. there addes) to defend the follies of the Ignorant people? No. They do not think themselves bound to do it, but blame them for their ignorance and Superstition, and say the [Page]Church is free, because it hath taken Def. [...] 456. care to instruct them better. And might not the Philosophers have said the very same thing' We are not bound to answer for the madness of the rabble; we instruct them better, and our Schools are open for them to learn: But since the nature of such actions depends vpon the Intention of the D [...]ers, we declare our Intention to be to honour t [...]e Supream God in the first place, but all others whether Celestial Deities, Aerial d [...]mo [...]s, or the Souls of deified men with a worship Inferiour to his: And according to the worship we give to the Beings represented, we give worship to the Images or Representations. And if you allow the distinctions of Divine worship into soveraign and subordinate, into ab [...]olute and relative, what harm is there in all that we do? Indeed, if it be unlawful to Worship God by an Image; if it be unlawful to give any divine worship to any creature, we are then to blame, and are justly condemned; other wise we think we stand vpon equal terms, with those who make use of the same distinctions, and only change the names of some, and the Persons of others. Thus T. G. may [Page] see the Parallel is not so extravagant, as he would make it to be.’

Eun:

Here it is we haue another of the Dr's Figures of Rhetorick, but grounded vpon as many false suppositions almost as there are words: as 1st that the Follies of the People of the Church of Rome are equall to those of the Heathens, that is, that they believe the Saints to be truly and properly Gods, chāging only the names of some, and the Persons of others, and give worship to their Images as such. 2ly That they are proposed as such by the Profession of that Church, and their Images publickly Instituted to be worshipped on that account. 3ly That the Philosophers took as much care to instruct the People better, by their Publick Prof [...]ssions, Catechisms, and Sermons, as the Divines of the Church of Rome do. 4thly That those of the Church of Rome give the same external acts of worship to the Saints, which the Heathens did to their Inf [...]riour deities, as ordaining Priests, offering Sacrifices, and performing other Religious Rites, which by the publick custome of that time, and the common consent of mankind, were understood to be due only to [Page] true divinity. 5thly That the Philosophers used the distinctions of Soverain and Subordinate, Absolute and Relative worship in the same Acts, and with the same determination of circumstances, as to the Exteriour Profession of Idolatry, which those of the Church of Rome do. 6thly That the sole Intention of the Doers is according to T. G. sufficient to free them from it. 7thly That it is unlawful to worship the true God by any Image. 8thly That it is unlawful to give any divine worship, (though equivocally so called because given for his sake) to any creature. When the Dr. hath proved all these Suppositions, and they must all be proved to make the Parallel hold, it will be time for him to tell us, that the Philosophers stood vpon equal terms with those of the Church of Rome, as to the Exteriour Profession of Idolat [...]y, which is the Point we are now vpon; till then he must give me leaue to think the Parallel is altogether as extravagant as T. G▪ would make it.

Cathar.

The concern I see you haue to free the Papists from the note of Idolatry makes you seek and catch at every petty circumstance, though never so [Page] remote and Invisible, which may seem to make a difference between them and the Heathens. But when all is done, you will never be able to save them. For if there be some peculiar external acts of worship appropriated to God, the giving of them to any creature, as the Papists do to Saints and Images, will be not only an exteriour Profession of Idolatry, but very Real Idolatry. For as Dr. S. saith very well, It belongs to God Def. p. 269. to appropriate acts of worship to himself, and having appropriated them they become due only to him: And therefore they who do those Acts to any besides himself do give to the creature the worship due to God alone, which is the very definition of real Idolatry T. G. contends for.

Eun:

I cannot deny, but that I have as great a concern to see any Christians charged with more than they are guilty of, by Dr. St. or any other; as himself hath for the Fathers doing it, as he supposes, to the Heathens: for as I told you before, I loue not to see People represented worse than they are. And besides I see, that whenever the matter is brought to a tryal, those of the Church of [Page] England will be forced to make use also of the distinctions of Soveraign and Subordinate, Absolute, and Relative worship to salve the Reverence or Religious respect as I may call it, they shew to Holy Places and things, and particularly that of bowing to the Altar, for the Relation they haue to God; and the Philosophers will stand as much vpon equall terms with them, as with those of the Church of Rome; of which I haue giuen you a sufficient Specimen in the agreement as to this matter I shewed there was between the Dr. himself and Card. Lugo. See Pages 228. 229. 230.

But now for this mighty Argument of God's appropriation of external acts to his worship, although I haue already Supra. p. 148. & shown the ruine it throws vpon the other Argument he draws from the Practice of the Heathens, or rather how it serves for an Apology to free them from the note of Idolatry; yet because I see you think the Dr. hath done wonders in it against those of the Church of Rome, I shall let you see tha [...] the only thing to be wonderd at in it, are the many Equivocations, false Suppositions, and self-cōtradictions contained in it And [Page] to proceed with greater clearness, pray tell me what it is you understand by Gods appropriating Acts of worship to himself; for more or less may be required, and so the term be Equivocal.

Cathar.

What I understand by it, and what I suppose Dr. St. means, as appears to me from his own words, is 1. God's Def. p. 270. appointing certain external acts to be used in his worship, 2. his tying us to perform them to him, and 3. restraining us from doing them to any other; For by his appointment and command they become due to him; and by his Prohibition to give them to any other they become due only to him.

Eun:

This is a very cleer description so far as it goes, but still methinks there is something wanting to make the Argument conclusive, against those of the Church of Rome, and that is, that God hath so tied these acts to his own worship, that in all cases, and vpon all accounts imaginable they become incommunicable to any other, and this so fastned to them, that it cannot be separated from them. For if in some cases, or vpon some accounts they may be communicable to others besides God, Sempronius may [Page] come in for his Share, as well as Titius, and if the Appropriation may be separated, the Romanists may and will pretend it is.

Cathar.

I do not remember that this is any where expressed by the Dr. but I suppose it is sufficiently implied in the three forementioned conditions, for I do not see how the argument can conclude without it.

Eun:

But here then, Catharinus, either you are mistaken, or the Dr. contradicts himself, when he affirms, that Def. p. 192. 193. although the outward acts be the same (for example of bowing or kneeling &c) yet the external circumstances which do accompany mens acts, are those which do so circumscribe and limit them, that from thence they become either Civil or Religious. For if they may be communicable to o [...]hers besides God, as limited with such and such Circumstances, they are not absolutely appropriated to God in all cases and vpon all accounts imaginable; and so the Argument does not conclude, but leaves the Romanists at liberty to plead as much for the lawfulness of bowing to Images, from the Circumstances or vpon the Account, with which they do it, as [Page] the Dr. thinks himself to be for the lawfulness of bowing to the Altar. Hitherto then we are to seek what it is the Dr. means by God's appropriating acts of worship to himself, farther than as he saith, it is his tying us by his Command to perform them to himself, and restraining us from doing them to any other. But it may be some farther light may be gathered from the Acts themselves. Pray what are they?

Cathar.

The Dr. reckons six, viz, Sacrifice, Religious Adoration, Solemn Invocation, Erecting Temples and Altars, Burning of Incense, and making Vows.

Eun:

He might haue added more if he had pleas'd as Swearing by the name of God, Instituting of Festival days, and the like: But do you not think he hath reckoned too many already. What think you, Catharinus, hath God tied us by his command to offer Sacrifice, or burn Incense, or make Vows to him? I do not believe you will grant he hath, nor the Dr. neither. What kind of proceeding then is it in him to argue the Romanists guilty of Idolatry vpon the Account of giving acts appropriated to God to others [Page] besides him, when himself, if put to it, will deny that God hath commanded them to be done at all to him?

Cathar.

But the Papists acknowledge them to be due to God, and all external acts of worship due to God, being forbidden to be given to creatures, t'is an Argument, as you call it ad hominem against them.

Eun:

But the same Papists, as you call them, do not give to creatures those acts which they hold absolutely due to God, nor any other, as they are due to God, that is, as they are signs of the inward submission of our minds to him, but as they are not appropriated to God, that is, as they are signs of an Inferiour respect and Veneration, and so the Argument is not ad hominem to them, unless you can prove that God hath commanded them to be given to himself and forbidden them to be given to any other in all cases and vpon all accounts whatsoever, and then that they give them so appropriated to any creature.

Cathar.

This I think is sufficiently plain in the Law of Moses, and of Christ also: because, as the Dr. hath well observed, Asts appropriated to the worshipp. 261. 262. [Page]of God by his own appointment, must continue so, till himself hath otherwise declared, and Christ hath no where made it lawfull to give any acts that were before appropriate to the worship of God, to any creature.

Eun:

As for the Law of Moses, not to enter into dispute about Particular acts (as that of Bowing, which is an external Act of Adoration and yet was done by the Jews to the Ark) I answer in general that not any thing of that Law being obligatory to any besides the Jews, precisely as commanded by that Law, but as it was contained in the Law of nature, and the force of that Law being taken away by the Promulgation of the Gospel, t'is evident it can oblige Christians no otherwise than in vertue of the Law of nature, unless some express command or Prohibition of Christ intervene: And therefore whatever is not obliging, by the Law of nature, or some such 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. For as Dr. St. now vpon second thoughts Supra. [...]. 47. saith, In the worship of God, all things [Page]are lawful that are not forbidden. As for what you urge, that Christ hath no where made it lawful to give any acts that were before appropriate to the worship of God, to any Creature, it is but a Negative Argument from Authority, and of no force, especially in the present case, where a Positive declaration is necessary.

Cathar.

And such a one I shall give you: For as the Dr. saith, Christ hath Def. p. [...]6 [...]. not only nowhere given the least Intimation, that any Acts which before were peculiar to God, may now be given to any else besides him; but instead of this he lays down the same Fundamental Precept of worship which was in the Law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only [...]halt thou serve: And he explains it more clearly to avoid all ambiguity in it, by expressing that restrictive particle only which was implyed before.

Eun:

But what is this, but to thrust the sword into his own Bowels? For if the Argument be good, he must confess himself obliged to offer Sacrifice, and burn Incense, and make Vows to God, which I believe he will not do. For this, as now managed by the Dr. is a Point [Page] that concerns not only those of the Church of Rome, but all Christians, if th [...] Precept be to be understood as a Reestablishment of those Acts, in the new Law, which he saith, were before peculiar to God in the old, and Christians will be as much tied by vertue of this Precept to give them to God, as not to give them to any other. But if the fore mentioned particular Acts of Sacrifice burning Incense, &c be not re-established by this Precept, what Consequence is it, that they are forbidden to be given to any other besides God, because they were appropriate to him in the Law of Moses, the force of which Law is now taken away by the Preaching of the Gospel? Surely none at all, unless he will acknowledge those very acts to be due to God by the Law of nature also, or vpon some other account than that of the Law of Moses.

By what hath been said, you see what a Mass of Equivocations, False suppositions and self-Contradictions are here jumbled together by the Dr. not un like the Ingredients of the Poets Chaos, non bene junctarū discordia seminarerum, to make vp a peice of plausible Sophistry [Page] to surprize such as are carried away with the sound of words, and are not able or willing to penetrate into the sense and meaning of them. But that which is most of all to be admired, is that admitting the Argument to be good, it proves nothing against those of the Church of Rome, who neither give any act abso [...]utely appropriated to God to any else besides him; nor any other in the manner it is appropriated to him. For the Appropriation they had or may be supposed to have had by the law of Moses being taken off by the Abrogation of that law, and no n [...]w one produced by the Dr. in the law of Christ, as hath been shown, those of the Church of Rome cannot be convinced of Idolatry for those they use towards Saints and Images by vertue of any Appropriation from any positive law of God. The Argument then you see such it is, whether good or bad concerns not those of the Church of Rome.

Cathar

But I hope it concerns TG, for supposing the fore-mentioned Acts to be due to God, the givi [...]g all or any of them to any besides himself will be to give to the crea [...]u [...]e the worship due to God alone, which is the very definition [Page] real Idolatry T. G. contends for.

