Several conferences between a Romish priest, a fanatick chaplain, and a divine of the Church of England concerning the idolatry of the Church of Rome, being a full answer to the late dialogues of T.G. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. 1679 Approx. 826 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 290 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A61627 Wing S5667 ESTC R18131 11870100 ocm 11870100 50112 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. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A61627) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 50112) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 550:7) Several conferences between a Romish priest, a fanatick chaplain, and a divine of the Church of England concerning the idolatry of the Church of Rome, being a full answer to the late dialogues of T.G. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. [24], 550 p. Printed by M.W. for H. Mortlock ..., London : 1679. Attributed to Edward Stillingfleet. cf. BM. T.G. is Thomas Godden. cf. DNB. Reproduction of original in the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign Campus). Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. 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 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 . eng Godden, Thomas, 1624-1688. Catholic Church -- Controversial literature. Idols and images -- Worship -- Early works to 1800. 2004-02 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-03 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-07 Rina Kor Sampled and proofread 2004-07 Rina Kor Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion SEVERAL CONFERENCES Between a Romish Priest , A Fanatick Chaplain , AND A DIVINE OF THE Church of England , Concerning the IDOLATRY OF THE CHURCH of ROME : Being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. LONDON , Printed by M. W. for H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard , and at the White Hart in Westminster Hall. 1679. Imprimatur , Guil. Jane R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. à sac . domest . May 6. 1679. THE PREFACE . THE following Discourses contain a full and distinct Answer to the late Dialogues of T.G. wherein the Reader may perceive what an easie Victory , Truth , when it stands its Ground , will obtain over Wit and Subtilty . When the man who fell in the Olympick Games , endeavoured by his Eloquence to perswade the spectators he was never down , it is possible he might meet with some weak and others partial enough to believe him ; but the Judges could not but smile at their folly who did not discern the difference between the firmness of the ones standing and the others artificial rising ; the one might shew more art and dexterity , but the other had more strength or some other advantage . I shall leave the Reader to judge in these combats who maintains his Ground best , and who seeks chiefly to avoid the dis-reputation of losing it . He that keeps close to his Adversary , declines no difficulty , uses no reproachful language , or disingenuous dealing , hath certainly greater assurance of the Goodness of his Cause and more hopes to prevail ; than he that studies for shifts and evasions , avoids the strongest arguments , and flyes out into impertinent cavils and personal reflections ; which are great signs that the man is conscious of the badness of his Cause , and despairs of success by any other means . And the Author of these Discourses desires that his Adversary and himself may stand or fall according to these measures . As to the manner of writing here used , viz. by way of Dialogue , it is that which his Adversary led him to ; and possibly , where the decency of it is well observed , it may make Controversie go down more pleasantly than otherwise it would . For there appears more life and vigour in a Discourse carried on by several persons of different humours and opinions , than in one continued deduction of Reason . And the Author declares he intended no reflection on any sober party of men among us in the representation made of the Army-Chaplain , who bears the third Part in the Conferences ; but only to shew the advantage the Popish Party takes from the weak and peevish exceptions which some men have made against the Church of England ; and how they insinuate themselves into them on the account of their prejudices against it , and have made use of their indiscreet zeal to compass their own ends . Which is so far from being a Romance or Fiction , that besides the footsteps which may be yet traced of these transactions , by the means and instruments which were imploy'd about them ; we find that one of the most busie ●actors of the Roman Church , wh●n he most confidently denyed the other parts of the late horrid design , did not stick to avow and own this , that they did hope to prevail at last by joyning their strength with the obstinate Dissenters in procuring a General Toleration ; which was all the Visible Design they were carrying on , when these Discourses were written . Since which , the face of things hath been so much alter'd among us , and the times appear'd so busie and dangerous , that it was thought more adviseable to respite the publishing of these Controversial Discourses till mens minds were a little calmed ; lest the Author of them should seem guilty of the impertinent diligence of Archimedes , viz. of drawing lines in the Dust , when the enemy was ready to destroy us . Had the Author had any occasion to have run away from the Argument under debate between him and his Adversary , he did not want a fair opportunity in the present state of things , to have put him in mind of something very different from an Irenicum . But he desired me to acquaint the Reader that he does so perfectly abhor this impertinent and disingenuous way of writing , especially about matters of Religion , that he could neither be provok'd nor tempted to it , no not by so great and fresh an Example as he had all along before his eyes . May that Wise and Gracious God who hath hitherto defeated the cruel and malicious designs of our Churches enemies , still preserve it under the shadow of his Wings , and continue it a praise in the Earth . THE CONTENTS . First Conference , Concerning the sense of the Church of England , about the Idolatry of the Church of Rome . THE Introduction to it page 1 An account of T. G.'s late Dialogues p. 10 Of the genuine Sons of the Church of England according to T. G. p. 11.19 Of his intention about the sense of the Church of England in this matter p. 15 Of the nature of the Testimonies produced by Dr. St. p. 20 The argument from the Homilies defended p. 22 This charge of Idolatry proved to be no heat in the beginning of the Reformation . p. 26 The argument from the Rubrick for kneeling at the Communion at large considered . p. 34 No colour for Idolatry in kneeling at the Eucharist . p. 35 T. G.'s sense of the Rubrick examined . p. 46 Of material and formal Idolatry . p. 52 How far the Real presence is held by our Church . p. 56 Bertram's Book not the same with that of Joh. Scotus . p. 63 Of the Stercoranists . p. 64 Of Impanation . p. 65 Of a Corporeal Presence . p. 68 Of B. Abbots being a Puritan . p. 74 How far the Church of Rome is chargeable with Idolatry . p. 79 Mr. Thorndike vindicated from suspicion of Popery by a M S. of his own writing here published . p. 85 Arch-Bishop Whitgifts Testimony cleared . p. 93 Of the distinction between parts and circumstances of Worship . p. 100 How far the charge of Idolatry is agreeable to the Articles of our Church . p. 103 Second Conference , About the Consequences of the Charge of Idolatry . p. 113 THE Introduction , concerning the restauration of Learning , being the true occasion of the Reformation . p. 115 Of the validity of Ordination on supposition of the charge of Idolatry . p. 121 Authority goes along with the power of Orders by the principles of the Roman Church . p. 125 Of the indelible Character . p. 129 The distinction between the power of Order and Jurisdiction examined . p. 134 Of excommunication ipso facto on the charge of Idolatry . p. 141 Dr. St. proved to have no design to undermine the Church of England . p. 145 The design of his Irenicum cleared . p. 148 How far the Being of a Church and the possibility of salvation consistent with the charge of Idolatry . p. 151 A large Testimony of B. Sanderson's to that purpose . p. 153 No necessity of assigning a distinct Church in all Ages . p. 158 No obligation to Communion with the Roman Church . p. 161 No parity of reason in separating from the Church of England , and in her separation from Rome . p. 168 A passage in the Irenicum cleared . p. 170 How far Idolatry consistent with owning the fundamental Articles of Faith. p. 175 T. G.'s shuffling about the sense of the second Commandment . p. 186 Third Conference , About the Nature of Idolatry . p. 195 AN abstract of the Design of Dr. St.'s general Discourse of the Nature of Idolatry . p. 196 Of the manner of T. G.'s answering it . p. 200 The postulata granted by him . p. 203 Many material omissions in T. G.'s Answer . p. 205 Of the Patronus Bonae Fidei and the service he doth the Papists . p. 208 The disparity between bowing towards the Altar and the Worship of Images at large cleared . p. 211 Of the difference between Reverence to sacred Places and Worship of Images . p. 215 The arguments of the Patronus Bonae Fidei , against bowing towards the Altar , answered . p. 222 The supposition of Transubstantiation doth not make it more reasonable . p. 227 Of Idolatry in the nature of the thing . p. 233 Of the Sinfulness of Idolatry antecedently to a positive Law. p. 235 T. G.'s principles justifie the Worship of God in any Creature . p. 242 Relative Worship condemned by the Primitive Church . p. 248 As great danger in the worship of Images as of Gods Creatures . p. 252 T. G.'s trifling about Meletetiques and Mystical Theology . p. 255 The incongruity of Worshipping Christ by a Crucifix . p. 257 Of the Nature and Kinds of Certainty . p. 258 Why the certainty of Religion called Moral . p. 265 Several sorts of Certainty of the Christian Faith. p. 266 Of the impossibility of falshood in it . p. 268 Dr. St.'s charge of Idolatry reaches to definitions of Councils and practises generally allowed . p. 270 The parallel about bowing towards the Altar , farther answered . p. 273 His Fidelity in citations justified against T. G.'s cavils . p. 276 The citation of Lugo defended . p. 277 The parallel between Reverence to sacred places and things , and the Worship of Images fully disproved . p. 284 The Citation of Greg. Nyssen entred upon . p. 286 The parallel between the Arian and Romish Idolatry defended . p. 288 T. G.'s exceptions against it answered . p. 293 Greg. Nyssen's Testimony cleared . p. 303 The difference of the practice of Invocation of Saints in the Church of Rome , from the addresses in the fourth Century shewed in several particulars . p. 306 T. G.'s answer to the Council of Laodicea examined . p. 314 The testimony of Arnobius rightly cited by Dr. St. p. 325 Of relative Latria being given to Images . p. 327 Of inferiour Worship as distinct from Latria , and neither of them shewed to clear the Church of Rome from Idolatry . p. 337 Fourth Conference , About the Parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry . p. 349 T. G.'s notion of Heathen Idolatry . p. 350 How far Jupiter's being the Supreme God relates to the main Controversie . p. 351 In what sense Jupiter might be called an Unknown God. p. 354 S. Augustin makes the true God to be truly worshipped by the Athenians . p. 357 T. G.'s exceptions answered . p. 359 The distinction between Jupiter of Greet , and the supreme Jupiter . p. 365 The place of Rom. 1.19 , 20. not answered by T. G. p. 369 Aquinas his Testimony cleared . p. 371 The state of the Controversie about the Fathers . p. 373 Justin Martyr no friend to T. G.'s hypothesis . p. 377 Athenagoras at large cleared . p. 379 A threefold Jupiter among the Fathers . p. 380 Theophilus Antiochenus not to T. G.'s purpose . p. 387 Tertullian vindicated . p. 388 Clemens Alexandrinus . p. 400 Minucius Felix . p. 405 Other Testimonies rejected as impertinent . p. 415 T. G.'s Accounts of Heathen Idolatry examined . p. 419 First , In taking their Images for Gods , at large disproved . p. 420 ( 2. ) In worshipping many false Gods , that likewise disproved . p. 429 T. G.'s arguments answered . p. 431 The absurd consequences of this notion of Heathen Idolatry . p. 440 T. G.'s pittiful evasions as to the modern Idolaters . p. 443 ( 3. ) In worshipping the Creatures instead of God ; the Nature of that Idolatry enquired into . p. 457 Worshipping the Creatures with respect to God as Soul of the world , justifiable on the the same grounds with adoration of the Host. p. 461 Why it is Idolatry to give all external worship to the Creatures . p. 467 A twofold hypothesis of Heathen Idolatry . p. 470 The parallel as to the Church of Rome defended . p. 473 Of Appropriate Acts of Divine Worship . p. 478 What errour of judgement the act of Idolatry implyes . p. 491 Lugo's Testimony cleared . p. 495 Whether the Church hath power to discriminate Acts of Worship ? p. 499 How far circumstances discriminate Acts of Civil and Religious Worship ? p. 501 Whether the Church of Rome doth appropriate any Act of external adoration to God. p. 522 That the very Sacrifice of the Mass is offered in honour of Gods Creatures , and consequently is not appropriated to the honour of God. p. 526 Dr. St. doth not differ from the Divines of the Church of England about the Sacrifice of the Mass. p. 540 How far the Sacrifice of the Mass may be said to be the Act of the People . p. 542 ERRATA . PAge 108. Line 11. dele not . p. 161. l. 21. dele not . p. 215. l. 7. r. savouring . p. 232. l. 13. r. declares . p. 234. l. 4. r. as so Sacred . p. 246. l. 15. for no , r. do . p. 261. l. 4. for not so , r. so . p. 308. l. 17. for Fallo , r. Fullo . p. 319. l. 1. for Idolatry , r. Idolaters . p. 334. l. 7. for I not , r. I do not . p. 511. l. 5 , 6. for matters , r. matter . First Conference , Concerning the sense of the Church of England , about the Idolatry of the Church of Rome . Rom. P. YOU are well met at this Auction of Books . I have been present at many of them beyond Sea : but I never was at one in England before . How go the prices of Books here ? Fan. Ch. Very dear methinks , by the Books I have bought ; but I find they are so catched up by our Brethren , that if we will have them , we must pay dear for them . R. P. May I know what they are Sir ? F. C. Only some few choice pieces which I have picked out of this great Catalogue ; such as , Nepthali or the Groanings of the Church of Scotland ; Cooks Monarchy no Creature of Gods making ; but the things I most value are the Pamphlets , such as Sermons before the Long Parliament in several volumes . And a rare Collection of Authors about Liberty of Conscience . R. P. Are there so many Books to be had about Liberty of Conscience ? F. C. Yes ; a great many have written for and against it . R. P. Who are they who have written for it ? F. C. To tell you the truth , some of the same who wrote against it heretofore ; but they are now more enlightned ; as those who wrote against Separation when time was , are now the greatest advocates for it . For , there are some providential Truths , which vary according to circumstances . Do not we see the Papists , who were thought the greatest enemies to toleration in the world , now plead most vehemently for it ? and are even angry with us for not acting sufficiently in this cause against the Church of England . But because I take you for a friend by your enquiring after these Books , I must tell you , it is yet a disputable point among us , how far we may joyn with Antichrist , to promote the interest of Christ ; And some insist on that place to prove the unlawfulness of it , Be ye not unequally yoked ; others again prove it lawful , because it is said , Yet not altogether with the Fornicators of this world — or with Idolaters : whence they observe , that they may joyn with them in some things , or for some ends ; but not altogether , i. e. they must not joyn with them in their Idolatries , but they may against the Church of England . R. P. This is too publick a place to talk of these matters in : but may we not withdraw into the next room ; for I have a great mind to set you right in this main point of present concernment . And if the Papists should be found not to be Idolaters , a great part of your difficulty is gone . Do you think , it is not fit for you to be better informed in this matter , when a thing of so great consequence depends upon it , as your deliverance from the persecution of the Church of England ? which you know , we have all sighed and groaned for , a long time . It is in vain for any of you to expect favour from thence , as long as she is able to stand . For if the Bishops were never so much inclined to it , how could they possibly give ease to you without destroying themselves ? And since the dissenting parties are so different among themselves in their light and attainments , it is impossible to please any one party , without displeasing all the rest . Comprehension is a meer snare and temptation to the Brethren , being a design to prefer some , and to leave the rest in the lurch . Let us all joyn our strengths together , to pull down this Church of England , and then , though there be a King in Israel , every one may do what seemeth good in his own eyes . F. C. I doubt you are not well seen in Scripture ; for the Text is , In those dayes there was no King in Israel , and every one did what seemed good in his own eyes : whence you may observe a special hint by the by , that Toleration agrees best with a Common-wealth . But this to your self : and you might justly wonder at this freedom with you ; but that I remember you many years ago , when you and I preached up the Fifth Monarchy together in the Army . Those were glorious dayes ! Ah the Liberty we then enjoyed ! Did we then think , the good old Cause would ever have ended thus ? Well! It is good to be silent in bad times . But methinks you and I however may retire and talk over old stories , and refresh our memories with former out-goings together . For here is little at present for us to do . R. P. Whereabouts are they now in the Catalogue ? F. C. Among the Fathers ; those Old-Testament Divines . What lights have we seen since their dayes ! We need not trouble our selves about them . But I observe the Church of England men buy them up at any rate . What prices do they give for a Justin Martyr , or Epiphanius or Philo , who they say was a meer Jew ? How must they starve their people with the Divinity of these men ? How much of the good Divinity of the late times might they have for the money ? We cannot but pity their blindness . But I see we cannot be here so private as we wished ; for yonder sits a Divine of the Church of England , who I suppose , is the person , who bought so many Fathers at the last Auction , as though he had a mind to write against the Papists . R. P. Sit you by a while ; and we will talk of our matters another time . I have been much abroad since you and I were first acquainted , and have lately brought over a new Book from Paris . You shall see how I will handle him ; and if you put in upon occasion , you shall find by this experiment , what success our united forces would have against the Church of England . F. C. Do you begin ; and you shall see how I will second you , when occasion offers it self . R. P. Sir , I perceive the Divines of the Church of England , do buy up the Fathers very much at Auctions . I wonder that any who read the Fathers can be for the Church of England . Pr. Div. And I do more wonder at you for saying so . For therefore we are for the Church of England , because we read both Scripture and Fathers . R. P. To what purpose is all this charge and pains , if there be an infallible Church ? P. D. Therefore to good purpose ; because there is no one Church infallible . R. P. Is there not a Catholick Church ? P. D. Do you think I have forgotten my Creed ? R. P. Which is that Catholick Church ? P. D. Which of all the parts is the whole ? Is that your wise question ? Do not you know the Christian Church hath been broken into different Communions ever since the four General Councils , and continues so to this day ? What do you mean by the Catholick Church ? R. P. I mean the Church of Rome . P. D. Then you ask me , which is the Church of Rome ? but what need you ask that , since you know it already ? R. P. But the Roman Church is the Catholick Church . P. D. You may as well say , London is England , or England the World. And why may not we call England the World , because the rest of the world is divided from it ; as you the Roman Church the Catholick Church ; because the other Churches are separated in Communion from it ? R. P. I mean the Roman Church is the Head and Fountain of Catholick Doctrine ; and other Churches are pure and sound as they do agree with it . P. D. Your proposition is not so self-evident , that the bare knowing your meaning , must make me assent . I pray first prove what you say , before I yield . R.P. Was not the Church of Rome once a sound and Catholick Church ? P. D. What then ? so was the Church of Jerusalem , of Antioch , and Alexandria ; and so were the seven Churches of Asia . Were all these Heads and Fountains too ? R. P. But S. Paul speaks of the Church of Rome . P. D. He doth so ; but not much to her comfort ; for he supposes she may be broken off through unbelief , as well as any other Church ? R. P. Doth not S. Paul say , that the Roman faith was spoken of throughout the World ? P. D. What then I beseech you ? doth it follow that faith must alwayes continue the same any more than that the Church of Philadelphia must at this day be , what it was when S. John wrote those great commendations of it ? These are such slender proofs that you had as good come to downright begging the Cause , as pretend to maintain it after such a manner . The faith of Rome was not more spoken of in the Apostles dayes , than its errours and corruptions have been since . R. P. These are general words ; name me one of those errours and corruptions . P. D. For this time , I will name the publick and allowed Worship of your Church , which after all your shifts and evasions I cannot excuse from Idolatry . R. P. How is that ? Idolatry ? God forbid . I did not expect this charge from a Divine of the Church of England . I was prepared to receive it , from my old Fanatick acquaintance here : he would have thundered me with the Texts of Antichrist , and the Whore of Babylon , and have quoted half the Book of the Revelations against me , before this time , if we had not espyed you in the Room . But I perceive though your Artillery may be different , your charge is the same . I pray tell me , how long is it since you of the Church of England have maintained this charge ? For , I have been often told , that only one late Defender of your Church , hath advanced two new charges against the Church of Rome , viz. Fanaticism and Idolatry , and that the true Sons of the Church of England disown them both ▪ P. D. Whoever told you so hath deceived you ; but it is not the only thing they have deceived you in . I never yet saw so much as a tolerable Answer to the Charge of Fanaticism . And for that of Idolatry , the Authour you mean , hath proved beyond contradiction , that it hath been managed against the Church of Rome , by the greatest and most learned Defenders of the Church of England , and the most genuine sons of it , ever since the Reformation . R.P. But have not you seen , what T. G. hath said to all that , and how he hath shewed that his Witnesses were incompetent ? P. D. I have both seen and considered all that T. G. hath said , and compared it with Dr. Stillingfleets Reply in the General Preface to his Answers . And I must declare to you , that if the sense of a Church may be known by the concurrent sense of her most eminent Divines , or by her most Authentick Acts , as by the Book of Homilies , Forms of Prayer and Thanksgivings , Rubricks , Injunctions , the Judgement of Convocation , even that of MDCXL , Dr. St. hath made it evident , that the charge of Idolatry is agreeable to the sense of the Church of England . R. P. You thought T. G. would have quitted this Post upon Dr. St's second charge ; but you are mistaken in him ; for I have brought over a Book of Dialogues from Paris , wherein T. G. undertakes again to prove this to be only the Charge of Fanaticks , and not of the Church of England nor of the Genuine Sons of it . F. C. It is true ; we whom you call Fanaticks do charge the Church of Rome , or rather the Synagogue of Antichrist , with Idolatry ; for , Is it not said , And they Worshipped the Beast ? But you must know for your comfort , that we do likewise charge the Church of England with it . For what are all their bowings , and kneelings , and crossings , but vain imaginations ? and the Worship of them is as bad as the Worship of Images . And do not they make an Idol of the Common Prayer ? P. D. This is not fair , Gentlemen ; but one at once I beseech you . As to your charge of the Church of England , I shall be ready to answer it , when you can agree to bring it in . I now desire to know , what evidence T. G. brings to prove the Charge of Idolatry not to be agreeable to the sense of the Church of England . Hath he brought other Homilies , other Injunctions , other Rubricks , other Convocations , or at least other Divines , generally received and owned for the Genuine Sons of this Church , who have from time to time freed the Church of Rome from Idolatry , and looked upon the charge , not only as unjust but pernicious and destructive to the Being of a Church ? Nay , can he produce any one Divine of the Church of England , before the Convocation MDCXL , that ever said any such thing , or did wholly acquit the Church of Rome from this charge ? If not , let him not think , we have a new Church made after another model , and upon new principles , or that those can be esteemed the genuine Sons of it , who contradict the sense of the Church ever since the Reformation . If there be any such among us , they ought first to be proved to be true Sons of our Church , before their testimony be allowed , which if I be not mistaken , will be much harder , than to prove the Charge of Idolatry to be agreeable to the sense of it . But what method doth T. G. take in this matter ? R.P. T. G. like a wary man disputes in Masquerade . For he doth not think fit to appear in his own Person ; but he brings in a Conformist , and a Non-conformist arguing the point . And the Conformist speaks T. G.'s sense in acquitting the Church of Rome ; and the Non-conformist vindicates Dr. St. and makes a pitiful defence of him . P.D. It was very wittily done . And the Scene was well enough laid , if the plot were only to represent Dr. St. as a secret enemy to the Church of England , as I suppose it was . But to what purpose are all those personal reflections : and some repeated over and over , with so much appearance of rancour and ill will , as doth not become a man of any common ingenuity ? Can the Catholick Cause be maintained by no other Arts than these ? Methinks T. G. might have let the little Whifflers in Controversie , such as the Authour of the Address to the Parliament , and of that precious Pamphlet called Jupiter Dr. St's supreme God , &c. to have made a noise at they know not what ; crying out upon him as an enemy to the Church of England , ( because he defends her cause to their great vexation ) and as a friend to Pagan Idolatry , ( because he hath laid open the folly of yours . ) These are such weak assaults as expose your cause to the contempt of all wise men ; who expect reason should be answered with reason , and not with calumnies and reproaches : which in my apprehension Dr. St. ought to rejoyce in as the marks of victory ; for while they have any other ammunition left , no enemies will betake themselves to dirt and stones . When I read through the First Part of T. G.'s Dialogues , and observed how industriously he set himself to bespatter his Adversary , and raked all the Kennels he could for that purpose , ( especially that of the Patronus bonae Fidei , &c. ) I could not but think of an animal , which being closely pursued and in great danger , gets himself into the most convenient place for mire and dirt , and there so layes about him with his Heels , that no one dares to come near him . It was certainly with some such design that T. G. hath at last taken sanctuary in a bog ; hoping his Adversary will never pursue him thither . But notwithstanding this project of his , we will try , whether in spite of his heels we cannot bring him to reason . Therefore I pray let us set aside all rude and unbecoming reflections , and calmly consider , how T. G. proves that the Charge of Idolatry is not agreeable to the sense of the Church of England . R. P. Hold Sir ; You are a little too nimble , T. G. saith , his Intention was only to shew , that Dr. St. had not sufficiently proved it to be the sense of the Church of England , from the Testimony he then produced , whatsoever he might or could do from other Acts or Authours of that Church . And he elsewhere saith , that T. G. did not dispute ex professo , 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 ? but what he undertook to shew was no more than that two parts of the Authours there cited by the Dr. were Puritans , or Puritanically inclined , by the confession of other Divines of the Church of England ; and therefore according to Dr. St 's own measures ( if they were good , ) their Testimonies ought 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 . And this , he saith , is the true state of that Controversie . P.D. If it be so , I cry T.G. mercy . For , I thought he designed to prove this charge of Idolatry not to be agreeable to the sense of the Church of England . But you say T. G. now denies it ; and if I were as Dr. St. I would thank him for it . For , would any man say this , that thought it could ever be proved to be against the sense of the Church of England ? And what could have been more material to his purpose than this , if it could have been done ? Well fare T. G.'s ingenuity for once ! that finding it impossible to be done , he now denies that he ever attempted the doing it . But the first question in a fray is , how fell they out ? we shall better judge of T. G.'s design by the occasion of it . Dr. St. affirmed that in the charge of Idolatry he did not contradict the sense of the Church of England . Did he , or did he not ? If he did not , Dr. St. was in the right : if he did , why did not T. G. shew it ? But after this yielding up the main point in effect , it is easie to prove that T. G. did design to shew , as well as he could , that the charge of Idolatry was against the sense of the Church of England ; but finding it would not do , he now disowns it . For ( 1. ) Doth not T. G. appeal to the Articles of the Church of England for the most authentick declaration of her sense ? and because the Church of Rome is not there charged with Idolatry , doth he not hence dispute ex professo , that it was against her sense ? To what purpose was that ingenious Criticism , of being rather repugnant to the word of God ; which he interprets as though the composers of our Articles had done their endeavour to find a command against the Worship of Images , but could not . What do you think of this argument ? what did T. G. intend to prove by it ? Is it not as clear as the Sun , that it was to shew that the charge of Idolatry was against the sense of the Church of England ? Why then is T. G. ashamed now of it , and denies he had any such design ? There must be some more than ordinary cause of a mans denying what he once so openly avowed to do . Nay , in these very Dialogues , after repeating his former words , T. G. saith , Thus clearly hath T. G. evinced the sense of the Church of England in this matter . Say you so ? and yet never designed to dispute ex professo , whether it were the sense of the Church of England or not ? Who is it I pray hath the knack of saying , and unsaying ; of affirming and denying the very same thing in a few leaves ? or did T. G. never intend any such thing ; but the Church of England of her own accord , knowing T. G.'s good affections to her , stept into the Court , and declared her sense ? Have we not the best natured Church in the world that is so kind to her enemies , and expresseth her sense to be on their side , whether they will or not ? Our Church then is like the Countrey mans River which comes without calling ; alas ! what need T. G. dispute ex professo , what her sense is ; she offers her own Testimony , and desires to be heard in the dispute whether T. G. will or not . Let any man judge by these words what T. G.'s design was then , whatever he thinks fit to own now . ( 2. ) He shews , that if it had been the sense of the Church of England in the Articles , that the Church of Rome were guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of Images , Adoration of the Host , or Invocation of Saints , all those who denyed it , would have incurred excommunication ipso facto , as appears by the Canons . What was T. G.'s design in this , if it were not to prove the charge of Idolatry to be against the sense of the Church of England ? Is this only to shew the Witnesses Dr. St. produced to be incompetent ? What a benefit it is , for a man to forget what he hath no mind to remember ! And then to deny as stoutly as if the thing had never been done . ( 3. ) Is it not T. G. who in terms asserts that Dr. St. betrayed his Church in advancing such a medium , as contradicts the sense of that Church , ( mark that . ) It is true , he adds , if it be to be taken from the sentiments of those , who are esteemed her true and genuine Sons . Was it T. G.'s design then , not to dispute what was the sense of the Church of England ; nor whether Dr. St. dissented from it ? I will not meddle with that , whether T. G. be a competent judge who are the true and genuine Sons of the Church of England . No doubt in his opinion , those who come nearest the Church of Rome are such ; and advance such speculations as lay the charge of Schism at her own door . But true Sons are no more for laying division to the charge of their Mother , than the true Mother was for dividing the Son. Those are certainly the most genuine Sons of our Church , who own her doctrine , defend her principles , conform to her Rules , and are most ready to maintain her Cause against all her enemies . And among these there is no difference , and there ought to be no distinction . But if any frame a Church of their own Heads , without any regard to the Articles , Homilies , and current doctrine of our Church , and yet will call that the Church of England , and themselves the only genuine Sons of it , I do not question T. G. and your Brethren would be glad to have them thought so , to lessen our number and impair our interest ; but none that understand and value our Church , will endure such a pernicious discrimination among the Sons of the same Mother ; as though some few were fatally determined to be the Sons of our Church , whatever their Works and Merits were ; and others absolutely cast off , notwithstanding the greatest service . I should not mention this , but that I see T. G. insinuating all along such a distinction as this ; and crying up some persons on purpose as the only genuine Sons of the Church of England , that he might cast reproach upon others ; and thereby foment animosities among Brethren . But whose Children those are who do so , I leave T. G. to consider . R. P. Whatever T. G.'s intention was , yet you cannot deny that he hath proved two parts in three to be incompetent Witnesses according to his own Measures . P. D. Not deny it ? I never saw any thing more weakly attempted to be proved , as Dr. St. hath shewed at large in his Preface . Bishop White being rejected as a Puritan , because condemned by that party . Bishop Jewel , because K. Charles said he was not infallible . Bishop Bilson , because of his errours about Civil Government , though a stout defender of the Church of England . Bishop Davenant , because he was none of the Fathers . Bishop Vsher , because his Adversary gives an ill character of him . By this you may judge , what powerful exceptions T. G. made against two parts in three of the Witnesses . R. P. T. G. saith , That Dr. St. rather waved the exceptions by pretty facetious artifices of Wit , than repelled them by a downright denial , out of the affection Catharinus hopes he bears still to the Cause , which had been honoured by such learned and godly Bishops as Jewel , Downham , Usher , the two Abbots and Davenant : which are recorded among the Puritans by the Patronus bonae Fidei . P. D. You might as well have quoted Surius & Cochlaeus for your Church ; as this Patronus bonae Fidei for ours . For he is an Historian much of their size and credit . But of him we shall have occasion to speak hereafter : T. G. filling page after page out of him . Let the Reader judge whether Dr. St. did not shew T. G.'s exceptions to be vain and srivolous , and consequently these remain substantial and competent Witnesses . And as to the cause of the Church of England , which these learned and pious Prelates defended and honoured , Dr. St. will rejoyce to be joyned with them , though it be in suffering reproach for the sake of it . R. P. Let us pass over these single Testimonies , and come to the most material proofs which Dr. St. used , and T. G. declares , he is not yet convinced by them ; that the charge of Idolatry was the sense of the Church of England . P. D. With all my heart . The First was