Eun:

To this Janswer, that supposing (not granting) the fore mentioned external acts to be now due to God by this law, the giving them to any besides himself will be to give to the creature the worship due to God, if it be done with an intention to give them to a creature as esteemed worthy of divine honour; I grant it is the very definition of real Idolatry which T. G. contends for. If without such an intention I deny it: For as it will not be Real Religious worship, but fictitious to give them to God himself, if it be not done out of a true esteem of his supream excellencie as worthy of it, So to give them to any else besides him without an intention to do it out of afalse esteem of the object's worthiness, will not be real Idolatry in the nature of the thing but Fictitious, though from the Appropriation they have by the law of God, (Supposing such a law to be in force) or other circumstances, it may and ought in reason to be interpreted to be real Idolatrous worship, as an Hypocritical act of worship may and ought from the circumstances to be esteemed truely and realy Religious till the cōtrary [Page] be made evident. And the reason of this is, because Idolatry is a sin directly opposite to Religion, as a False worship to a true one, not as Hypocrisy which counterfeits to worship the true God, (and the Dr himself if you remember distinguishes it from Idolatry, though how agreably to his Principles I know not:) nor as worshipping the true God after an unlawfull manner, for no man I think will condemn the I ews at present of Idolatry for worshipping the true God with the Rites and ceremonies of the Law of Moses: but (to use the words of an eminent diuine of the Church of England Dr. Taylor) as a sorsaking the true God Lib of. Proph. Sect. [...], n. 26. and giving divine worship to a creature, or to an Idol, which saith he, is that kind of superstition, which by divines is called the superstition of an undue object. And thereupon acquits those of the Church of Rome from the guilt of Idolatry in the worship they giue to the Host, in case they should be mistaken in their belief of the Bread being changed in to the Body of Christ: because [...]h [...]object of their Adoration (that saith he, which is represented to them in their minds and thoughts and purposes in the B. Sacrament)[Page]is the only true and Eternal God hypostatically joined with his Holy Humanity. Hence though the Divines make Idolatry, as I said to be directly opposed to Religion, yet they say that concomitantly it is opposed to Faith, or supposes an Errour in Faith. For as Card. Tolet hath well observed, as there is not S [...]. Cas. lib. 4. c. 14. [...]. 4. the true worship (which is Religion) unless Faith be supposed in the understanding by which we acknowledge the Excellency of the object (God) to which we submit our selves: So also there is not the false worship which is Idolatry, unless there be a precedent errour in the understanding by which we iudge that to deserve divine honour which doth not. And this is so manifest Def [...]. q. 6 that the Dr. himself confesseth it was well observed by the Cardinal, that although Idolatry do suppose an Errour in the mind, yet that Errour lies in judging that to deserve divine horour which doth not: and grants it may be consistent with the belief of the supream Excellency of God. By which I see (to use his own words) that after all he is a good natured [...]. 276. man too, and although he will shew a thousand tricks, rather than be thought to haue it forced from him, yet let him alone, and[Page]be will give as much as a man would desire. For what could T. G. wish for more than he here grants? 1. that the Errou [...] which Idolatry supposes, lies in iudging that to deserve Divine honour, which doth not. And 2. that it may be consistent wi [...]h the belief of one supream God. For the former destroys the chimerical notion of Idolatry he contends for, [viz of an Image [...]s being made so farr the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it, in case God have forbidden it by his law] For now it is not Real with him, unless it be done out of an erroneous judgmēt as to a thing that deserves divine honour. And the latter quite ouerthrows the Parallels he draws from the practice of the Heathens, because it being now granted by him, that the Erroneous beleif of a creatures deserving divine honour when it doth not, may be consistent with the belief of one supream God, if the vulgar Heathens did believe those whom they worshipped to deserve divine honour, (as most certainly they did) their case is manifestly different from those of the Church of Rome, who do no such thing. And if Idolatry suppose such an erroneous belief in the mind, the [Page] meer giving external acts of worship to a creature without such a judgment in the Wiser Heathens, could not according to him be Real Idolatry, but Pictitious only and Hypocritical. And it is very observable, that when he first began this controversy he did not charge all those of the Communion of the Church of Rome absolutely with Idolatry, but that they must be guilty either of Hypocrisy, or Idolatry either of which, he saith are sins inconsistent with saluation; which sufficiently insinuates he thought the meer external compliance with those who were truly Idolaters, not to be real Idolatry, but Hypocrisy, though by reason of the circumstances it might and ought to be presumed to be real. But then again in case the Dr. with all his subtilty could make it out to be real Idolatry to give external acts of divine worship to a creature or an Idol, meerly for fashion's sake, or out of fear, or some other Passion, without such an Erroneous judgment, it would signify just nothing to those of the Church of Rome, who neither give external worship to those who are falsly believed to be Gods, and commonly worshipped as such; nor [Page] any Act appropriated to God by his law, either absolutely, or in the manner they are appropriated to him whilst the Appropriation lasts, as hath been shewed. Finally it appears to me after all, that all that dust which the Dr. hath ra [...]d to make it seem Idolatry to giue to a creature external acts of worship appropriated to God, comes at length to be a dispute about words, for as much as concerns the cause of the Church of Rome; For Whether it be Idolatry or no the thing which the Dr. himself means by the word, and of which he accuses the Church of Rome, is confess't by the Romanists, themselves to be a sin inconsistent with salvation, and if the Dr. can prove them guilty of it I shall confess he hath done his own work and theirs too.

Cathar.

In this I think you haue reason, for this would be sufficient to make all those who haue a care of their Salvation to abhorr their Communion. And I shall endeavour at our next meeting, (which I intend shall be our last upon this account,) to make it appear from Principles laid by the Dr. that they are guilty of damnable sin at least, if not of Idolatry for giving to creatures Acts appropriated [Page] to the worship of God.

Eun:

This I confess will be to smite the Church of Rome under the fifth ribb if it can be proved. But in the mean time I hope you will remember how all the fine things which the Dr. hath said of God's appropriating external acts of worship to himself, as, that it belongs to him to do it, and having done it, they become due to him; and being become due to him, must continue so till himself hath otherwise declared; and that in stead of declaring otherwise, he hath confirmed the Appropriation anew by laying down the same Fundamental Precept of worship in the newlaw &c if they be of any force at present to make it to be Idolatry, to bowdown before the Image of Christ with intention to worship him by it, they will haue the same force to conclude the practice of bowing to the Altar, to fall under the same crime. For if bowing be one of the Acts which God hath appropriated to his own worship; and having appropriated it, it becomes due only to him, They who do this Act to the Altar do give to the creature the worship due to God alone which the Dr. saith is on all sides confessed to be Idolatry: So [Page] necessary it was for the Dr. to haue taken the [...]aution which Mr. Thorndike gives to those who will be charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry. It is necessary saith he, to provide, that we contradict not our selves.

Cathar.

And therefore, I confess; were I as the Dr. I would not so much as nod with my head, to it, much less worship it with my whole Body.

Eun:

Perhaps you may scruple the having either of them done to your self; and so without farther Ceremony at present Ibid you farewell.

The End of the Fifth Dialogue.

[Page]

THE SIXTH DIALOGVE

THE ARGUMENT.

THe Church of Rome not justly chargeable either for not reserving any External Act of Re [...]igious worship proper to God, or for giving a [...]y appropriate to God, to Creatures. The Dr. un happy again in his citing of Card. Lugo; and his arguments from the Text. Matth. 3. 10. and the term, Religious worship, solved by his own distin [...]tions. No succou [...] tō his cause from the determination of Circumstances, as ass [...]gned by him. Mr. Dai [...]lés doctrine, that signs instituted by men to signify any thing, though of Religion, are to be interpreted by the publik Practice of those who use them, a very Just Discharge to the Dr's unjust Charge of Idolatry, in the particular Instances, of Invocation, Erecting Temples burning Incense, &c▪ as tbey are practiced in the Ch. of Rome: and T, Gs. Answer to the Dr's old Scruple, why Sacrisice may not be used to the Saints, in like māner os other External acts are, shown to have been pertinent and satisfactory. A Friendly Advice to him out of St. Augustin.

[Page] EVNOMIVS. CATHARINVS,

EVn.

It was agreed between us as I remember, at our last parting, that although those of the Church of Rome could not be convicted of Idolatry, yet if they could be proved guilty of damnable sin in the manner of their worship, it would be sufficient to make all those who have a care of their Salvation to abhor the Communion of that Church. But how this can be made out I am yet to seek. For particular Abuses that may happen, they are not the subject of our presēt debate; but speaking of the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils, and the practice conformable to that doctrine, I do not remember that Mr. Thorndike any where chargeth it with [...]in, if rightly understood and put in practice accordingly. If you have met with any thing in the Dr. which you think evinces it, I pray let me hear it.

Cathar.

Enough I think and more than enough; For a man may sin against the vertue of Religion two manner of wayes; either by not giving to God the [Page]worship due to him, or by giving the worship due only to him to creatures. And I take those of the Church of Rome to be guilty in both. For 1. as Dr. St. saith, Def. p. 1 [...]9. although in the general they confess that there ought to be some peculiar acts of Divine worship, as most agreable to Gods incommunicable Excellencie: yet when they deliver their minds freely, they reserve p. 204. no one act of External Adoration as proper to God, and to be performed by all Christians, as Cardinal Lugo, he saith, expressly affirmeth, whom he the rather mentions, because of his great Authority and Eminency, and writing since the rest. 2. They give all the external acts of Adoration to Saints and Images which they do to God, where as the doing of this is absolutely forbidden by Christ p. 1 [...]9. himself, when he said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt Matth. 3. 10. thou serve; which was certainly understood of an External act of worship, for the devil had said to him Fall down and worship me: A place so Evident that it blinds the Papists with the light of it.

Eun:

Here Catharinus, to be sure not to miss, you have loaded your Gun with a double charge. But still I see no Execution [Page] done, the former only cutting the ayr, and the latter losing its force against the hard wall. To make this clear, I shall lay down these three Postulata's, and I call them so because I think the Dr. himself will not deny them.

The First is, that the Law of nature See Dr. St. Def. p. 199. teaching, that man ought to use some External acts to testify his submission to God, there ought in reason to be some peculiar external Acts appropriated to the worship of God, as most agreable to his incommunicable Excellencie.

The 2. That the Appropriation which any such External acts had only by the Ibidem. p. 26 [...]. Law of Moses, being taken away by the ceasing of that Law, they are left to their own nature, unless appropriated a new by the Law of Christ, or some lawful Authority under him.

The 3. That the Church having Power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, where nothing doth appear contrary in the [...]9. Art. Art. 20. Dr. St. Def. p. 869. and in his Ans. to N, O, p. 268. Law of Christ, it belongs to her also to declare the Vse and Signification of them: and if after this any Scrupulous Conscience boggle at the doing of them, The Advantage is on the Churches side, [...]nd her Authority ought to overrule the [Page]practice of those who are her members.

These things supposed cleer and undeniable, as being either expressly asserted, or implied by the Dr. in the Places cited in the margent, J answer to the double charge you have made: that the Word Adoration, as the Dr. himself hath observed, (and by this at present as well as Des. p. 223. some other distinctiōs he afterward gives the world may see he knew very well how to answer his own Arguments though he thought fit to leave the Application of them to others:) The word Adoration, I say, may according to him, be taken either for all the External Acts of Religious worship, as John 4. 20. Acts 8. 27. (as it is usually taken by Controvertists in the matter of Idolatry, which may be committed in them all.) Or it may be taken more strictly, (as it is in the disputes of the Schools) for that Act of Religious worship which is performed by the motion of the body, as bowing, kneeling, Prostration, and the like. If it be taken the first way it is certain, that those of the Church of Rome haue one external Act at least of Religious worship proper to God, viz the Sacrifice (as they call it) of the Masse, or the Oblation of [Page] the Body and Bloud of Christ our Lord in the Eucharist, which they deny may be given to any creature, and whereas the Dr. cites Cardinal Lugo, asserting that there is no one external act of Adoration De Myst. Incarn. disp. 34. n. 24. which is proper to Latria, or the worship peculiar to God, the Jesuits will say that he evidently abuses both his Authority and his Eminency. For the Cardinal doth not say this, as denying Sacrifice to be an external act of worship proper to God, (which is what the Dr. insinuates by his unfaithfull relation of his words) but because he thinks it not properly an act of Adoration as taken in it's stricter sense, but of another kind distinct from it, yet so that he acknowledges it to be truly and properly an act of Religious worship, and such an one to use his own express words, qui non potest offerri nisi soli Deo, as may not be offered but to God alone. So unhappy is the Dr in his citations to say no worse at present: and I can not but wonder to see you after so much Experience to build any thing vpon them. But who is there, that will take the pains to compare them? The Romanists then haue one external Act of Religious worship viz Sacrifice which [Page] they acknowledge so proper to God, that it may not be offered but to h [...]m alone, And I see no reason, why the Solemn Prayers they make, at the time of offering the Sacrifice, to God as the Supream and only Author of our being, and given of every good and Perfect Gift, (many of which are inserted in to the Liturgy of the Church of England, and are esteemed the Principal Part of the Religious worship she gives to God,) may not by the Institution and Ʋse of them in that Church to God alone, be reckoned for another. And so the Church of Rome hath one external act of Religious worship appropriated to G [...]d, if the Eucharistical Sacrifice be truly and properly such, as they say it is, more than I believe you will allow the Church of England to have.