from the Book of Homilies , not barely allowed , but subscribed to , as containing godly and wholsome doctrine very necessary for these times ; which owns this charge of Idolatry not in any doubtful , or single passage , but in an elaborate Discourse intended for the Teachers , as well as the People . To which he added , that the Doctrine of the Homilies is allowed in the thirty nine Articles ; which were approved by the Queen ; confirmed by the subscription of both Houses of Convocation , A. D. 1571. And therefore he desires T. G. to resolve him , whether men of any common understanding would have subscribed to the Book of Homilies in this manner , if they had believed the main doctrine and design of one of them had been false and pernicious ? If , saith he , any of the Bishops had at that time thought the charge of Idolatry unjust , and that it had subverted the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority , would they have inserted this into the Articles , when it was in their power to have left it out ? and that the Homilies contained a wholesome and godly Doctrine , which in their consciences they believed to be false and pernicious ? He might as well think , he saith , that the Council of Trent would have allowed Calvins Institutions , as containing a wholesome and godly Doctrine , as that men so perswaded would have allowed the Homily against the peril of Idolatry . And how is it possible to understand the sense of our Church better , than by such publick and authentick Acts of it , which all persons who are in any place of trust in the Church must subscribe and declare their approbation of ? This Homily hath still continued the same , the Article the very same , and if so , they must acknowledge this hath been and is to this day the sense of our Church . And to what T. G. saith , that this doth not evince every particular doctrine contained in the Homilies to be godly and wholesome , because the whole Book is subscribed to as containing such doctrine ; he answers , that there is a great deal of difference to be made between some particular passages and expressions in these Homilies , and the main doctrine and design of a whole Homily : and between subscribing to a whole Book as containing godly and wholsome doctrine , though men be not so certain of the Truth of every passage in it ; and if they are convinced that any doctrine contained in it is false and pernicious . Now those who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry do not only look on the charge as false , but as of dangerous consequence ; and therefore such a subscription would be shuffling and dishonest . From these things laid together , in my mind Dr. St. hath not only clearly proved that the charge of Idolatry was not only owned by the composers of the Homilies , but by all who have honestly subscribed to the Articles from that time to our own . And I would be glad to hear what answer T. G. gives to all this . R. P. He answers , first by repeating what he said before ; and then by shewing that subscription is no good argument , considering what had been done and undone in that kind in the Reigns of K. Henry 8. Edw. 6. Q. Mary , and Q. Elizabeth , not to speak of latter times . P. D. What is this , but in plain terms to say the subscribers of our Articles were men of no honesty or conscience ; but would say or unsay , subscribe one thing or another as it served their turn ? If this be his way of defending our Church , we shall desire him to defend his own . But yet , this doth not reach home to the Doctors argument , which proceeded not meerly on their honesty , but their having common understanding . For here was no force or violence offered them , they had the full power to consider the Articles , and to compose the Homilies , and would men of common sense put in things against their own minds , and make and approve and recommend Homilies which they did not believe themselves ? This evidently proves the composers of the Homilies and Convocation at that time , did approve the doctrine of these Homilies , for it was in their power not to have passed them . Thus far it is plain that was the doctrine of the Church then , and why should we suppose any subscribers to take them in any other sense , than the Church did then mean them ? Nay , Dr. St. challenged him , to produce any one Divine of our Church , who through the long reign of Q. Elizabeth did so much as once question the truth of this charge . Doth T. G. upon so long consideration of this matter name any ? R. P. Not any that I find . P. D. But that will be best seen by considering Dr. St.'s second Argument of the sense of the Church of England in this matter , viz. from the current Doctrine of the Church ever since the Reformation , the injunctions of Edw. 6. of Cranmer , of Q. Elizabeth ; the Form of Thanksgiving , A. D. 1594. R. P. To this T. G. answers , that this was a heat in the beginning of the Reformation ; but after the Crown was settled upon K. James , whose title was unquestionable both at Rome , ( at home I suppose he means ) and abroad , the dangerous consequences of the charge of Idolatry , began to be more calmly and maturely considered ; and were so throughly weighed in the time of K. Charles I. that as Heylin saith , Bishop Laud hindred the Reprinting the Books containing Calvinian Doctrines . Which evidently shews , saith he , that that party never looked upon the expressions of Idolatry contained in those injunctions as the dogmatical sense of the Church of England . P. D. A very likely story ! that our Church should vary in its doctrine , because K. James his title to the Crown was unquestionable . It seems before , the Church of Rome was guilty of Idolatry , because Q. Elizabeths title was not owned by the Pope . What a fine insinuation is couched under all this ? viz. that our Church depended wholly on the Queens pleasure , and fitted her doctrines to serve her Turn ; and when that was over , the Tide turned , and that was pernicious doctrine now , which was wholesome before ; and wholesome now , which was pernicious before ; and yet there were the same Articles , the same Homilies , the same subscriptions which were before . R. P. But he quotes a Doctour of your own Church for what he saith , P. Heylin , and delivers it in his Words . P. D. P. Heylin speaks not one word in that place of the charge of Idolatry ; ( although T. G. seems to represent it so ) but of those who reviled the Church of Rome it self , and all the Divine Offices , Ceremonies and performances of it . Which it is plain he there speaks of the Genevian party ; for but just before he mentions the Geneva Bible , and the dangerous positions contained in the Annotations printed with it . Now these persons whom he there speaks of , looked upon the Church of Rome as a meer Synagogue of Satan and no true Church ; and all the Offices and Ceremonies of it to be so defiled , that no use could be made of them ; and on that account they rejected our Liturgie and Ceremonies as taken from the Church of Rome . Although therefore , saith he , Q. Elizabeth might suffer such things to be printed in her time , yet B. Laud would not allow the Reprinting of them ; because Q. Elizabeth might out of State policy suffer the violent transports of irregular zeal , by reason of her personal quarrels with the Pope ; yet now those reasons being over , B. Laud would not suffer them to come abroad again . But that this expression cannot be understood of the charge of Idolatry , I prove by these arguments . ( 1. ) Pet. Heylin himself preaching before K. Charles I. and Archbishop Laud , did in plain terms charge the Worship of Images with most gross Idolatry : as appears by the words cited at large in Dr. St.'s general preface . What saith T. G. to this ? R. P. I do not find a particular answer to this , but I suppose he reckons him with those six of whom he saith , that they do not charge the Church of Rome it self , but the opinions of School Divines and abuses in practice . P. D. That cannot be , for Pet. Heylin goes farther ; saying , that they who observe the manner of their Worship of Images , with what Pilgrimages , Processions , Offerings , with what affections , prayers , and humble bendings of the body , they have been and are Worshipped in the Church of Rome , might very easily conceive that she was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism . R. P. He saith , they might conceive so ; but he doth not say , they might justly conceive so . P. D. This is very subtle , and like T. G. himself . But I pray observe , P. Heylin when he gives an account of the Worship of Images , saith , when the Doctrine , which first began in the Schools came to its growth , what fruits could it bear , but most gross Idolatry , greater than which , was never known among the Gentiles ? Mark that for your satisfaction . What fruit could the doctrine bear , and that after it came out of the Schools to its growth . And when he saith , they might conceive that Rome was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism ; the meaning is , Those that saw their Worship of Images in modern Rome , and compared it with what was done in old Rome , would see no difference ; the Idolatry was so gross in both , that if there were nothing else to make a distinction , a man might easily conceive Rome was relapsed into her ancient Paganism . R. P. But what other argument have you to prove that P. Heylin could not speak this of the charge of Idolatry ? P. D. Because in his Introduction he owns the doctrine of the Homilies as to this point of Idolatry ; and that the compilers of the Homilies were the more earnest in this point of removing or excluding Images , the better to wean the people from the sin of Idolatry , in which they had been trained up from their very infancy . And after , he adds , the people of this last Age , being sufficiently instructed in the unlawfulness of worshipping such painted Images , they may be lawfully used in Churches , without fear of Idolatry . What can this signifie , if he did not take the Worship of Images to be Idolatry ? and therefore he could not look upon this as a heat in the beginning of the Reformation ; and which was quite spent in the time of B. Laud ; since not only P. Heylin , but the Arch-Bishop himself saith , that the Modern Church of Rome is too like Paganism in the Worship of Images , and driven to scarce intelligible subtilties , in her servants writings that defend it ; and this without any care had of millions of souls unable to understand her subtilties or shun her practice . And in his defence against the charge of the Commons , he said , that he had written against the adoration and superstitious use of Images as fully as any man whatsoever . What think you now Sir ? was this a heat in the beginning of the Reformation ; and when men in Archbishop Lauds time , more duly weighed the consequences of this charge , they grew both cooler and wiser ? what evidence doth T. G. produce for this ? When the very person he produces for it , is so far from it , that he saith the contrary ; and are we not like to meet with very hopeful Demonstrations in the scientifical way from him ? But I have one argument yet more , to prove there was no such change as to this matter , in Archbishop Lauds time ; which is from the Convocation , A. D. 1640. wherein no one questions the influence and direction of Archbishop Laud , and the concurrence of those of his Party , as T. G. calls them ; and yet in that very Book of Pet. Heylins , he might have seen that Canon , wherein they acknowledge the Idolatry of the Mass ; and T. G. could not pretend any ignorance of this ; for Dr. St. had quoted this very Canon to this purpose , to shew that this was the sense of Archbishops , Bishops and Clergy in Convocation so lately ; and so long after the first heats of the Reformation . But what answer doth T. G. give to this , which is so material a Testimony , and so destructive to all he saith , upon this matter ? R. P. I do not remember he takes notice of it ; but if you please I will look , for I have his Book about me . P. D. Not take notice of it ? It is impossible . What! doth he pretend to answer , and pass by the plainest and strongest arguments , as if they had never been brought ? This is a very satisfactory way of answering , and becoming the ingenuity of T. G. : but I pray Sir look again , I am afraid you wrong him . I suppose you never read Dr. St.'s Books , but only the Answers to them , and then I do not wonder you applaud the Answers , if they leave out the hardest arguments . R. P. You have a little startled me with this omission ; I have turned over all the Leaves which relate to this matter very carefully , and I cannot find one word about it : surely it was an involuntary omission . P. D. How could that be involuntary , when it was produced and urged with great force , to shew that this was no Puritanical charge ; no heat at the beginning of the Reformation ; no private opinion of particular persons , but the sense of our whole Church representative even in A. D. 1640. R. P. I confess , I know not what to say more for him , but that it was an omission . P.D. No Sir , that is not all ; for there is a fault of commission too ; for he doth not only leave out this , but he advances an hypothesis which he might easily see the falshood of , from this single testimony ; viz. that the charge of Idolatry was only a heat of the beginning of the Reformation , which was disowned in the time of K. Charles and Archbishop Laud , when at the same time he could not but see the plainest evidence to the contrary by the Convocation of A. D. 1640. Is your cause to be supported only by such tricks as these ? R. P. You are too like Dr. St. whom T. G. charges with being too Tragical upon such slight occasions ; and flinging and laying about him unreasonably for a thing of nothing ; as when T. G. mistook Robert Abbot for George . P. D. Call you this a thing of nothing ? methinks it is rather making nothing of a very substantial thing . As to the other mistake , I suppose we shall hear of it ere long . I pray let us proceed in order . R. P. Dr. St.'s third Argument is from the Rubrick at the end of the Communion ; the words are these , Whereas it is ordained in this Office , for the administration of the Lords Supper ; that the communicants should receive the same kneeling . F.C. Hold there I pray ; what ! receive the Communion kneeling ! Give me leave to come in now ; for I perceive you are hard pressed , and we ought to give friendly assistance to one another against these Church of England-men ; and therefore I will prove them guilty of Idolatry in receiving the Sacrament kneeling . P. D. This will be a digression , but I alwayes owe so much service to the Church of England , as to be ready to defend it from so unjust a charge ; therefore to your business . F. C. Mr. Case in his Sermon before the Long Parliament at a General Fast , on such a day saith thus — P. D. I pray Sir speak to the point , I am not now at leisure to hear Mr. Cases Sermon repeated . F. C. I hope you will not interrupt me . P. D. Not , when you speak to the business : Do you understand what Idolatry is ? F. C. That is a question to be asked indeed ; as though I did not know what the cup of fornication means , that is Idolatry ; and to bow at the name of Jesus , and to bow to the Altar , that is Idolatry ; do you think I do not know what Idolatry is ? Methinks you should have more reverence for a man of my years , than to ask me such a sawcy Question ; have I preached this thirty years and more in the Army and in private Congregations , and live to be asked such a question by you ? Sir I knew what Idolatry was before you were born . P. D. Then I hope you can tell me , now I am of Age to understand it . F. C. Why , have I not told you already ? P. D. I pray sir let us talk calmly , and understand one another , which we shall never do unless we agree what is Idolatry . I pray give me the definition of it . F. C. The definition ! When I was a young man as you are , I had as many definitions in my head as any Body ; but we that are upon constant duties of another nature cannot trouble our Heads with Definitions or such idle notions . But alas we grow old ; and such things are soon forgotten . I remember in my younger dayes I read Bucanus , Polanus , and Amesius ; nay , there was not a good Systeme of Orthodox Divinity to be had , but I read it , and noted it ; but I lost my notes in the time of the Wars , and could never recover them . P. D. This is a little off from our business ; I hope you are better at application of the point than at explication of it . What is it in the Church of England you do charge with Idolatry ? F. C. Kneeling at the Sacrament . P. D. For what reason ? F. C. Stay a little : I thought I had my arguments at my Fingers ends ; but see how strangely good things slip out of our memories ! But now I remember , I have some short notes about me which I took out of Mr. Gillespie's Idolatry of the English Popish Ceremonies ; and let me tell you , he was a mighty man in his dayes against the Church of England , and this Book of his did great execution upon the Bishops in Scotland . I can remember , how much it affected the Brethren in England , and how we compared him to one of Davids Worthies that killed the Giants of the Philistins . P. D. Sir , at this rate of talking it will be night before you come to the Question , methinks you seem to have nothing to say against us of the Church of England . F. C. I nothing to say against you ! who ever heard me , without having something to say against you ? I tell you Sir , I look upon your Church as the younger sister to the Whore of Babylon : never a barrel the better herring ; only we can have liberty of Conscience with one , and not with the other . It is all one to me to bow to an Image , and to bow to the Altar ; to worship Images , and to kneel at the Sacrament . P. D. I am in hopes you are now coming to the point , I pray keep there without any farther rambling . F. C. Call you this rambling ? You know Amesius saith , even in controverted points , much respect ought to be had to the experience of Gods people ; I tell you , I have found it thus with me , and you ought rather to hear me teach you , than dispute with me . P. D. All this shall not serve ; I must have your arguments since you urge me thus . F. C. Why look ye now , d' ye see how petulant and malapert these Divines of the Church of England are . But since nothing will satisfie you , but arguing , I have an argument ready for you will do your business . To Worship the Bread is Idolatry ; But to kneel at the Sacrament is to Worship the Bread. Ergo. P. D. I am glad to find you come to any kind of Reasoning . I deny , that in kneeling at the Sacrament , we do worship the Bread ; for our Church expresly declares the contrary in this Rubrick . F. C. What do I care for your Church or her Rubricks ? I say you do worship the Bread and prove it too . That which you kneel before and look towards , when you worship , you do give the worship to : But you kneel before and look towards the bread when you worship . Ergo. P. D. I begin to be afraid of you now ; for you do not only prove by this argument kneeling at the Sacrament , but reading the Common Prayer to be Idolatry ; For if that which we kneel before and look towards when we worship , must be the object of our worship , it is plain we must indeed make an Idol of the Common Prayer ; for every time we read it we kneel before it and looks towards it when we worship . F. C. Look you to that , I alwayes took the Common Prayer for an Idol , but I did not think , I had proved it now . P. D. I shall endeavour to undeceive you in this matter . Since we are not pure spirits , but must worship God with our bodies , by kneeling and looking towards something in our Acts of Worship ; we must not determine that to be the object of our Worship which our bodies are bended towards , or we look upon in our worship , unless there be some other reason for it ; for then Idolatry would be necessary and unavoidable . For we cannot kneel with our eyes open , but we must look upon some creature , which according to your way of arguing , must be the object of our Worship . I pray Sir , without being angry , give me leave to ask you , whether a man kneeling in the Fields and praying with his eyes lifted up to Heaven be an Idolater or not ? F. C. I think not . P. D. Yet he kneels towards some creature , and looks upon some creature when he worships ; therefore you must prove by some other way , that we do make the bread the Object of our Worship . But this we utterly deny ; and say the doing it is Idolatry and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians . And will you make us worship it , whether we will or no ? F. C. But you use the same postures which the Papists do , and yet you charge them with Idolatry ? P. D. Because this is a thing many of you stumble at , I will make the difference of our case , and theirs plain to you . In all moral Acts we are to have a great great regard to their circumstances , from whence they take a different denomination . He that kills a man by accident , and he that kills a man out of malice , do the very same thing as to the substance of the Act ; yet no man will say it is the same act upon a moral consideration . We kneel , and the Papists kneel : but we declare when we kneel , we intend no adoration to the Elements : but the Papists cannot deny that they do give proper adoration to that which is before them ; which we say is bread , and they say , the Body of Christ under the species of bread ; and yet not meerly to the invisible Body of Christ , but taking the species of bread as united to that Body of Christ , and so directing their worship to these two together as the proper objects of divine adoration . And to make this evident to you , their adoration is performed at the Elevation of the Host ; and at the carrying it about in processions , and at the exposing it on their Altars ; and not meerly in the participation of it . Whence it is observable , that the Church of Rome doth not strictly require kneeling at the participation , which it would do , if it looked on the kneeling at receiving as a proper Act of Adoration . The Rubricks of the Mass , do not , that I can find , require the Priest to kneel in the Act of receiving ; and the Pope when he celebrates , receives sitting . Espencaeus saith , in the Church of Lions , many of the People did not receive kneeling ; and upon complaint made about it , they were by the advice of two Cardinals left to their old custome . And I wonder your Brethren have not taken notice of the difference of kneeling at the elevation of the Host , and in the Act of receiving it ; the one was required by the Constitution of Honorius , and was intended for an act of adoration to the Host : the other was derived from the ancient Church , which although it did not alwayes use the same posture of adoration that we do ; yet it is sufficient for our purpose , if they received the Sacrament in the same posture in which they worshipped God. And this I could easily prove , if this were a place or season for it . F. C. Well Sir , I do not love disputing ; I pray go on with your former Adversary . R. P. Sir , I thank you for the diversion you have given us , if you please I will now return to the place where we left ; I was about to tell you the Answer T. G. gives to Dr. St.'s third Argument from the Rubrick at the end of the Communion . The words are , It is here declared that by kneeling no adoration is intended or ought to be done , either unto the Sacramental bread or wine , there bodily received , or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances , and therefore may not be adored , for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians ; and the natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven ; and not here , it being against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one . About which Dr. St. charges T. G. first with Ignorance in saying , it was not yet above a douzen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book ; whereas he might have found it above a hundred years before in the Liturgie of Edw. 6. To which T. G. answers , That the various fate of this Rubrick , first in not being annexed till the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. and being cast out again in the year 1562. and then admitted again almost a hundred years after , is no eviction to him , that the charge of Idolatry is the dogmatical doctrine of the Church of England . P. D. If this were all the declaration our Church had made of her sense , and the intention of this Rubrick were only to declare this point of Idolatry , there were some probability in what T. G. suggests . But I have shewed already , how fully our Church hath declared her sense about Romish Idolatry by other wayes ; and the design of this Rubrick was not to express her sense of Idolatry , so much as to give satisfaction to those who scrupled the lawfulness of kneeling . For which cause it was first put in , and afterwards not thought necessary to be continued , when persons were better satisfied about the intention of our Church . But when after long disuse and violent prejudices the dissenters were grown unacquainted with the design and intention of our Church , there was the same reason for inserting it again , which held at first for putting it in . And what now hath T. G. gained by this observation ? If it had been , as he imagined , what he had gotten in one point , he had lost in another : for then it would appear , that there was no such heat in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths dayes , if they were willing to leave out such a declaration of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome , at that time when Q. Elizabeths Title was the most disputed at Rome ; so that from hence appears the vanity of T. G.'s former observation , and how far they were from taking things into our Liturgie out of spite to the Pope ; nay , so far were they from this , that in the first year of Q. Elizabeth , that petition in the Letany was left out , which had been inserted by Henry 8. and continued in both Liturgies of Edw. 6. From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome , and all his detestable enormities , Good Lord — And this he might have found in the same Historian . And was not the title of Head of the Church taken by her Father and Brother so qualified and explained then , as might prevent any occasion of quarreling at it by the most captious persons ? Do these passages look like doing things on purpose to provoke and exasperate , and out of pure spite to the Pope , or like putting in things on purpose to heighten the differences , when T. G. himself confesses , they left out this Rubrick , and it is evident they did leave out some of the most provoking expressions ? R. P. I see you cannot bear the charge of intemperate heat on the beginning of the Reformation . P. D. I cannot bear such an unreasonable and unjust imputation as this is ; and I have a particular esteem for the Wisdom , Learning and Piety which was shewed in the Ecclesiastical part of our Reformation . But how doth T. G. take off the charge of Idolatry in this Rubrick ? R. P. He saith , he takes the meaning of it not to be , the denying adoration to be due in regard of Christs Body being present spiritually , but truly in the Sacrament ; but only that no adoration ought to be done to any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood , as the word Corporal is taken to signifie the natural manner of a bodies being present . For which he gives these reasons , ( 1. ) Because those words in the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. No adoration ought to be done to any real or essential being of Christs natural flesh and blood , are now changed [ into any corporal presence of Christ natural flesh and blood . ] ( 2. ) Because the Protestant Divines do yield the real presence of Christs Body , for which he quotes Bishop Taylor and Bishop Cosins ; and he desires Dr. St. so to explain these words , as not to undermine the constant doctrine of the Church of England concerning the real presence , and leave us nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it . P. D. I am so much his Friend , that at this time I will undertake this task for him . First , We must consider the words of the Rubrick . ( 2. ) How this sense of it can be reconciled with the real presence as owned by the Church of England . ( 1. ) For the meaning of the Rubrick . We are to consider that the Rubrick denies adoration to be intended , either unto the Sacramental bread and wine , or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood . And after , it gives two distinct reasons for denying adoration to either of these . 1. To the Sacramental bread and wine , for this reason , because they remain still in their very natural substances , and therefore may not be adored , for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians . 2. To the corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood ; because the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven , and not here , it being against the truth of Christs natural Body , to be at one time in more places than one . You see , here are two plainly distinct reasons given for denying adoration to the elements , and to the Natural Body of Christ. The former is said to be Idolatry ; the latter to be absurd and unreasonable , it being repugnant to the truth of Christs body to be in more places than one at one time . So that the sense of the Rubrick lyes in these two propositions . 1. That it is Idolatry to give adoration to the elements remaining in their natural substances . 2. That it is absurd to believe Christs natural body to be present , because then it must be in more places than one , which is repugnant to the truth of a body . These things to my apprehension are the plain and natural sense of this Rubrick . R. P. But we do not give adoration to the Sacramental elements , but to the Body of Christ. P. D. I do believe I can prove that you give adoration to the Sacramental Elements , as they make up one entire object of adoration with the body of Christ ; but that is not my present business ; which is to shew the sense of our Church , which lyes in these particulars . 1. That the Sacramental Elements do remain in their natural substances after consecration . 2. That , to adore them so remaining is Idolatry , and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians . No one questions the former to be the sense of our Church ; the only question lyes in the later , whether that be Idolatry or no ? It is no question , that to give divine adoration to any creature is Idolatry ; and it is so acknowledged on all sides ; the only question then can be , whether the substance of bread and wine be a creature or not ? and this is no question with any man in his wits : therefore to give adoration to the substance of bread and wine is Idolatry . No demonstration in Euclid is plainer than this . R. P. But I tell you , we do not worship the creature , but the body of Christ. P. D. I tell you again , if there be a creature you do worship it , for you give adoration to what is before you , be it what it will ; if it be a creature you adore it . R. P. But we say , it is not a creature we worship . P. D. Do not you give adoration to that which is consecrated , whether it remains a creature or not after consecration ? At the elevation of the Host , at the carrying it about , at the exposing of it on the Altar , you worship that which was consecrated do you not ? R. P. We worship that which was bread before consecration , but after , is no longer so but the body of Christ. P. D. But if it should remain bread after consecration , what do ye adore then ? is it not the substance of the bread ? R. P. Yes , but we believe it is not the bread . P. D. That is not the question , what you believe ; for they that believed God to be the soul of the world , worshipped the parts of it upon a supposition , which if it had been true would have justified their worship , every jot as well as yours can do you , and yet they were gross Idolaters for all that . Nay , I will say more to you , there never were Idolaters in the world , that did not proceed upon a false supposition , and it may be not so unreasonable as yours . This cannot therefore excuse you , if your supposition proves false ; as no doubt it is ; that the substance of the bread doth not remain after consecration . But I now ask you what your adoration is , in the opinion of those persons who do firmly believe the Sacramental Elements to remain in their natural substances . Is it not the giving divine worship to a creature ? And is not the giving divine worship to a creature Idolatry ? so that according to the sense of our Church the Worship of the Host must be Idolatry . R. P. But what have you got by all this ? for we confess our selves , that if the substance of bread and wine do remain after consecration we are as great Idolaters as they that worship a red cloath . P. D. Upon my word , you had need then to be well assured , that the substance of Bread and Wine do not remain ; and yet I must tell you , we can be certain of nothing in the world , if we are not certain that the substance of bread and wine do remain after consecration . For if we are certain of nothing by our senses , but of the outward accidents ( which is all your best men do say in this case ) we cannot be certain of any visible substance in the world , for no bodily substance can be discerned , but by our senses ; and so all foundation of certainty by sense is destroyed . Nay , farther , it takes away all certainty by reason , for it confounds the clearest maxims of it , by overthrowing all Mathematical proportions of great and small , whole and parts ; by destroying all notions of distance and place ; by jumbling the notions of body and Spirit . And lastly , it takes away all certainty by Revelation , which can never come to us , but upon the supposition of the certainty of Sense and Reason . R. P. O Sir , I see what you would be at ; you would fain draw me into a dispute about transubstantiation , upon principles of Reason ; I beg your pardon Sir. This is a matter of faith , and must be stoutly believed , or else we are gone . No more of this Sir , to your business of Idolatry I pray . P. D. I was only giving you some caution by the by , how much you are concerned to look about you ; but since you are resolved to shut your eyes , I return to the sense of our Church about the Idolatry of the Mass ; and it follows necessarily from our former discourse , that since our Church believes the substance of the Elements do remain , and that your worship doth really fix upon that substance , whatever your intentions be , it is really Idolatry . R. P. However this only proves it to be material Idolatry , and not formal . P. D. I have often heard of this distinction , but I could never be satisfied with it : For what is material and formal Idolatry ? R. P. Material Idolatry I take to be mistaken worship ; i. e. I do give divine worship to a false object , but I do not intend to give it to a false object of Worship , but to a true one . P. D. Then Formal Idolatry must be giving divine worship to a false object of Worship , knowing it to be a false object . And where are there any such Idolaters to be found in the world ? Did not the Heathens believe that to be God which they worshipped ? And is not God a true object of worship ? only they mistook that to be God which was not ▪ and so were only material Idolaters ; Even those that worshipped their Images for Gods , were only mistaken ; for they had a good intention only to worship God , but they unhappily took their Images for Gods. And I must needs say , they who took the Sun , Moon and Stars for Gods , and worshipped them as such , were very excusable in comparison of those who take a piece of bread for God , or that which appears like it . R. P. You are very severe methinks ; but do you think there is no difference among Idolaters ? P. D. Yes , I tell you there is , but not much to your comfort . The grosser mens erour is , the more means to convince men of it , the more wilful their blindness and continuance in it , the more culpable they are in their Idolatry , and consequently the less excusable . R. P. But may not a man innocently mistake ? as if in the dark , a Child should ask blessing of one that is not his Father , would his Father have reason to be angry with him ? P. D. Not for once , or if it were in the dark ; but if he should see him every day go very formally to a joyn'd Stool in the Hall , or to a Brown Loaf in the Buttery , and there very solemnly down upon his knees to them , and beg their blessing ; tell me what you think the Father would say , to such a mistake ? Would he excuse him , saying , Alas poor Child , he intended all this to me , only he mistook the Brown Loaf or a joyn'd stool for me ! R. P. Forbear such comparisons ; for we have divine Revelation , This is my Body ; and we believe his word against all you can say in this matter . P. D. But what will you say , if by the confession of many of the best and most learned of your own Divines , You have not Divine Revelation for it ; and that those words cannot prove that the substance of Bread doth not remain after consecration , which is the thing we now enquire after : and if it were not to go off from our present business , I would undertake to prove this evidently to you . R. P. However we have the Authority of our Church for it . P. D. You had as good say , you are resolved to believe it ; for the Authority of your Church can never perswade any man that is not . R. P. When you are gotten to this point of transubstantiation , it is hard to get you off . It is the sore place of our Church , and you are like Flyes in Summer , alwayes busie about it . I pray return to your Rubrick , for you seem to have forgotten it . P. D. No , I have been pursuing it hitherto . R. P. But what say you to T. G.'s reasons , why this must be understood of a corporeal presence of Christs natural Body , because you else overthrow the doctrine of a real presence which hath been accounted the doctrine of the Church of England . P. D. To this I answer , ( 1. ) The Rubrick saith expresly , that it is against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one . It doth not say against the corporeal presence of his natural Body , but the truth of it ; from whence it follows , that our Church believes the true natural body of Christ , which was born of the Virgin , suffered on the Cross , and ascended into Heaven , can be but in one place ; which is declared in the foregoing words , And the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here : i. e. in Heaven exclusively from being in the Sacrament . Which are not true , if the same natural Body of Christ could be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host. R. P. How then can your Divines hold a real presence of Christs Body , as T. G. saith they do ? P. D. You had heard if you had staid till I came to my second Answer , which is , that notwithstanding this , our Church doth hold , that after Consecration , the Elements do become the Body and Blood of Christ , and so there is a real presence of Christs Body ; but not of his natural , but of a mystical Body . I will endeavour to make this out to you , because you look strangely upon me , as if I were big of some mighty paradox . When Paschasius Radbertus did first broach the modern doctrine of the Roman Church about the same body of Christ being in the Sacrament , which was born of the B. Virgin , in the Western Church , he met with great opposition therein from the most learned Divines of that Age ; among the rest , there lived then in the Court of Carolus Calvus a man very eminent for his Learning , called Joh. Scotus , or Erigena . This man at the request of Carolus Calvus delivered his opinion directly contrary to Paschasius ; for whereas he asserted , that the very same Body of Christ which was born of the B. Virgin , was invisibly present under the accidents of Bread and Wine , Scotus denyed , that the Elements were in any real sense after consecration the Body and Blood of Christ , the Sacrament being only a bare commemoration , or figurative representation of the Body and Blood of Christ. So Hincmarus who lived in that Age delivers his opinion ; which was afterwards taken up by Berengarius , as appears by Lanfrank's answer to him . And Ascelinus in his Epistle to Berengarius shews that Joh. Scotus out of opposition to Paschasius , set himself to prove from the Fathers , that what was consecrated on the Altar was not truly and really the Body and Blood of Christ. These two opposite doctrines being thus dispersed , and a Schism being likely to break out upon it , as appears both by Ratramnus , and the Anonymous Authour , published by Cellotius , ( and extant in MS in the Cotton Library ) Carolus Calvus sends to Ratramnus ( an eminent Divine of that Age , being imployed by the Gallican Church to defend the Latins against the Greeks ) to know his judgement in this matter . He , ( who is better known by the name of Bertram ) gives , in his Preface , an Account to his Prince of both these opinions , and rejects them both , as against the sense of the Fathers and Doctrine of the Church . In the first part of his Book , he disputes against Scotus who would allow no Mysterie , and in the second against Paschasius who contended that the same Body of Christ was in the Sacrament , which was born of the B. Virgin : this , he saith , was the state of the second Question , whether that very Body of Christ which sits at the right hand of God , be re●eived by believers in the Sacramental Mysterie ? And he proves the Negative at large from the Testimonies of the Fathers ; shewing , that they did put a difference between that Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin , and suffered on the Cross , and that true but mystical body of Christ on the Altar ; and so , from the Testimonies of S. Ambrose , S. Augustine , S. Hierom , Fulgentius ; from the Scriptures ; and from the Offices of the Church , he concludes point-blank against Paschasius , that it was not the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin. But then against the opinion of Scotus , he delivers his mind fully in answer to the first Question , saying , If there were nothing in the Sacrament but what appeared to the senses , it was unfitly called a Mysterie ; and there would be no exercise for faith ; no change at all wrought in the Elements ; the Sacrament would fall short of Baptism and the Manna in the Wilderness : and lastly , to what purpose did Christ promise his Flesh to be the Food of his People , which being not to be understood carnally and literally must have a spiritual signification ; so that , though as to their outward appearance the Sacramental Elements are Figures , yet according to the invisible Power and Efficacy they are the Body and Blood of Christ. And this he shews , to have been the sense of the Fathers and Christian Church . This opinion of Ratramnus , Paschasius in his Epistle to Frudegardus , calls the doctrine of those who deny the presence of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament ; but do hold an invisible power and efficacy in and with the Elements ; because , say they , there is no body but what is visible and palpable . And whoever will read that Epistle of Paschasius will find the expressions , he answers , the very same that yet occur in the Book of Bertram . Of the same opinion with Ratramnus in this matter , was Rabanus Maurus , the greatest Divine accounted of his Age , who wrote his Epistle to Egilo against them , who had lately broached that doctrine ( mark that ) that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament , was the very same which was born of the B. Virgin , and suffered on the Cross and rose from the dead . And this appears from his Epistle to Heribaldus still extant ; wherein he saith , he declared in what sense the Sacrament was the Body of Christ. Besides , the Anonymus Authour published by Cellotius , ( the only person about that time who appeared in behalf of the doctrine of Paschasius , and very inconsiderable in comparison of his Adversaries ) confesseth the opposition made to Paschasius by Rabanus and Ratramnus , and endeavours to excuse his simplicity in asserting that the same flesh of Christ was upon the Altar , which was born of the Virgin , by a new and extravagant supposition of the Sacrament being the medium of uniting two real bodies of Christ ; viz. of his flesh and of his Church , and therefore that must be a real body of Christ too ; which is so remote from justifying Paschasius his doctrine , that Cellotius himself is ashamed of him . This same doctrine of Rabanus and Ratramnus is expresly owned by the Saxon Homilies , which deny the Sacrament to be a meer commemoration according to the opinion of Joh. Erigena , but say that after consecration the bread becomes the Body of Christ after a spiritual and mystical manner ; and in the Saxon Code of Canons it is expresly determined , not to be that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. And this I assert to be the very same doctrine which the Church of England embraced upon the Reformation ; as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers ; which although it doth declare against the natural Body of Christ , being in more places than one , even that Body of Christ which is in heaven , yet in the Articles it declares , that the body of Christ is given , taken and eaten , so that to the faithful receivers the Bread consecrated and broken becomes the Communion of the Body of Christ , and the cup of blessing the communion of the Blood of Christ. And so in the Catechism , it is said , that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper ; i. e. that after consecration such a divine power and efficacy doth accompany the Holy Sacrament as makes the elements to become the Spiritual and mystical Body of Christ ; as the Church is really but mystically the Body of Christ , because of his Spirit dwelling in them . So the Apology of our Church saith , that in the Lords Supper there is truly exhibited the Body and Blood of Christ , because that is the proper food of our souls , as Bread and Wine tends to the nourishment of our Bodiess And if the time would permit , I could not only more largely prove this to be the sense of our Church , but that it is the true and genuine sense of the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church . And thus I hope , I have done that which T. G. thought so impossible a thing , viz. to explain this Rubrick , so as not to undermine the doctrine of the real presence asserted by the Church of England , nor to leave nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it . R. P. I was afraid of a Paradox , and it appears , not without Reason , for I never met with any one yet who explained the doctrine of Bertram and the Church of England after this manner ; and all that attempted it talked so in the clouds , that transubstantiation it self did not seem more hard to understand : but I remember Pet. de Marca hath proved , that the Book of Bertram was the same which was written by Joh. Scotus , and therefore your hypothesis is utterly overthrown . P. D. I have read and considered that faint attempt of that Great Man , which seemed to be designed for no other end but to make us believe that Bertrams Book was burned for heretical at the Synod of Vercelles ; but if any one will impartially consider the Book of Bertram and compare it with the account given of the opinion of Joh. Scotus by the Writers against Berengarius , they will find De Marca's opinion without the least colour of probability . R. P. But Card. Perron , Mauguin , Cellotius and Arnaud all say , that Bertram in the First part disputes against the Stercoranists , who were a sort of Hereticks , who held that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist was passible , corruptible and digestible , and in all things just as the bread appeared to our senses ; and asserted , that all the accidents of the Bread were founded hypostatically in the Body of Christ , and not to have any proper subsistence of their own . P. D. These were a notable sort of Hereticks , if they could be found ; but it appears by the enemies of Berengarius that this opprobrious name was fixed by them on all those who asserted the substance of the Bread to remain after consecration ; and it would be very strange if Bertram should confute that which himself asserts ; for he saith , the Sacramental Elements do pass into the nourishment of our Bodies . But if any were lyable to this accusation , it must be Paschasius ; if Pet. de Marca's observation of him be true , that he held both substance and quantity of the Bread and Wine to be turned into the Body of Christ ; from whence it follows , that must be the subject of all those accidents which were in the Bread before ; which is the very sink of Stercoranism . Nay , I am very much deceived , if Pope Nicholas 2. in the recantation prescribed to Berengarius did not fall into the filth of it far more than Rabanus or Heribaldus ; for he asserts therein , that the Body of Christ is truly and sensibly handled and broken by the hands of Priests and ground by the teeth of Believers . But what place could be fitter for this Heresie , than the Sedes Stercoraria ? And Guitmundus striving to help Pope Nicholas and his Council out , falls into the same Heresie himself : for he shews that Christs Body may be handled and chewed in the Sacrament ; if so , it must be the subject of the Accidents of the Bread and Wine . Which according to Perron and his followers is plain Stercor●nism . R. P. But do not you fall into another Heresie , viz. of Impanation ? P. D. A man had need look to his words , when Heresies are so common , and buz so about a mans ears . And some think they confute a man with a vengeance , if they can find out some Heresie with a hard name to fasten upon him . But if you did know wherein the heresie of Impanation lay , you would never charge this doctrine of our Church with it . For I find two distinct wayes of Impanation , and this doctrine is lyable to neither of them . 1. By union of the Bread to the Body of Christ , and by that to the Divinity , which was the way of Joh. Parisiensis . 2. By an immediate conjunction of the Divine Nature to the Bread ; not meerly by divine efficacy and power , but by an Hypostatical Vnion : which is the opinion not without ground , attributed to Rupertus Tuitiensis ; and is lyable to this great absurdity , that all that befals the Bread may be attributed to the person of Christ , which Bellarmine saith , it is blasphemy to imagine . And then it might be said , that the bread is God , that the Word is made Bread , and that God is both bread and wine . But all which the doctrine of our Church implyes is only a real presence of Christs invisible power and Grace so in and with the Elements , as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men : As the Bodies assumed by Angels might be called their Bodies , while they assumed them ; or rather as the Church is the Body of Christ , because of his spirit quickning and enlivening the Souls of Believers : so the bread and wine after consecration are the real but the spiritual and Mystical body of Christ. If any one yet thinks , that some at least of our Divines have gone farther than this , let them know , it is the Doctrine of our Church I am to defend , and not of every particular Divine in it ; and if any do seem to speak of the presence of the very same Body which is in Heaven , I desire them in the first place to reconcile that doctrine with this dogmatical assertion at the end of this Rubrick ; that it is against the Truth of Christs natural Body , ( not against the corporal presence of it ) to be at one time in more places than one . Let men imagine what kind of presence they please of the same body , I only desire to know , whether to be in Heaven , and to be in the Sacrament , be to be in the same or distinct places ? If the places be distinct , as no doubt Heaven and Earth are , then our Church declares that it is contrary to the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be in more places than one at one time . R. P. But cannot God annihilate that Cylinder of air between the Body of Christ in Heaven , and the Sacrament on the Altar , and so make them both to be in one place ? P. D. This is a very idle and extravagant question ; because , if it be granted , it only proves that there is nothing between Christs Body in Heaven , and the Host , but it doth not prove the Host to be that Body of Christ ; and withal , since so many thousand Hosts are consecrated in a Day , you must suppose so much air annihilated as lies between Christs Body and all those Hosts ; but can any man imagine God should annihilate so much air every time a Priest Consecrates ? and I remember a good saying of Cajetan , Non est disputandum de divina potentia ubi de Sacramentis tractatur ; we must not dispute of Gods absolute power about the matter of Sacraments ; because these are so often celebrated , that we are to suppose no more than an ordinary power to be imployed about them . And suppose we should grant a thing possible by Gods absolute power , he saith , it is folly to assert all that to be in the Sacrament which God can do . However , this doth not reach this Rubrick , which supposes distinct places , and saith , it is contrary to the truth of Christs natural Body to be in more places than one at one time . R. P. But may not all this be understood , as T. G. suggests , of the natural manner of a bodies being present in more places than one ; viz. that it is repugnant to the Truth of Christs natural Body to be naturally present or in a corporeal manner in more places than one ; but it may be naturally present but in one place ; i. e. by way of extension or quantity ; but it may be present in more places after another manner ? P. D. I think you have strained for this , and it is your last effort : to which I answer . ( 1. ) It yields no advantage to T. G. for supposing that some of our Divines did hold it possible , that the same body might be present in several places after a different manner , yet how doth it hence follow , that the Rubrick doth not charge them who worship the substance of Bread and Wine with Idolatry ? ( 2. ) Supposing the Church did fix this charge upon those who worship the Body of Christ as present , I desire to know whether another kind of presence would excuse from Idolatry ? i. e. supposing that to worship Christs Body as corporeally present be Idolatry , it would not be Idolatry to worship the very same Body as present after another manner ? Which is all one , as to ask , whether if it be Idolatry to worship a man with his cloaths on , it be likewise Idolatry to worship him with his cloaths off ? If it be , the very same body , let the manner of its being present be the same or different , it doth not alter the nature or reason of worship . Only of the two , it seems more unreasonable to worship an invisible Body than a visible one ; for in a visible body , he that worships is sure of something that he sees , but when he fancies an invisible Body present , he fancies something which if it were , must be seen , and yet though he cannot see it , he resolves to worship it . ( 3. ) It is altogether as unreasonable to believe that a Body may be present in several places after a different manner , as after the same manner . For whereever a Body is really present , let it be with extension or without , it is so in that place as not to be in another ; i. e. the Body of Christ being in the Host on the Altar , is so there , as not to be on the floor , or any other place about it ; for otherwise , it could not be said to be only under the accidents : I then ask , on what account the same body cannot be present in two places at once after the same manner , and yet may be after a different manner ? Aquinas saith , it doth imply a contradiction for the same Body to be in several places at once after the same manner , i. e. by way of extension or quantity ; because , it is necessary for the same thing to be undivided from it self , but that which is in several places must be divided from it self . But as Conink well observes , this argument proves it as impossible for the same body to be in several places after a different manner , for it is never the less divided from it self by being in one place after another manner than in the other : yea it will be more divided , because it will be after two several wayes repugnant to each other . And it is much more easie to conceive that a Body should be in two several places after a natural manner , than to be so in one place ; and in another , after such a spiritual manner as is very hard to be understood . It is much more repugnant , saith Maeratius , for the same Body to be extended and not extended , than to have a double extension . If it be repugnant to the finite nature of a body , to be in more places than one , because then it might be present in all places ; this , saith Lugo , will hold against a Sacramental Presence ; for that comes nearer to a Divine immensity for a Body to be in more places without quantity , than with it . Suarez and Gamachaeus say , this comes nearer to ubiquity , because a Sacramental presence supposes the Body to be whole in every part , which a natural doth not . And they grant , that all the contradictions which follow upon being present in several places after a natural manner , will hold if the one be natural and the other not : i. e. that the same Body may be above it self and below it self , within it self and without it self ; and may move with two contrary motions upwards and downwards , forwards and backwards ; it may be hot in one place and cold in another ; it may be alive in one place and dead in another ; and which is the highest contradiction , one would think , by force of this principle , a man may be damned in one place and saved in another . And no less a man than Ysambertus hath defended the possibility of this , upon this principle ; for , saith he , a man as in one place may be killed in a mortal sin , and so be damned ; whereas in another place he may have contrition ( and absolution ) and so be saved . But Vasquez asks an untoward Question , suppose such a man be reduced to one place , whether shall he be saved or damned ? for he cannot then be both ; and there is no more reason he should be put out of the state of Grace by the state of sin , than out of the state of sin by the state of Grace . Such horrible contradictions do men run into rather than let go an absurd hypothesis ; and Suarez confesseth , that a Sacramental Presence , is liable to the same contradictions , because that supposeth a capacity for Acts of the Mind under it . ( 4. ) I say , that asserting a Body to be present naturally in one place , and spiritually and indivisibly in more , doth involve more contradictions in it , than to be present in several places after a natural manner . For the very manner of a bodies being present indivisibly carries contradictions along with it peculiar to it self . For whereever there is a body , there must be quantity , and whereever there is quantity there must be divisibility ; how then can a divisible body be indivisibly present ? If they say , it is after the manner of a Spirit , that doth by no means salve the contradiction ; for how can a body be after the manner of a Spirit ? and if it can , how can the notion of Body and Spirit be differenced from each other ? If actual extension may be separated from a Body , why not quantity it self ? why may not divisibility be separated from a line ? and two and two not make actually four , supposing that they retain their intrinsick aptitude to do it ? What becomes of the differences of greater and less , since that which is greater may be contained under the less ; and so the very same thing will be greater or less , greater and not greater than it self ? What notion can we have of distance , since here a Body is supposed to have all its organical parts , head , breast , legs and feet ; and yet no local distance between Head and Feet ? R. P. I see it is a dangerous thing to give you but a hint about transubstantiation ; if you but once take the scent , you run on so fast that it is a very hard matter to take you off . I did not think this Rubrick could have held us thus long ; but I see you were resolved to have two or three throws at transubstantiation in passing , though I warned you before about it . P. D. No Sir , It was T. G.'s fixing such an absurd sense upon our Church , as though she made it Idolatry to Worship Christs Body as present after a corporeal manner , and not after another ; which made me insist so long upon this . R. P. What saith my Fanatick Acquaintance to all this ? What! sleeping ? F. C. Only a Nod or two ; I hearkened a while , but I found you were about hard and unsavoury notions ; truly it was to me no awakening discourse . R. P. Come , come we will keep you waking ; we are now come to the Puritan Cause . F. C. Ay , Ay , there is some life in that . R. P. What think you , was Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury a Puritan or not ? F. C. What! a Bishop a Puritan ! a good one I warrant you : a Puritan in Lawn sleeves ! a Puritan with Cross and Surplice ! You know well what belongs to a Puritan , do you not ? I tell you , there never was a true Puritan but abhorred these things with all his heart . What do you tell me of a Bishop of Salisbury for a Puritan ? I say again , if he had been so , he would have taken his Lawn sleeves and thrown them into the Fire . P. D. But I pray Sir , how comes in this discourse about Bishop Abbot ? R. P. I will tell you ; Among other Divines produced by Dr. St. to prove the charge of Idolatry maintained against the Church of Rome in K. James his time , one was Bishop Abbot in his answer to Bishop . T. G. takes this to be Archbishop Abbot , and excepts against him as an abettor of the Puritan party , and tells from Dr. Heylin , that on that account it was thought necessary to suspend him from his Metropolitical Visitation ; Dr. St. makes sport with his Suspending a Bishop of Salisbury from Metropolitical jurisdiction , and tells what strange things those of the Church of Rome can do with five words ; and upbraids T. G. with Ignorance of our Church ; and in truth , is too Tragical upon such a slight occasion . Now T. G. proves , that it was only a mistake of the person , and not of his quality , although Dr. St. saith , that he was never till now suspected for a Puritan . P. D. Are you sure of that ? R. P. Yes , T. G. saith so , more than once . P. D. However it is good to be sure . These are Dr. St.'s words . The two first he excepts against , are the two Archbishops , Whitgift and Abbot as Puritanically inclined ; but as it unhappily falls out , one of them was never mentioned by me , and the other never till now suspected for a Puritan . I pray advise T. G. to read a little more carefully , before he confutes : Is it not plain , that he means , Archbishop Abbot was never mentioned by him , and Archbishop Whitgift was never till now suspected for a Puritan ? It could be no want of understanding in T. G. to make him thus misconstrue his words . R. P. But he proves , he was Puritanically inclined , and takes off his Testimony . P. D. How doth he prove that ? R. P. From Dr. Heylin , whose Histories serve us to many a good purpose ; for he saith , he was a Calvinian though a moderate one ; that he was an enemy to Bishop Laud in the Vniversity , that he commends Mr. Perkins , and wrote his last Book of Grace and Perseverance of the Saints . P. D. Very wonderful proofs ! As though many of the stiffest Defenders of our Church against the Puritan party , had not been inclining to Calvinism ( as it is called ) in the point of Predestination ; especially in that moderate way , wherein R. Abbot asserted it ! As though it were not possible , for men to be zealous for our Liturgie and Ceremonies , if they held the doctrine of Election and Perseverance ! But we do not want those of the Highest Order of our Church at this day , who are eminent for Learning , and Piety , and Zeal for the Church ; who would take it very ill from T. G. upon the account of those opinions , to be thought enemies to the Church of England ; as no doubt the Puritans were . But T. G. runs on with this perpetual mistake ; when his own Author Dr. Heylin hath told him whom he means by Puritans , viz. the Nonconformists ; for speaking of Dr. Buckeridge Bishop Lauds Tutor , he saith , that he opposed the Papists on one hand , and on the other the Puritans or Non-conformists . These are very pittiful shifts to overthrow Bishop Abbots Testimony , when Dr. Heylin himself saith of him , he was so moderate a Calvinian that he incurred the high displeasure of the Supralapsarians , who had till then carried all before them . But what saith T. G. to those whom he yields not to have been Puritanically inclined , and yet charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry ? R. P. He saith , 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 conceived to be great Abuses in the practice of it . P. D. That will be best tryed by particulars ; the First of these is no less a Person than K. James , who calls the Worship of Images , damnable Idolatry ; and Dr. St. shews that K. James takes off their distinctions and evasions ; and saith , Let them therefore that maintain this Doctrine answer it to Christ at the latter day when he shall accuse them of Idolatry . And then I doubt if he will be paid with such Sophistical Distinctions . Is all this , saith D. St. nothing but to charge them with such practices which they detest ? Doth he not mention their doctrine , and their distinctions ? Did not K. James understand what he said , and what they did ? What saith T. G. to this ? R. P. Not a word that I can find . P. D. Let us then see what he doth take notice of . R. P. A very notable thing I assure you . He saith , they only found fault with some abuses committed in our Church , and did not think men by vertue of the terms of her communion forced either to hypocrisie or Idolatry : as Dr. St. doth : so that it is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome , if truly stated out of the decrees of her Councils , or practice agreeable to that doctrine , which these Divines impeach as Idolatrous , but the opinions of some School-Divines , or Abuses they conceived to be committed in the practice of it . And for this he instanceth in the decree of the Council of Nice about the Worship of Images . P. D. Who doth not know T. G. to be a man of art ? and to understand the way of fencing in the Schools as well as another ? Was it not skilfully done in this place to run to the point of Images , when we had been so lately upon the Idolatry in adoration of the Host , as it is declared in our Rubrick ? For the Constitution of the Church of Rome is plain to all persons about adoration of the Host , at the elevation of it , and carrying it about ; but in the matter of Images they endeavour to palliate and disguise their allowed practices as much as may be . I answer therefore on behalf of Dr. St. ( 1. ) That when he speaks of what men are obliged to do by vertue of Communion with the Church of Rome , he speaks of the things strictly required by the Rules of that Church ; and since our Church declares the Mass Idolatrous , he doth not in the least recede from the sense of our Church in the disjunction he useth , either of hypocrisie , or Idolatry ; and I have some reason to believe that was the thing he aimed at chiefly , when he spoke of the terms of Communion ; because he had often heard of some persons who live in the communion of that Church , who being not obliged to make the same professions which Ecclesiastical persons are , do content themselves with doing the same external Acts which others do ; but with a very different intention ; who look upon transubstantiation , and many other doctrines as foolish and ridiculous , and yet think they may joyn with those who do believe them in all external acts of worship rather than break the peace of the Church they live in ; such persons would say they never worshipped the Host , and therefore excuse themselves from Idolatry , but Dr. St. saith , they cannot then excuse themselves from hypocrisie , because they seem to give the same Worship which the other doth . ( 2. ) As to the Idolatry committed in the Worship of Images , we shall consider that in its proper place ; but yet by vertue of communion with the Church of Rome , all persons are ( 1. ) bound to declare the worship of Images lawful as it is practised in that Church . ( 2. ) To worship Images upon occasion o●fered , as in processions , &c. ( 3. ) To Worship the Cross as it represents Christ with that worship which is proper to his person . That which concerns us now , is to give an account of the judgement of these Persons , how far they suppose the Church of Rome to be guilty of the Idolatry committed in it . As to K. James we have seen already how far T. G. is from answering his testimony ; the next is Is. Casaubon , and he saith , the Church of England did affirm the practises of the Church of Rome to be joyned with great impiety . So that he speaks the sense of our Church and not barely his own ; and surely when he wrote by K. James his direction and order , and had so great intimacy with Bishop Andrews and other learned men of our Church , he would declare nothing to be her sense which was contrary to it . And as to his own private opinion , I could tell T. G. somewhat more , viz. that when he was violently set upon by all the Wit and Industry of Card. Perron , and disobliged by some persons of his own Communion at Paris , he set himself seriously to consider the terms of Communion in that Church , and whether he might with a safe conscience embrace it ; and I have seen in his own hand-writing the reasons which hindred him from it ; and the first of them , was the Fear of Idolatry , which he saw practised in the worship of Images and Saints . Which is as full a proof as may be , that he did not think any person could embrace the communion of that Church without Hypocrisie or Idolatry as to the Worship of Images and Saints . The third is Bishop Andrews , who not only charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry ; but he saith , that in their Breviaries , Hours , and Rosaries , they pray directly , absolutely and finally to Saints ; and not meerly to the Saints to pray to God for them , but give what they pray for themselves : To this T. G. saith , they profess they do no such thing ; as though we were enquiring what they professed , and not what Bishop Andrews charged them with . If Idolatry according to Bishop Andrews be required in the Authorized Offices of Devotion in their Church , how can the members of it be excused either from hyocrisie or Idolatry ? The fourth is Dr. Field , who chargeth the Invocation of Saints with such superstition and Idolatry as cannot be excused : The fifth Dr. Jackson who saith , the Papists give divine honour to Images . The sixth Archbishop Laud , who not only affirms the modern Church of Rome to be too like to Paganism in the adoration of Images , but condemns the praying to Angels as the Idolatry condemned by the Council of Laodicea ; as Dr. St. shewed from his M S. notes upon Bellarmine . To these Dr. St. added in his General Preface , the Testimonies of Archbishop Bancroft , Bishop Montague , Pet. Heylin , and Mr. Thorndike ; which three last were the very persons T. G. did appeal to ; and the last of them did declare that the practice of Idolatry was such in the Roman Church , that no good Christian dare trust his soul in the communion of it ; which is all one as to say , they must be guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry . R. P. But T. G. saith , they only reprove some practices as Idolatrous , or at least in danger to be such , but Dr. St. acknowledges that they excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry although not all who live in the communion of it . P. D. Doth he indeed say so ? or is this another piece of T. G.'s fineness ? His words are these : And although it may be only an excess of charity in some few learned persons to excuse that Church from Idolatry , although not all who live in the Communion of it : and then produces the seventeen Testimonies to shew he did not differ from the sense of the Church of England , or the eminent defenders of it ever since the Reformation ; and do you think that among his Testimonies , he would produce any , whom he thought to free the Church of Rome from Idolatry ? no certainly ; but I suppose that clause referred to Mr. Thorndike and some few others ; and as to Mr. Thorndike he afterwards produced the passage before mentioned out of some papers written by him a little before his death . What saith T. G. to that ? R. P. Not a word more , but I find he makes use of Mr. Thorndikes name on all occasions , as if he favoured our side against the Church of England and Dr. St. And the man who manageth the Dialogue against him is brought in as one of Mr. Thorndikes principles . I pray tell me was not he a man in his heart of our Church , and only lived in the external communion of yours ? P. D. D. St. hath given a just character of him , when he calls him a man of excellent Learning and great Piety ; and since so ill use is made of his name in these disputes and such dishonour done to his memory , I shall but do him right , to let you understand what his judgement was of the Church of Rome : which he delivered in a paper to a Lady a little before his death , from whom it came immediately to my Hands , and is the same paper Dr. St. doth refer to . 1. The truth of the Christian Religion , and of the Scripture is presupposed to the Being of a Church , And therefore cannot depend upon the Authority of it . 2. The Church of Rome maintains the Decrees of the present Church to be Infallible , which is false , and yet concerns the salvation of all that believe it , Therefore no man can submit to the Authority of it . 3. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time , did not make void the baptism of those Sects which did not baptise in the name of the Father , the Son , and the Holy Ghost , But that Baptism is void and true baptism necessary to salvation . Therefore the Church of Rome may err in matters of salvation . 4. The Church of Rome may err in Schism , following the wrong cause . If you except only things necessary to salvation to be believed . This shews that infallibility only in things necessary to salvation is not enough . It is destructive to salvation to follow the wrong cause in Schism . Instance . The Schism with the Greek Church for appeals to Rome . For there is evident Tradition to the contrary . 5. The Church of Rome enjoyns Apocryphal Scriptures to be esteemed Canonical Scriptures . But this injunction is contrary to Tradition and Truth , and concerns the salvation of all that receive it . 6. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews for Canonical Scripture , as now it doth , and as in truth it is , Therefore the Church of Rome may err in declaring the Authority of Scripture . 