But then, if Adoration be taken in the stricter scnse for those acts of Religious worship which are performed meerly by, the motion of the body: they may be understood either all of them to be absolutely so appropriated to G [...]d, that it is not lawful vpon any account to give any of them to any other, and then the Quakers will be the only Christians in the [Page] world not chargeable with sin for doing them especially when there is no necessity at all of doing them to any other; as Des. p. 854▪ Dr. St. agreably to the Genius of that people objects to T. G. vpon a like occasion. Or only some of them and not other [...], as kneeling and prostrating but not bowing: And then the Dr. must tell us▪ what makes the discrimination between the one and the other. Or they may be understood, as qualified with such a determination of circumstancet, as makes them to be signs and tokens of the worship proper only to God: and then those of the Church of Rome deny they give any such to any but to God: and think they are as much at liberty to use them toward Images or Saints, whē they are understood by the Churche's declaration, as expressions of an inferiour worship, as the Church of England is to use bowing to the Altar; and why kneeling or prostrating may not be so circumstanc'd as well as bowing, I do not understand. As for the words of Christ▪ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, which you say are so evident that they blind the Papists with their light, I grant they were understood [Page] not only o [...] an In [...]ernal but an External act also: but the Occasion was such as the Dr himself tells us, as required p. 232. no respect of any other kind: And who is so blind as not to see, that the Prohibition of the Law fell vpon it as determin'd to be a sign of Religious worship by the circumstances in which it was required. And consequently where there is no such a determination of Circumstances, the Law is not concerned.

Cathar.

I like not these d [...]stinctions of yours Eun [...]mius, nor indeed any distinctions at all, where God interposes in the Def. p [...] 250. 25 case: for I see if we admit any, we shall be driven at last to submit to the Judgment of the Church, rather than of any private man: and this will spoile all. Hath not God forbidden any Religious worship to be given to any besides him when he commands that all Religious worship without distinction be given to himself, as it is plain he hath by that Law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. And where the Law doth not distinguish what presumption is it in us to do it?

Eun:

This is another excellent Principle of the Drs to uphold the Quakers in [Page] their absurd fancy of denying to give any External honour to a creature. And although he call this a Venemous insinuation in T. G. yet it follows clearly p. 31 [...]. from the general Principle vpon which he goes for if the Law commandeth all worship to be given to God alone without distinction, what presumption will they say is it in us to distinguish between Civil and Religious where the Law doth not? But what matters it whose cause we vphold, if we can but throw down that of the Church of Rome? And yet I do not so much wonder at this in the Dr. as to see him presume to distinguish where the Law doth not, even in Religious worship, when God himself, as he saith, hath commanded that all Religious worship without distinctiō be givē to himself. For it is he that tells us, that worship may be said to be Religious two wayes. 1st. as it is required by the Rule of Religion and so the worship given to Magistrates is p. 32 [...] ▪ Religious. 2. In its nature and circumstances, as it consists of those acts which God hath appropriated to his worship, or is attended with those circumstances which make it a Religious performance, and thus it is not to be given to[Page]Princes or any creatures, but only to God himself. So that here we have two sorts of Religious worship, the one properly, the other improperly so called. In like manner he aknowledges that the Reverence given to Holy Places and Things may be called a Religious Respect upon Def. p. 603. p. 287. 251. account of the Relation they have to God. Again the honour, saith he, we haue for the Saints may be called Religious honour, because it is vpon the account of those we may call Religious Excellencies, as they are distinguished from meer natural Endowments and Civil Accomplishments. And now if the divines of the Church of Rome when they call the Respect they give to Saints and Images Religious, declare they do it not, but vpon some of the fore mentioned accounts given by the Dr. viz either as those External Acts are required by the Rule of Religion, or for such Excellencies as he grants we may call Religious, or for the Relation the things to which they are given have to God, which is the very reason himself gives, why that may be called Religious respect, which is given to the Altar, I would gladly know why the same distinction may not be allowed to [Page] Sempronius, which is to Titius.

Cathar.

The reason I conceive is because nothing will serve the Papists for their Saints and Images but Religious worship, and although the Dr. do grant. that the Reverence given to Holy Places and Things may be called a Religious Respect, and the Honour we give to the Saints a Religious Honour; yet he will not admit of Religious worship to any but to God alone, because that includes submission as to a Superiour. And accordingly where he calls that a Religious Respect, which was given by Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel Dan. 2 46. he p. 132. saith it was done out of an Opinion of great sanctity without superiority. So also he p. 193. grants that the meer External Act of Adoration in bowing or kneeling may be given both on the account of Excellencie and superiority, as some of the Patriarchs he saith bowed to Angels, as a token of honour of their Excellencies, and not out of Religious worship: and men may bow and kneel to their Soveraign Princes on the account of Civil worship: and Children to their Parents in token of their subjection to them, as well as Creatures to their Creator in their solemn Acts of[Page]de [...]otion, but, he saith, that in all these cases, the different signification of these Acts is to be gathered f [...]om the Circumstances of them.

Eun:

Here Catharinus you have heaped many things, or rather words together. Among the rest you say, the Dr. will not admit any worship to be called Religious, but what is due to God alone. And I dare undertake the Church of Rome will never refuse him Communion for it. For where I pray, do you find, that that Church hath declared Religious worship to be due to Saints and Images? There is no such Expression in any of the Decrees of her Councils obliging those of her Communion so much as to call it so: nor any mention at all made of it in them. And if some of the Schoolmen use that term, it is (as they declare them selves) vpon some of the former accounts acknowledged by the Dr. himself to be sufficient to give the denomination of Religious, as of Relation to God or the Saints when done to Images, or of some Supernatural Excellencie, when given to Saints. But I do not see why according to his own Principles there may not be a Religious worship due vpon some [Page] account to a creature, as well as a Religious Rspect, or a Religious Honour. For, may there not be a middle kind of Superiority, as well as Excellencie? Such I take the Authority of Bishops to be, whom the H. Ghost, as the Apostle saith, hath placed to govern the Church; not Divine, because that is incommunicable to any creature, nor meerly Civil or Natural because not founded vpon any such Accounts, but of a middle rank or nature between both. And if the honour giuen for Such an Excellencie, may be called Religious honour, why may not the worship due to such a superiori [...]y be called Religious worship? The Dr. indeed tel [...]s us, that when Nebuchadnezzar fell vpon his face and worshipped Daniel? he did it out of an Opinion of great Sanctity without superiority: But it is but his saying, and the Intentiō of the giver being secret, I wōder how the Dr. could know so precisely how farr it went: and the more, because the Prostration there given was an act of Adoration; for the Text saith not that he honoured, but that he worshipped Daniel, and then addes withall, that he commanded that they should offer an [Page]Oblation and sweet Odours (or Inconse) to him, which by the consent of mankind at that time were understood to be aknowledgments of superiority. But to let that pass, Put case, that God had constituted Daniel the God of Nebuchadnezzar as he did Moses the God of Pharaoh, in that cass I suppose the act of Prostration might haue been given vpon the account of his Superiority, as well as Sanctity, and so would haue been an Act of Religious worship, as given vpon account of Superiority, which was neither divine nor Civil; as well as of Religious Respect, because given vpon account of such an Excellencie.

Again, the Dr. granting (as he doth,) that the meer External Act of Adoration in bowing or kneeling may be given both on the account of honour and worship i. e. vpon the account of Excellencie, as when some of the Patriarchs bowed to Angels, and of superiority, as when men bow and kneel to their soveraing Princes, and Children to their Parents, and that in all these cases the different signification of these acts is to be gathered from the Circumstances of them, I would gladly know, why an act Account [Page] of Religious worship given vpon the Account of such a superiority as I haue described, may not be discerned, not to be properly Religious, as well as an act of Religious Respect upon the account of a like Excellencie? But how comes the Dr. after all the great bustle he makes about God's appropriating external acts of worship to himself, to put the Tryal of his cause at last upon the determination of Circumstances? I confess he must needs see it would come to this at length, all Appropriation by vertue of the law of Moses being taken away, and no express declaration of the Will of Christ produced by him, appropriating them anew. But then again he could not be ignorant how hazardous is must be for him to venture upon it: For if the External acts of worship given to Creatures in the Church of Rome chance to prove accōpanied with such Circūstances by which they may and generally are understood [...]ot to be Acts of divine worship, but of an inferiour Veneration, I do not see but that they are to be acquitted not only of Idolatry, but of sin in doing them, according to the Dr's [Page] own Principles.

Cathar.

Here you touch upon a Point, wherein the Dr. comes vp close indeed with the Papists, and utterly confounds them. For as he hath well observed, the worship for example I giue to the King, Des. p. 192. doth not take its denomination from my Intention, but from the nature of the Act, which being Civil, the worship continues to bear that name. By which we see, saith he, that the External circumstances, which do accompany mens Acts, are those which do so circumscribe and limit them, that from thence they become either Civil or Religious. And he freely [...]. 232. acknowledgeth, that there is the same nature in these Acts, that there is in words of different significations, which being taken in general are of an Equivocal sense; but being considered with all their particular circumstances, they haue their sense so restrained, and limited, that it is easy to discern the one from the other. That therefore, saith he, we call Religious Adoration which is performed with all the circumstances o [...] Religious worship, as to time, place, occasion, and such like; as if men used prostration to any thing within the Courts of the[Page]Temple (wherein some of the Jews thought that posture only lawful,) If it were done in the time of Sacrifice or devotion: if the Occasion were such as required no respect of any other kind, as when the devil demanded of Christ to f [...]ll down, and worship him. In these and such like circumstances, we say, saith he, that Adoration hath the determin'd signification of Religious worship, and is an appropriate sign of it by Gods own Institution. And upon this account it is, that he charges those of the Church of Rome for the Adoration they give to Saints and Images by bowing, kneeling, &c. in the Church, and in the most solemn Acts of devotion.

Eun.

This is one of those Popular discourses which take much with the Vulgar. But how impregnable soevet it may appear to those who judge of things by the show they make, yet upon Examination it will be found as incoherent and weak as an Adversary would wish. For 1. If it be true, as the Dr. saith, that the worship takes it denomination from the nature of the Act, I confess I do not see, how it follows from thence, (though the Dr. say he doth) that the External Cirhouse[Page]cumstances which do accompany men's acts, are those which do so circumscribe and limit them that from thence they become either Civil or Religious. Those who haue but peeped through Aristotles key-hole, (as he saith) tell us that Acts take their nature from the formal Reason or Account upon which they tend to their Objects, and that from thence they become either Civil or Religious, though they may receive another denomination from the circumstances which do accompany them. But I question much whether the meer Circumstances of Time, and Place, and such like, as assigned by the Dr. be sufficient in the present case to give such a denomination▪ For

2. If these be the Circumstances, which do so restrain and limit the signification of External Acts, that it is easy to discern one worship from another, how will he make it out, that the People did not give Religious worship to David, when in a most solemn Act of Devotion, wherein David having blessed the Lord before all the Congregation and exhorted the People to do the like, saying, Now [...]. Chron. [...]9. 10. Bless you the Lord God: it follows immediately, [Page] And all the Congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king. Where we see the same act and at the same time, a time of solemn devotion, given to God and the king, and the People never charged for giving Religious worship to the king.

3. In case the first Christians being met together to pray, and St James their Bishop passing by, they should haue kissed the hemme of his garment, and desired his Benediction in the posture they were in upon their knees, (and the same is of a child at his Prayers, to his Father,) I cannot think that the Dr. himself, had he been present, would haue condemned them of damnable sin for it, or even scrupled the doing of it himself.

4. When Naaman desired to be permitted by the Prophet to go with his Heathen Master into the house of Rimmon (of which I shall give you a farther account by and by out of Dr Hammond,) and (when the master worship'd there, and lean'd upon his hand) to bow in the house of Rimmon, the Prophet bad him Go in peace; which surely he would not haue done, had the very bowing in the [Page] and presence of an Idol, and in the very time of worship, been Religious worship or Idolatry.

5. The External Act of bowing to the Ark among the Jews was, and to the Altar in the Church of England is performed in the time and place of divine worship, and yet the Dr. denies them to be Religious worship; t'is not then from those Circumstances precisely that worship becomes Religious.