7. The Church of Rome doth err in teaching that attrition is turned into contrition by submitting to the power of the Keys ; But this errour is destructive to the salvation of all that believe it . Therefore it may err in matters necessary to salvation . That it is an errour . Because of the condition of remission of sins , which is before the being of a Church ; and therefore cannot depend on the Authority of the Church . 8. The Church of Rome injoyneth to believe Transubstantiation , and to profess that which is false . For there is Scripture and Tradition for the presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist ; but neither Scripture , nor Tradition for transubstantiation , viz. for abolishing the Elements , But the Church of Rome injoyns to believe it . Therefore it enjoyns to believe that for which there is neither Tradition nor Scripture . Witness the Fathers that own the Elements after Consecration . 9. The Council of Trent enjoyneth to believe that Christ instituted a new Passeover to be sacrificed as well as represented , commemorated , and offered in the Eucharist , de Sacrific . Missae , cap. 1. which is false , For the Sacrifice of Christs Cross is commemorated , represented and offered as ready to be slain in and by the Eucharist ; but not slain , and therefore not sacrificed in it and by celebrating it . And therefore when it is said there , c. 11. quod in Missa Christus incruentè immolatur , if it be meant properly , it is a contradiction ; for that which hath blood is not sacrificed but by shedding the blood of it ; if figuratively , it signifies no more than that which I have said , that it is represented , commemorated and offered as slain . And therefore all parts agreeing to this , the Church of Rome requiring more is guilty of the Schism , that comes by refusing it . For the propitiation of the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the propitiation of Christs Cross purchased for them that are qualifi'd . 10. The Council of Trent commends the Mass without the Communion , cap. 6. wherein it erreth , For the Communion being the restoring of the Covenant of Baptism after sin ▪ the want of it without the desire of it is to be lamented not commended , as destructive of the means of salvation . 11. There is neither Scripture nor Tradition for praying to Saints departed , or any evidence that they hear our prayers . Therefore it evidences a carnal hope that God will abate of the Covenant of our Baptism , which is the condition of our salvation , for their sakes . 12. To pray to them for those things which only God can give ( as all Papists do ) is by the proper sense of their words downright Idolatry . If they say their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God ; How dare any Christian trust his soul with that Church , which teaches that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not the Figure ? 13. There is neither Scripture nor Tradition for worshipping the Cross , the Images , and Reliques of Saints , Therefore it evidences the same carnal hope , that God will abate of his Gospel for such bribes . Which is the Will-worship of Masses , Pilgrimages , and Indulgences to that purpose . 14. Neither Scripture nor Tradition is there for the removing any soul out of Purgatory unto the Beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement , Therefore the same carnal hope is seen in the Will-worship of Masses , Indulgences , Pilgrimages and the like for that purpose : and that destructive to the salvation of all that believe that the guilt of their sins is taken away by submitting to the Keys before they be contrite ; and the temporal penalty remaining in Purgatory paid by these Will-worships . 15. Both Scripture and Tradition condemn the deposing of Princes , and acquitting their subjects of their Allegiance , and enjoyning them to take Arms for them whom the Pope substitutes . And this doctrine is not only false , but in my opinion properly Heresie , yet practised by so many Popes . The Church may be divided , that salvation may be had on both sides . Instances . The Schisms of the Popes . The Schism of Acacius . The Schism between the Greeks and the Latins . I hold the Schism for the Reformation to be of this kind . But I do not allow Salvation to any that shall change having these reasons before him ; though I allow the Reformation not to be perfect in some points of less moment , as prayer for the dead , and others . Remember alwayes that the Popish Church of England can never be Canonically governed being immediately under the Pope . 16. There is both Scripture and Tradition for the Scriptures and Service in a known Tongue ; and for the Eucharist in both Kinds . How then can any Christian trust his soul with that Church , which hath the Conscience to bar him of such helps provided by God ? These are all his own words without addition or alteration . And what think you now of Mr. Thorndike ? was this man a secret Friend to the Church of Rome do you think ? who saith so plainly , that a man cannot embrace the Communion of that Church without hazard of his salvation . R. P. I did little think by the Use T. G. on all occasions makes of him , that he had been a man of such principles . But I think T. G. had as good have let him alone , as have given occasion for producing such Testimonies of the thoughts which a man of his Learning and Fame had , concerning the Church of Rome . However , you see , he holds the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist , and can you reconcile this , to what you asserted to be the Doctrine of the Church of England ? P. D. Yes very well . If you compare what he saith here , with what he declares more at large in his Book , wherein you may read these remarkable words to this purpose . If it can any way be shewed that the Church did ever pray that the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements under the accidents of them , then I am content that this be accounted henceforth the Sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist . But if the Church only pray , that the Spirit of God , coming down upon the Elements , may make them the Body and Blood of Christ , so that they which receive them may be filled with the Grace of his Spirit ; then is it not the sense of the Catholick Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance ; because supposing that they remain , they may nevertheless come to be the instrument of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive it , no otherwise than his flesh and blood conveyed the efficacy thereof upon earth : and that I suppose is reason enough to call it the Body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally , that is to say as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist . And in two or three places more he speaks to the same purpose . R. P. Hold Sir I beseech you ; you have said enough ; you will fall back again to transubstantiation in spite of my heart . P. D. What ? when I only answer a Question you asked me ? R. P. Enough of Mr. Thorndike ; unless he were more our Friend , than I find he was . I pray what say you to Archbishop Whitgift ? P. D. Hath T. G. perswaded you that he is turned Puritan , above seventy years after his death , who never was suspected for it while he was living , nor since till the transforming dayes of T. G. ? R. P. You may jeer as you please , but T. G. tells a notable story of the Lambeth Articles , and how Q. Elizabeths black Husband was like to have been divorced from her upon them , and how K. James would not receive them into the Articles of the Church . And all this , as well as many other good things he hath out of one Pet. Heylin . Is the man alive I pray , that we may give him our due thanks for the service he hath done us upon many occasions ? For we have written whole Books against the Reformation , out of his History of it ; and I find T. G. relyes as much upon him as other good Catholicks do on Cochlaeus , and Surius ; or as he doth at other times on the Patronus bonae Fidei . P. D. Dr. Heylin was a man of very good parts and Learning , and who did write History pleasantly enough ; but in some things he was too much a party to be an Historian , and being deeply concerned in some quarrels himself , all his Historical writings about our Church do plainly discover which side he espoused : which to me doth not seem to agree with the impartiality of an Historian . And if he could but throw dirt on that which he accounted the Puritan party , from the Beginning of the Reformation , he mattered not though the whole Reformation suffered by it . But for all this he was far from being a Friend either to the Church or Court of Rome ; and next to Puritanism , I believe he hated Popery most ; so that if he had been alive , and you had gone to thank him for the service he had done you , in all probability you had provoked him to have written as sharply against you as ever he wrote against the Puritans But what is all this to Archbishop Whitgifts being suspected for a Puritan ? Dares Pet. Heylin suggest any such thing ? no , he knew him too well : and saith , that by his contrivance the Puritan Faction was so muzled that they were not able to bark in a long time after . Had he then any suspicion of his being Puritanically inclined ? And as to the Lambeth Articles , they only prove that he held those opinions contained in them , and recommended them to the Vniversity to suppress the disputes which had been there raised concerning them . And what then ? doth this render him suspected for a Puritan at that time ? when many of the greatest Anti-Puritans were zealous defenders of those opinions . In all Q. Elizabeth's time and after , the name of Puritans , signified the opposers of our Government , and the Service and Orders of our Church ; and some have undertaken to name the Person who first applyed this name to the asserters of these doctrinal points , towards the latter end of K. James . This is certain , ( which is most material to our purpose ) that when K. Charles I. published his Declaration to prevent unnecessary Disputations about these points , he saith , that they did all agree in the true usual literal meaning of the said Articles of our Church , and that even in those curious points in which the present differences lye , men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them , which is an argument again , none of them intend any desertion of the Articles established . And which is a certain argument that even at that time no man was charged with disaffection to the Church of England meerly on the account of these doctrinal points . R. P. But what was it which Archbishop Whitgift saith , for T. G. saith , even that will involve him more in the suspicion of Puritanism . P. D. His words are these , I do as much mislike the distinction of the Papists and the intent of it , as any man doth , neither do I go about to excuse them , from wicked and ( without repentance , and Gods singular mercy , ) damnable Idolatry . This is enough to Dr. St.'s purpose ; and afterwards he saith , he placeth the Papists among wicked and damnable Idolaters . Is not this home do you think ? R. P. But doth not he say , that one kind of Idolatry is , when the true God is worshipped by other means and wayes than he hath prescribed or would be Worshipped ? and according to Dr. St. this is the Fundamental principle of those who separate from the Church of England , that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God , but what he hath expresly commanded : therefore according to Dr. St. himself , Archbishop Whitgift was a Puritan . P. D. It is notably argued , I confess ; and thence it follows , if Archbishop Whitgift had understood the force of his own principle , he must have separated from the Church of England . But is it not plain to the common sense of any man that Archbishop Whitgift writing on behalf of our Ceremonies , and against this very principle in T. G. , his words could not bear that meaning , and therefore Dr. St. had great reason to say , that his meaning in those words was , against his express command ; as appears by the application of them ? So that either you must make Archbishop Whitgift so weak a man as to overthrow the design of his whole Book , or this must be his meaning which Dr. St. assigns . R. P. But Dr. St. himself makes the charging Papists to be Idolaters , a distinctive sign of Puritanism . P. D. Are you in earnest ? I pray , when and where ? For then I am sure he contradicts himself , for his design is to prove just the contrary . Name me the page , I beseech you , that I may judge of it . R. P. Why doth he not say , that it is the Fundamental principle of Puritanism , that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God , but what he hath expresly commanded ? P. D. And what then ? R. P. Then — Hold a little — then — it will not do . P. D. I think not truly . If this be the Fundamental principle of Puritans , that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what is commanded , then to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry is a distinctive sign of Puritanism . How many Cords are necessary to tye these two together ? ( 1. ) Can no one charge the Papists with Idolatry , but by vertue of this principle ? I do hold , whatever God hath not forbidden , to be lawful in his Worship ; but may not I at the same time , hold some kind of prohibited Worship to be Idolatry ? I can hardly imagine a man of T. G.'s subtilty could write thus . But that you have the Book by you , and tell me so , I could not have believed it . ( 2. ) Those who do hold this principle , do not presently make every thing unlawful to be an Idol by vertue of it . For they do not deduce this unlawfulness from the prohibition of Idolatry , but from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule of Worship , and they say , we must not add thereto , and therefore no humane invention must be used in the Worship of God. Now judge you whether according to this principle there can be nothing unlawful , but it must be an Idol ? R. P. This was an oversight I suppose in him . Let it pass . But what makes D. St. vary so much from his old principle in his Irenicum , wherein he asserted , that nothing is lawful in the immediate Worship of God , but what is commanded , this must come either from a greater light of the Spirit , or from the weighty considerations mentioned by the Patronus bonae Fidei , when , he saith , quicquid Cl. Stilling-fleet delinitus & occaecatus opimitate & obesitate suorum sacerdotiorum , &c. P. D. For the malicious suggestions of so wretched a calumniator , as the Patronus bonae Fidei appears to be throughout that Book , they are not worth taking notice of by any one that doth not search for dunghils . It is Dr. St.'s honour to be reproached by a man who hath made it his business to reproach the best Church in Christendome , and to undermine all Churches , above thirty years ; and yet the ungrateful creature hath in some measure lived upon the Revenues of that Church himself , which he hath so shamefully reviled ; being in great part supported by the Bounty of a very worthy and learned Church-man who is nearly related to him . But as to the contradiction charged on Dr. St. I begin to suspect T. G. more than ever I did . For doth not Dr. St. in that place distinguish between immediate Acts and parts of Worship , and circumstances belonging to those Acts , even in the very words alledged by T. G. ? And doth not he say expresly , that he doth not speak of these , but of the former ? And is not the very same distinction used by Bishop Andrews , Bishop Sanderson , and the most zealous defenders of the Rites of our Church ? Why then must he be supposed to have changed his mind as to this principle , when he said no more at that time , than what the most genuine Sons of our Church have asserted , among whom I do not question Bishop Andrews and Bishop Sanderson will be allowed to pass . And they distinguish after the same manner , between the necessary parts of Worship , for which they suppose a command necessary , as well as Dr. St. : and the accidental and mutable circumstances attending the same for order , comeliness , and edifications sake , which are lawful if not contrary to Gods command . And doth not Dr. St. say the very same thing ? viz. that in matters of meer decency and order in the Church of God , it is enough to make things lawful if they are not forbidden . Let us now compare this saying with what he calls the Fundamental principle of Separation ; that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God , but what he hath expresly commanded : and can any thing be more contradictory to this , than what Dr. St. layes down as a principle in that very page of his Irenicum ? that an express positive command is not necessary to make a thing lawful , but a non-prohibition by a Law is sufficient for that . Where then lay T. G.'s understanding or ingenuity , when he mentions such a great change in the Dr. as to this principle , when he owned the very same principle , even in that Book , and that very page , he quotes to the contrary ? T. G. doth presume good Catholick Readers will take his word without looking farther : and I scarce ever knew a Writer who stands more in need of the good opinion of his Reader in this kind , than T. G. doth . As I shall make it fully appear , if you hold on this discourse with me ; for I have taken some pains to consider T. G.'s manner of dealing with his Adversary . But this is too gross a way of imposing upon the credulity of Readers : yet this is their common method of dealing with Dr. St. When they intend to write against him ; then , have you Dr. St. 's Irenicum ? hoping to find matter there to expose him to the hatred of the Bishops , and to represent him as unfit to defend the Church of England . If this takes not , then they pick sentences and half-sentences from the series of the discourse , and laying these together , cry , Look ye here , is this a man fit to defend your Church , that so contradicts himself thus , and thus ? when any common understanding by comparing the places , will find them either falsely represented , or easily reconciled . In truth Sir , I think you have shewed as little learning , or skill , or ingenuity in answering him , as any one Adversary that ever appeared against your Church : and especially , when T. G. goes about to prove that he contradicts himself , or the sense of the Church of England . R. P. But I pray tell me , if this charge of Idolatry were agreeable to the sense of the Church of England , why the Articles of the Church do only reject the Romish Doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration of Images , not as Idolatry , but as a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture , but rather repugnant to the word of God ? For , I perceive this sticks much with T. G. and from hence he concludes Dr. St. to contradict the sense of it , who is the Champion of the Church of England . P. D. I perceive T. G. kept this for a parting blow , after which he thought fit to breath a while , having spent so many spirits in this encounter ; but methinks , his arm grows feeble , and although his fury be as great as ever , yet his strength is decayed . And in my mind it doth not become a man of his Chivalry , so often to leave his Lance , and to run with open mouth upon his Adversary , and to bite till his Teeth meet . For what mean the unhandsome reflections he makes on all occasions , upon his being the Champion of the Church of England ; and the Church of Englands having cause to be ashamed of such a Champion ; and of his putting him in mind of his duty as the Champion of the Church , not to betray the Church he pretends to defend ? Where doth he ever assume any such title to himself ? or ever entred the lists , but on the account of obedience , or upon great provocation ? The name of Champion savours too much of vanity and ostentation , whereas he only shewed how easily the Cause could be defended , when his superiours first commanded such a stripling , as he then was , to undertake the defence of it . But I shall set aside these reflections , and come to the point of our Articles ; and therein consider , 1. What T. G. objects . 2. What Dr. St. answered . 3. Which way the sense of the Articles is to be interpreted . T. G. looks upon it as a notable observation , that the Compilers of the 39 Articles ( in which is contained the doctrine of the Church of England ) sufficiently insinuate that they could find no such command forbidding the Worship of Images , when they rejected the adoration of Images , not as Idolatry , but only as a fond thing vainly invented , nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture , but as rather repugnant to the word of God ; which qualification of theirs gives us plainly to understand , that they had done their endeavours to find such a command , but could meet with none . To which Dr. St. gives this answer , that the force of all he saith lyes upon the words of the English translation , whereas if he had looked on the Latin , wherein they give account of their doctrine to foreign Churches , this Criticism had been lost , the words being immo verbo Dei contradicit ; whereby it appears that rather is not used as a term of diminution , but of a more vehement affirmation . And what saith T. G. I pray to this ? R. P. T. G. repeats his own words at large , and then blames the compilers of the Articles for want of Grammar , if they intend the word rather to affect the words that follow . P. D. But what is all this to the Latin Articles which Dr. St. appealed to , for explication of the English ? And for the Love of Grammar , let T. G. tell us whether there be not a more vehement affirmation in those words , immo verbo Dei contradicit . Either T. G. should never have mentioned this more , or have said something more to the purpose . For doth he think our Bishops and Clergy were not careful that their true sense were set forth in the Latin Articles ? And their sense being so peremptory herein and contrary to T.G. is there not all the reason in the world to explain the English Articles by the Latin , since we are sure they had not two meanings ? This is so plain , I am ashamed to say a word more to it . R. P. But T. G. is very pleasant in describing the arguments Dr. St. brings to prove the Articles to make the worship of Images Idolatry , because it is called Adoration of Images , and said to be the Romish Doctrine about adoration . But after the Cat hath plaid with the Mouse as long as he thinks fit , leaping and frisking with him in his claws , at last he falls on him with his Teeth , and hardly leaves a bone behind him . After he hath muster'd his arguments , and drawn them out in rank and file , and made one charge upon another , for the pleasure of the Reader , he then gives him a plain and solid answer ; viz. by the words Romish doctrine concerning adoration of Images may be understood either the Doctrine taught in her Schools , which being but the opinions of particular persons , no man is bound to follow , or the doctrine taught in her Councils which all those of her communion are bound to submit to . If the Doctrine which the Church of England chargeth be that which is taught by some of her School Divines ( which he takes to be her true meaning ) this is also denyed ( at least by those very Divines who teach it ) to be Idolatry . If by the Romish Doctrine be meant the Doctrine of Councils owned by the Church of Rome concerning worshipping and adoration of Images , then herein she is vindicated from Idolatry by Eminent Divines that have been esteemed true and genuine Sons of the Church of England . P. D. And doth this mighty effort come to this at last ? What pity it is T. G. had no better a Cause , he sets this off so prettily ? and dazels the eyes of his beholders with the dust he raises , so that those who do not narrowly look into his feats of activity , would imagine him still standing , when he is only endeavouring to recover a fall . For 1. By Adoration of Images , our Church doth not mean that which their School Divines call adoration of Images , as they distinguish it from Veneration of them , but it means all that Religious Worship which by the allowed Doctrine and practice of the Roman Church is given to Images . And this is just the case of the Council of Francford ( concerning which I hear T. G. saith not one word in his last Book , and I commend him for it ) the Western Bishops condemn adoration of Images : very true , saith T. G. and his Brethren , but all this was a bare mistake of the Nicene Council , which never approved adoration of Images , but only an inferiour Worship ; but Dr. St. hath shewed that the Francford Council knew of this distinction well enough , and notwithstanding their denying it , the Western Church did not judge that the worship which they gave to Images was really adoration whether they called it so or not . Just so it is with the Church of England , in reference to the Church of Rome ; this distinguishes adoration from inferiour Worship , but our Church owns no such distinction , and calls that Religious worship which they give to Images , adoration ; and supposing it were really so , Dr. St. saith , their own Divines yield it to be Idolatry ; i. e. the Church of England calls their worship of Images adoration , or giving Divine Worship to a Creature , but their Divines do yield this is Idolatry , and therefore the Church of England doth charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry . But how subtilly had T. G. altered the whole force of the argument ? by taking adoration not in the sense of our Church , but of their School-Divines , and then telling us , that even those School-Divines who teach adoration of Images deny it to be Idolatry . And whoever expected they should confess themselves guilty ? But what is this , to the sense of the Church of England ? where doth it allow such a distinction of Divine worship into that which is superiour and inferiour , or that which is proper to God and that which is not ? 2. By Romish Doctrine the Church of England doth not mean the doctrine of the School-divines ; but the Doctrine received and allowed in that Church from whence the Worship of Images is required and practised . Such kind of Worship I mean , as is justified and defended in common among them , without their School-distinctions ; such worship as was required here in the Recantation of the Lollards as Dr. St. observes , I do swear to God and all his Seynts upon this Holy Gospel , that fro this day forward I shall worship Images with praying and offering unto them in the Worship of the Seynts that they be made after ; such Worship as was required here by the Constitutions of Arundel , A. D. 1408. with processions , genuflections , thurifications , deosculations , oblations , burnings of Lights , and Pilgrimages which are called Acts of Adoration ; and this Constitution was a part of the Canon Law of England , which all persons were then bound to observe , or else might be proceeded against as Lollards . And this is that which Dr. St. insists upon , was the thing condemned by the Articles of our Church , viz. the Worship of Images which was required and practised here in England . And what reason have we to run to School-Divines for the sense of matters of daily practice , as the worship of Images was before the Reformation ? And so I conclude , if this be all T. G. in so long time hath had to say about this matter , ( viz. above four years since Dr. St.'s General Preface was Published ) he hath very unreasonably charged him with dissenting from the Church of England in this Charge of Idolatry . F. C. I hope you have done for this time ; and if you catch me again losing so much time in hearing Fending and proving about the Church of England ; I will give you leave to call me Fanatick . If you have any thing more of this kind , talk it out your selves if you please . I expected to have had some comfortable talk with my old Friend about Liberty of Conscience ; and how many precious hours have you lost about the Church of England ? This will never do our business . If you please , my good Friend , you and I will meet in private at such a place to morrow . P. D. Nay Sir , let me not be excluded your company , since I am so accidentally faln into it ; and have but patience to hear us talk out these matters , since we have begun them . For I hear your Friends Friend T. G. hath said some things wherein your Cause is concerned . F. C. I do intend for the Auction again to morrow , and if I can easily get the Books I look for , I will bear you company ; otherwise go on with your Discourse , and I will come to you when I have made my Adventures . It is possible I may meet with some of them to night ; for I hear them at Rutherford , and Gillespee , and our Divinity follows just after the Scotch . Which was well observed by the Catalogue-maker , For the Covenant bound us to reform according to the pattern of the Church of Scotland . R. P. You intend then to meet here again to morrow at three of Clock , to pursue our Conferences about these matters . I will not fail you ; and so adieu . The end of the first Conference . THE Second Conference , About the consequences of the charge of Idolatry . P. D. HOw long have you been at the Auction ? R. P. Above an hour ; for I had a great desire to see how the Books were sold at them . P. D. And I pray what do you observe concerning the buying of Books here ? R. P. I find it a pretty humoursome thing : and sometimes men give greater rates for Books , than they may buy them for in the Shops ; and yet generally , Books are sold dearer here , than in any part of Europe . P. D. What reason can you give for that ? R. P. One is , that the Scholars of England allow themselves greater Liberty in Learning than they do in foreign parts , where commonly only one kind of Learning is in esteem in a place ; but here a man that intends a Library , buys all sorts of Books ; and that makes your Traders in Books bring over from all parts , and of all kinds , and when they have them in their hands , they make the buyers pay for their curiosity . In Italy it is a rare thing to meet with a Greek Book in the Shops ; In Spain you see nothing almost besides Prayer-Books , Novels , and School-Divinity . At Antwerp and Lions , School-Divinity and Lives of the Saints are most sold. At Paris indeed there is greater variety . But we observe it abroad , that in the best Catholick Countreys , Learning is in least esteem ; as in Spain and Italy . And where Learning is more in vogue , as in France , you see how ready they are to quarrel with the Pope ; and to fall into Heats and Controversies about Religion . And therefore to deal freely with you , I am not at all pleased to see this eagerness of buying of Books among you . For as long as Learning holds up , we see little hopes of prevailing , though we and the Fanaticks had Liberty of Conscience : since upon long experience we find Ignorance and our Devotion , to agree as well as Mother and Daughter . P. D. I am glad of any symptom that we are like to hold in our Wits ; and I think your observation is true enough . I have only one thing to add to it : which is , that it was not Luther , or Zuinglius that contributed so much to the Reformation , as Erasmus ; especially among us in England . For , Erasmus was the Man who awakened mens understandings ; and brought them from the Friers Divinity to a relish of general Learning ; he by his Wit laughed down the imperious Ignorance of the Monks , and made them the scorn of Christendom ; and by his Learning he brought most of the Latine Fathers to light , and published them with excellent Editions , and useful Notes ; by which means men of parts set themselves to consider the ancient Church from the Writings of the Fathers themselves , and not from the Canonists and School-men . So that most learned and impartial men were prepared for the Doctrines of the Reformation before it brake forth . For it is a foolish thing to imagine that a quarrel between two Monks at Wittemberg should make such an alteration in the state of Christendom . But things had been tending that way a good while before ; by the gradual restoration of Learning in these Western parts . The Greeks coming into Italy after the taking of Constantinople , and bringing their Books with them , laid the first foundation of it ; then some of the Princes of Italy advanced their own reputation by the encouragement they gave to it : from thence it spread into Germany , and there Reuchlin and his Companions joyned Hebrew with Greek ; from thence it came into France and England . When men had by this means attained to some skill in Languages , they thought it necessary to search the Old and New Testament in their Original Tongues , which they had heard of , but few had seen , not above one Greek Testament being to be found in all Germany ; then Erasmus prints it with his Notes , which infinitely took among all pious and learned men , and as much enraged the Monks and Friers , and all the fast Friends to their Dulness and Superstition . When men had from reading the Scripture and Fathers formed in their minds a true notion of the Christian Religion and of the Government and practices of the ancient Church , and compared that with what they saw in their own Age , they wondred at the difference ; and were astonished to think how such an alteration should happen ; but then , they reflected on the Barbarism of the foregoing Ages , the gradual encroachments of the Bishop of Rome , the suiting of Doctrines and practices to carry on a temporal Interest , the complyance with the superstitious humours of people , the vast numbers of Monks and Friers , whose interest lay in the upholding these things ; and when they laid these things together , they did not wonder at the degeneracy they saw in the Christian Church . All the difficulty was , how to recover the Church out of this state ; and this puzzled the wisest men among them ; some thought the ill humours were grown so natural to the Body , that it would hazard the state of it to attempt a sudden purging them quite away ; and that a violent Reformation would do more mischief than good , by popular tumults , by Schism and Sacriledge ; and although such persons saw the corruptions and wished them reformed , yet considering the hazard of a sudden change , they thought it best for particular persons to inform the world better , and so by degrees bring it about , than to make any violent disturbance in the Church . While these things were considered of by wiser men , the Pope goes on to abuse the People with the trade of Indulgences , and his Officers in Germany were so impudent in this Trade , that a bold Monk at Wittenberg defies them , and of a sudden lays open the Cheat , and this discovery immediately spread like Wild-fire ; and so they went on from one thing to another , till the People were enraged at being so long and so grosly abused and Tyrannized over . But when Reformation begins below , it is not to be expected that no disorders and heats should happen in the management of it ; which gave distastes to such persons as Erasmus was , which made him like so ill the Wittenberg Reformation , and whatever was carried on by popular Tumults . Yet Rosinus saith , that the Duke of Saxony before he would declare himself in favour of Luther , asked Erasmus his opinion concerning him , who gave him this answer , that Luther touched upon two dangerous points , the Monks bellies , and the Popes Crown ; that his doctrine was true and certain , but he did not approve the manner of his Writing . But here in England , the Reformation was begun by the consent of the King and the Bishops , who yielded to the retrenchment of the Popes exorbitant power , and the taking away some grosser abuses in Henry 8's . time ; but in Edw. 6.'s time , and Q. Elizabeths , when it was settled on the principles it now stands , there was no such regard had to Luther , or Calvin , as to Erasmus and Melancthon , whose learning and moderation were in greater esteem here , than the fiery spirits of the other . From hence , things were carryed with greater temper , the Church settled with a succession of Bishops ; the Liturgie reformed according to the ancient Models ; some decent ceremonies retained , without the sollies and superstitions which were before practised : and to prevent the extravagancies of the people in the interpreting of Scripture , the most excellent Paraphrase of Erasmus was translated into English and set up in Churches ; and to this day , Erasmus is in far greater esteem among the Divines of our Church , than either Luther , or Calvin . R. P. If this be true which you say , methinks your Divines should have a care of broaching such things , which do subvert the Foundation of all Ecclesiastical Authority among you , as T. G. told Dr. St. the charge of Idolatry doth . For by vertue of this charge , he saith , the Church of England remains deprived of the lawful Authority to use and exercise the Power of Orders ; and consequently the Authority of Governing , Preaching , and Adminstring the Sacraments , which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves , as derived from the Church of Rome , can be no true and lawful jurisdiction , but usurped and Antichristian . This I assure you T. G. layes great weight upon in his late Dialogues , and charges him with Ignorance , and Tergiversation , and other hard words about it . So that I have a mind to hear what you can say in his defence about this , before I touch upon the other consequences which he urgeth upon this charge of Idolatry . P. D. With all my heart . There are two things wherein the force of T. G.'s argument lyes . ( 1. ) That which he calls his undeniable Maxim of Reason , viz. That no man can give to another that which he hath not himself . ( 2. ) That Idolatry lays men under the Apostles excommunication , and therefore are