6. Lastly, if there be the same nature in these Acts, that there is in words of different signifieations; as those words being differently applied, may bear the same significations in Religious matters, which they do in others, whether they be spoken in the Church or else where; in the time of divine service, or out of it; as the word Father applied to God, or to him from whom we received our Being under God, or the word Light applied to Christ himself, or his disciples; or the words, Give; Help, &c. applied to God, or to Angels and men; and the same is of the words, Advocate, Mediator, Intercessor, &c. as applied to Christ, or to Holymen: As these, I say, and the like words being thus differently applied bear the same significations in Religious matters, [Page] which they do in others; So also the Acts of bowing, kneeling &c. being differently applied, may signify the same in the time and place of Religious worship, as being so applied they would do out of it, as you haue seen in the Examples before alledged, of the People to David, of Naaman to his Master, of the Jews to the Ark, and of Christians to the Altar in solemn Acts of devotion. And consequently, although the Circumstances of time and place may contribute in due occasion to show the difference of one Act from another; yet it is, as they stand under other Qualifications, which afford a sufficient Ground to judge of the nature of the Acts, whether they be Civil or Religious, and whether properly Religious, or improperly only, for some Excellency or Superiority not meerly Natural or Civil. And those are. 1. The different Objects to which they are applied, as to God, or the Saints, or the King, &c. 2. Some Publick Profession or Protestation, manifesting that they are applied to such Objects upon different accounts. 3. The eommon consent or Vse by which such Acts are generally understood to be applied to such Objects, upō [Page] such differēt Accounts. And where th [...]se three conditiōs cōcurr, they give sufficiēt ground to make a different iudgment of the Acts, be the Circumstances of time Of Idol. [...] 29. 30. and place what they will, as Dr. Hammond himself confesses in the afore-mentioned case of Naaman. For having observed, as he doth, (and he saith it is an Ordinary Observation) that Aliens, Proselytes of other nations were not bound to that strictness of submitting to every rite and positive precept of the Law, as the Jews were, instancing particularly in that of not bowing to the king in the presence of an Idol, which ‘the Jews he saith, at least accounted themselves obliged not to do, and supposing it to be the Common custome and practice in Syria to pay Veneration, even Prostration to the king, he tells us, that Naaman was permitted by the Prophet to go with his Heathen Master into the house of Rimmon, and (when the Master worship'd there, and lean'd upon his hand) to bow himself in the house of Rimmon 2. kings 5. 18. upon this ground, 1. that he never wēt into the Idol-Temple, but to wait upon his Master in the Office which he had. 2ly, that he profess't himself to all (even to that Heathen Master, and those that [Page] werein his Court) to be a worshipper of none, but of the true God; and to that end carried two mule-loads of earth out of Palestine with him v. 17. in honour of him, whose name was great there, and to build an Altar according to th [...] Prescript Ex. 20. 24 by which it was s [...]fficiently clear to the beholders, (as by an Interpretative Protestation) that when his Master worshipt, he only bowed and then his bowing was only Civil to his Master the king, not Religious to Rimmon or Saturn, or his Image there. And therefore to his Question, whether God would be offended with him in that matter, the Prophet answers him with a [Go in peace.] I cannot think so irreverently of the Prophet, as that he should make that answer Ironically to his new Convert, (any more then I can belieue N [...]aman's scruple belong'd only to the former part of his life (reading it in the Praeter sense:) For sure that had been guilty of the worshipping the Idol, and not only bowing in the house of Rimmon:) but that he meant in earnest, what alone the words import, that in thus doing, and no more, he need not fear that he should be a breaker of that law, which in this particular was not given [Page] to him, or any, but those of that Nation, or People of the Jews. Where you see that the whole Resolution of the case in the iudgment of that Eminent divine of the Church of England, depends upon the three afore-mentionned conditions of the Object to which the act of bowing was applied, the common practice in Sy [...]ia of paying that Veneration to the king. and a Publick Pr [...]testation that he intended not that worship to the Idol, but to his Master, and not on the Circumstances of time and place, which in that occasion were over-ruled by those other.’ The Fundamental reason of this is given by Monsieur Daillé an Eminent divine of the Reformed Church in France; and because his Authority may sway much with you, I shall give it in his own words. Signs, saith he, instituted by Apol. c. 14. p. 118. men to signify any thing, whether of nature or Religion, are to be interpreted by the publick and common practice of those who use them, and not by the secret and particular Intentions of this or that Person. I grant, saith he, that of themselves and of their own nature, very many of them do not signify one thing more then another; and that those which have a natural[Page]relation to the things signified, haue it not so necessarily annexed to them, that it might not have been lawfull frō the beginning to have us'd them otherwise. But after that the Will of man, which is the Mistresse of such Institutions, hath addicted and dedicated them to a certain signification, and Publick Vse hath confirm'd it, Iaverr, that afterwards to use them in anotbersense is Intolerable Impertinency, and that he that so uses them, is to be accounted for a Fool and a Lyer among all Wise men &c. Thus Monsieur Daillé.

And now to come to the case of the Church of Rome; Although the R [...] manists do give those External acts of Adoration, which are performed by the motion of the body, as bowing, kneeling, &c. to Saints and Images, and that in the Church, and in the solemn acts of devotion: Yet these Signs being such as of their own nature are Equivocal, and so subject to the will of men, and there being extant a Publick Profession of that Church, and that confirmed by the Publick and common Practice, not only of the Roman, but of the whole Christian world before Luther, (and of the [Page] far greater part of it still,) that when applied to Saints or Images; they are used as Tokens or Expressions of an Inferiour respect or Veneration, I see if we mete with Monsieur Daillès measures, it can be no other than Intolerable Impertinencie, to restrain and limit them to another Sense, and They who will needs take them in such a restrained sense, that they may charge those who use them in the manner aboue declared, with Idolatry or other damnable Sin, will fall within the number of those who by his verdict are to be accounted for F [...]ols or Lyers among all Wise men; Atleast if we weigh with Mr. Thorndike's Weights, they must be guilty of a strange Vncharitable Opiniatorness in supposing them to contradict themselves.

Cathar.

I confess [...], if it be true what Mr. Dail [...]é saith, that Signs instituted by M [...] to signify any thing, whether of Nat [...]re or Religion, are to be interpreted by the common and Publick Practice of th [...]s [...] who use them, I do not see but the Papists haue as f [...]ir▪ (if not a fairer Plea [...],) that they ought to be understood in the Sense they declare themselves▪ as the Church of England hath for bowing [Page] to the Altar by it's declaring; that they intend not thereby to give any Religious worship to the Communion Table. For if Number and Continuance weigh any thing in this Case (as certainly they ought in such Institutions as depend upon the Will of men) I conceive the Publick Profession and Agreement both of the Eastern and Western Churches for so many ages together in performing those external acts of Adoration towards Saints and Images, will out-weigh without comparison the Declaration and agreement of the Church of England for bowing to the Altar. But then again, What colour soever you may pretend from the Will of Men, (which you say, is the Mistress of such Institutions) to smooth ouer the practice of the Papists in giving such External Acts of Adoration as are performed by the motion of the body, as bowing, kneeling, &c to Saints and Images, (they being in their own nature such as the Dr. grants may be used to God and the creatures): Yet this will not serve for those other acts of Religious worship, as Sacrifice, Building of Temples and Altars, Burning of Incense, Solemn Invocation, and making[Page]of Vows, which God himself hath appropriated to his own worship. And who dares alter what God himself hath appointed? Def. p. 261.

Eun.

No man surely I think will be so hardy: but then we ought to consider, how and in what manner the appointment is made. Otherwise the Proposition [who dares alter what God hath appointed?] crudely and unlimitedly taken, as it is put by the Dr, is that very Principle, vpon which the Anabaptists ground themselves for not swearing, and the Quakers for not calling any man Master. For if God, say they, haue commanded not to swear at all, and forbidden his disciples to be called Masters, who dares alter what God himself hath appointed? But this by the by, to let you see what kind of Principles the Dr. makes use of to combate the Church of Rome.

As for the Objections themselves, although they haue been answered a hundred times over by those of the Church of Rome, yet because you press them anew, I answer, that the Appropriation which all or any of these acts are supposed to haue had only [Page] by the Law of Moses, being taken away by the ceasing of that Law, as I shewed before, and no new appropriation or Prohibition by any express Law of Christ produced hitherto by the Dr. they are to be reckoned in the number of those Rites and Ceremonies which the Church hath power to decree and use as she iudges expedient, and their signification is to be taken from the Publick Profession and Agreement of those that use them. No new Appropriation, I say, produced by the Dr. which I desire you to observe, because those of the Church of Rome maintain their Sacrifice of the Masse, to be of Christ's own Institution, and so not to be given to any Creature.

Here then it is, that we are to consider in what sense it is that those of the Church of Rome give the rest of these external acts to the Saints. For the Will of men being the Mistress of such Institutions, they ought both in reason and Charity to be understood, as they declare they use them: This I think cannot be denied by the Dr. himself, when to iustify the lawfullness of bowing to the Altar, he appeals to the declaration of [Page] the Church of England, as your self but even now observed. Let us then see in what sense it is that these acts are used by those of the Church of Rome to the Saints. And

1. For the Invocation of Saints, they declare they mean no more by it, then having recourse to their ayd and assistāc [...] to obtain by their Intercession Benefits of God through the merits of his only Son and our only Redeemer Jesus Christ.

2. For the building of Temples and Altars, they declare, that the structures so called, may be considered, either as Places designed for the offering of Sacrifice and so they [...]rect none but to God alone, as they offer Sacrifice to him alone, though in memo [...]y and honour of the Saints: Or as more Noble Monuments to preserve their Reliques and Memory, and more affectuously implore their Intercession. And that they are commonly called Temples or Churches, and Altars from the relation they haue to the Sacrifice, which is offered in them to God alone, and that Solemn Invocation which is made to him, as the only Giver of every good and perfect Gift.

[Page] 3. For the burning of Incense, the Appropriation it had by the Law of Moses being taken away, and Idoiatry extirpated, which made use of it as an act of Religious worship to Palse Gods, (both of them sufficient reasons, whilst they subsisted, for Hezekiah's breaking to peices the brazen serpent, when he saw the people offer Incense to it) and so the act left to its own nature, which the Dr. himself grants to be the same with that of the outward acts of Adoration, and that T. G. was so farr in the right when he said, that burning of Incense Def. p. 242. w [...]t a Ceremony of the like nature with bowing, those of the Church of Rome declare that they do not use it to Saints and Images as a sign of Religious worship, but either as a Ceremony to signify the sweet odour the Prayers of the Saints are, or the like: or as a token of an Inferiour respect and Veneration.

4. Lastly for making of Vows, they declare, they do not promise any thing to the Saints, in the same sence they do to God, but what they promise to God they promise in token of Gratitudo as to the Author and Give [...] of all good things; and what they promise to the Saints, [Page] they promise only in token of Gratitude to them for their Intercession to God.

Now whateuer Cavils men of the Critical Employment may make against this manner of using either these acts or words, and how many [...]sts soever they may give us of their Office from E [...]ymologies or the like, t'is manifest that the Publick Profession and common Practice of those who use them, will over-rule all. For after that th [...]se kind of signs are addicted to such a signification by the will of men, which is the Mistress of such Institutions, where no Appropriation is made by God, and Publick use hath confirm'd it, I confess I do not see but it must be, as Mr, Daillé saith, Impertinency or Folly to limit and restrain thē to another sense. Nor is this to alter what God hath appointed, as Dr. St. obiecteth against Des. p. 259. Bellarmin when he confesseth that the name of Vow is alwaies taken in scripture for a promise made to God. For what God hath appointed is not that we shal not call a Promise made to a Saint in token of Gratitude for his intercession, a Vow: but that we shall not make any such Promise to thē as the Authors or Givers [Page] of the benefits we haue received, or expect to receive by their Intercession; nor that we shall not call a structure erected in Memory of a Saint, a Temple or Church from the Sacrifice and solemn Invocation that is offered in it to God, but that we shall not erect any such to offer Sacrifice to the Saint, or invocate him as Author of what we ask: it In like manner what God hath appointed▪ is not that we shall not perform such other acts to Saints as may serve to testify the Respect and Esteem we haue for the Exclelencies they are endowed with (and the same is of Images for the Relation they bear to God) but that we shall not give them to any besides himself, as tokens of that inward submission of our souls which is proper to him; or as they may rationally be understood to be such, which I do not conceive can ever happen in the case of the Church of Rome towards Saints and Images whilst there is extāt a Publick Prof [...]ssion of that Church determining and declaring them to be used to them, as tokens only of an I [...]f [...]riour Respect or Veneration, and the Practice supposed conformable to the Profession; which we must necessarily do, unless as [Page] Mr Thorndike saith, we will suppose Just Veights ch. 16. them to contradict themselves: And then the whole Question will be, whether their Adversaries words are to be taken before theirs, that is, whether their Adversaries understand what they mean, better than they do themselves?

Cathar.