deprived of all lawful Authority to use or exercise the Power of Orders . In answer to these , two things are already proved by Dr. St. ( 1. ) That the sin of the Givers doth not hinder the validity of Ordination . ( 2. ) That the Christian Church hath allowed the lawful Authority of giving and exercising the Power of Orders , in those who have been condemned for Idolatry . Which he proves more briefly in his Preface , and at large in his last Book from the case of the Arian Bishops . And now let any one judge whether T. G. had any cause to Hector about this matter for so many pages together , as though he had either not understood , or not taken notice of the force of his Argument . Concerning his undeniable Maxime of Reason he observed , that it was the very argument used by the Donatists to prove the nullity of Baptism among Hereticks : and that the answer given by the Church was , that the Instrument was not the Giver , but the First Institutor , and if the Minister keep to the Institution , the Grace of the Sacrament may be conveyed though he hath it not himself . This Dr. St. thought very pertinent to shew , that where Power and Authority are conveyed by men only as Instruments , the particular default of such persons , as heresie or Idolatry , do not hinder the derivation of that Power or Authority to them . And this he proved to be the sense of the Christian Church in the Ordinations of Hereticks . It is true , he did not then speak to Authority so much as to Power ; nor to jurisdiction , as it is called by the School Divines , so much as to the validity of Ordination . But he proceeded upon a parity of Reason in both cases ; and could not imagine that any persons would suppose the Christian Church would allow a validity of Orders without lawful Authority to use and exercise those Orders . For in all the Instances produced by him from the second Council of Nice , wherein undeniable examples were brought of Ordinations of Hereticks allowed by the ancient Fathers and Councils ( even those of Nice , Ephesus and Chalcedon ) it was apparent that their Authority to use and exercise their power of Orders , was allowed as well as their Ordinations : For he there shews that Anatolius the President of the fourth Council was ordained by Dioscorus in the presence of Eutyches ; that many of the Bishops who sat in the sixth Council were ordained by Sergius , Pyrrhus , Paulus and Petrus , who in that Council were declared Hereticks . And doth T. G. in earnest think this doth not prove they had lawful Authority ? What becomes then of the Authority of these Councils ? nay , of the Authority of the Church it self , when Tarasius there saith , as Dr. St. produceth him , they had no other Ordinations for fifty years together . Doth this prove either Dr. St.'s ignorance , or tergiversation ? Is not this rather plain and convincing evidence that the Christian Church did allow , not barely the validity of Ordination by Hereticks , but the lawful Authority to use and exercise the Power of Orders ? Which he likewise proves by the Greek Ordinations allowed by the Church of Rome ; by which he doth not mean the validity of the bare Orders , but all that Power and Authority which is consequent upon them . For can any man be so sensless to think , that the Church of Rome only allowed the Sacrament of Orders among the Greeks , without any Authority to excommunicate or absolve ? What mean then these horrible clamours by TG . of Dr. St.'s Ignorance , intolerable mistake , shameful errors , tergiversation , and what not ? because he speaks only to the validity of Ordination , and not to the lawful Authority of exercising the Power of Orders . Whereas the contrary appears by that very Preface about which these outcries are made by E. W. and T. G. What ingenuity is to be expected from these men , who deny that which they cannot but see ? R. P. But T. G. gives this for a Taste , not only what candour and sincerity , but what skill in Church-Affairs you are to expect in the rest from Dr. St. which surely he would never have done , if he had spoken to the point . P. D. You may think as you please of him ; I only tell you the matter of fact , and then do you judge where the candour and sincerity , where the skill in Church affairs lies . R. P. But is it not an undeniable Maxime , that no man can give to another , that which he hath not himself ? and therefore it lies open to the conscience of every man , that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy , much more , if guilty of Idolatry ; it falls under the Apostles excommunication , Gal. 1.8 . and so remains deprived of the lawful Authority to use and exercise the power of Orders , and consequently the Authority of Governing , Preaching , &c. This you see bids 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 ; because excommunicated persons being deprived of all lawful Authority themselves can give none to others ; and if those others take any upon them , it must be usurped and unlawful . P. D. This is the terrible argument which T. G. produces again in Triumph , as though nothing were able to stand before it : and yet in my mind T. G. himself hath mightily weakened it by yielding the Validity of Ordinations made by Hereticks or Idolaters . For , if no man can give that which he hath not ; how can those give power and Authority who have none ? But the Power of Orders doth necessarily carry Authority along with it ; For it is part of the Form of Orders in the Roman Church , Accipe spiritum sanctum , Quorum remiseritis , &c. So that a power to excommunicate and absolve is given by vertue of the very Form of Orders ; and your Divines say , the Form is not compleat without it . But then , I pray , resolve me these Questions . Is not a power to excommunicate and absolve a part of that jurisdiction which T. G. doth distinguish from the bare power of Orders ? R. P. Yes , without doubt . P. D. Is not this power given by the very Form of Orders in your Church ? R. P. Yes , but what then ? P. D. Doth not the Council of Trent say the character is imprinted upon saying those words , Accipe spiritum sanctum , &c. R. P. What would you be at ? P. D. Is the character of Orders given by words that signifie nothing , and carry no effect along with them ? R. P. No certainly . P. D. Then these words have their effect upon every man that hath the power of Orders . R. P. And what then ? P. D. Then every one who hath the power of Orders , hath the power to excommunicate and absolve . R. P. Be it so . P. D. But the power to excommunicate and absolve is a part of jurisdiction , therefore a power of Orders carries a power of jurisdiction along with it ; and consequently valid Ordination must suppose lawful Authority to use and exercise the power of excommunication and absolution . R. P. In the name of T. G. I deny that . P. D. Hold a little ; you are denying the conclusion . Consider again what you deny . Do you deny this power to be given in your Orders ? R. P. No. P. D. Do you deny this power to be part of jurisdiction ? R. P. No. P. D. Then this power of jurisdiction is given wherever the Orders are valid . R. P. This cannot be ; for T. G. complains over and over of Dr. St.'s ignorance , wilful and intolerable mistake , unbecoming a Writer of Controversies , for not distinguishing between the validity of Ordination , and the power of Jurisdiction , which he would never have done , if one had carried the other along with it . P. D. Do not tell me , what T.G. would , or would not have done . I tell you what he hath done ; and judge you now with what advantage to himself . R. P. But T. G. is again up with his undeniable Maxim , that none can give to another what he hath not himself : and this he thinks will carry him through all . P. D. I tell you that very Maxim overthrows the validity of Ordinations as he applyes it . For if the Validity of Orders doth suppose Authority to be conveyed ; and there can be no such Authority given in the case of Idolatry : then the Power of Orders is taken away as well as Jurisdiction . Besides , Is not the Power of giving Orders a part of that lawful Authority which belongs to Bishops ? R. P. I do not understand you . P. D. Can any man give Orders without a Power to do it ? R. P. No. P. D. Is not that Power a part of Episcopal Authority ? R. P. Yes . P. D. How then can there be a power of giving Orders without Authority ? R. P. Now you shew your Ignorance . Do not you know that there is an indelible character imprinted in the Soul by the Power of Orders , which no act of the Church can hinder a Bishop from giving in the Sacrament of Orders , or a Priest from receiving ; but jurisdiction is quite another thing , that is derived from the Church , or rather from the Pope who is the fountain of jurisdiction ; and this may be suspended or taken away . P. D. I cry you mercy Sir. I was not bred up in your Schools ; this may be currant doctrine with you ; but I assure you I find no footsteps of it either in Scripture or Fathers , and if I be not much mis-informed , some of your greatest Divines are of my mind . I see all this out-cry of T. G.'s concerning Dr. St. 's Ignorance comes at last to this Mysterie of the Indelible Character imprinted in the soul by the Sacrament of Orders , which makes Ordination to be valid , but gives no Authority or Jurisdiction . I pray make me a little better acquainted with this character ; for at present , I can neither read , nor understand it . R. P. Yes , yes , This you would be alwayes at , to make us explain our School-notions , for you to fleer and to mock at them . P.D. But this I perceive is very material to prevent intolerable errour and mistake ; and for all that you know I may come to be a Writer of Controversies , and then I would not be hooted at for my Ignorance ; nor have the boyes point at me in the Streets and say , There goes a man that doth not understand the character : which in my mind would sound as ill , as saying there goes one that cannot read his A. B. C. I beseech you Sir , tell me what this indelible Character is ; for to tell you truth , I have heard of it before , but never met with one who could tell what it was . R. P. Yes , that is it ; you will not believe a thing , unless one can tell you what it is . Why , it is a mark or a seal imprinted in the soul by the Sacrament of Orders that can never be blotted out ; and therefore Ordination is valid , because if re-ordination were allowed , one character would be put upon another , and so the first would be blotted out . Do not you understand it now ? P. D. I suppose altogether as well as you . Is it a Physical kind of thing , just like the strokes of a pen upon paper ; or rather as the graving of a Carver upon Stone , so artificially done that it can never be taken out while it continues whole ; or is it only a moral relative thing depending upon divine institution , and only on the account of distinction called a Character ? R. P. Without doubt it is an absolute thing , but whether to call it a habit , or a power ; whether it be a quality , of the first , or the second , or the third , or fourth kind , that our Divines are not agreed upon : and some think it is a new kind of quality : nor whether it be imprinted on the essence or powers of the soul ; and if in the Faculties , whether in the Vnderstanding or Will ; but it is enough for us to believe , that there is really such an absolute indelible Character imprinted on the soul ; from whence that Sacrament can never be reiterated which doth imprint a Character as that of Orders doth . P. D. I am just as wise by all this account as I was before . For the only reason of the point is , it must needs be so . R. P. Yes , the Church hath declared it in the Council of Trent , and that is instead of all reasons to us . P. D. But what is this to Dr. St. ? Must he be upbraided with ignorance , errour and tergiversation , because he doth not believe the indelible character on the Authority of the Council of Trent ? R. P. No ; that is not the thing , but because he did not understand the difference between the Power of Order , and jurisdiction . P. D. Are you sure of that ? If I do not forget , he hath this very distinction in that pestilent Book called Irenicum , which T. G. hits him in the teeth with ▪ on all occasions . R. P. But he did not , or would not understand it here . P. D. Yes , he knew it well enough ; but he thought if he proved the Validity of Ordination , he proved the lawfulness of Authority and Jurisdiction ; because the giving Orders is part of Church Authority , and Authority is received in taking Orders ; and the Church never allowed one , but it allowed the other also . If you have any thing more to say about this matter , I am willing to hear you , but as yet I see no reason for T. G.'s clamours about such a mistake in Dr. St. , for I think the mistake lay nearer home . R. P. But E. W. publickly reproved Dr. St. for this mistake , and yet after that he goes on to confirm his former answer with new proofs and Testimonies , that Bishops ordained by Idolaters were esteemed validly ordained , and doth not speak one word in answer to what was objected by T. G. viz. that the English Bishops must want lawful authority to exercise the power of Orders , if their first Ordainers were Idolaters . And E. W. calls it an intolerable mistake , and T. G. saith , he hath heard he was a main man esteemed for his Learning . After repeating the words of E. W. at length T. G. very mildly adds , as if he were wholly insensible of the gross and intolerable errour E. W. taxed him with , he runs again into the same shameful mistake ; But saith T. G. Are the Power of giving Orders and lawful Authority to give them , so essentially linked to each other , that they cannot be separated ? May not a Bishop or Priest remaining so , be deprived of all lawful Authority to exercise their Functions , for having faln into Heresie or Idolatry ? And if they have none themselves , can they give it to others ? P. D. On whose side the intolerable mistake lyes , will be best seen , by examining the force of what T. G. saith ( as to E. W. the matter is not great ) which lyes I suppose in this , that those who do fall into Idolatry or Heresie may ordain validly ; for , saith he , from Esti●s , no crime , or censure soever can hinder the Validity of Ordination by a Bishop ; but he may be deprived of any lawful Authority to do it , and therefore cannot convey this lawful Authority to others ordained by him . From hence T. G. saith , no crime can hinder the Validity of Ordination ; but Idolatry , he saith , doth ipso facto deprive Bishops of the Authority of exercising Orders , or conveying jurisdiction ; and therefore though the Ordination of the Bishops of England may be valid , yet their jurisdiction cannot be lawful , and so the Foundation of their Authority is subverted by the charge of Idolatry . I hope you will allow this to be the force of all that T. G. saith . R. P. Yes ; now you have hit upon his right meaning . P. D. Let us then consider more closely , on which side the mistake lay ; which will be discerned by this , whether we are to follow the Modern Schools , or the Judgement of Antiquity in this matter . For Dr. St. spake according to the sense and practice of Antiquity , and T. G. according to the modern notions and distinctions of their Schools . It is true , their Schoolmen have so distinguished the power of Order and Jurisdiction , that they make the one to depend upon an indelible unintelligible character , which no crime can hinder having its valid effect : but that jurisdiction , or the right of excommunication and absolution may be suspended or taken away . Since the Councils of Florence and Trent this Doctrine of the indelible Character given in Orders , is not to be disputed among them ; and therefore they hold the character to remain wherever Orders are received in the due form ; but then they say this character is capable of such restraints by the Power of the Church , that it remains like Aristotles first matter , a dull and unactive thing till the Church give a new Form to it , and this they call the Power of jurisdiction . But that all this , is new doctrine in the Church and a late Monkish invention , will appear by these considerations . ( 1. ) How long it was before this doctrine was received in the Church by the confession of their own Schoolmen . Scotus , and Biel , and Cajetan , ( no inconsiderable men in the Roman Church ) do confess , that the doctrine of the Character imprinted in the soul can neither be proved from Scripture , nor Fathers , but only from the Authority of the Church , and that not very ancient neither . And Morinus takes notice that it was not so much as mentioned by P. Lombard , or Hugo de Sancto Victore : although they debate those very Questions which would have required their expressing it , if they had known any thing of it . ( 2. ) How many of their Schoolmen who do acknowledge the character of Priesthood , yet make the power of Orders to belong to jurisdiction , so Albertus Magnus and others cited by Morinus ; but Alex. Alensis carries this point so far , that he saith , that because of the indelible character of Priesthood , the power can never be taken from a Priest , but only the execution of it ; But in a Bishop there is no new character imprinted , and therefore in the degrading him , not only the execution , but the Power of Giving Orders is taken away . And Scotus saith , if a Bishop be excommunicated , he loseth the power of giving Orders ; if Episcopacy be not a distinct Order ; as you know many of the Schoolmen hold . And Morinus grants , that if Episcopacy be not a distinct Order , but a larger commission , the power of Bishops may be so limited by the Church , as not only to hinder them from a lawful Authority , but from a power of Acting ; so that what they do , carries no validity along with it . ( 3. ) How many before the dayes of the Schoolmen were of opinion that the censures of the Church did take away the power of Orders ? Gratian holds it most agreeable to the Doctrine of the Fathers , that a Bishop degraded hath no power to give Orders , although he hath to Baptize ; only for S. Augustines sake , he thinks , they may distinguish between the Power and the execution of it . Gul. Parisiensis saith , that Bishops deposed can confer no Order , because the Church hath the same power in taking away , which it hath in giving , and the intention of the Church is to take away their Power . If what T. G. asserts , had been alwayes the sense of the Church , I desire him to resolve me these Questions . 1. Why Pope Lucius 3. did re-ordain those who had been ordained by Octavianus the Anti-pope ? 2. Why Vrban 2. declared Nezelon or Wecilo an excommunicate Bishop of Ments to have no power of giving Orders ? and that upon T. G.'s own Maxim , That which a man hath not , he cannot give to another ; because he was ordained by Hereticks . 3. Why the Synod of Quintilinberg under Greg. 7. declared all Ordinations to be Null which were made by Excommunicated Bishops ? 4. Why Leo 9. in a Synod voided all Simoniacal Ordinations ? 5. Why Stephanus 6. re-ordained those which were ordained by Formosus ? 6. Why Hincmarus re-ordained those who had been ordained by Ebbo , because he had been deposed ? 7. Why Stephanus 4. re-ordained those who had received Orders from Pope Constantine ? 8. Why the Ordinations made by Photius were declared null ? To name no more . If this had been always the sense of the Christian Church , that the Power of Orders is indelible , but not that of jurisdiction , I desire T. G. to give an answer to those Questions ; which , I fear , will involve several Heads of his Church under that which he calls in Dr. St. an intolerable mistake . Did so many Popes know no better this distinction between the Validity of Ordination , and the Power of Jurisdiction ? I am sorry to see T. G. so magisterial and confident , so insulting over Dr. St. as betraying so much ignorance as doth not become a Writer of Controversies , when all the while , he doth only expose his own . But alas ! This is the current Divinity of the Modern Schools ; and what obliges them to look into the opinions of former Ages ? Yet methinks a man had need to look about him , before he upbraids another with gross and intolerable errors , lest at the same time he prove the guilty person ; and then the charge falls back far more heavily on himself . ( 4. ) Those who did hold the Validity of Ordinations did it chiefly on the account of the due Form that was observed , whoever the Persons were ; whether Hereticks , or Excommunicated-persons . For after all the heats and disputes which hapned in the Church about this matter , the best way they found to resolve it was to observe the same course which the Church had done in the Baptism of Hereticks : viz. to allow that Baptism which was administred in due form , although those who administred it were Hereticks . Thence Praepositivus , as he is quoted by Morinus , saith , That a Heretick hath power to administer all the Sacraments as long as he observes the Form of the Church . And not only such a one as received Episcopal Orders in the Church himself , but those who do derive a succession from such : as appears from Tarasius in the second Council of Nice , where he saith , That five Bishops of Constantinople successively were Hereticks , and yet their Ordinations were allowed by the Church : to the same purpose speak others , who are there produced by the same learned Author . Let these considerations be laid together and the result will be , 1. Either Dr. St. was not guilty of an intolerable error and mistake in this matter , or so many infallible Heads of the Church were guilty of the same . 2. It was believed for some ages in the Roman Church , that the censures of the Church did take away the Power of Orders . 3. T. G.'s distinction as to the foundation of it in the indelible Character of Orders is a novel thing , and acknowledged by their own Divines to have no Foundation either in Scripture or Fathers . 4. The ground assigned by those who held the validity of Ordination by Hereticks , will hold for the Authority of exercising the Power of Orders , if not actually taken away by the Censures of the Church . For every man hath the power which is given him , till it be taken from him ; every one that receives Orders according to the Form of the Church hath a power given him to excommunicate and absolve , therefore every such person doth enjoy that power , till it be taken from him . For as I have already shewed , this is part of the Form of Orders in the Roman Church , Accipe Spiritum Sanctum , Quorum remiseritis , &c. and the Council of Trent determines the character to be imprinted upon the use of these words : therefore this power of jurisdiction is conveyed by the due Form of Orders , from whence it unavoidably follows that every one who hath had the due Form of Orders , hath had this Power conveyed to him , and what power he hath , he must enjoy till it be taken away . R. P. But T. G. saith , That Excommunication by the Apostles sentence doth it , Gal. 1.8 . P. D. This is indeed a piece of new doctrine , and a fruit of T. G.'s Mother-wit , and which I dare say , he received neither from Schoolmen nor Fathers . For it involves such mischievous consequences in it as really overthrow all Authority in the Church . For by this supposition , in case any Bishop falls into Heresie or Idolatry , he is ipso facto excommunicated by St. Paul 's sentence , and consequently hath no Authority to exercise the power of Orders , and so all who derive their power from him have no lawful Authority , or Jurisdiction . I do wonder in all this time T. G. did no better reflect upon this assertion and the consequences of it , and rather to thank Dr. St. that he took no more notice of it , than upbraid him with intolerable error and mistake . I will put a plain case to you to shew you the ill consequence of this assertion to the Church of Rome it self . Dr. St. hath proved by undeniable evidence , that the Arians were looked on and condemned as Idolaters by the Primitive Church : and T. G. doth not deny it ; and what now if we find an Arian among the Bishops of Rome , and from whom the succession is derived ? He must stand excommunicated by vertue of the Apostles sentence , and therefore hath no Authority to give Orders , and so all the Authority in the Church of Rome is lost . The case I mean is that of Liberius ; who shewed himself as much an Arian , as any of the Arian Bishops did , for he subscribed their confession of Faith , and joyned in communion with them . St. Hierom saith more than once , That he subscribed to Heresie ; the Pontifical Book saith , he communicated with Hereticks ; Marcellinus and Faustinus say , That he renounced the faith by his Subscription ; yea more than this , Hilary denounced an Anathema against him and all that joyned with him : and Baronius confesseth he did communicate with the Arians , which is suffient to our purpose . Then comes T. G. upon him , with St. Paul 's sentence of excommunication ; and so he loseth all Authority of exercising the power of Orders , and consequently that Authority which is challenged in the Church of Rome being derived from him is all lost . And now judge who subverts the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority most ; T. G. or Dr. St. : yet it falls out unhappily , that Pet. Damiani mentions these very Ordinations of Liberius the Heretick ( so he calls him ) to shew how the Church did allow Ordinations made by Hereticks . But this is not all ; for by all that I can find , if this principle of T. G. be allowed , no man can be sure there is any lawful Ecclesiastical Authority left in the world . For who can tell what secret Idolaters or Hereticks there might be among those Bishops from whom that Authority is derived ? This we are sure of , that the Arian Bishops possessed most of the Eastern Churches and made Ordinations there : and the Western Bishops in the Council of Ariminum did certainly comply with them : as is now plain from Marcellinus and Faustinus , whose Book was published by Sirmondus at Paris ; where Sulpitius Severus saith , more than four hundred Western Bishops were present ; who were all excommunicated by T. G.'s principle ; and what now becomes of all Ecclesiastical Authority ? But Dr. St. hath shewed that the Christian Church was wiser , than to proceed upon T. G.'s principle , proving from Authentick Testimonies of Antiquity , that the Arian Ordinations were allowed by the Church , although the Arians were condemned for Idolaters . R. P. Yes , T. G. saith , That Dr. St. was resolved to go on in the same track still , and to prove that the Act it self of Ordination is not invalid in case of the Idolatry of the Givers , which was never denied by his Adversary . P. D. How is it possible to satisfie men who are resolved to cavil ? Doth not Dr. St. by that instance of the Arian Bishops evidently prove , that the Authority of giving Orders was allowed by the Christian Church at that time , and that which he calls their jurisdiction as well as the power of Orders ? because nothing more was required from the Arian Bishops but renouncing Arianism and subscribing the Nicene Creed ; and thus for all that I can see by T. G.'s principle , they still remained under St. Paul's excommunication , and so Ecclesiastical Authority is all gone with them . R. P. But do not you think that Dr. St. had some secret design in all this really to subvert the Authority of the Church of England ? For T.G. lays together several notable things to that purpose to make it appear that he purposely declined defending the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Church of England : I assure you it is a very politick Discourse , and hath several deep fetches in it . First , he begins with his Irenicum , and there he lays the Foundation , that the Government may be changed . 2. The Book was reprinted since the Bishops were reestablished by Law. 3. He perswades the Bishops in that Book to reduce the form of Church Government to its primitive State and Order , by restoring Presbyteries under them , &c. 4. When this would not do , he charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry , and makes this the sense of the Church of England , to make her contribute to the subversion of her own Authority . 5. When T. G. told him of the consequence of this , he passed it by , as if he saw it not , and trifled with his Adversary about the validity of Ordination . 6. When E. W. endeavoured to bring him to this point , he still declined it , and leaves Episcopacy to shift for it self . And after all these T. G. thinks , he hath found out the Mole that works under ground . P. D. A very great Discovery I assure you ! and T. G. deserves a greater reward than any common Mole-catchers do . But I never liked such Politick Informers ; for if people are more dull and quiet than they would have them , they make plots for them to keep up their reputation and interest . They must have always something to whisper in Great Mens Ears , and to fill their Heads with designs which were never thought of ; by which means they torment them with unreasonable suspicions , and tyrannize over them under a pretence of kindness . Just thus doth T. G. do by the Governours of our Church : he would fain perswade them , that there is one Dr. St. who hath undertaken to defend the Church , but doth carry on a very secret and subtile design to ruine and destroy it . If they say , they do not believe it ; he seems to pity them for their incredulity and weakness , and endeavours to convince them , by a long train of his own inventions ; and if they be so easie to hearken to it , and to regard his insinuations , then he flatters and applauds them as the only Friends to the Church , when in the meantime he really laughs at them as a sort of weak men , who can be imposed upon by any man who pretends to be a Friend , although even in that he doth them and the Church the greater mischief . I cannot believe such kind of insinuations as these can prevail upon any one man of understanding in our Church , against a person who hath at least endeavoured his utmost to defend it . But since T. G. talks so politickly about these maters , I will convince you by one argument of common prudence , that if Dr. St. be a man of common sense , ( much more if he be so politick and designing as T. G. represents him ) all these suggestions must be both false and foolish . For that which all designing men aim at , is their own interest and advantage : Now can any man that hath common sense left in him , imagine that Dr. St. can aim at any greater advantage by ruining the Church than by preserving it ? Are not his circumstances more considerable in the Church of England than ever he can hope they should be , if it were destroyed ? They who would perswade others that he carries on such a secret design , must suppose him to be next to an Ideot , and such are not very dangerous Politicians . But what is it then should make him act so much against his interest ? It can be nothing but folly or malice . But I do not find they have taxed him of any malice to the Church of England , or of any occasion for it which the Church hath given him , if he were disposed to it . Why then should any be so senseless themselves , or suppose others to be so , as to go about to possess men with an opinion of an underground plot Dr. St. is carrying on , not only to blow up the Thames , but the rising Fabrick of St. Pauls too : i. e. to ruine and destroy himself ? If he be a Fool , he is not to be feared ; if he be not , he is not to be mistrusted . R.P. But what say you to T. G.'s proofs ? Do you observe the several Mole-hills which he hath cast up ; and is not that a sign he works un-derground ? What say you to his Irenicum in the first place ? P. D. I will tell you freely ; I believe there are many things in it , which if Dr. St. were to write now , he would not have said ; For there are some things which shew his youth , and want of due consideration : others which he yielded too far in hopes of gaining the dissenting Parties to the Church of England ; but upon the whole matter I am fully satisfied the Book was written with a design to serve the Church of England : and the design of it , I take to be this ; that among us there was no necessity of entring upon nice and subtile disputes about a strict jus divinum of Episcopacy , such as makes all other Forms of Government unlawful ; but it was sufficient for us , if it were proved to be the most ancient and agreeable to Apostolical practice , and most accommodate to our Laws and Civil Government ; and there could be no pretence against submitting to it , but the demonstrating its unlawfulness , which he knew was impossible to be done . And for what proposals he makes about tempering Episcopacy , they were no other than what King Charles 1. and Mr. Thorndike had made before him ; and doth T. G. think they designed to ruine the Church of England ? And as long as he declared this to be the design of his Book both at the beginning and conclusion of it , suppose he were mistaken in the means he took , must such a man be presently condemned as one that aimed at the ruine and destruction of the Church ? R. P. But T. G. saith , he tendred it to consideration after Episcopacy was resetled by Law. P. D. That is as true as others of his suggestions . The Book was Printed while things were unsetled , and was intended to remove the violent prejudices of the dissenting party against Episcopal Government ; and I have heard , did considerable service that way , at least in a Neighbour Kingdom , and it happened to be reprinted afterwards , with the same Title it had before . But what then ? Do not Booksellers look on Books as their own , and do what they please with them , without the Authors consent or approbation ? Hath he ever Preached or Written any Doctrine since , contrary to the sense of the Church of England ? Hath he made any party or faction to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church ? Hath he not conformed to its Rules , observed its Offices , obeyed his Superiours , and been ready to defend its Cause against Adversaries of all sorts ? And can malice it self after all this fasten such a calumny upon him , that he is a secret enemy to the Church of England , and designs to ruine and destroy it ? I remember a poor Englishman in Amboyna being cruelly tormented by the Dutch ; and finding nothing he could say would perswade his Tormentors to release him ( and he said any thing that he thought would prevail with them ) at last he prayed God , that he might tell them Probable Lies . I would advise T. G. the next time he goes a Mole-catching , to find out Probable Plots , otherwise he will lose all the reputation of an Informer and Discoverer . But I can hardly tell , whether his Plot or his Proofs were the worse ; for as there appears no likelihood in the Plot , so there is no evidence in the Proofs . There being nothing pretended since the Irenicum , but this charge of Idolatry , and that hath been sufficiently cleared already , by shewing that it doth not subvert the Authority of the Church of England . R. P. Let us now , if you please , proceed to the other dangerous consequences of this charge , as they are mustered up by T. G. : One is , That it overthrows the Article of the Holy Catholick Church . P. D. That is something indeed ; what ! doth it take away an Article of the Creed ? Nay then , it is time to look about us . But how I pray ? R. P. I will tell you how . If the Church hath been guilty of Idolatry , ( 1. ) Then she hath required and enjoyned Idolatry , for many hundreds of years parallel to the Heathens . ( 2. ) Then Mahomet had more wisdom and power to carry on his design than the Son of God , for his followers have been preserved from it by the grounds he laid above a thousand years . ( 3. ) Then our Fore-fathers had better been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity as they were . P. D. I deny every one of these consequences . For our present dispute is only about the Church of Romes being guilty of Idolatry ; and from thence ( 1. ) it doth not follow , that the whole Christian Church must require Idolatry , if that doth ; unless T. G. had proved , that all other Churches are equally involved in the same guilt , which he never attempted . ( 2. ) It doth not follow that Mahomet was wiser than Christ ; for if you compare the grounds laid for Divine Worship by Christ and Mahomet ; I say that Christ did shew infinitely more Wisdom in them , than so vile an Impostor ; and it is a shame for any Christian to suggest the contrary : but if T. G. speaks of Power to carry on his design ; then it must suppose that Mahomets Power hath preserved the Mahumetan Religion so long free from Idolatry , although Christ hath not ; which must imply the greatness of Mahomets Power in Heaven ; and so it borders upon blasphemy . ( 3. ) It doth not follow that our Fore-fathers had better been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity . For they had incomparably greater advantages towards their salvation than either Turks or Pagans ; and such circumstances might accompany their practice of Idolatry , as might make it not to hinder their salvation . But I shall give you a full answer to this in the words of Bishop Sanderson , ( who is another competent witness , if any more were needful , that Dr. St. doth not in the charge of Idolatry contradict the sense of the Church of England . ) We have much reason to conceive good hope of the salvation of many of our Fore-fathers : who , led away with the common superstitions of those blind times , might yet by those general truths , which by the mercy of God were preserved among the foulest over-spreadings of Popery , agreeable to the Word of God ( though