Here Eunomius, I think I may say to you what the Priests and Elders Matth. 21. 23. did to Christ, but with agreat deal more reason: By what Authority do men these things? And who gaue them this Authority? For if this be not to alter what God hath appointed, and to put it in the Power of man to change those things which God hath made peculiar to himself, I know not what is.

Eun:

And here I think I may ask you a like Question to that which Christ Luke 18 19. made to the man that called him Good, Why callest thou me Good? None is good, save one that is God? By what Authority do you give the name of Good to a man whom you esteem Righteous, and some times for fashion's sake too, if God haue appropriated the name of Good to himself? Again if God haue expressly forbidden to call any man our Father upon Matt 9. 23. 9. the earth, by what Authority do you [Page] giue the name of Father to any man upon the earth? And if he have forbidden his disciples to be called Masters, by v. 10 [...] what Authority do you take it your self, or Dr St. give it to the Reverend Master Baxter? when you haue answered these Questions, Catharinus, you will see, and perhaps confess what hitherto you would not, that the different applying of words, (and it is the same of acts in their own nature Equivocal,) is not to alter what God hath appointed, nor to put in the Power of man to change what God hath made peculiar to himself, but to leave them to God in the Sense, in which they are appropriated to him, and apply them only in another sense to the Creatures.

Cathar.

This I confess is more than hitherto I reflected on. But still there is one thing behind which seems to defeat all that you haue said, and if you can give me a satisfactory Account of it, I shall give you no farther trouble. And it is, why the same may not be done in Sacrifice, that is, in other External acts of worship as bowing or kneeling, Erecting of Temples, or burning of Incense? Why may it not be made common as well [Page]as Vows. And though it be offered only Def. p. 259. absolutely to God, why may it not be offered relatively to the Saints or Images? p. 857. In a word, I desire to know with the Dr how a sacrisice doth come to signify p. 230. this absolute worship more than Adoration?

Eun:

This is a Scruple, which hath troubled the Drs notions from the beginning; and because he repeats it so often in his Defence. I perceive you think it hath not been answered. But J am of another mind. For, if you remember, Cath. no. Idol. p. 132. though T. G. tell him, that he will better understand it, when he is become a Proselyte; yet with all he saith, that in the mean time it may suffice him to know that the Church of God hath no such custome; and that Sacrifice is used and taken by the Publick Vse and Custome of the Church for an acknowledgment of the absolute worship due to God, and not of Relative to an Image. And I do not see why he might not haue been satisfied with this A [...]swer.

Cathar.

I cannot but wonder to hear you say so. For as the Dr replies very home upon him: I do not ask, saith he, whether the Church of Rome haue any Def. p. [...]57. [Page]such custome (the Church of God I know hath not) but whether it may not haue that, as well as some others, and upon the same grounds of Relative worship. But if I must not understand this till I become a Proselyte, I hope I shall be alwaies contented with my Ignorance. If I can be no oth [...]rwise informed, I am not sorry to see such Evidence of their Inability to answer, who make such put-offs.

Eun.

And I cannot but wonder more, why the Dr. should call that a Put-off, which seems to me to be a very Pertinent Answer to the Question, for as much as concerns the Dispute between him and T. G. And that you may see this more cleerly, let us suppose T. G. to haue admitted, that possibly Sacrifice might be used, in like manner as other external acts are; all the Dr could in [...]err from thence to his purpose would be, that in such case the Church of Rome might possibly haue no external act of worship appropriated to God, if▪ she haue none but Sacrifice; but whilst she hath no such custome de facto, as offering Sacrifice to Saints and Images, but to God alone; tis manifest he cannot accuse them in that point of having no External Act of [Page]worship proper to God, or of giving it to any besides him, which I take to be sufficient to repell the Drs charge of actual Idolatry; and why T. G. was bound to any more unless men must be condemned as actual Idolaters, because it is possible they may be so; or what design the Dr proposed to himself by demanding more, I do not understand.

Cathar.

The design was, as I conceive, to provoke T. G. by often casting this Question in his way to give some reason, why Sacrifice might not be applied to creatures, in like manner as other External Acts are. For whateuer reason he should give, why this may not be lawfully done in Sacrifice, would equally show the unlawfulness of doing it in the rest: And therefore the Dr so carnetly presses to know how a sacrifice doth come to signify this absolute worship more then Adoration, that is, bowing, or Des. p. 230. kneeling, or such like acts performed by the motion of the body?

Eun:

This was a Cunning device indeed, but such a one, as it seems T. G▪ was not afraid to speak to. For he tells Cath. no. Idol. p. 319. the Dr 1st that Sacrifice in general is both by the custome of the Church, and th [...][Page]consent of all mankind (as St Augustin teacheth) appropriated to signify the De Civ. Dei. lib. 10. c. 4. absolute worship due only to God. And 2ly for the particular Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Christ, the nature p. 1 [...]8. and dignity thereof, he saith, requireth that it be offered to God alone. And this I take to be a very plain and positive answer, how a Sacrifice doth come to signify this absolute worship more than Adoration. But since the Dr. is not satisfied with it, I must desire you when you see him next, to tell him that a Friend of yours desires to know, why Invocation (which he will haue to be as much the Proper act of Religious worship in the Church of England, as those of the Church of Rome account Sacrifice to be) may not be applied to Creatures, as well as Supplication, which St Paul reckons among the acts Phil. 4. 6. of Relig [...]o [...]s worship due to God; and why that may not be made common, as well as Go [...]d, and Father and Master are, which by Christ's own command in the new Law are appropriated to himself. He cannot recurr to Nature, because he knows words do not signify naturally, but by the Will of men, and [Page] are frequently changed by custome. If he haue recourse to the Imposition and Custome of men determining the word Invocation to signify that sort of address which is proper to God; those of the Church of Rome haue the same and in a more Vniversel manner, for a like determination of the external act of Sacrifice in general to signify the absolute worship of God. If to God's Institut [...]on, they acknowledge the same for the Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of our Lord, which, they say, was instituted by Christ himself at his last supper. Lastly if he fly to distinctions, Sempron [...]us will think he hath as much r [...]ght to make use of them, as T [...]t [...]us.

Cathar.

This is another of those you call Arguments ad hominem. But still methinks you come not up to what the Dr would hau [...]: If Sacrifice do signify the Absolute worship of God more than Adoration, is it for that of it self it doth more properly signify our inward and total Def. p. 226. subjection of our selves to God than the other doth? Methinks as the Dr saith, it would become T. Gs learning to i [...] form us in this matter.

Eun:

well; as if T G were bound for [Page] the Dr's pleasure to give such reas [...]ns, as he would haue; and not what himself thought most proper for the present dispute? Does not the Dr himself in that very place, honour them with the title of the best learned of the Roman divines, who confess that Sacrifice doth n [...]t naturally Def. p. 226. or of it self, signify any worship of God, but by the Imposition of men? And do not those other Divines who maintain it to signify the [...]orship proper to God upon the account of nature, ackno [...]ledge that it doth so also by the common consent of Mankind? What necessity was there then, that T. G. in a debate with an Adversary, whose Genius and Cause both lead him to multiply Controversies without end, should alledge any other reason, than that in which they all agree? Whether this consent of mankind, in using the destruction of creature [...] to signify the supream dominion of God ouer life and de [...]th, and their Subjection to him, owe it's Origine to nature, or to some Inspirat [...]on or command of God given to men in the beginning, or were taken up by their own Voluntary Election, and so propagated to Posterity, the Dr is at [Page] liberty to dispute with the Schoolmen, o [...] his own thoughts, as he pleases. It concerns not T. G. It was enough for him that he had the consent of mankind on his side, that Sacrifice was to be offered to none but God.

Cathar.

But do you remember what the Dr addes in that very place now cited by you? How comes the destruction of any Des. p. 226. Creature, saith he, under our command to signify the inward subjection of our selves to God? What pleasure can we conceive the Almighty should take in seeing us to destroy his creatures for his sak [...]? Our minds may be as farr from submitting to God, as these things are of themselves from signifying such a submission. Nay how comes a sacrifice to stand so much in our stead, that because we take away the life of that, ther [...]fore we own God as our Lord? It might rather of it selfsignify that we haue the power of life and death over Beasts, than that God hath it over us.

Eun:

I remember the passage very well; but I do not remember where T. G. said that th [...] destruction of a creature doth of it self signify our subjection to God. What he saith is that this material [Page]action may be done for several ends and Intentions; and is not the Institution of Cath. n [...] Idol. p. 182. God, or the Imposition of men sufficient to determin it, when used as an act of worship, to signify the absolute worship due to God, but that it must be determin'd of it self? Who ever heard any thing more trifling and frivolou? Is this to reason like a Master in Israel? Pray tell me, Catharinus; do you not think Moses would haue been put shrewdly to it, had Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, instead of seeking the Priest hood, quarrel'd at the Sacrifices, and made the same demands to him, which the Dr does to T. G.? For might they not haue said to him (and surely it would haue become Moses his learning to haue informed them in this matter,) How comes the destruction of any creature under our command to signify the inward subjection of our selves to God? What pleasure can we conceive the Almighty should take in seeing us to destroy his creatures f [...]r his sake? Our minds may be as farr f [...]om submitting to God, as those things are of themselves from signifying such a submission. Nay how comes a Sacrifice to stand so much in our sto [...]d, that because[Page]we take away the life of that, therefor [...] we own God as our Lord? It might rather of it self signify that we haue the power of l [...]fe and death over Beasts, than that God hath it over us. But alas poor men, they were not acquainted with these subtilties. They took it upon the Common consent of all Mankind, that sacrifice was an External Act of worship due to God alone, and so quarrel'd not the offering it to him, as Nonsensical, but affected themselves to haue a share in the honour and Office of the Priesthood.

Cathar.

Be it so, if you will of the Jewish sacrifices: But, (as the Dr goes p. 227. on) of all things in the world, it would never haue come into my mind, nor I think into any man's well in his senses, to offer up God himself unto God as a Sacrifice, in order to the testifying the devoting of our selves unto him; and yet this, after all their talk, comes to be that external sacrifice, wbich is the only appropriate sign of the absolute worship of God, viz, the Sacrifice of the Mass, wherein the Priest is believed, to offer up God himself under the species of Bread and Wine to the Eternal God in token of our subjection[Page]to him. M [...]thinks yet it were some what more reasonable to offer up brute Creatures that are under us, than God that is so infinitely aboue us, and such is the weakness of my understanding, that this seems to be rather an Argument of our Power over God, than of our subjection to him. But since the Formal Reason of a sacrifice is said to lie in the destruction of it. Good Lord! What thoughts must these men haue (if they haue any) when they th [...]nk it in their power, first to make their God by speaking five words, then to offer him up as a sacrifice, then to suppose him destroyed, and all this to testify their submission to God. I want words, saith he, to Express the intolerable Blasphemy and Absurdity of these things.

Eun:

This I confess, is such a passage which I could not read without horrour, as being not only trifling and Frivolous as the former, but highly Injurious to that inestimable Sac [...]ifice, which Christ himself offered upon the Cross. For what was it, the Jews were scandaliz'd at in it but the offering of God to God. We preach, saith St Paul, Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks 1. Cor. 1. 23. Foolishness. And then again Ch. 2. v. 7. [Page] We speak the Wisdome of God, which had the Princes of this world known they would not haue crucified the LORD of GLORY. And could the Dr find no Stone to throw at the Mass, but that at which the Jews stumbled, and which his Wiser Heathens derided as Foolishness? I wonder he was not afraid of that saying of the same Apostle 1. Cor. 1. 18, The preaching of the Cross is to them that perish Foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the Power of God, when he durst say, Of all things in the world it cannot enter into my mind, nor I think into any man's well in his senses to offer [...]y God himself unto God as a Sacrifice? For although he talk of the making and destroying of God in the Mass, yet he knows very well, there is no such thing done or believed to be done there, but that the same Christ who is in Heauen is believed to be whole under either Species; and his Bloud to be separated from his Body not really, but Mystically only and in Representation. But these bugg words were to be thrust in to giue a colour to his Exorbitancie. The main thing he insists upon is the Intolerable Blasphemy and Absurduy, as he calls it, [Page] of offering up God himself unto God as a Sacrifice. But Good Lord! What thoughts must he haue (if he haue any) of the Sacrifice of the Cross? Can it enter into his mind, that Christ himself (with Reverence be it spoken and trembling too) was not well in his senses, when he offered up God himself to God as a Sacrifice? Or that those who were at the foot of the Cross, might not haue offered him up to his Father, who voluntarily offered himself for them, in order to the testifying the devoting themselves as sacrifices to (him if he should please to require it,) without losing their senses? If not, why must those be out of their senses, who offer up the same sacrifice to him, and with like devotion upon the Altar? This is such an Argument as might haue been expected from the Pen of a Crellius. But I will not suppose the Dr, either to deny with him that Christ was the High God, because he was so kind to T. G. as to Def. p. 5. suppose he would not deny the Creator and Governour of the world to be the true God; or that Christ did not offer up himself to God, when St Paul saith so Ephes. 5. 5. 2. expressly, that he gaue himself for us, as [Page]an offering and a sacrifice to God for a s [...]eet smelling savour, and th [...]t he who is the Brig [...]tness of his Fathers Glory, purged Hebr. 1. 3. our sins by himself: Or that he thinks it as much for the honour of God and the good of our souls to offer the bloud of brute Creatures, viz, of Bulls and of Goats, as the Bloud of Christ who offered Hebr. [...]. 14. himself without spot to Go [...]. These things I leave, yet withall I cannot omit to tell you, that I see another ground from whence this kind of transport may proceed, and at what it levels.