clogged with an addition of many superstitions and Antichristian Inventions withal ) be brought to true faith in the Son of God ; unfeigned Repentance from dead Works ; and a sincere desire and endeavour of new and holy Obedience . This was the Religion that brought them to Heaven , even Faith and Repentance , and Obedience . This is the true , and the Old and the Catholick Religion : and this is our Religion , in which we hope to find salvation ; and if ever any of you that miscall your selves Catholicks come to Heaven , it is this Religion must carry you thither . If together with this true Religion of Faith , Repentance , and Obedience , they embraced also your additions , as their blind Guides then led them ; prayed to our Lady , kneeled to an Image , crept to a Cross , flocked to a Mass as you now do : these were their spots and their blemishes ; these were their hay and stubble ; these were their errours , and their Ignorances . And I doubt not , but as S. Paul for his blasphemies and persecutions , so they obtained mercy for these sins , because they did them ignorantly in misbelief . And upon the same ground we have cause also to hope charitably of many thousand poor souls in Italy , Spain and other parts of the Christian world at this day , that by the same blessed means they may attain mercy and salvation in the end , although in the mean time through ignorance they defile themselves with much foul Idolatry , and many gross superstitions . Obj. But the Ignorance which excuseth from sin , is Ignorantia facti , according to that hath been already declared ; but theirs was Ignorantia juris , which excuseth not . And besides , as they lived in the practice of that Worship which we call Idolatry , so they dyed in the same without repentance ; and so their case is not the same with S. Pauls , who saw those sins and sorrowed for them , and forsook them ; but how can Idolaters , living and dying so without repentance , be saved ? Ans. It is answered , that Ignorance in point of Fact so conditioned as hath been shewed doth so excuse à toto ; that an Action proceeding thence , though it have a material inconformity with the Law of God , is yet not formally a sin . But I do not so excuse the Idolatry of our Fore-fathers , as if it were not in it self a sin , and that ( without repentance ) damnable . But yet their Ignorance being such as it was ; nourished by Education , Custom , Tradition , the Tyranny of their Leaders , the fashion of the Times , not without shew also of Piety and Devotion ; and themselves , withal , having such slender means of better knowledge ; though it cannot wholly excuse them from sin without repentance damnable , yet it much lesseneth and qualifieth the sinfulness of their Idolatry ; arguing that their continuance therein was more from other prejudices , than from a wilful contempt of Gods Holy Word and Will. And as for their Repentance , it is as certain , that as many of them as are saved did repent of their Idolatries , as it is certain no Idolater nor other sinner can be saved without repentance . But then there is a double difference to be observed between repentance for Ignorances , and known sins ; the one must be particular , the other general ; the one cannot be sincere without forsaking , the other may ; which he inlarges upon , and then concludes , Some of our Fore-fathers then , might not only live in Popish Idolatry , but even dye in an Idolatrous Act , breathing out their last with their lips at a Crucifix and an Ave Mary in their thoughts : and yet have truly repented , ( though but in the General , and the croud of their unknown sins ) even of those very sins ; and have at the same instant true Faith in Jesus Christ , and other Graces accompanying salvation . R. P. But hath not Christ promised that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against his Church ? P. D. This Dr. St. hath already answered thus . Against what Church ? The whole Christian Church ? whoever said they could , or how doth that follow ? The Church of Constantinople , or the Church of Jerusalem ? Have not the Gates of the Turk been too strong for them ? The Church of Rome ? The Gates of Hell do certainly prevail against that , if it doth unchurch all other Churches that are not of its communion . And why may not Idolatry prevail where Luciferian Pride , and Hellish Cruelty , and desperate Wickedness have long since prevailed ? Hath Christ made promises to secure that Church from Errour , which hath been over-run with all sorts of Wickedness by the confession of her own members and friends ? R. P. But T. G. saith , that Dr. St. ought to have assigned us some Church distinct in all Ages , from all Heretical and Idolatrous Congregations , which Christ hath preserved alwayes from Heresie and Idolatry ? P. D. Why so ? Unless he had first yielded , that Christ had promised to preserve such a distinct Congregation of Christians , which he never did . But he shewed the feebleness of that kind of arguing , from particulars to generals ; as though all the promises made to the Church must fail , if the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry . R. P. But I will prove that Dr. St. ought to assign such a distinct Church , because , he saith , that a Christian by vertue of his being so , is bound to joyn in some Church or Congregation of Christians , therefore there must be such a Church at all times to joyn with . P. D. I answer , ( 1. ) Dr. St.'s answer doth imply no more than this , that a Christian is bound to joyn with other Christians in the Acts of Gods publick Worship ; but withal he adds immediately , that he is bound to choose the communion of the purest Church ; which doth suppose a competition between two Churches , where a person may embrace the Communion of either , as the Church of England , and the Church of Rome . So that where there are distinct Communions , the best is to be chosen . ( 2. ) Supposing no Church to be so pure that a mans Conscience can be fully satisfied in all the practices of it , yet he may lawfully hold Communion with that Church he is baptized in , till the unlawful practices become the condition of his Communion . As here in England , the conditions of Communion are different as to Clergy-men and Lay-men ; if the latter be satisfied in what concerns them , they have no reason to reject Communion themselves , for what concerns others . ( 3. ) Where any Church doth require Idolatrous Acts as conditions of Communion , that Church is the Cause of a separation made for a distinct Communion . So that there is no necessity of assigning a distinct Church in all Ages free from heresie and Idolatry ; since men may Communicate with a corrupt Church , so they do not Communicate in their corruptions ; and when they come to that height to require this , they make themselves the Causes of the Separation which is made on the account of Heresie , or Idolatry . R. P. Still that promise sticks with me , that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church : and are not Heresie and Idolatry the two Posts of those Gates ? P. D. If you turn over that promise never so much , you will prove no more from it , than the continuance of a Christian Church in the World , with a capacity of salvation to the members of it . And this we do not deny : but it doth not prove that any particular Church shall be preserved in all Ages free from Heresie and Idolatry . For whatever may be consistent with the salvation of the members of a Church , may be consistent with the Gates of Hell not prevailing against it ; but Heresie and Idolatry may be consistent with the salvation of the members of a Church . Because there are so many cases assigned by Divines , wherein sins of Ignorance and Errour , are consistent with salvation . I say then , that Christs Promises do prove a possibility of salvation in all Ages of the Christian Church ; but they do not prove the indefectibility of any distinct Church . R. P. But why doth Dr. St. say , the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church of Rome , when himself acknowledges it to be a true Church , as holding all the essential points of faith ? P. D. As though a man could be damned for nothing , but for denying the Articles of his Creed ! It is in respect of Pride , Cruelty , and all sorts of Wickedness , as well as Idolatry , that he saith , the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it . R. P. Well! But T. G. for all that proves , that all Christians are bound by vertue of their Christianity to joyn in communion with the Church of Rome . P. D. Doth he so ? It is a great undertaking , and becoming T. G. But how ? R. P. First , There was in the world before Luther a distinct Church , whose communion was necessary to salvation , but this was not the Protestant , for that came in after Luther , therefore it was the Roman . P. D. This is very subtle reasoning , yet it is possible we may find out something like it . There was in the World before Julius Caesar some Civil Society , in which it was necessary for a man to live for his own preservation ; but this was not the Roman Empire , for that rose up after him ; therefore it was the Roman Common-wealth . But doth not this imply , that there was no other Civil Society in the world , wherein a man could preserve himself , but the Roman Common-wealth ? But I will put the case a little farther home ; after Britain was made a Province , it became a Member of the Roman Empire , and depended so much upon the strength and Arms of Rome , that it was not able to defend it self ; it being sore distressed by enemies , and in danger of Ruine , sends to Rome for help ; there it is denyed , and the Britains forced to look out for help elsewhere . Now after T. G.'s way of reasoning the Britains must return to the Romans , because once they had been members of the Roman Empire . The case is alike in the Church ; the time was when the Western Church was united under one Head , but by degrees this Head grew too heavy , and laid too great a load on the members , requiring very hard and unreasonable conditions from them ; upon this , some of the members seek for relief , this is denyed them , they take care of their own safety , and do what is necessary to preserve themselves . The Head and some corrupt members conspiring , denounce excommunication , if they do not presently yield and submit . These parts stand upon their own rights and ancient priviledges ; that it was not an Vnion of submission but association originally between several National Churches : and therefore the Church of Rome assuming so much more to it self , than did belong to it , and dealing so tyrannically ; upon just complaints our Church had Reason to assert her own Freedom , and to reform the abuses which had crept either into her doctrine or practice . And that this was lawful proceeding , it offered to justifie by Scripture and Reason and the Rules of the Primitive Church . Now the question of Communion , as it was stated between T. G. and Dr. St. comes to this , whether any person being baptized in this Church , ought in order to his salvation to forsake the communion of it , for that of the Church of Rome ? And this being the true state of it , I pray , where lies the force of the argument ? Dr. St. yields communion with some Church to be necessary : and what follows , the communion of the Church of England is so to one baptized in it ; why must any such leave it for that of the Church of Rome ? Yes , saith T. G. , there was a distinct Church before Luther , whose communion was necessary to salvation ; and what then ? what have we to do with Luther ? we are speaking of the present Church of England , which was reformed by it self , and not by Luther . Why is it necessary to leave this Church , in which persons are baptized , and not in that before Luther ? Here lyes the main hinge of the Controversie ; to which T. G. ought to speak , and not to run to a Church before Luther . The Church of England was the Church of England before the Reformation as well as since ; but it hath now reformed it self , being an entire body within it self , having Bishops to govern it , Priests and Deacons to administer Sacraments , to preach the Word of God , to officiate in the publick Liturgie , in which all the Ancient Creeds are read and owned ; the question now is , whether salvation cannot be had in the communion of this Church ? or all persons are bound to return to the Church of Rome ? This is the point , if T. G. hath any more to say to it . R. P. T. G. urgeth farther , Nothing can render the communion of the Roman Church not necessary to salvation , but either Heresie or Schism ; not Heresie , because she holds all the essential articles of Christian Faith ; not Schism , because then Dr. St. must assign some other distinct Church ( then at least in being ) from whose Vnity she departed . P. D. A right Doway argument ! one would take T. G. for a young Missioner by it ; it is so exactly cut in their Form. But it proceeds upon such false suppositions as these . ( 1. ) That Communion with the Roman Church as such , i. e. as a Body united under such a Head , was necessary to salvation , which we utterly deny ; and it can never be proved , but by shewing , that Christ appointed the Bishop of Rome to be Head of the Church ; which is an argument , I do not find that now adays , You are willing to enter upon ; being so thread-bare and baffled a Topick . ( 2. ) That no Doctrines but such as are contrary to the Articles of the Creed , can be any reason to hold off from the Communion of a Church ; but we think , the requiring doubtful things for certain , false for true , new for old , absurd for reasonable are ground enough for us not to embrace the Communion of a Church , unless it may be had on better terms than these . ( 3. ) That no Church can be guilty of Schism , unless we can name some distinct Church from whose Vnity it separated ; whereas we have often proved , that imposing unreasonable conditions of Communion , makes the Church so imposing guilty of the Schism . Surely T. G.'s stock is almost spent , when he plays the same game so often over . These are not such terrible arguments to be produced afresh , as if they had never been heard of ; when there is not a Missioner that comes , but hath them at his fingers end . R. P. But the Roman Church was once the true Church , Rom. 1. and the Christian world of all Ages , believed it to be the only true Church of Christ ; but it cannot be proved not to be the true one , by an evidence equal to that which once proved it true ; therefore we are bound to be of the communion of that Church . P. D. O the vertue of sodden Coleworts ! How often are they produced without shame ! To be short Sir , ( 1. ) We deny that the Church of which the Pope is Head , was ever commended by St. Paul ; or in any one Age of the Christian World , was owned by it to be the only true Church : which is very much short of the whole Christian World of all Ages . ( 2. ) Since the evidence is so notoriously faulty about proving the Roman Church to be the only true Church ; a small degree of evidence as to its corruptions may exceed it , and consequently be sufficient to keep us from returning to its communion . But what doth T. G. mean by repeating such stuff as this ? Which I dare say Dr. St. only passed by , on account of the slightness and commonness of it ; they being arguments every day brought , and every day answered . And if he had a mind to see Dr. St.'s mind about them , he might have seen it at large in his Defence of Archhishop Laud ; And do you think it fair for him , every Book he writes , to produce afresh every argument there , which hath received no Answer ? R. P. I perceive you begin to be out of patience . P. D. Not , I assure you , when I meet with any thing that deserves it . R. P. Here comes our Fanatick Friend to refresh you a little . What is the matter man ? why so sad ? have you met with an ill bargain at the Auction ? F. C. No , no. I got a Book last night , hath taken me up till this time ; and truly , I have read something in it which fits much upon my Spirit . R. P. What is it ? if we may ask you . F. C. It is no comfort either to you , or me . R. P. If I be concerned , I pray let me know . F. C. You know last night we heard them at Rutherford and Gillespee ; I came in time enough for Gillespee's Miscellany Questions ; a rare Book , I promise you . And by a particular favour I carried it home with me , and looking upon the Contents , I found the Seasonable Case , viz. About Associations and Confederacies with Idolaters , Infidels , or Hereticks : and he proves them to be so absolutely unlawful from Scripture , and many sound Orthodox Divines , that for my part he hath fully convinced and setled me , and I thought it my duty to come and to tell you so . R. P. Well , we will let alone that discourse at present , we are at our old trade again : and I was just coming to a seasonable question for you , viz. Whether you have not as much reason to separate from the Church of England , as the Church of England had from the Church of Rome ? F. C. Who doubts of that ? P. D. I do Sir ; nay more , I absolutely deny it . F. C. What matter is it , what you say or deny ? You will do either for a good preferment . Have not you assented and consented to all that is in the Book of Common Prayer , and what will you stick at after ? P. D. Consider Sir , what it is to judge rash judgement ; I wonder men that pretend to Conscience , and seem so nice and scrupulous in some things , can allow thmselves in the practice of so dangerous a sin . If you have a mind to debate this point before us , without clamour and impertinency , I am for you . F. C. You would fain draw me in to dispute again , would you ? No such matter , there is your man , he will manage our Cause for us against you of the Church of England , I warrant you . R. P. I am provided for it : For T. G. desires of Dr. St. for the sake of the Presbyterians , Anabaptists , and other separated Congregations , to know why the believing all the ancient Creeds , and leading a good life may not be sufficient to Salvation , unless one be of the Communion of the Church of England ? P. D. A very doughty question ! As though we were like you , and immediately damned all persons , who are not of the Communion of our Church . We say , their separation from us is very unjust and unreasonable ; and that there is no colour for making their case equal with ours , as to the separation from the Church of Rome . R. P. I will tell you of a man who makes the case parallel , it is one Dr. St. in his Irenicum : and T. G. produces many pages out of him to that purpose . P. D. To save you the trouble of repeating them , I have read them over , and do think these Answers may serve for his vindication . ( 1. ) That in that very place he makes separation from a Church retaining purity of Doctrine , on the account of some corrupt practices to be unlawful ; and afterwards in case men be unsatisfied as to some conditions of communion , he denies it to be lawful to erect New Churches ; because a meer requiring conformity in some suspected rites , doth not make a Church otherwise sound to be no true Church : or such a Church from which it is lawful to make a total separation , which is then done , when men enter into a new and distinct Society for worship , under distinct and peculiar Officers , governing by Laws and Church Rules different from those of the Church they separate from . And now , let your Fanatick Friend judge whether this man , even in the dayes of writing his Irenicum , did justifie the practices of the separated Congregations ; which he speaks expressely against ? F. C. No truly . We are all now for separated Congregations , and know better what we have to do , than our Fore-Fathers did . Alas ! what comfort is there in bare Nonconformity ? For our people would not endure us , if we did not proceed to separation . He that speaks against separation ruins us and our Cause . P. D. So far then we have cleared Dr. St. from patronizing the Cause of the separated Congregations . ( 2. ) He saith , that as to things left undetermined by the Law of God in the Judgement of the Primitive and Reformed Churches , and in matters of Order , Decency and Government , every one notwithstanding what his private judgement may be of them , is bound to submit to the determination of the lawful Governours of the Church . Can any thing be said plainer for Conformity , than this is by the Author of the Irenicum ? R. P. But how then come in those words produced by T. G. ? P. D. I will tell you ; he supposes that some scrupulous and conscientious men after all endeavours used to satisfie themselves , may remain unsatisfied as to the Lawfulness of some imposed Rites , but dare not proceed to positive separation from the Church , but are willing to comply in all other things save in those Rites which they still scruple ; and concerning these he puts the Question , whether such bare-nonconformity do involve such men in the guilt of Schism ? And this I confess he resolves negatively , and so brings in that long passage T. G. produces out of him . I now appeal to your self , whether T. G. hath dealt fairly with Dr. St. in two things , ( 1. ) In not distinguishing the case of separation , from that of bare nonconformity , only in some suspected Rites ; and in producing these words to justifie the separated Congregations ? ( 2. ) In taking his judgement in this matter rather from his Irenicum written so long since , than from his late Writings , wherein he hath purposely considered the Difference of the Case of those who separate from the Church of England and of our separation from the Church of Rome . R. P. But hath he done this indeed ? and did T. G. know it ? P. D. Yes very well . For it is in that very Book , the Preface whereof T. G. pretends to answer in these Dialogues : and he doth not speak of it by the by , but discourseth largely about it . Is this fair dealing ? But the Irenicum served better for his purpose as he thought , and yet he hath foully misrepresented that too . R. P. But yet Dr. St. must not think to escape so : for he hath searched another Book of his , called his Rational Account , and there he finds a passage he thinks in favour to Dissenters from the Church of England ; and which undermines the Church of England . P. D. Therefore the Church of Rome is not guilty of Idolatry . R. P. Have a little patience ; we shall come to that in time . At present I pray clear this matter , if you can . P. D. To what purpose is all this raking , and scraping , and searching , and quoting of passages not at all to the point of Idolatry ? R. P. What! would you have a man do nothing to fill up a Book , and make it carry something of the Port of an Answer ; especially to a thick Book of between 800 and 900 pages ? P. D. If this be your design , go on : but I will make my answers as short as I can ; for methinks T. G. seems to have lost that spirit and briskness he had before ; for then he talked like a man that had a mind to keep close to the point ; but now he flags and draws heavily on : For he repeats what he had said before for some pages , and then quotes out of Dr. St.'s other Books for several pages more , and at last it comes to no more than this , Dr. St. doth in some places of his Writings seem to favour the Dissenters . I am quite tired with this impertinency : yet I would fain see an end of these things , that we might come close to the business of Idolatry which I long to be at . R. P. Your stomach is too sharp set ; we must blunt it a little before you fall to . P. D. You take the course to do it , with all this impertinency ; but what is it you have to say ? R. P. To please you I will bring this charge as near to the point of Idolatry as I can ; the substance of it is this , Dr. St. saith , the Church of England doth not look on her Articles as Articles of Faith , but as inferiour Truths ; from thence T. G. infers , ( 1. ) The Church of Rome doth not err against any Articles of Faith. ( 2. ) Dr. St. doth not believe the thirty nine Articles to be Articles of Faith. ( 3. ) Then this charge of Idolatry is vain and groundless , because Idolatry is an error against a Fundamental point of Faith. P. D. Here is not one word new in all this long charge , but a tedious repetition of what T. G. had said before . It consists of two points . 1. The charge upon Dr. St. for undermining the Church of England . 2. The unreasonableness of the charge of Idolatry upon his own supposition . Because T. G. seems to think there is something in this business which touched Dr. St. to the quick , and therefore he declined giving any answer to the First Part of it , I will undertake to do it for him . Dr. St. doth indeed say that the Church of England doth not make her Articles Articles of Faith , as the Church of Rome doth the Articles of Pope Pius the fourth his Creed . And did ever any Divine of the Church of England say otherwise ? It is true the Church of Rome from her insolent pretence of Infallibility , doth make all things proposed by the Church of equal necessity to Salvation ; because the ground of Faith is the Churches Authority in proposing things to be believed . But doth the Church of England challenge any such Infallibility to her self ? No. She utterly disowns it , in her very Articles ; therefore she must leave matters of Faith , as she found them ; i. e. she receives all the Creeds into her Articles and Offices , but makes no additions to them of her own ; and therefore Dr. St. did with great reason say , that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith , but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world and of all Ages , and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self : from whence he doth justly magnifie the moderation of this Church in comparison with the Church of Rome . R. P. But T. G. saith , That he hath degraded the Articles of the Church of England from being Articles of Faith , into a lower Classe of inferiour Truths . P. D. I perceive plainly T. G. doth not know what an Article of Faith means according to the sense of the Church of England . He looks on all propositions made by the Church as necessary Articles of Faith , which is the Roman sense , and founded on the doctrine of Infallibility ; but where the Churches Infallibility is rejected , Articles of Faith are such as have been thought necessary to Salvation by the consent of the Christian world , which consent is seen in the Ancient Creeds . And whatever doctrine is not contained therein though it be received as Truth , and agreeable to the Word of God , yet is not accounted an Article of Faith : i. e. not immediately necessary to Salvation as a point of Faith , But because of the dissentions of the Christian world in matters of Religion , a particular Church may for the preservation of her own peace declare her sense as to the Truth and Falshood of some controverted points of Religion , and require from all persons who are intrusted in the Offices of that Church a subscription to those Articles , which doth imply that they agree with the sense of that Church about them . R. P. But Dr. St. saith from Arch-bishop Bramhall , that the Church doth not oblige any man to believe them , but only not to contradict them , and upon this T. G. triumphs over Dr. St. as undermining the Doctrine and Government of the Church of England . P. D. Why not over Arch-Bishop Bramhall , whose words Dr. St. cites ? And was he a favourer of Dissenters , and an underminer of the Church of England ? Yet Dr. St. himself in that place owns a subscription to them as necessary ; and what doth subscription imply less than agreeing with the sense of the Church ? So that he saith more than Arch-Bishop Bramhall doth . And I do not see how his words can pass , but with this construction , that when he saith , we do not oblige any man to believe them , he means as Articles of Faith , of which he speaks just before . But I do freely yield that the Church of England doth require assent to the truth of those propositions which are contained in the thirty nine Articles : and so doth Dr. St. when he saith , the Church requires subscription to them as inferiour Truths , i. e. owning them to be true propositions , though not as Articles of Faith , but Articles of Religion , as our Church calls them . R. P. If they are but inferiour Truths , saith T. G. was it worth the while to rend asunder the Peace of Christendom for them ? Is not this a very reasonable account , as I. S. calls it , of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion , and a rare way of justifying her from the guilt of Schism ? P. D. T. G. mistakes the matter . It was not our imposing negative points on others ; but the Church of Romes imposing false and absurd doctrines for necessary Articles of Faith , which did break the Peace of Christendom . We could have no communion with the Church of Rome unless we owned her Supremacy , her Canon of Scripture , her Rule of Faith , or the equality of Tradition and Scripture , her doctrines of Purgatory , Invocation of Saints , Worship of Images , Transubstantiation , &c. and we were required not only to own them as true , which we know to be false ; but as necessary to Salvation , which we look on as great hinderances to it . What was to be done in this case ? Communion could not be held on other terms , than declaring false opinions to be true , and dangerous Doctrines to be necessary to Salvation . On such terms as these we must renounce our Christianity , to declare that we believed falshoods for truths , and not barely as truths , but as necessary Articles of Faith. Therefore what Schism there was , the Church of Rome must thank her self for . And when this breach happened , our Church thought it necessary to express her sense of these Doctrines , that they were so far from being Articles of Faith , that they were false and erroneous , having no foundation either in Scripture or Antiquity : and required a subscription to this declaration , from such as are admitted to teach and instruct others . How could our Church do less than she did in this matter , if she would declare her sense to the World , or take care of her own security ? And is this making Negative Articles of Faith ; about which T. G. and E. W. and others , have made such senseless clamours ? when we only declare those things they would impose upon us to be so far from being Articles of Faith , that they are erroneous Doctrines , and therefore are rejected by us . And this I take to be a Reasonable Account of the Potestant Religion ; which is more than I. S. hath given to those of his own Church of his Demonstrations . R. P. But since Dr. St. grants the Church of Rome to hold all the essential points of Faith , how can he charge her with Idolatry , since Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith ? I pray answer to this , for this comes home to the business . P. D. I am glad to see you but coming that way . To this Dr. St. hath already given a full and clear answer , in his late Defence . ( 1. ) He saith , by the Church of Romes holding all essential points of Faith no more is meant than that she owns and receives all the Ancient Creeds . ( 2. ) T. G. grants , that Idolatry is giving the Worship due to God to a Creature ; If therefore a Church holding the essential points of faith may give the Worship due to God to a Creature , then there is no contradiction between saying the Church of Rome holds all the essential points of faith , and yet charging it with Idolatry . Because Idolatry is a practical Errour , and therefore may be consistent with holding all the doctrinal points of Faith ; no more being necessary to it , as Dr. St. proves , than entertaining a false notion of Divine Worship , by which means it may really give Gods worship to a Creature , and yet be very Orthodox in holding that Gods Worship ought not to be given to a Creature . R. P. T. G. was aware of this Answer , and thus he takes it off . To err , he saith , strictly speaking , is to teach that which is opposite to Truth ; but if the Church of Rome teaches that the Worship she gives to Saints and Images is not a part of the Honour due to God , and yet it is ; then she errs against the second Commandment , though she judges she doth not . P. D. What is this to the purpose ? the question is not whether Idolatry doth not imply a practical errour against the second Commandment ; but whether it be consistent with the doctrinal points of Faith , such as are essential to the Being of a Church ? For of this sort of Errours , all the dispute was , as is plain from Dr St.'s words , which gave occasion to this objection . R. P. But is it not a Fundamental Errour to destroy the doctrine of the second Commandment ? P. D. If it be , The more care had they need to have who put it out of their Books , that it may not fly in their Faces . But who ever reckoned the Commandments among the Articles of Faith ? I do not deny it to be a very dangerous practical Errour to destroy the doctrine of the second Commandment ; or rather to take away the whole force of the precept ; but I say , this is none of those essential points of Faith , which Dr. St. spake of , and therefore this is no answer to him . R. P. Therefore T. G. adds , that this doth not proceed upon a general Thesis , whether some Idolatrous practice may not consist with owning the general principles of Faith ; but upon a particular Hypothesis , whether the Worship of God by an Image , be not an errour against the doctrine of the second Commandment , if that be to forbid men to worship him by an Image ? And therefore if it be a Fundamental point to believe that to be Idolatry which God hath expresly forbidden in the Law under the notion of Idolatry , and that be the worshipping of him by an Image , as Dr. St. asserts ; 't is clear that the Church of Rome in telling men it is not Idolatry , errs against a Fundamental point , and he cannot according to his principles maintain his charge of Idolatry without a contradiction . P. D. This is then the thing to be tryed ; and therefore we must judge of it by what Dr. St. said , to which this is supposed to be a Contradiction . Did he ever say that the Church of Rome did not erre against the doctrine of the second commandment ? Nay , he hath invincibly proved it hath . I say invincibly , since T. G. gives it up in these Dialogues ; spending so many pages upon the repetition of his old arguments , and passing over all that elaborate discourse of Dr. St. about the sense of the second Commandment , on which the hinge of the Controversie depends . If then Dr. St. doth charge them with a very dangerous and pernicious errour in respect of this Commandment , that could not be the Fundamental errour he cleared the Church of Rome from , when he said , she held all essential points of Faith , ( mark that ) and he explained himself purposely to prevent such a mistake , to mean such doctrinal points of Faith as are essential to the constitution of a Church and the true Form of Baptism ; now the question is , whether it be a contradiction for a man to say , that the Church of Rome doth hold all these essential points of faith , and yet is guilty of Idolatry ? And how after all , hath T. G. proved it ? It is a fundamental point , saith he , to believe that to be Idolatry which God hath forbidden as Idolatry ; and so it is to believe that to be Perjury , and Theft and Adultery , which God hath forbidden under their notion . But will any man say the true notion of Adultery is a doctrinal point of Faith ? Although therefore it be granted that the Church of Rome do err fundamentally against the second Commandment ; yet that doth not prove Dr. St. guilty of a contradiction , because he spake not of practical errours , but of the Doctrinal and essential points of Faith. And now I hope we have done with all these preliminaries , and may come to the point of Idolatry it self . R. P. Hold a little , you are still too quick ; I have something more yet to say to you before we come to it . P. D. What is that ? R. P. I have a great deal to tell you out of Mr. Thorndikes Just Weights and Measures , about the Charge of Idolatry and the mischievous consequences of it . P. D. To what end should you repeat all that ? I begin to think you were not in jest , when you said T. G. put in some things to fill up his Book . Dr. St. had before declared the great esteem he had for Mr. Thorndikes Learning and Piety ; but in this particular , he declared , that he saw no reason to recede from the common doctrine of the Church of England , on the account of Mr. Thorndikes Authority , or Arguments . And I have already given you such an account of his opinion with respect to the Church of Rome , as I hope will take off Mr. Thorndikes Testimonies being so often alledged against us by T. G. and his Brethren . If T. G. had not purposely declined the main matters in debate between Dr. St. and him , he would never have stuffed out so much of his Book with things so little material to that which ought to have been the main design of it . R. P. But I have somewhat more to say to you , which is , that you charge T. G. with declining the dispute about the sense of the second Commandment , whereas he doth speak particularly to it . P. D. I am glad to hear it ; I hope then he takes off the force of what Dr. St. had said in his late Defence about it . For I assure you it was much expected from him . R. P. What would you have a man do ? he produces at least four leaves of what he had said before : and then a little after , near two leaves more : and within a few pages , above two leaves again out of his old Book ; and then tells how Dr. St. spends above an hundred pages about the sense of the second Commandment , whereas he neither removes the contradictions , nor answers the arguments of T. G. but criticizeth upon the exceptions of T. G. to the several methods for finding out the sense of the Law ; but , saith he , what need so much pains and labour be taken , if the Law be express ; and do not you think this enough about the second Commandment ? P. D. No truly . Nor you neither , upon any consideration . For the Dr. in his Discourse upon the second Commandment , ( 1. ) hath manifestly overthrown T. G.'s notion of an Idol , viz. of a figment set up for Worship , by such clear and convincing arguments , that if T. G· had any thing to have said in defence of it , he would never have let it escaped thus . ( 2. ) (*) He hath proved the sense he gives of the Commandment to be the same which the Fathers gave of it . ( 3. ) (†) He takes off T. G.'s instances of worshipping before the Ark and the Cherubims ; and (*) the Testimony of S. Austin . ( 4. ) (†) He answers T. G.'s objections and clears the sense of the Law by all the means a Law can be well understood . And is all this , do you think , answered by T. G.'s repeating what he had said before ; or blown down by a puff or two of Wit ? I do not know what T. G. thinks of it , but I do not find any understanding man takes this for an answer , but a meer put-off . So that I may well say , Dr. St.'s proofs are invincible , when T. G. so shamefully retreats out of the Field , and sculks under some hedges and thorns which he had planted before , for a shelter in time of need . R. P. But why did not Dr. St. answer punctually to all that T. G. said ? P. D. Because he did not think it material , if the main things were proved . R. P. Bu● T. G. will think them unanswerable , till he receive satisfaction concerning them . P. D. That it may be is impossible to give a man , that hath no mind to receive it ; but if you please , let me hear the strength of what T. G. lays such weight upon , that he may have no such pretence for the future ; and lest the third time we meet with the same Coleworts . R. P. Doth not Dr. St. make express Scripture his most certain rule of Faith ? Doth not he on the other side deny any thing to be an Article of Faith , which is not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self . Then if God hath expresly forbidden the worship of himself by an Image , it is an Article of Faith that he ought not to be worshipped by an Image ; and since Rome doth not acknowledge it , it is not an Article of Faith. Therefore T. G. calls upon the Dr. to speak out . Is it , or is it not an Article of Faith ? But T. G. saith , he hath found out the Mysterie of the business ( for he can find out Mysteries , I assure you , as well as discover plots , and catch Moles ) to gratifie the Non-conformists , the Articles of the Church of England must pass only for inferiour truths ; but when the Church of Rome is to be charged with Idolatry , then they are Articles of Faith : so that , as T. G. pleasantly saith , the same proposition taken Irenically is an inferiour Truth , but taken Polemically it must be an Article of Faith , because expresly revealed in Scripture . P. D. Is this it which T. G. thought worth repeating at large ? surely it was for the sake of the Clinch of Irenically and Polemically , and not for any shew of difficulty in the thing . For all the Mist is easily scattered by observing a very plain distinction of an Article of faith ; which is either taken , 1. For an essential point of faith , such as is antecedently necessary to the Being of a Christian Church ; and so the Creed is said to contain the Articles of our Faith , and in this sense Dr. St. said the Church of Rome did hold all the essential points of faith which we did . 