Cathar.

Pray let me know what it is.

Eun:

It is that he cannot with any patience endure to hear of the Sacrifice of the Altar, though he be content to bow to it. That must down, though the Sacrifice of the Cross fall with it. And this was it, which when T. G. had said, Cath. n [...]. Idol. p. 391. that that Religion (speaking only in general) which admits no external Visible sacrifice, must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the Publick worship of God, made him so sollicitous and eager to repell the very suspition of having any such sacrifice from the Church of Des. p. 22 [...]. England. What External Visible sacrifice haue you, saith he (speaking to those [Page] of the Church of Rome) that we haue not, besides that os God himself, whom you believe to be personally present (as if the Church of England did not) as the Object of divine worship under the species of Bread and Wine? But was this to speak like a Champion of the Church of England? How farr he dissents herein from the sentiments of the true and genuin Sons of this Church, that is (according to his own Paraphrase in his General Preface) the most remote from all suspition of dis-affection to her, or Inclination to Puritanism, may easily appear Mr Thorndike Epil l. 3. c. 5. p. 44. from what that Person of [...]reat learning and Excellent Piety, Mr. Thorndike, (as the Dr himself acknowledges him to haue been), hath delivered upon this subject. ‘Hauing maintained, saith he, that the Elements are really changed from Ordinary Bread and Wine, into the Body and Bloud of Christ, mystically present as in a Sacrament, and that in vertue of the Consecration, not by the Faith of him that receives; I am to admit and maintain, Whatsoever appears duly consequent to this Truth; namely, that the Elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, in [Page] as much as the Body an Bloud of Christ are con [...]ained in them. And then farther addes (p. 46.) that the sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily Propitiatory and Impetratory both, it cannot be denied, that the sacrament of the Eucharist in▪ as much as it is the same sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross,—is also both Propitiatory and Impetratory. The same is asserted by Dr He [...]lyn in his Necessary Introduction to Cyprianus Anglicus.’ ‘Assuredly, saith he, if the Priest and Dr. H [...]ylyn. [...] duct. [...]: 24. Altar be so near, the Lamb for the Burnt-offe [...]g cannot be farr of, even the most Blessed Lamb of G [...]d, which takes away the sins of the world, (as the Scripture s [...]yles him) whose Passion we find commemorated in the sacrament, called therefore the sacrament of the Altar; and for the same reason called by S. Augustin in his E [...]chiridion Sacrificium Altaris, the Sacrifice of the Altar; by the E [...]glish Liturgie in the Prayer next after the Participation, the Sacrifice of Praise and Thankes-giving (Sacrificium laudis;) By Chrysostom, The remembrance of a Sacrifice, and by many learned Writers among our selves, a Commemotative Sacrifice.’ For thus saith [Page] Bp Andrews in his Answer to Card. [...] Andrevvs. Bellarmin, c. 8. Tollite de Missa Transsubstantiationem vestram, nec diu Resp. ad Apol, Bell. nobiscum lis erit de sacrificio. ‘Which the said Dr Heylyn translates in this manner, Take from the Mass your Transubstantiation, and we will haue no difference with you about the sacrifice: declaring thereby how consequent he thought the admitting of a Sacrifice to be, to the belief of the Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, which he there shows to haue been the constant doctrine of the Church of England, both from her Liturgie and Catechism, n. 25. 26 and the writings of the best learned of her divines;’ among whom he cites that Profession of Bp Andrews in the name of the Church of England to Card. ‘Bellarmin. Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram; de modo praesentiae nil temerè definimus. We acknowledg [...] a presence as true and Real as you do: but we determine nothing rashly of the manner of it. From which and the Testimonies of some other divines he saith, It seems it is agreed on both sides (that is to say, the Church of England and the Church of Rome) that the [...]e [...] [Page] true and [...] of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the disagreement being only in the [...] P [...]ae [...]entiae, the manner of the Presence.’

This is what the true and genuin sons of the Church of E [...]gland teach both concerning the Rea [...] Presence, and the Sacrific [...] of Christ's Body and [...] in the Sacrament of the Altar, as well knowing how great a [...]efect it would be for a C [...]urch to want the most signal Part ef the P [...]blick worship of God as that of [...]acr [...]fice is 1st They assert the Person of Christ to be as t [...]uly and Really present there, as those of the Ch [...]ch of Rome do. 2. They assert it also to be there▪ as he Object of divine worship; for Mr Th [...]rndike speaking of the Adoration Epil. P. [...]. p. [...]51 of Christ in the Eucharist, saith, I do believe that it was so practised, and done in the Ancient Church, wh [...]ch I maintain from the beginning t [...] haue been the true Church of Christ. And Bp Andrews Resp. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 8. tells Cardinal Bellarmin very plainly, that the King (King James, and did not he understand wha [...] he said, Rex Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem▪ and what they of the Church of England did?) holds Christ to be truly present in the sacrament, and there also to be truly [Page]adorabl [...]. Lastly they assert the Eucharist verè & adorandum statuit. to be no [...] only a Sacrament, but a Sacrifice, and t [...]e very Sa [...]e sacrifice of Christ upon the C [...]ss. How comes the Dr then to contradict all these Points when he said speaking to t [...]ose of the Church of Rome, What exte [...]nal Visible sacrifice haue you th [...]t we haue no [...], besides God himself, w [...]om you believe to be pe [...]sonally present, as the Object of divine Worship, under the species of Br [...]ad and Wine? Was it to show his excellent [...]k [...]ll in the affairs and doctrine of tha [...] Ch [...]rch he pretends to defend? No, he could not be ignorant of so evident a matter. The very names of Priest and A [...]tar put him daily in mind of it. What made him then tell those of the Church of Rome that the Church of Eng [...]and hath no such Sacrifice, as that of Christ personally present in the Sacram [...]nt, as the Object of divine Def. p. 282. worship? O, it was the Intolerable Blasphemy and Absurd [...]y, as he calls it, of offering up God himself as a sacrifice to God. For of all things in the world, it could never have come into his mind, nor he thinks into any man's well in his senses (by which it seems he thinks Bp [Page] Andrews, Dr Heylin, Mr Thorndike, and the rest to haue been craz'd at least) to offer up God himself unto God as a sacrifice in order to the testifying our devot [...]ng our selves to him. But if this be B [...]asph [...]my, and the Drs definition must obtain against that of the two General Councils of Nice and Ephesus. I know no way but to renounce my Creed. For I do not see, but it is alike blasphemous, to say, that God was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, as that he offered himself upon the Cross, or is off [...]red by us upon the Altar. And now hath not the Church of England great reason to glory in such a Champion, who under a specious pretence of impugning the Mass, fears not to traduce the most excellent part of her Religious worship (as it is understood by the best Learned of her divines) as blasphemous and absurd, and so wound both her, and the Common Christianity to the very heart, through the side [...] of her Enemies?

Cathar.

Let the Dr and the Church of England agree about these things as They can. I do not see after all their sine talk of the nature and dignity of their [Page] sacrifice of the Mass, as due only to God, but that themse [...]ves in their practice offer it to Creatures also. For as the Def. p. 218. Dr hath well observed out of their own Mass-books, they offer it in honour of the Saints: and although they pretend they do it to God in thanksgiving for the Graces he hath bestowed upon the p. 219. Saints, yet Dr St desires to know of them, whether this be not more than giving God thanks for their vertues; when a Propitiatory sacrifice is offered up p. 220▪ to God for their honour? moreover at the same time they pray, that the Saints would intercede with God for them. And What is joyning creatures together with God in the honour of sacrifice, if this be not? Again supposing that they offer it only to God, yet as Cajetan observes, Def. p. 205▪ it cannot reach to all Christians, but only belongs to the Priests to offer it. And so they reserve no one act of External Adoration as proper to God, and to be performed by all Christians.

Eun:

To what miserable shifts are men put, when they would haue such Trivial kind of arguing as this to pass for solid Reasoning. Either the Dr was netled without cause for T. G's. telling [Page] him upon occasion, that he would understand better what belongs to a sacrifice, when he was become a Proselyte, Or it must be a hard world, when a man of his abilities must be forc'd to fain that he doth not know how the same sacrifice may be a Propitiation for sins, and a Thank [...]giving for Benefits: especially the Sacrifice of the Altar, being the same with that of the Cross, in which all the differences of the legal sacrifices were fulfilled. I cannot conceive but that in his frequent Researches into Bellarmin he must haue met with that lib. 2. de Pu [...]g. c. 18. famous passage of S. Augustin, where he saith, that when the sacrifice of the Enchirid c. 110. (Altar, which he there cals the sacrifice of the Mediator,) is offered in the Church for all the faithfull departed, it is to such as were good, but not perfecty good, a sacrifice of Propitiation: but for the perfectly Cath. no. Idol. p. 394. good, of Thanksgiving. And I thought T. G. had given him a very home-Example how this might be for the honour of a Person, when he desired him to reflect, whether it would not be for his honour, that his whole Party should keep a solemn Day of Thanksgiving for his great performances [Page]against the Popish Cause, although the Thanks were given to God and not to him. And indeed it was so home that he p. 221. doth not deny it would haue been for his honour. But then to return, as he saith, the kindness of T. G's twitch by a forrain example fetch'd from Persia, where Prostration was appropriated to their King, as a sign of subjection to him alone, how strange, saith he, would is haue been thought among them, for a man to haue said to the King, I fall down before you in honour of the Captain of your Guards? A very notable example I can assure you. Yet there is this difference, that how strange soever it might have appeared among the Persians to hear this said to their King, (as it doth now to Countrey People to hear one say, I kiss your hands, instead of I thank you,) it seems it is not so among those of the Church of Rome to say to God. We offer this sacrifice to thee in the honour of St Michael, to testify their application of it in thanksgiving for the favours and Graces bestowed on him; and why th [...]y may not use other manners of expression, as well as of habits or gestures from those of the Persians, I do not undestand: [Page] and as litle why they ought not to be understood, as they declare themselves to mean, the Will of men being the Mistress, and Custome the Confirmer of such forms of speaking. But still the Question is, saith the Dr, if sacrifice be appropriated to the sol [...] honour of God, how [...]he honour of Saints comes to be declared by it? But granting, as he doth, that it is for the honour of a Person to praise (or give thanks to) God for him, this I say being granted, the Question as I take it can be no other than to ask, whether the offering of a Present, (as sacrifice is) in token of Gratitude, be to diminish or adde to the Act of Thanksgiving? For if it be a greater Declaration of Thanksgiving, it must consequently be a greater Declaration also of the honour of the Person for whom it is offered. O but at the same time that they offer the sacrifice in honour of the Saints, they pray that they would intercede with God for them. This is more than the Dr finds in their Mass-books, at least from the Offertory, where the Priest begins to apply himself to the Action of sacrifice: for from thence forward the Prayers are all directed to God. But in case they did [Page] so, would it therefore follow that the sacrifice is offered to the Saints because they are desired to join their Prayers with the People to obtain the blessings they ask of God? This surely is something beyond Trifling, for the Dr might as well haue said that the sacrifice is offered to the People because the Priest after the Offertory turns to them, with, Orate f [...]at [...]es, and desires them to Pray that it may become acceptable to God; and if you haue nothing of more moment to propose, I think it is high time we make an End indeed.

Cathar.

But you haue forgot to speak to what I proposed in the last place; that supposing they offer it only to God, yet this, as Cajetan observes, cannot reach to all Christians, but only belongs In 2. 2. q. 86. art. 4. to the Priests to offer it; and so they reserve no one external act of Adoration as proper to God, and to be performed by all Christians.

Eun.