2. For any doctrine plainly revealed in Scripture which is our Rule of faith . And did Dr. St. ever deny that the Church of Rome opposed some things clearly revealed in Scripture ? nay , it is the design of his Books to prove it doth . And if every doctrine which can be deduced from a plain command of Scripture , is to be looked on as an Article of Faith , then that the Cup is to be given to those who partake of the Bread , that Prayers are to be in a known Tongue , will become Articles of Faith , and do you think Dr. St. either Irenically or Polemically , did ever yield that the Church of Rome did not oppose these ? If T. G. lays so much weight on such slight things as these , I must tell you he is not the man I took him for : and I believe it was only civility in Dr. St. to pass such things by . R.P. But T.G. would know , what he means by expresly forbidden , only that it is clear to himself , expecting that others should submit to his saying it , as the travellers did to Polus in Erasmus ; or that it is clear or manifest of it self ? and that it is not so , he saith , appears by the pains and wayes he takes to find it out . P. D. This is yet a degree lower . By clearly and expresly , Dr. St. means that which is so to an unprejudiced mind . For there is nothing so plain , but men may cavil at it . Not the Being of God ; not the certainty of our senses ; not the differences of Good and Evil ; not the coming of the Messias ; not the Truth of the Scriptures . But will T. G. say , that none of these are clear , because men are put to pains and several wayes to prove them ? If therefore Dr. St. hath shewed that all the evasions of the force of the second Commandment are meer cavils , and would take off as well the force of any other Commandment , if men thought themselves as much concerned to do it ; I think he hath proved the sense of the Commandment to be clear and express against the Worship of God by an Image . And for his Friend Polus , you know it doth not look well in conversation for a man to repeat his own Jests . But you named a third passage T. G. repeats out of his former Book . What is that , I pray ? R. P. That concerns Dr. St.'s first way of finding out the sense of the Law ; For , he saith , the Law doth only expresly forbid bowing down to the Images themselves , as the Heathens did , but speaks not one word of the lawfulness , or unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by them ; and upon this he upbraids Dr. St. that spending above a hundred pages about the sense of the second Commandment , he neither endeavours to remove the contradictions , nor to answer the arguments of T. G. P. D. Then truly he deserved pity , and to have his Friends come in to help him , they are such wonderful contradictions and mighty arguments . But Dr. St. hath at large proved , ( 1. ) That the Heathens did not take the Images themselves for Gods ; in a large discourse to that purpose , and consequently this command was not express against the Heathen Idolatry in T. G.'s sense of it . ( 2. ) That the Fathers did understand this Commandment to be expresly against the Worship of God by an Image ; in another large discourse : which he concludes with those words of S. Ambrose , Non vult se Deus in lapidibus coli , God will not be worshipped in Stones . And is this nothing to the answering T. G.'s arguments ? ( 3. ) That the Worship of God before the Ark and the Cherubims ( the only argument of T. G. ) doth not reach to the Worship of God by Images ; and this in another set discourse . ( 4. ) That God did afterwards explain his own Law , by condemning the Worship of himself by Images ; in the case of the Golden Calf , and the Calves of Dan and Bethel , and he punctually answers T. G.'s objections . And after all this , Is it not great tenderness and modesty in T. G. to say , that Dr. St. only Criticizeth upon T. G. 's exceptions , and doth neither remove the contradictions , nor answer the Arguments of T. G. ? I never yet saw plainer evidence of a forlorn Cause , than these things give . By this taste , I begin to fear , when we come to the charge of Idolatry , we shall find very little new , or material . However , being thus far engaged , I am resolved , God willing , to attend you quite through his late Dialogues ; and if you please at our next meeting , we will enter upon the charge of Idolatry : and I will undertake to make good the charge , and I shall expect from you T. G.'s answers . R. P. I will not fail ; and I pray Brother Fanatick , let us have your company , for I have a terrible charge against the Church of England for bowing to the Altar . F. C. I shall be glad to hear that with all my heart . THE Third Conference , About the Nature of Idolatry . P. D. WE are now entring upon a weighty business , and therefore without any preface to it , I begin . Dr. St. in his late Defence hath undertaken to clear the Nature of Idolatry , by considering two things . 1. Whether it were consistent with the acknowledgement of one supreme God ? 2. Wherein the Nature of that Divine Worship lyes , which being given to a Creature makes it Idolatry ? 1. To clear the former , he considered , who those are , which by common consent are charged with Idolatry , and from thence he supposed the best resolution of the question might be gathered ; and those were , ( 1. ) the Ancient Heathens , ( 2. ) Modern Heathens , ( 3. ) the Arrians . And concerning these he proved , that they did all acknowledge one supreme God , and consequently the Notion of Idolatry could not consist in the Worship of many independent Deities . ( 1. ) As to the Ancient Heathens . ( 1. ) From the Testimony of Scripture . ( 2. ) From their own Writers in the Roman Church , of whom he names twelve considerable ones . ( 3. ) From the Fathers ; and there he shews from a multitude of plain Testimonies , that the state of the Controversie about Idolatry between the Fathers and Heathens , was not about a supreme God which was acknowledged on both sides , but whether Divine Worship were to be given to any Creatures on the account of any supposed excellency in themselves , or relation to God ? And so he draws the History of this controversie through the several Ages of Justin Martyr , Athenagoras , Clemens of Alexandria , Origen , Cyril , S. Augustin , &c. In short , through all those who did with greatest reputation to Christianity manage this Cause against the Heathen Idolaters . ( 2. ) As to modern Heathens ; two wayes . ( 1. ) From the Testimony of your own Writers concerning the Brachmans , Chineses , Tartars , Americans , Africans , Goths and Laplanders . ( 2. ) From the Testimony of the Congregation of Cardinals in a remarkable case about Idolatry in China , wherein their resolution was desired . ( 3. ) As to the Arrians , he proves from Athanasius , Gr. Nazianzen , Nyssen , Basil , Epiphanius , Cyril , Theodoret , S. Chrysostom , S. Ambrose , S. Augustin ; that the Arrians were unanimously charged with Idolatry ; although they did acknowledge but one God , and supposed the greatest created excellencies to be in Christ , and believed the Worship of Christ tended to the honour of the Father . 2. As to the Nature of Divine Worship . He proceeds in this method . 1. To shew what Worship is ; which he distinguishes from honour , the one relating to bare excellency , the other to Superiority and Power ; which distinction he proves from the most eminent School Divines . 2. What Divine Worship is ; viz. such a subjection of our selves to God as shews his peculiar Soveraignty over us : from whence he proceeds to manifest , That there are some peculiar external Acts of Divine Worship , which he proves , ( 1. ) From the Nature and design of Religious Worship ; and here he enquires into the distinction of Civil and Religious Worship ; which , he saith , as other moral actions , is to be taken from the circumstances of them : and from hence came the institution of solemn rites for Religious Worship . And the best Divines of the Roman Church do allow , that there ought to be some peculiar external Acts of Divine Worship ; which he likewise proves from the infinite distance between God and his Creatures ; and from the remarkable Testimonies of the Heathens to that purpose . ( 2. ) From Gods appropriating some external Acts of Worship to himself ; wherein he speaks to two things : 1. What those Acts are which God hath appropriated to himself ; of which he reckons up six . 1. Sacrifice . 2. Religious adoration . 3. Erection of Temples and Altars . 4. Burning of Incense . 5. Solemn Invocation . 6. Vows . 2. How far Gods appropriating these Acts doth concern us ? Which he thus resolves . 1. It is granted there must be some peculiar Acts. 2. God is the best Judge of them . 3. What he hath once appropriated cannot be made common till his Will be declared . 4. Christ hath made no alteration herein by his Law. 5. The Apostles suppose the same notion of Idolatry to continue still . 6. The Jews did esteem it Idolatry to use those acts of Worship towards any Creature . Where he shews that Idolatry may be committed as many wayes as Worship may become due to God. ( 3. ) From the sense of the Christian Church ; which hath condemned those for Idolatry who have applyed these appropriate Acts of Worship to any thing besides God. 3. How the applying the Acts of Religious Worship to a Creature makes that Worship Idolatry ? Where he explains , 1. What real honour we do allow to the Saints on the account of their excellencies . 2. What Worship we deny to them . ( 1. ) Inward submission of our souls in prayer , dependence , and thanksgiving . ( 2. ) External and solemn Acts of Religious Worship , which are given to Saints in the Church of Rome : and he proves from unquestionable Testimonies of Antiquity , that the Fathers did deny to be given to them . And so he concludes that Discourse with a full and clear explication of a Testimony of S. Augustin against Invocation of Saints . This is a brief Abstract of the design of Dr. St.'s discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry ; whose parts are too well considered and put together to be blown down with a puff or two of Wit. Let me now hear how T. G. hath acquitted himself in this matter , which we shall the better judge of , by having this Scheme before us . R. P. I perceive you expect T. G. should have followed Dr. St.'s method , and have answered him part by part ; but he was wiser than so ; for he charges him with three things . ( 1. ) That he makes vain , and endless , and unnecessary discourses . ( 2. ) That he ought to have laid down the true notion of Idolatry from the nature of the thing , which he hath not done . ( 3. ) That he hath unfaithfully reported the words and sense of Authors . After which , he disproves the parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry . P. D. This last , if you please , we will reserve to another Conference ; for I believe the other three , will hold us long enough . I pray begin where T. G. doth . R. P. First , He complains much of the Bulk of the Book ; and brings in a kind of a Taylors bill of the number of pages : Imp. of T. G.'s notion of Idolatry , p. 183. It. Of the Nature of Divine Worship , p. 164. It. Of the Controversie about Images between Christians and Heathens , p. 140. It. Of Images in the Christian Church , p. 180. odd . It. Of the sense of the second Commandment , p. 113. It. Of Instances , and facings and linings , p. 96. Sum. tot . p. 877. Was not this enough to put any man out of humour ? P. D. No doubt ; when he considered he was to pay it all . And I do believe what he saith , that he was very uneasie when he read it ; and like the Laconian in Boccalini , who was condemned to read over Guicciardines War of Pisa : and desired rather to be condemned to the Gallies . For there is nothing more troublesome to a man than to see that he owes more than he is ever able to pay . R. P. But T. G. shews how much of the Bill might have been cut off . P. D. The shortest way had been to have thrown all into the Fire , as no doubt he would have done , if it had been in his Power , and that had been the most effectual Discharge to Dr. St. 's charge of Idolatry . But do you think , it is a good answer to an Indictment , to say it consisted of too many lines ? R. P. T. G. saith he ought to have proceeded more Mathematically . P. D. How so ? R. P. By laying down only these four Postulata . 1. That Idolatry may consist with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being . 2. That God ought to be worshipped according to his own appointment . 3. That the Wiser Heathens pretended they did not look on their Images as Gods , but as Symbols of that Being to which they gave divine Worship . 4. That for the four first Centuries , there was little or no use of Images in the Temples and Oratories of Christians . Which as far as I understand T. G. he was willing to have granted him . P. D. Are you sure of that ? If these things be fairly granted , they will go a great way toward the resolution of the present Question . But I pray let me understand how far and in what sense ? R. P. For the first , that Idolatry may consist with the acknowledgement of one supreme Being : I perceive T. G. puts this limitation to it , at least as Idolatry is taken by Dr. St. for the giving external Acts of Worship , due only to God , to a Creature . P. D. Let us then lay up this at present , that real Idolatrous Worship is consistent with the acknowledgement of one supreme God ; which may be of use to us in this debate . R. P. For the second , T. G. saith , that it is no where denyed , but is supposed by him , when he saith , that if God have forbidden himself to be worshipped after such a manner , the giving him such worship will be dishonouring of him , though the Giver intend it never so much for his honour , much more then , the giving acts of worship appropriated to him to another . P. D. This is very kind . For then if it appear , that God hath forbidden the Worship of himself by an Image , it follows that no intention of the person can excuse such worship from Idolatry . R. P. For the third , concerning the practice of the wiser Heathens , T. G. allows the Dr. to make his best of it . P. D. Then there may be Idolatrous worship of Images , where the Images themselves are not made the objects of Worship ; and consequently if such worship be forbidden in the second Commandment , that cannot be understood only of bowing down to the Images themselves . R. P. For the fourth , he saith , since the Church hath a power in decreeing Rites and Ceremonies , it had been no prejudice to his Cause , if it had been longer , before the Use of Images was brought into Churches . P. D. If the Church had looked on the worship of Images as an indifferent Rite , there had been some reason for what T. G. saith ; But the force of what Dr. St. said , lay not meerly in their having no Images in Churches in the Primitive times ; but in the Reasons given by the Primitive Christians against the Worship of them . From whence he hath at large proved that the Primitive Christians did look on the Worship of Images as utterly unlawful by the Law of God , although the Object represented did deserve Worship . And this I take to be one of the most material Discourses in Dr. St.'s Book , to the present Controversie , and which he lays the greatest weight upon . For he insists upon these several particulars . ( 1. ) * That they judged such a representation of God by Images to be unsuitable to his Nature ; for which he produceth the Testimonies of Clemens Alexandr . , Justin Martyr , Athenagoras , Origen , S. Hierom , S. Augustin and others . ( 2. ) † That they looked on the Worship of Images as repugnant to the Will of God ; as being contrary to the second Commandment , which did oblige Christians . ( 3. ) * That to suppose that they looked on the worship of Images as a thing indifferent , is to charge the Primitive Christians with great hypocrisie . ( 4. ) † That the Christian Church continued to have the same opinion about the worship of Images after the Pagan Idolatry was suppressed . ( 5. ) * That it was no just excuse in the sense of the Primitive Church , that they worshipped a true object , or gave only an inferiour worship to the Images , for the sake of those represented by them . ( 6. ) † That Ignorance and Superstition first brought in the worship of Images , which was still condemned by the best Divines of the Church . ( 7. ) * That the Worship of Images came to be established in the Church by very indirect means ; such as Treason , calumnies , lyes , and burning and suppressing all Books against it . ( 8. ) † That when it was established by the second Council of Nice , it was vehemently opposed by the Western Church at the Council of Francford : and that this Council of Nice was never owned in the Western Church for a General Council till the Reformation began . And now I pray was it possible for T. G. to overlook all these things ? or was it fair to pretend to answer Dr. St.'s Book , wherein all these things are , and yet to pass them over , as if they had never been written ? If this be the way of making Just Discharges , I am afraid T. G.'s credit cannot hold out long ; for this is not after the rate of five shillings in the pound : and for all that I see , Dr. St. may take out the Statute against him . However , I shall consider what he pretends to Discharge , and if his payment be not good in that neither , his Word will hardly be taken for any Just Discharge more . I pray go on . R. P. For the fifth Chapter , Of the sense of the second Commandment , T. G. saith , if God hath there expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image , as Dr. St. affirms , there needed no more than to expose the Law as in a Table in Legislative Gothick ( as it is done by him , p. 671. ) with the addition only of a Finger in the Margent to point to the Words for every one that runs to read them . P. D. And must this pass for an Answer to Dr. St.'s Discourse about the sense of the second Commandment ? I am really ashamed of such trifling in a matter of so great importance . I know not whether it were the Legislative Gothick or no , or a Finger on the Wall , but something or other about that Commandment hath so affrighted you in the Church of Rome , that you dare not let it be seen in your Ordinary Books of Devotion . As for the cavil about expresly , I have answered it already . R. P. For his last Chapter , T. G. saith , there needed no more than to say , that the Church of England doth not allow any Worship to be given to the Altar . P. D. Is it possible for T. G. to think to fob us off with such answers as these ? barely to tell his Adversary , he might have spared this and the other Discourse . R. P. But T. G. saith , this is the most material thing in that Chapter . P. D. Say you so ? Was the wise Council of Nice , so immaterial a thing ? that it must now be quite abandoned , and no kind of Discharge be so much as offered to be made for it ? Was there nothing material in what concerns the charge of Contradictions , Paradoxes , School-disputes , & c. ? And all the other Instances waved to come to this of Bowing to the Altar ? there must be some Mysterie in this ; and I think I have found it , the Patronus bonae Fidei inveighs bitterly against this , as worse than Egyptian Idolatry , and reproaches Dr. St. upon account of his defending it : and T. G. finds it much easier to reproach than to answer . R. P. The truth is , this Patronus bonae Fidei doth T. G. Knights service ; For when he hath no mind to appear himself , he serves him for a Knight of the Post , who runs blindfold upon any thing that may discredit the Church of England ; two or three such rare men would ease us of a great deal of trouble . For T. G. takes between five and six pages together out of him in this place , besides what he hath taken up at interest upon other occasions . P. D. Is this the Just Discharge , to borrow so much out of the Fanatick stock ? Setting then aside what is brought over of the old Account , which had been reckoned for before ; and how very many material things are never entred , which he was accountable for ; and how much he hath borrowed upon the Bona Fides of the Fanatick Historian , all the rest will amount to a very pitiful Discharge . But since no better payment can be had , let us at least examine this : For this Bona Fides is a kind of Republican Publick Faith , which no body will trust twice , not so much as for Bodkins and Thimbles . F. C. Hold Sir. You love alwayes to be rubbing upon old Sores ; have you forgot the Act of Oblivion ? You know we dare not speak what we think of those times now ; and is that fair to accuse when we dare not answer ? Mind your own business , defend the Church of England if you can , in that Idolatrous practice of bowing to the Altar . I alwayes thought what it would come to , when Dr. St. went about the charge of Idolatry upon the principles of the Church of England ; I knew he could never defend himself but upon good Orthodox Fanatick principles , as you call them . Now Sir , you have him at an advantage , joyn your force and T. G.'s with that of the Patronus bonae Fidei , and if the Geese follow the Fox close , you will keep him from ever stirring more . P. D. I thank you for your good Will to the Cause , and that is all I fear from you ; you only add to the number , and help to preserve the Roman Capitol by your noise . R. P. You shall not escape thus ; what say you to bowing to the Altar , is not that as great Idolatry , as worship of Images ? P. D. Do you not remember the answer Dr. St. hath already given to this objection ? R. P. I tell you I read none of his Books , and know not what he hath written , but as I find it in T. G. P. D. What is that ? R. P. Have I not told you already , that the Church of England doth not allow any worship to be given to the Altar ? P. D. And is not that to the purpose ? For dare any of you say so of the Church of Rome in respect of Images ? R. P. But T. G. saith , this is not the meaning of the Canon which Dr. St. produces : for , he saith , the Canon only implyes that they give no Religious worship to it , but they do not deny any kind of worship to be given to it ; and Dr. St. himself grants that there is a Reverence due to Sacred Places . P. D. Now your bolt is shot I hope I may have leave to say something both in behalf of the Canon and Dr. St. ( 1. ) For the Canon , I say as Dr. St. did , that it denyes any worship to be given to the Altar , for it makes the adoration to be immediately made to the Divine Majesty , without respect to the Altar , either as the Object or Means of Worship , which I prove , ( 1. ) From the Introduction . For can any words be more express than those , in the Introduction ? For as much as the Church is the House of God , dedicated to his holy Worship ( not to that of the Altar ) and therefore ought to mind us both of the Greatness and Goodness of his Divine Majesty ( not of the sacredness of the Altar ) certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof , not only inwardly in our hearts , but also outwardly with our Bodies , must needs be pious in it self , profitable unto us and edifying unto others . If the intention of the Canon had been to have given any worship to the Altar , the Introduction must have related to that , and not to the Divine Majesty . ( 2. ) From the Recommendation ; we therefore think it meet and behooveful , and heartily commend it to all good and well-affected People , members of this Church , that they be ready to tender unto the Lord , ( not to the Altar ) the said due acknowledgement by doing Reverence and Obeysance both at their coming in and going out of the said Churches , &c. according to the most ancient Custom of the Primitive Church in Purest times , and of this Church also for many years of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth . ( 3. ) From the express disowning the giving any Religious worship to the Communion Table . Which is not meant of an individuum vagum , but of this Act of Adoration , which is the Religious worship here spoken of ; and thereby no kind of worship is intended to the Altar , but only to God. And which is more plain yet by what follows , that it is not done out of an opinion of the Corporal Presence of Christs Body on the Table , or in the Mystical Elements ; but only ( mark that ) for the advancement of Gods Majesty , and to give him Alone , ( not the Altar together with him ) that honour and glory which is due unto him and no otherwise . Can any words be plainer than these ? They want only Legislative Gothick , and a Finger in the Margent , for T. G. to understand them . ( 4. ) Archbishop Laud who certainly understood the meaning of this Canon , pleads only for the worship to be given immediately to God himself . God forbid , saith he , that we should worship any thing but God himself : and he adds , if there were no Table standing , he would worship God when he came into his House . And he calls it still , Doing Reverence to Almighty God , but only towards his Altar : and he saith , the People did understand this fully , and apply the worship to God , and to none but God. ( 5. ) When the introducing this , was made one of the Articles of his Charge by the Commons ; his Answer was , That his bowing was only to worship God , not the Altar , and I hope it is no offence or treason to worship God in the Kings own Chapel , or to induce others to do the like . ( 6. ) I do not find any of our Divines who pleaded most for it , do contend for any more than worshipping God towards the Altar , and not giving any worship to the Altar ; the arguments they used were for determining the local circumstance of worship , and not for making the Altar the object of it . And the difference between these two Dr. St. hath at large cleared . R. P. But cannot we say , that we only worship God before an Image , and do not give any Religious worship to the Image , and then the case is parallel ? P. D. You may say so , and you sometimes do , to deceive ignorant people ; but you cannot say it truly . For ( 1. ) Your Councils have determined that Religious worship is to be given to Images ; our Canon saith , it is not to be given to the Altar , therefore the case is far from being parallel . And Dr. St. hath fully proved , that the Nicene Council did require Religious worship to be given to Images ; and Anathematizes all who do it not . And utterly rejects those that say they are to be had only for memory , and out of some kind of Honour or Reverence ; for nothing but Religious worship would satisfie them . And the Acts of that worship are expressed to be not only bowing but prostration , kissing , oblation of Incense and Lights ; and Dr. St. hath elsewhere shewed , that all the Acts of worship which the Heathens did perform to their Images in old Rome , are given to Images in modern Rome . ( 2. ) Those in the Church of Rome who have only contended for the worship of God before the Image , have been condemned by others as savouring of Heresie , who say it is a matter of Faith in the Roman Church , that Images are to be worshipped truly and properly ; and that the contrary opinion is dangerous , rash , and sovouring of Heresie , which is likewise proved at large by Dr. St. R. P. But doth not Dr. St. himself allow a Reverence due to Sacred places ? P. D. He doth so . But do you observe the difference he puts between that and Worship ? I will endeavour to make his distinct notion of these things plain to you . First , He distinguishes between Honour and Worship : ( 1. ) Honour he makes to be the Esteem of Excellency ; Either Inward , only in the mind . Either Outward , in acts suitable to that estimation . And this Excellency may be twofold , 1. Personal . 2. Relative . 1. Personal ; and that threefold ; 1. Civil ; in regard of humane Society , as that of Abraham to the Children of Heth. 2. Moral ; on account of moral Excellencies ; either Natural , or Acquired . 3. Spiritual ; in regard of supernatural Graces : And that may be given two wayes , ( 1. ) To the Persons as present ; which is Religious Respect : as that of Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel , Dan. 2.46 . Of Abraham to the Angels , Gen. 18.2 . ( 2. ) To them as absent ; and this is Religious Honour : and it lyes chiefly in Thanksgiving to God for them , and celebrating their memories ; because the Honour of Divine Graces ought to redound chiefly to the giver of them . 2. Relative : from the relation which things have to what we esteem on the account of its own excellency . 1. Civil Relation to our Friends , or strangers whom we esteem ; and so we set a value on their Pictures , on their Letters or Hand-writing , or any thing belonging to them . 2. Spiritual Relation to God and his Worship ; and the regard to these he calls Reverence . And that lies in these things : ( 1. ) Discrimination from common use . ( 2. ) Consecration to a sacred use . ( 3. ) Suitable Vsage of them in regard of that relation . But if you ask wherein the difference of this lies from Worship , He saith , from the greatest Divines of your Church , that ( 2. ) Worship hath a respect to Power and Superiority ; and that is 1. Civil ; in regard of the Power and Authority of Magistrates . 2. Religious ; in regard of Gods peculiar Soveraignty over us , And that is twofold , 1. Internal in Submission , Dependence . 2. External ; which must be , 1. Such as express our submission and dependence ; as 1. Sacrifice . 2. Solemn invocation . 3. Adoration . 4. Vows . 5. Swearing by him , &c. 2. They must be peculiar to himself . 1. From the dictate of Nature , as to the peculiarity of Gods Soverainty . 2. From the Will of God , which appropriates such Acts to himself . 3. From the consent of Nations and the Christian Church . Therefore the giving that Worship which is due to God , and doth express our subjection to him , to any thing besides him , is violation of the Rights of Gods Soveraignty ; and if it be given to any creature , it receives its denomination from the Nature of that Creature to which it is given . ( 1. ) To Animate Creatures . Angels . Good. Bad. Dead men . Saints . Wicked . Brutes of all sorts . ( 2. ) To Inanimate . Natural . Elements . Minerals . Plants . Artificial ; made to represent the objects of Worship , and therefore called Images . Which is properly Idolatry , being the worship of a representation ; but because that word Idol is extended to any creature to which the Worship proper to God is given , therefore every such kind of Worship is in Scripture , and by the Christian Church called Idolatry . And by this Scheme of Dr. St.'s notion of these things , you may easily understand the difference he puts between Reverence and Worship . R. P. But T. G. saith , The Church of Rome requires by the terms of Communion with her , no more than Reverence , or Honorary respect to Images . P. D. Why doth T. G. go about thus to impose on his Readers without answering what Dr. St. had produced to the contrary ? From three things . 1. From the Decrees of the second Council of Nice . 2. From the constant opinion of their most eminent Divines , both before , and after the Council of Trent . 3. From the publick and allowed Practises of their Church . 1. In Consecration of Images for Worship ; with Forms prescribed in the Roman Pontifical . 2. In Supplication before them , with prostrations and all other Acts of Worship which the Heathens used towards them . 