You did well to call upon me, Otherwise I confess I had pass'd this over, as a thing not worthy the taking-notice of; for there is nothing more notorious than that those of the Church of Rome are bound on every sunday and [Page] Holy-day to hear Masse (as they cal it) by that External Act to testify the uniting their Intention with the Priest as the Publick Officer of the Church in the Oblation of the Sacrifice. And what is it the Dr would haue more? Would he haue the City of London when they make a Present to the King at his Coronation in order to the testifying their subjection to him, to go every one in Persō, and deliver it with his own hands? Is it not enough that some Publick Person be deputed, as the Lord Maior, or the Recorder to do it in their names, and the King accepts it as offered by each one? If this be so in things belonging to men, how much more in those belonging to God, where as St Paul, saith: Every High-Priest taken f [...]om amōg men is ordained for men, Heb. 5. 1. 3. that they may offer both Gifts and sacrifices for sins, and that both for himself and for the People? And if this did not hinder in the old Law, but that both Princes and People are said to haue offered those sacrifices to the [...], why must it in the new? I do not except against the Dr's Citation out of Cajetan, though I do not find it in the place quoted by him. But this I dare affirm, that Cajetan was [Page] not so silly a divine as to deny it belonged to the People to offer the Sacrifice by and with the Priest; but that it belōgs not to them to Consecrate it, any more than it did in the old Law to kill and lay it upon the Altar. The very Mass-Book. it self would haue informed him better, in which the Priest calls it their sacrifice as well as his, Meum as Vestrum sacrificium, and desires of God to accept it for all those, pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium. For whom we, saith he, offer, or who offer this sacrifice to thee. And I can imagin but two reasons, why this should not hold as well in the new Law, as the Old; The First given by Korah and his Complices, when they told Moses and Aaron. Yee take too much upon you, seing all Num. 16 3. the Congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them, where fore then lift yee up your selves abou [...] the Congregation of the Lord? Which was no other that to teach the People to invade the Priesthood; Or 2ly that there is no sacrisice offered in the new Law, and this contradicts not only the Practice of the Church of Christ in the Primitive times, but the sense also of the best [Page]learned divines of the Church of England. But it is not in this Point alone, that the Dr doth it, but in many others, as I haue shown in the fore going Conferences, which if you think fit to Communicate to him, I conceive you will do well at the same time to advise him as a Friend, both for his own credit, and that of the Church he pretends to defend, to take in good part the Counsel which St Augustin gives to some Endless, because wordish disputers of his time. Let Lib. 5. de Civ. Dei c. ul [...]. him consider all things diligently, and if perhaps iudging impartially he perceive Considerent omnia diligenter, & si forte sine studio partium judicantes talia esse perspexerint, quae potiùs exagitari, quam convelli possint. quasi Satyrica vel Mimica levitate, cohibeant suas nugas, & potius à prudentibus emendari, quàm laudari ab imprudentibus eligant. them to be such, as may rather be play'd upon and made seemingly ridiculous or blasphemous by a Satyrical or Mimical kind of Levity, than solidly confuted, let him surcease to trifle, and chuse rather to be amended and reformed by the. Wise than to be extol'd, and applauded by those who are otherwise.

Cathar.

But do you hope then, Eunomius, that Dr St will ever become a true Church-of-England-Man, in the sense you understand it? that he will [Page] retract his charge of Idolatry, and acquit at least the doctrine of the Church of Rome from the Guilt of it in the worship of Images, the Invocat [...]on of Saints, and Adoration of the Host? That he will ever swallow the Contradictions of Christs Personal Presence in the Sacrament? nay first adore him, then offer him believing him to be God in sacrifice, and after all eat him? When this comes to pass, I think the Papists will haue litle or no reason to despair of his coming over and joyning with them.

Eun.

How [...]estingly soever you say this, Catharinus, yet I think in good Earnest I may tell you that the very Principles he admits, if followed home, would lead him thither? For granting, as he doth, 1st. that the Church of Rome is a true Church, and doth not erre against any Fundamental Point of Faith; 2ly that the Gates of Hell have not prevailed against the whole. Christian Church; and 3ly that a Christian by vertue of his being so is bound to join in Communion with some Church or Congregation of Christians: I do not see, but he is bound either to assign some other true Church of Christ in the world before [Page] Luther besides that of Rome, or else by vertue of his Christianity he is bound to joyn in Communion with it.

Cathar.

Yet still the Dr hath this refuge left him, why we ought not to joyn with the Roman, because if she be guilty of Idolatry, our Communion with See Dialog. 3. 4. 5. of the First Part. her wo [...]ld be a sin.

Eun.

As for the Charge of Idolatry, I hope you haue been made sensible, how un-maintainable it is, both from the strange Consequences that follow from it, even to the subversion of all lawful Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England: as also from the Extravagant Ways the Dr is forced to make use of at any rate to uphold it, as Apologizing for the Heathens, asserting their Jupiter to be the true God, mis-representing and corrupting Authors, denying the Personal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and contradicting not only the true and Genuin Sons of the Church of England, but most of all himself. This therefore can be no good ground to maintain the Separation.

Cathar.

What then can, I pray?

Eun.

That's a Point which requires more time than I have at present to spend [Page] upon it. To morrow morning I begin my Journey without fail.

Cathar.

I wish you a good one; and begg your pardon for hauing detained you so long.

FINIS.

[Page]

A POSTSCRIPT FROM THE PUBLISHER

A Friend, to whom I had given this Treatise to peruse, Whilst the Printer was setting the folloving Table, having taken notice that the Author had not particular [...]y replied to the Parallel which the Dr draws from the Practice of the Modern Heathens in the East and West indies, as to the worship they give to their Inferiour deities and Images, with that of the Church of Rome, and the Printer informing me there would be two or three leaves left Vacant in the last sheet, I thought it not amiss to acquaint the Reader with the Reasons why the Author thought it not necessa [...]y: which were these.

1. Because the Dr himself reduces the worship of these Heathens, to one of these two Principles, viz that of the Def. p. 113. Platonists, that God hath committed the [Page]Government of the world under him to some Inf [...]riour deities; Or that of Varr [...] and the Stoicks, that God is the soul of the world, and therefore the Parts of it deserue divine honour: And the Author having shown the Stoicks to be Supra. p. 349. guilty of true Internal Idolatry for worshipping a Creature instead of the Creato [...]; and the Platonists, at least of Part. 3. Dial. 5. the Exteriour Profession of it, for coucurring with the Vulgar in the External Practice of their Idolatry, it would haue been but actum agere to repeat the same things over again.

2. Because the force of the Parallel lyes altogether in Citations; and the Dr had already forfeited all right to be Part. 2. Dial. 4. Part. 3. Dial. 3. beleived in things of t [...]at kind, by his notorious mis-representing and corrupting the Fathers. Nor can it with reason be presumed he would treat these modern Relators with more sincerity, than he had done those Venerable Persons: Or that he would be more Exact in citing any of them, than of Triga [...]tius, by reason of what had been objected to him formerly by T. G. upon account of that Author; which it seems he laid up so carefully in his Memo [...]y, that having a [Page] good Occasion as he thought of citing [...] passage out of him relating to a certain Sect of the Chinezes, which he delivers in these words, Certum Triadis modum De Christ Exped. apud Sinas. l. 1. [...]. 10. inducit, quo tres Deos in unum deinde Numen coalescere fabulatur; by which, speaking of the dogmata or Tenents, as he there doth, of that Sect, one would think were meant some Fabulous Story they had devised (in resemblance of the Trinity) of three distinct Gods, who afterwards grew into one Deity, Dr St translates the words in this manner. Cer [...]um Triadis modum inducit, They wo [...]h [...]p the Trinity after a certain manner, quo tres Deos in unum deinde Numen coalescere fabulatur, with an Image having Three Heads and one Body. And then desires T. G. once m [...]re to make use of his Friends kindness for Trigautius, that he may see whether he haue translated him right, or no. Now although an Ordinary Reader perhaps will find here neither head nor foot, Yet because the Dr assures us that the Translation is exact, the Author saith he is contented to let it passe for such: but not so another passage which the Dr. cites some leaves after out of the same Def. p. 130. [Page] Trigautius. For whereas Trigautius after he had described the Veneration De Christ Exped. apud Sinas l. 1. c. 10. which the Learned Chineses give to Confutius, the Author of their Sect, by bowings, wax-candles and Incense, in token of Gratitude sor the learning found in his Books, he farther addes speaking of the same Sect, that they haue likewise Temples to Tutelar spirits for every City and Tribunal, where the Magistrates take their solemn oath to do Justice; and that they make Oblations to them also, and burn perfumes, but not with the same kind of worship which they give to their Master Confutius, for they acknowledge, saith he, a certain divine Power to be in these spirits, to punish perjur'd Persons, and to reward the upright. His words are these. Alia quoqu [...] ejusdem Sectae Fana visuntur Tutelaribus spiritibus Vrbium singularum & Tribunalis cuique Magistratui propria. In co Sacramento se solemni astringunt ad jus fasque seruandum.—His etiam Fercula offerunt & odores incendunt, sed non eodem quo supra cultu; nam in his agnoscunt perjuros plectendi probosque remunerandi Divinam quandam inesse facultatem. By which it appears, that whattever [Page] resemblance may be conceived in the manner of the worship they gave to Confutius, as there expressed, with that used towards Saints in the Church of Rome, yet that which they give to these Tutelar Spirits is shown by Trigautius to be plainly different from it, both from the belief they haue of a Divine Power residing in those Spirits, and the Religious Ceremony of the Magistrates taking their solemn Oath before them, as having [...]ower to reward and punish them. Now what does Dr St. do that he may set up a Parallel, not only between the wor [...]hip they gave to Conf [...]t [...]us but between this also they give to the Tu [...]elar Spirits, and that given in the Church of Rome to Saints and Angels? He translares the words of Trigautius in this manner. They haue likewise Temples, saith he, to Tutelar Spirits for every City and Tribunal, wh [...]re they make Oblations, and burb [...], acknowledging these to have po [...]er to reward and punish. Where. 1. he omit▪ the Ceremony of the Magistrates taking their solemn Oath to or before these Tutelar Spirits, as those who had power to reward or punish them. Then [Page] again he leaves out what Trigautius expressly affirms, viz that the worship they gave to these spirits is not the same they give to Confutius: and lastly he slides over the words Nam and Divinā, which import the reason of this Assertion to be, because they believed the Power that was in them to be divine. And now if this be the Dr's way of drawing Parallels from the Relations of Authors, to suppress the Emphatical words that show the difference, the Reader will easily judge, it is no very good one; and withall how litle reason there was to spend a month or two's time in seeking and examining his other Testimonies, when he deals in this manner with Trigautius, whom for his former ill success in citing him, and the reparation of his credit, he ought to haue treated with more Caution and exactness than the rest.

A third Reason is, hecause although the Wiser sort of these Modern Heathens make use, when they are press'd, of the same Artifices and Pretences, which the old ones did in the time of the Fathers, to elude the Arguments of the Christians, yet it appears from many of the Citations alledged by the Dr himself [Page] (and you may be sure he would mince the matter on that side as much as he could) that they themselves, or at least the Generality, either worshipped a False God for the true one, as those who held God to be the Soul of the world, or to haue produced all things out of his own substance so that the world and all the things in it, are but one and the self same thing which is God himself? or that they worshipped False Gods together with Des. p. 124. the t [...]u [...] one, if they worshipt him at all, as may be seen by what the particular Relations cited by the Dr report of the Chineses, p. 129. of the Tartars, p. 140. Of the Peruans, p. 145. 148. Of the Mexicans, p. 151. Of the Negros of Africa, p. 152. Of the Indians of Narsinga &c. p. 154. 155. Of the Northern Nations, p. 158 159. Of the Laplanders, and Inhabitants of Samogitia, p. 160. 161.

4. Lastly, because speaking abstractedly and in general, as the Author argued formerly concerning the worship Supra p. 115. which the ancient Heathens gave to their Inferiour Deitie and Images, so here again, it may be said of the worship which the Modern Heathens give [Page] to theirs; that either it is the same which those of the Church of Rome give to Saints and Images, or not. If it be not the same (as it appears by the Relation of Trigautius had he been truely cited, and of many Others, as they stand cited by the Dr himself, it is not) the Parallel See his Def. p. 129. 144. 146. 149. &c. is lost. If it be the same, that is, if any of them give no more but an Inf [...]riour respect and Veneration such as is due upon the account of Vertue and Sanctity without any mixture of Divine honour, or what may rationally be understood to be such, (though it be unlawfull to give it to a false Object) yet the manner of the worship, which is what the Dr. charges with Idolatry, though given to the B. Virgin herself, whose Supr [...] p. 33. 34. Sancti [...]y I suppose he will not question, is excused from the note of it by Eminent Divines of the Church of England. And I cannot but wonder, how the Dr could ever hope, that his own bare Relation of a Decree made at R [...]me, against the using external acts in themselves unlawfull and superstitious to or before the Altar of an Idol or False Saint, though the Intention were directed te a Crucifix hidden upon it (of which [Page] decree he sets down the Resolutions of the 7.th 8.th & 9.th Queres to be nullatenus licere &c. without telling us in particular what the Quaeres were) I say it is a wonder to me, how he could hope that such a Relation as this, should yet be of sufficient credit to make any man of common sense believe, that the Cardinals de propaganda Fide, (not with the halfonly, but with the f [...]ll consent of the Pope) had condemned the giving external acts of worship to Saints and Images as Idolatrous, or that when they gave these Resolutions, they had nothing represent [...]d to them in the practice of the converted [...] of China, which might make their worship unlawfull [...] from what themselves Def. p. 314. p. 129. practic [...] euery day at Rome; especially when the Dr himself confesses, [...]hat the Congregation c [...]ll, the Image of the Tutel [...] Spirit an Idol, and tells us farther out of [...] in his Hist: of China ch. 18. that th [...]y have Temples for Heaven an [...] Earth in Nankin and Pekim, i [...] which the K [...]g [...]imself offers the Sacrifice; And in the C [...]ics they have Temples fo [...] Tutelar Spirits, to which the Mandarms do sacrifice, as to the Spirits[Page]of the Rivers, Mountains, and four Parts of the world, &c.

When the Impartial [...]eader hath duly weigh'd and considered these things I suppose he will find there is enough said of this matter: and I may take my leave for the present.

[Page]

THE ARGUMENTS OF THE DIALOGUES.

THE FIRST PART.

The First Dialogue.

EVnomius declares his dis-satisfaction with the Charge of Idolatry, and Dr Stillingfleet's pretending it to be the Sense of the Church of England. The Dr's Endeavours in that part shown to be Insufficient, particula [...]l [...] as to the Book of Homilies, and th [...] Rubrick for kneeling at Communion. The sad account of History we are like to haue f [...]om him, when he denies Robert Abbo Bishop of Salisbury to have been neve [...] till now suspected f [...]r a Puritan. H [...] ch [...]rge of Idolatry d [...]fferent from shat of the true and Genuin Sons of[Page]the Church of England; divers of whom vindicate the Doctrine of the Second Council of Nice concerning the worship of Images, from the note of Idolatry. The true State of the Controversy concerning that Point. pag. 1.

The Second Dialogue.

A Farther Declaration of the Sense of the Church of England concerning the Charge of Idolatry, in answer to what Dr. St. urges from the Testimony of Arch Bishop Whitgift, and the 39. Articles. The Lambeth Articles suppressed by Q Eliz. And rejected by K. James: The Dr. desired to reconcile the doctrine of his Irenicum, viz, that nothing is lawfull in the worship o [...] God but what he hath expressly command [...]d, w [...]th that in his Answer to N. O. that All [...]hings are lawfull which are no [...] fo [...]bidden. The true meaning of the 22th. Article concerning the worshipping and Adoration of Images asserted. pag. 39.

The Third Dialogue.

Several important Consequences, urged by T. G. as following f [...]om the charge of Idolatry, which the Dr. passes by in silence. His obligation either to deny, or assign a distinct Church in all Ages, preserved[Page]from Heresy and Idolatry, with which Christians were bound to ioyn in Communion. T. G's Arguments to shew the Roman Church to be that Church, not answered by the Dr, nor the Question proposed by T. G. concerning the necessity of joining wi [...]h the Church of England. His I renicall Doctrine, Of the lawfulness of Non-Communion with any Church, that imposeth doubtfull or suspected Practices. The charge of Idolatry not maintainable upon the Dr's Principles without gross self-contradiction. pāg. 64.

The Fourth Dialogue.

Mr. Thorndike's Judgment of the Charge of Idolatry, with Dr. St's. Honourable Encomium of him. In stead of justifying the Separation he brings the Guilt of the Schism upon himself and the Church of England. A farther displey of his Omissions and Contradictions. His Parallel between the worship of the Heathens, and that of the Church of Rome shown to be Impertinent, and the Worship of God by an Image not to be expressly prohibited in the 2d Commandment. pag. 98

The Fifth Dialogue.

The Charge of Idolatry not maintainable[Page]without subverting all lawfull Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England. Dr St's Doctrine in his Answer to N. O. concerning the Power and Authority of the Church; He is left at liberty to chuse whether he will haue it be a R [...]tractation or Contradiction of what he asserted in his Irenicum, set down in the 3d Dialogue. His mistake of the Validity of Ordination for the lawfull Authority to Exercise the Power conferred by it, shown to be Inexcusable. A Recapitulation of what hath been discoursed in this, and the fore-going Dialogues. p. 131

THE SECOND PART.

The First Dialogue.

ADiscovery of the Vanity of Dr. St's Endless discourses in his late Defence, in Rela [...]io [...] to T. G. His Excellent Gloss of the Canon of the Church of England, concerning Bowing to the Altar; which the Author of a late Treatise, entituled Patronus Bonae Fidei, by Arguments cast in the Dr's own moulds, contends to be Idolatry, worse than that of the Romanists, or Aegyptians. p. 167.

[Page]

The Second Dialogue.

What Dr S ought to haue done to maintain his Charge. The first thing was to have laid down the true Notion of Idolatry in the Nature of the thing, antecedently to any Positive Prohibition. The Notion he gives of it shown to be insufficient; and the Heathens not justly chargeable with Idolatry by vertue of it. The Consequence ho urges from the worship of Images to a like worship of all other beings declared vseless: and a Specimen given of his rare Insight in Mystical Theology pag. 192

The Third Dialogue.

The Second Thing Dr St ought to have done, to maintain his Charge of Idolatry, in the worship of Images, was to shew the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils to be Idolatrous. The doctrine of the Second Council of Nice in that Point, as stated by himself, not Idolatrous; and the Practice of bowing to the Altar, according to his Principles, flat Idolatry. An Instance of his reporting faithfully the Authorities he alledges, laid open in a passage cited by him out of Cardinal Lugo. p. 212.

[Page]

The Fourth Dialogue.

Another Instance of D [...] Sts reporting faithfully, shown in a passage he cites out of S. Gregory Nyssen in the case of the Arians. The doctrine of the same S. Gregory concerning an Inferiour Respect due to the Saints, and their Reliques. The Argument the Dr. brings from th [...] practice of the Arians, shown to be Incongruous, and manifestly different from that of Roman-Catholiks towards Saints and Images. His Excellent Defence of a Testimony out of Arnobius formerly misrepresented by him, and Subtil Observations upon the doctrine of the Council of Trent in the matter of Images. The Remedies devised by him for avoiding Idolatry in the worship of Images▪ equally applicable to bowing to the Altar, or the Chair of State. p. 233

THE THIRD PART.

The First Dialogue.

THe Notion of the Heathen's [...]dolatry imposed on T. G. by Dr. S [...] refuted from the Places out of which is was pretended to be gathered. The [...][Page]Question brought to try all, viz whether the Heathen's Jupiter were according to the Fathers, the true God, o [...] a Devil? The fo [...]mer asserted by Dr. St, the latter by T. G. and proved by plain and undeniable Testimonies of mo [...]e t [...]an a whole Jury of Fathers besides Origen. The Dr's mighty Argument from the Inscription to the Vnknown God, shown to be not only Impertinent, but against himself. p. 275

The Second Dialogue.

The greatest part of the Testimonies of the Fathers produced by Dr. St, that is, all those which import no more, than either that the Heathens had a natural knowledge of one Supream God, or that it was their Sense that their Jupiter was He, [...]h [...]wn to be Impertinent to the Dispute between him and T. G. from the true State of the Question. His injurious usage of the Fathers, blaming them for charging the Heathens with more than they were guilty of, or themselves could prove, (being indeed a tacite Consession that he look'd vpon them as Opposit to him) laid open in a cleer account of the Heathen's Theology, and the several ways the Fathers took to refute it, all of[Page]them convincing, as is made manifest both from the arguments themselves being rightly applied to their due subjects, and the success they had. pag. 307

The Third Dialogue.

The Particular Testimonies of Minucius Felix, Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Augustin, and Tertullian, cited by Dr. St. to prove it to haue been their Sense, that the H [...]athen's Jupiter was the true God, brought to the Test; And the design of the said Fathers shown to be either mis-represented, or both their Words and Sense corrupted by him. p. 352▪

The Fourth Dialogue.

Catharinus waves the Question of Jupiter's being she true God: and inforces the Parallel from the Heathen's acknowledgment of one Supream Being, to which. Dr. St contends that they referred the worship of their Inferiour Deities. Another notable Instance of his unfaithfull reporting a passage of Thomas Aquinas; and the Generality of the Heathens shown by most evident Arguments to haue believed and worshipped a mult [...]tude of Gods properly so called and esteemed by them. What kind of Notion the Vulgar Heathens had of the Divinity [Page] explained, and the Parallel between their worship, and that of the Church of Rome shown to be unjust, and rejected as such by Eminent Divines of the Church of England. pag. 392.

The Fifth Dialogue.

The Dr's Parallel from the Practice of the Wiser Heathens, shown to be Unparallel upon many accounts: and the Argument from God's Appropriation of certain external Acts to his worship, a meer Sophism made up of Equivocations, False Suppositions, and Self-contradictions, and after all to conclude nothing against the doctrine of the Church of Rome, or the definition of Idolatry given by T. G. p. 435

The Sixth Dialogue,

The Church of Rome not justly chargeable either for not reserving any External Act of Religious worship proper to God, or for giving any appropriate to God, to Creatures▪ The Dr. un happy again in his ci [...]ing of Card. Lugo; and his arguments from the Text. Matth. 3. 10. and the term, Religious worshsp, solved by his own distinctions. No succour to his cause f [...]om the determination of Circumstances, as assigned by him▪ [Page] Mr. Daillés doctrine, [that sign instituted by men to signify any thing, though of Religion, are to be interpreted by the publik Practice of those who use them,] a very Just Discharge to the Dr's unjust Charge of Idolatry, in the particular Instances, o [...] Invocation, Erecting Temples, burning Incense, &c. as they are practiced in the Church of Rome: and T, Gs. Answer to the Dr's old Scruple, why sacrifice may not be used to the Saints, in like manner as other External acts are, shown to haue been pertinent and satisfactory, and his denying Christ himself to be offered, as a Sacrifice upon the Altar, shown to be repugnant to the Sense of the true and genuin Sons of the Church of England. A Friendly Advice to him out of St. Augustin. p. 464.

[Page]

EXTRAICT DV PRIVILEGE du Roy.

PAr grace & Privilege du Roy, donné à Versailles le 29. jour de Juillet, I'an de grace 1677. & de nôtre regne le 35. signé par le Roy en son Conseil D'ALENCE', il est permis à RENE' GUIGNARD Marchand Libraire à Paris, de faire imprimer, vendre & debiter par tout le Roya [...]me de France un Livre en Anglois intitulé A Just Discharge to Dr Stillingsleet's unjust Charge of Idolatry against the Chu [...]ch of Rome, id est, Justa co [...]futa [...]io injustae accusationis Doctoris Stillingsleeti, quae Romanam Ecclesiam Idolatriae ream agere conatur, en tel Volume & caractere que bon luy semblera, & ce pendant le temps de dix années entieres: Et deffenses sont faites à tous autres d'en vendre ny distribuer d'autre Impression que de celle dudit RENE' GUIGNARD sous peine de trois mille livres d'amande, confiscation des Exemplaires, & de tous dépens, dommages & interest.

R [...]gistrésur le Livre de la Communauté le 9. Août 1677. E. COUTEROT Synd.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

A iust discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet's vnjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome with a discovery of the vanity of his late defence in his pretended answer to a book entituled, Catholicks no idolaters : by way of dialogue between Eunomius, a conformist, & Catharinus, a non-conformist : the first part : concerning the charge of idolatry, &c.

Godden, Thomas, 1624-1688.

Edition statement

1677

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A42897

ID [STC]

Wing G919

ID [STC]

ESTC R536

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12878826

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12878826

ID [VID]

94906

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A42897)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 94906)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 380:28)

Source

— A iust discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet's vnjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome with a discovery of the vanity of his late defence in his pretended answer to a book entituled, Catholicks no idolaters : by way of dialogue between Eunomius, a conformist, & Catharinus, a non-conformist : the first part : concerning the charge of idolatry, &c., Godden, Thomas, 1624-1688..

Extent

[12], 529, [21] p.

Printed for Rene' Guignard ...,. Paris :: 1677.. (Attributed to Thomas Godden. Cf. BM.) (Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York.) ("Postscript from the publisher": [21] p. at end.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.