3. In Solemn Processions with Images , with the same kind of Pomp and Ceremony which was used in Heathen Rome . And after all this can T. G. have the confidence to say , this is only Honorary Respect without answering to any one of these particulars , which were purposely alledged to prove the contrary ? R. P. But now Sir look to your self , for the Patronus bonae Fidei knocks all down before him , and proves bowing to the Altar practised in the Church of England to be worse than Popish or Egyptian Idolatry . P. D. I hope not worse than the Power of Excommunication , which the same excellent Advocate for Fanaticks hath bestowed as ill names upon and with as little Reason : but such as it is I am prepared to receive it . R. P. The Patronus bonae Fidei saith , that , However Dr. St. wheadled and blinded with preferments ( for that is the meaning of T. G.'s &c. ) endeavours to palliate this kind of Adoration , and to vindicate it from the crime of Idolatry , yet I doubt not to affirm , that this bowing outvies the Idolatry both of Egyptians and Romanists , not only in horrible iniquity and enormitie , but in madness and folly . F. C. Who is this Patronus bonae Fidei , you speak so much of ? He is a good man I warrant him . He speaks home to the business . P. D. Yes if ignorance and confidence doth it : for never did man betray more than your Advocate in this saying . F. C. He will prove it I warrant you . P. D. Just as you did Kneeling at the Communion to be Idolatry ; if so well . But first for the Roman Idolatry . R. P. It is not , saith he , so much madness in them to adore the Lord Jesus under the species of bread , as it is an error in them to believe transubstantiation . But it is an Hypochondriacal madness , and giddy-brained stupidity for men to perform adoration towards that place , where Christ is no more present than any where else , and where neither the Table , nor Altar , nor any thing that is set upon the Table ( unless perchance a clean Towel , 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 he calls it , without any Object . P. D. Call you this proving ? It is rather raving and foaming at the mouth . This is such biting as may endanger an Hydrophobia . There is no arguing with such a man , but in a dark Room and under good Keepers . But that you may take no advantage by his sayings ; how can it be Idolatry without an Object ? i.e. Idolatry without an Idol . But can there be no Object of worship but what is visible ? What doth he worship himself ? Or rather whom do his Clients the Fanaticks worship ? Nothing ? Because not a visible object . Is not adoration a part of Worship ? If not , it is no Idolatry to give it to an Image . If it be , then bowing to an Invisible Object in a place dedicated to Divine Worship is giving to God that Worship , which being given to an Image makes it Idolatry . I pray Sir do you answer for him . F. C. I understand you not . P. D. I thought so . But I will endeavour to make you understand me . Is the bowing down to an Image Idolatry ? F. C. Yes , without all doubt . P. D. Is not Idolatry giving to a Creature the Worship that is due to God ? F. C. Yes . P. D. How can that be giving to a Creature the Worship due to God ; if it be not lawful to give this Worship to God which you give to the Creature ? F. C. I know not what you mean. P. D. Not yet ? Is not adoration of an Image , Idolatry ? F. C. Yes , I told you so once already . P. D. Then adoration is to be given to God. How else can the giving it to a Creature make it Idolatry ? F. C. I do not well understand you ; but as far as I can guess , you speak of bodily worship ; but alas ! we know that God must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth . P. D. Who denies that ? But observe what follows , then no man is guilty of Idolatry , that doth not worship an Image in Spirit and in Truth : but the Law forbids bowing down to them and worshipping of them ; do you think that bowing down is meant of the Mind or of the Body ? F. C. What is it you would have by all these Questions ? P. D. No more but this , that it is lawful to give external adoration to the Divine Majesty . F. C. And what then ? P. D. Is it lawful to give God that worship , ( which it is lawful to give absolutely ) in a place set apart for his Worship ? F. C. That is a strange question indeed . P. D. See now , what you have brought your self to ; to acknowledge that to be lawful which you so rashly called Idolatry . F. C. What is that ? P. D. Bowing in the Church , in testimony of our adoration of the Divine Majesty . F. C. That is not it ; but it is bowing to the Altar . P. D. Who knows best ? Those that made the Canon or you ? They declare they meant nothing else than what I have said ; and deny any Religious Worship to be given to the Altar . And would not you think it hard for us to accuse you for worshipping your Hats in prayer , because you put them before your faces when you pray ; as you do us for worshipping the Altar , because we bow towards it ? F. C. But you look towards the Altar when you bow . P. D. And are not your eyes upon your Hats when you pray ? And is not prayer a part of Gods immediate Worship ? F. C. But we call it bowing to the Altar . P. D. We may as well call yours , praying to the Hat. F. C. Some do assign the reason of their worship from the Communion Table , and we never do from our Hats . P. D. They do not assign the reason of their worship ; but the reason of that circumstance of it , why that way rather than another ; which they parallel with the Jews worshipping of God towards the Ark and the Cherubims , which yet were no objects of Divine Worship , either by Gods appointment , or the Jewish practice , or in the opinion of some of the most learned Divines , even of the Roman Church ; who make the most advantage they can of it ; as Dr. St. hath at large proved in his Answer to T. G. ; and I do not hear of any Reply T. G. hath made to it . R. P. But the Patronus bonae Fidei saith , the Papists have more reason to worship Christ on the supposition of Transubstantiation , than you have to worship — P. D. What ? Speak out . The Altar ? we deny it to be any Object of Worship to us : If he means , than to worship God with external adoration towards the Altar , let him do that , which he never yet did , prove what he saith ; viz. that there is more reason to worship Christ under the bread on supposition of transubstantiation , than for our giving external adoration to the Divine Majesty . For to give this adoration to God needs no other supposition but of his infinite Majesty and Omnipresence ; but to worship Christ on the Altar under the species of Bread , doth not only suppose the truth of one of the most absurd suppositions in the world , that the substance of the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ , and the Body of Christ is there invisibly present under the species of Bread : but it supposes likewise these things . 1. That the Body of Christ as united with the species of Bread is a proper object of Divine Adoration : i. e. that these two do make up one entire object of Divine Worship ; and then it follows that the sacramental species are a partial object of Divine Adoration , for whatever goes to make up an object entire must have share with it ; which is quite another thing from an accidental connexion , as of a Princes Robes together with his Person ; for no man ever said the Princes Garments made up with his Person an Object fit to be kneeled to in token of Subjection . But here is an union supposed between Christs Body and the Accidents , and such an union by vertue whereof Divine Worship is directed to the species of Bread , and consequentially to the Body of Christ as united thereto . 2. It supposeth , that the Body of Christ being thus united with the species of bread may receive all that worship which is due to God alone . Which is not very easie to prove . Because it doth not follow , that where-ever a Body is , there those things must be which do not result by necessary concomitancy from the being of a Body . For since it doth not follow by vertue of the Hypostatical union that where-ever the Divinity is , the humane nature of Christ must be there also ; how doth it necessarily follow , that where-ever the Body of Christ is , the Divinity is so present as to make that Body become an Object of Divine Adoration ? We say the Foot is united to the Soul as well as the Head , but do we therefore say that whatever is in the Soul is equally present in the Foot as in the Head ? as that the Foot reasons , considers , directs as the Head doth . It is not therefore bare union but the manner of Presence , which doth make an Object fit for adoration . That Presence ought to be ( if not glorious and becoming the Divine Majesty in that respect ) yet so well attested , as the Divinity of Christ was in his humane nature , by the voice of Angels , by Testimony of God himself from Heaven , by miracles , by Prophecies , &c. But here is nothing like this ; no evidence being given of the Divine Presence under the Elements , neither from sense , nor reason , nor Scripture . For the Scripture is only pretended to speak of the Body of Christ , and not of his Divinity . R. P. But by vertue of the hypostatical union where-ever the Body of Christ is , his Divine Nature must be present too . P. D. That I know very well is commonly said by you ; but I pray consider these two things . ( 1. ) If the Body of Christ may be present by reproduction of the same Body ; as some of your greatest and latest Divines have asserted ; then there is no such necessity of concomitancy of the Divinity of Christ ; because they say , God may reproduce the same body without all the accidents of it , and consequently without the Hypostatical Vnion . ( 2. ) By the same way of Concomitancy they may hold the Persons of the Father and Holy Ghost to be under the species , and to be there worshipped . For where the Body of Christ is , there the soul is ; where Soul and Body is , there the Divinity is ; where the Divinity is , there the Person of the Son is ; and where the Person of the Son is , there the Persons of the Father and Holy Ghost are too . R. P. You may account this an absurdity , but we account it none at all : yea some of our Divines have said , If the Holy Trinity were not every where , yet it would be in the Eucharist , by vertue of this Concomitancy . P. D. I do not now meddle with your opinions ; I only consider the Patronus bonae Fidei and his Brethren , who do look on these as absurdities , and yet are so foolish to say , that our worshipping God towards the Altar is more absurd than your worshipping Christ on the Altar , on supposition of Transubstantiation . But why worse than Egyptian Idolatry , I beseech you ? R. P. The Egyptians , saith he , pretended some colour for their Idolatry , as than an Ape , or a Cat , or a Wolf , &c. had some participation of the Divinity ; but those that bow down to a Wooden Table are themselves stocks : with much more to that purpose . P. D. Is such a man to be endured in a Christian Common-wealth ( not to say a Church , for excommunication he regards not ) who parallels the adoration given only to the Divine Majesty ( as our Church professeth ) with the Worship of an Ape , or a Cat , or a Wolf , & c ? Nay he makes the Egyptian Idolatry more reasonable than our Worship of God. The only thing that can excuse him is Rage and Madness ; and therefore I leave him to his Keeper . But I pray tell me , was it meer kindness to the Church of England which made T. G. to produce all these passages at full length out of the Patronus bonae Fidei ? Or out of pure spite to Dr. St. by so often repeating the passage of his being delinitus & occaecatus ? And why in such a place , where he pretends only to give an account of Dr. St.'s vain and endless Discourses , doth he bring in this at large ? Is it only for his comfort to let him see , there is one body at least in the world , more foolish and impertinent than he ? We have seen enough of what T. G. ought not to have done , let us now see what he saith Dr. St. ought to have done . R. P. The first thing to be done in a Dispute , is to settle the state of the Controversie upon its true Grounds , by laying down the true notion of the matter in debate ; therefore Dr. St. ought in the first place to have given us the true Notion of Idolatry in the nature of the Thing ; and then to have shewn that notion to have agreed to the honour and veneration which the Church of Rome in her Councils declares may be given to the Images of Christ and the Saints : but he chose rather to dazle the eyes of the Reader with the false lights of meer external Acts , the obscure practice even of wiser Heathens , and the clashing of School-Divines . P. D. Now I hope we are come to something worthy of consideration . I like the method of proceeding very well . And I like Dr. St.'s Book the better , because I think he pursued the right method , beginning first with the Nature of Idolatry and Divine Worship ; and then coming to the first Particular of Image-worship , which he hath handled with great care and exactness in respect of your Councils as well as your Practices and School-Divines . R. P. It is true , he proposed well at first , but like a Preacher that hath patched up a Sermon out of his note-book , he names his Text , and then takes his leave of it . For , what he was to speak to , was Idolatry in the nature of the thing , independently of any positive Law , whereas he speaks only of an Idolatry forbidden by a positive Law ; but if there be no Idolatry antecedent to a positive prohibition , the Heathens could not be justly charged with Idolatry . P. D. In my mind , he did not recede from his Text at all , but pursued it closely ; but you are uneasie at his Application , and therefore find fault with his handling his Text. What could a man speak to more pertinently as to Idolatry in the Nature of the thing , than to consider , what that is , which is acknowledged to be Idolatry both in the Heathens and Arrians ; What that was which the Primitive Church accounted Idolatry in them ; What opinons those have of God , whom the Roman Church do charge with Idolatry ; Wherein the Nature of Divine Worship consists , not only with respect to positive commands , but the general consent of mankind ; Did * he not expresly argue from the Reason and design of solemn Religious worship abstractly from positive Laws ? Did he not shew † from many Testimonies , that the Heathens did look on some peculiar Rites of Divine worship as Sacred and Inviolable , that they chose rather to dye , than to give them any but a Divine Object ? It is true , after this , he enquires into the Law of God , and what acts of worship he had appropriated to himself ; and was there not great Reason to do so ? Are we unconcerned in the Laws God made for his worship ? In my apprehension , this was the great thing T. G. had to do , to prove that Gods Law about worship was barely ceremonial , and only respected the Jews ; but that we are left to the Liberties of the Law of Nature , about Religious worship : but he neither doth this , nor if he had done it , had he overthrown Dr St.'s Book . For he proves in several places , that the Heathens had the same distinctions of soveraign and inferiour worship ; absolute and relative , which are used in the Roman Church ; and if these do excuse now , they would have excused them , who by Scripture and the consent of the Christian Church are condemned for Idolatry . And judge you now , whether Dr. St. took leave of his Text , whether he did not speak to Idolatry in the Nature of the thing ? R. P. But he saith , the Heathens could not understand the nature and sinfulness of Idolatry if not from some Law of God ; which is in effect to clear the Heathens from Idolatry , till that Law was delivered to them ; whereas S. Paul saith , they had a Law written in their hearts , whereby they might understand it ; and Dr. St. ought to have shewn wherein the deordination and sinfulness of Idolatry did consist antecedently to any positive prohibition ; and till this be done , he can make no parallel between the Heathen Idolatry and that of the Roman Church . P. D. I am glad to find any thing that looks like a difficulty , which may give an occasion of farther thoughts about this weighty matter , and of clearing the Doctors mind concerning it . Herein I shall endeavour to explain these two things . 1. How far Dr. St. doth make the nature and sinfulness of Idolatry to depend on the Law of God. 2. Wherein the sinfulness of Idolatry doth consist abstractly from a positive Law. 1. How far he makes the sinfulness of it to depend on a positive Law. 1. He supposes Natural Religion to dictate these things . 1. That God ought to be solemnly worshipped . 2. That this worship ought to be peculiar to the Divine Nature in regard of his Soveraignty over us , and the infinite distance between him and his Creatures . 3. That the giving this solemn worship which is due to God to any Creature , is the invading the Rights of his Soveraignty . Thence he shews from Aquinas , that worship is not given to God because he needs it , but that the belief of one God may hereby be confirmed in us by external and sensible Acts , which cannot be done unless there be some peculiar Acts of his Worship . And external worship is a profession of internal ; acts being expressive of our minds as well as words . Thence he determines , that Idolatry is a sin of the highest nature , because it invades Gods peculiar Rights ; and implyes blasphemy in it , because it takes away from God the peculiarity of his dominion . Are not these arguments drawn from the nature of the thing , and not meerly from a positive Law ? 2. Notwithstanding these dictates of natural Reason concerning the worship of God , yet he supposes mankind to have been so corrupted as to have lost the sense of the sinfulness of giving divine worship to creatures . Which , he saith , they did chiefly on a threefold supposition . ( 1. ) That God committed the Government of the world under him to some inferiour Deities . Or , ( 2. ) That God was the soul of the world , and therefore the worship given to the parts of it did redound to him . Or ( 3. ) That external adoration was below him , and that the service due to God was that of our minds , and the other might be given to Creatures . 3. That God saw it necessary to revive the peculiarity of his worship by his Law given in the Decalogue ; which although given to the Jews , was of an eternal and immutable nature , being not built on any reason peculiar to them , but common to all mankind ; and on this account the Christian Church did look on the same Law as obliging all Christians ; as the Doctour hath proved in several places before cited . 4. That when the Apostles went abroad to reclaim the world from Idolatry , they made use of no other notion of it , than what was received among the Jews ; and by the Reasons on which the Law of God was founded , they convinced the world of that sin of Idolatry , which by the corruption of mankind , and the custom of the world they had lost the sense of . And this was plainly the meaning of Dr. St.'s words to any unprejudiced mind , as appears by laying these things together ; which are all contained in the same discourse . If we say the Gentiles had lost the sense of other sins , as it is evident they had , and the Apostles made use of the Law of God to convince them ; doth it hence follow that the sinfulness of those things did barely depend upon a positive Law ? And therefore the notion of Idolatry may be said to be new , not as though it were not against the principles of Natural Religion , but because they had lost the sense of them : so the Law of Moses was a new Law though it revived the Law of Nature in its moral precepts ; the doctrine of Christ was a new doctrine to the world although most agreeable to the principles of natural reason . ( 2. ) The sinfulness of Idolatry according to natural Religion consists in these things . ( 1. ) In taking away the due sense of the Distance between God and his Creatures : which is a violation of the Rights of his Soveraignty , and consequently it is crimen laesae Majestatis Divinae , or Treason against the Divine Majesty . ( 2. ) In neglecting to give God the worship which was proper to him . And this was the consequent of Idolatry ; and not as though the Nature of Idolatry did lye barely in not giving to God the worship due to him , as T. G. seems to suggest : but when men did accustome themselves to the worship of Idols , they grew so fond of their own inventions , that they had five Ave Maries for one Pater Noster , and so the worship of God came to be almost lost in the croud of Deities which they joyned with him . ( 3. ) In worshipping bad Spirits , instead of good ones ; which craftily insinuated themselves among the Idolaters under the pretence of Inferiour Deities . For so the people still believed them to be good Spirits , and their learned men defied all those who said they worshipped any other , as Dr. St. hath shewed ; yet the Christians proved they were evil , because they received that worship from them , which the good ones would not do . ( 4. ) In disparaging the Divine Nature by making Images to represent him , ( which suggested mean thoughts of God to their minds , lessening the apprehensions of the Greatness of his Majesty ) and hoping to please God by worshipping such representations of him . Which he thought so dishonourable to himself , that he forbids it by a severe Law , and punished the transgressours of it ; and from hence the Christian Church hath accounted the same thing unlawful to them , because so dishonourable to God. ( 5. ) In taking away that dependence upon God , which he expects from his Creatures . For when they suppose that God hath committed the care of these things to any inferiour beings , they are apt to make their addresses to them more frequently because of a vicinity of Nature to them ; and to depend upon them for help in time of need ; which takes off that entire trust in God which is most agreeable to his Wisdom , Goodness and Providence . ( 6. ) In giving divine worship to vile and wicked men instead of God. This was an aggravation of Idolatry , and increased the sinfulness of it ; although the nature of Idolatry doth not lye in giving divine worship to bad men , but to any Creatures . And in this particular lay the abominable sinfulness of the Poetical Idolatry among the Greeks and Romans , which was in this respect worse than of the most barbarous Nations we ever read of . ( 7. ) The more vile the practices , the more mean the submissions , the more gross the errours of Idolaters were , the greater was the sinfulness of Idolatry . Hence the filthy and obscene Actions of the Eastern , Greek and Roman Idolatries ; the mean submissions and the gross errours of the Egyptian Idolatries heightned the sinfulness of them . These are the main things wherein the sinfulness of Idolatry did consist , abstractly from any positive Law. You see how freely I give them to you upon such an invitation , and much good may they do you . If Dr. St. had thought T. G. had desired any such thing from him , I do believe he would have added not only a seventh , but an eighth Chapter for his sake on such a subject as this , which it is so easie to inlarge upon . But I stop for fear T. G. should think I am only patching up a Sermon out of Note-books , yet I think I have not taken leave of my Text. R. P. Did you ever hear of the speaking Trumpet ? P. D. What hath the speaking Trumpet to do with Idolatry ? I am afraid I waked you out of some pleasant dream , you talk so far off from the business . Now I think of it , I have found it by the train of thoughts , in Mr. Hobs his way . Text led you to preaching , and preaching to the speaking Trumpet , because of the rare invention of the Virtuoso to have one Parson to preach to a whole County . R. P. No , that is not it . T. G. brings it in on the occasion of this dispute . P. D. Doth he truly ? But how comes it in ? As the man brought in Hercules into his Sermon by Head and Shoulders ? R. P. T. G. is a man of a great reach ; and therefore he may be allowed to bring in a thing , which another man would never have thought of . P. D. But I pray how ? R. P. You know the Virtuoso argued thus , If the speaking Trumpet might be made to carry the voice a League , then eight mile about , if eight mile , then round a whole County , and then why not from one Nation to another , there being no stop in Art ? P. D. This is very ridiculous ; but how doth T. G. apply it ? R. P. To Dr. St.'s argument against relative Worship ; who saith that by vertue of that , men may worship the Sun , the Stars , the Earth , or any other Creature . P. D. And doth not the argument hold ? R. P. No ; T. G. saith , it is like the Virtuoso's arguing about the speaking Trumpet . P. D. I pray tell how . In my mind T. G. rather imitates the Virtuoso's swiming on the Table ; for he puffs and blows , and moves all the joynts of his Body , but he is on the Table still . The difficulty remains just where it was ; and the speaking Trumpet takes away none of the force of it . For the parity of Reason holds in one case , which it is ridiculous to imagine in the other . R. P. T. G. saith , there is a conformity between it , and the extension of worship to any Creature . For , he saith , there is a stop in nature . P. D. How and where ? For why may not I worship God in any creature as well as by an Image ? Where are the measures and bounds fixed , that thus far we may go and no farther ? Why may we not worship Trees , and Fountains , Earth , and Water , and the whole Host of Heaven as well as an Image ? if we have due apprehensions of God in our minds as the Creator of them , and do not suffer our worship to rest absolutely on the Creatures , but intend to carry it at last to God , and to fall only after an inferiour manner upon them . I cannot for my heart find out this stop in nature . For the reason of relative worship as to an Image is bare imagination , supposing that person to be present who deserves worship : but in the Worship of the Creatures , there is a real presence of the Divinity , and a certain relation which the Creatures have to God ; why therefore may I not worship God in any of his Creatures , as well as by an Image ? and so the ancient Idolatry of the World , which the Christian Religion rooted out , may by the help of this trick of Relative Worship be revived again . R. P. You run too fast . For T. G. saith , the Creatures ever since sense prevailed against reason , are become like stumbling-blocks to the souls of men , and a snare to the feet of the unwise , to allure and draw them to the worship of them . P. D. And do you think Images ( but that they are set so high ) have not more of the Nature of Stumbling-blocks in them ? Are they such immaterial and insensible things , when S. Augustine saith , their very fashion and shape is apt to move men more , and the likeness to a living being prevails more on the affections of miserable men to worship them , than their knowledge that they are not living doth to the contempt of them ; as Dr. St. observed . R. P. But T. G. adds , that those very Divines of the Church of Rome who do admit the consequence in speculation , and do not condemn the practice of it in Philosophical and contemplative men , who consider the creatures purely as the works of God , and as it were behold him present in them ; do notwithstanding utterly condemn the common and promiscuous use 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 . P. D. What is become of the speaking Trumpet now ? and of the stop in nature ? All the danger , it seems , is in the dulness and stupidity of the People . And yet , if I mistake not , T. G. hath provided against this , when he saith , the difference is so great between vulgar Heathens and Christians , as to the Believing in one God the Father Almighty , Maker of Heaven and Earth , and of all things visible and invisible . If the common people have so firm and settled a Notion of this in their minds , they may as easily pass from the Scale of Creatures to the Creatour , as from an Image to what is represented by it . Is there so much danger they should stop in the Creatures ; and none at all they should stop in Images ; when himself confesseth , it is Idolatry to worship the Images themselves ? And since Dr. St ▪ hath shewn from their own Divines , how many wayes Idolatry may be committed in the worship of Images . ( 1. ) If proper Latria or Divine Worship be given to an Image , it becomes an Idol . Nay Bellarmine saith , that those who worshipped an Image of Christ with Divine Honours , although it were for the sake of Christ , and not of the Image , did commit Idolatry . Therefore , he saith , those were condemned for hereticks , who gave Divine Worship to the Image of Christ. If then the people happen to give Divine Worship to an Image , although they no not believe it to be so , yet this doth not excuse them from Idolatry ; for , saith he , although a man pretend in words , the Worship to be Relative , or for the sake of God , or Christ ; yet it being divine worship , he doth really do it absolutely and for themselves . ( 2. ) When Images are worshipped as true representations of the Divine Nature . ( 3. ) When Images are worshipped for the sake of any sanctity , vertue or Divinity abiding in them . But tell me now , whether common people are not in danger of any of these things , as much at least as of resting in the Creatures ? Is it not as easie for them to forget the distinction of absolute and relative worship , or to fancy God to be like the Images of him ; or to imagine some sanctity , vertue or Divinity to be inherent in the Images ; as to stop at the Creatures and to go no higher ? Yea , more than this , have not the common people been charged with doing these things by your own Divines ? When they tell us of their madness in the Worship of Images ; and that there was little or no difference between their worship and that of the Heathens ? in some places cited by Dr. St. Is it possible for any man that observes what the common people do , to imagine that they place no Sanctity , Vertue or Divinity in their Images ? When they walk so many miles barefoot to a certain Image of our Lady ; when they creep upon their bare knees towards it ; when they make formal supplications to the Images , with as much Ceremony as if the persons they represent were present ; when they look with so much submission and devotion towards them ; when they come with such mighty expectations of relief and help from them ; when they tell stories of so many miracles which have been wrought by them ; nay , when their learned men , who should have more wit or honesty , write Books on purpose to heighten these follies and madnesses of the People . Can you , with any face say , there is not so much danger in the worship of Images , as in the worship of the Creatures ? I did not expect , after what Dr. St. had represented in this matter , T. G. should have given so wretched an answer as this . For if this were all to keep men from the Relative worship of Creatures , I dare affirm that most of the Fathers arguments against this sort of Idolatry were very weak and feeble , and that they did not reach the Philosophical and contemplative men ; but only the dull and stupid vulgar ; that there was nothing of real Idolatry in their worship of the Creatures , but only danger to the common people , and scandal to the weak . Name me that Christian , who through all the Primitive Church ever let fall an expression to this purpose . It was Idolatry , downright Idolatry they charged them with in the worship of the Creatures , and not any meer scandalous complyance with the ignorant vulgar . If this had been all they meant , for all that I can see the Work of the Apostles and Primitive Christians had been to have informed them only of the True God whom they were to worship in the Creatures , and if all the People were once throughly informed of this , all the ancient Rites of worship might have continued . They might have still baked Cakes to the Queen of Heaven , and worshipped the whole Host of Heaven ; they might have continued their Devotion to the Earth , and Fire , and Trees and Fountains , if they did but direct their worship through them to God. What mean all those sayings of Fathers , all those Canons of Councils , wherein this very manner of Worship was condemned for Idolatry ? as Dr. St. hath in part shewed . Speak out Gentlemen , and let us know what you think of the Primitive Church , which so freely condemned this Relative Worship ; but never imagine that we will be guided by your modern Schools , or the Doctrine of your Church in these things , against the consent of the whole Primitive Christian Church ; whose Fathers you must condemn as Children , and whose Martyrs you must look on as Fools , if your doctrine of Relative worship be allowed . For most of those who suffered Martyrdom might have escaped if they had allowed these principles of Relative worship ; no more being required of them , but to do as the rest did , to burn a little incense in obedience to the Laws , to make some customary libations before the Emperours Images , to make the common supplications at the Temples of Vesta or Ceres , or any other of the Gods , which the Philosophers understood of the several parts of the world : and might they not have done all these things , and referred the worship ultimately to the True God ? I do not think this so trifling a matter as T. G. makes it , but I think the honour of Christianity and of the Primitive Martyrs deeply concerned in it ; and I wish you not to maintain your Fooleries upon such principles as reflect dishonour upon Christianity it self . R. P. Methinks the speaking Trumpet hath roused you , and put you into a fit of furious zeal . P. D. No Sir , I do assure you . It is the honour I have for Christianity which hath made me speak thus warmly ; for I am very unwilling to have the primitive Christians to suffer as Fools and as weak Brethren . R. P. But T. G. saith from Vossius , That the Gentiles concluded Nature it self to be God , and the parts of it also to be Deities , and that they forsook God and staid in the worship of Nature . P. D. Some persons not inferiour to Vossius for learning or judgement in these matters , do suppose it to be a great mistake in him to make the Gentiles worship inanimate nature for a true God , which say they , is in plain terms to make them Atheists : For then they must own nothing but meer matter in the world . And to what purpose men should worship an inanimate senseless being , it is very hard to understand ; it is therefore much more probable that they did own some inferiour Deities over the several parts of the world , and one Supream which passed through all ; whom they did worship in and by his Creatures . But I am not now to give an account of the Pagan Idolatry , of which we shall have occasion to discourse afterwards . That which I insist upon is , that those who had a right notion of God might upon the principles of relative worship have justified themselves in doing the same things which the Heathens did , provided their intentions were directed aright ; and consequently that there was no necessity of taking away the Heathen Rites as Idolatrous in reference to the parts of the world , but only of acquainting them more fully with the Notion of God , and the nature of Relative Worship . R. P. But T. G. still stands to it , that there is more danger in worshipping the Creatures , than in the worship of Images ; because the Creatures are not so apparently representative of God , as an Image is of the Person represented by it , which carries the thoughts presently and effectually to him . But the other needs a great deal of discourse to discover the analogy they bear to the Creator , and the dependence they have of him for their very being : yet so , that from the greatness and beauty of the Creatures the Maker of them may proportionably be seen . P. D. To this Dr. St. gave a full answer , when he said , that in an object of worship , we are not so much to consider the quickness of representation , as the perfections represented . Although therefore an Image may carry ones mind sooner to the thing represented , than the Creatures ; yet the one is so infinite a disparagement to the Divine Nature in comparison of the other , that there is far greater danger upon T. G.'s principles in one than in the other . I will make this plain to you by this instance . Suppose the Image of a venerable old man with Pontifical Habits set up to represent God Almighty , as hath been usual in the Church of Rome ; and one man worships God by this ; another he looks upon the Sun as a wonderful Work of God , and he worships God as manifesting himself in the Sun ; the Question now is , whether there be more danger in worshipping God by an Image , or by the Sun ? I say by an Image . For ( 1. ) T. G. confesses that Images are unlawful objects of Worship , which are conceived to be proper likenesses of the Divinity ; now I appeal to your self , whether men are not more apt to take the Image of a man for a likeness of the Divinity , than any of Gods Creatures ? Besides ( 2. ) Images do not represent any thing that deserves our worship ; but only lineaments and figures , the work of Painters and Carvers ; but the Creatures represent to our minds infinite power , wisdom and goodness , which are the greatest Motives of Divine Worship . For as Dr. St. hath said , the least work of Nature infinitely exceeds the greatest of Art in curiosity , beauty , strength , proportion ▪ and every thing that can discover Wisdom and Power . ( 3. ) The presence of God in an Image is only by a fiction of the mind , a man fancying the true Object of Worship to be really present ; but in the Creatures there is a real Divine Presence . And where there is greater reason for worship , there is surely the less danger . ( 4. ) If the greater excellency of the Creature make the danger greater , then as Dr. St. argued , where there is less excellency there is less danger ; and consequently there must be less danger in worshipping the Inanimate Creatures than Animate , and Bruits than Men , and mere Moral Men than Saints ; because the danger must increase as the excellency doth : and consequently the Egyptians were more excuseable in their worship than you . And by this reason there was less danger in worshipping the Tail of the Asse our Saviour rode upon , than St. Peter , or his pretended Successor . ( 5. ) There is less danger of Worship where the representation is more divine and spiritual , than where it is more gross and corporeal ; but the representation of God is much more divine and spiritual by his Creatures than by Images . And therefore Cardinal Lugo said , if a Wooden Image may be worshipped for the sake of the exemplar , much more such a lively Image of God as man is . And thus upon this principle of Relative Worship all the several sorts of Idolatry which were used among the Heathens may be revived , and set up with as fair pretences at least as Image-worship . R. P. T. G. saith , If Dr. St. can discern God so easily in his Creatures , as a mans mind is carried from the Image to the Prototype , he believes he is one of the most admirable Persons in the Meletetiques in the whole World. P. D. What is this but trifling in weighty matters ? I would allow T. G. as much scope for his wit , as he would desire ; provided it become the gravity of the subject . What is there in these Meletetiques , but what is the duty of every good man , to see God in his works ? which all persons do who are not Atheists ; And is this a thing to be exposed to scorn and derision ? R. P. But T. G. takes it for that part of Mystical Theology which inessences the soul with God. P. D. Alas for his ignorance ! that he cannot distinguish between natural and mystical Theology . I always took the seeing the great evidences of Gods Power , Wisdom and Goodness in his Creatures to be Natural Theology : and is it not possible to discover God in his works without inessencing the Soul with God ? This is too mean and low for T. G. ; surely you father this upon him . For I can hardly believe this and many other passages you mention , to be written by him ; or else T. G. hath helped me to another piece of Meletetiques ; for I discover him much better in his Works than I did before ; but with no great advantage either as to his Wisdom or Goodness . R. P. You may satisfie your self if you please that I ▪ do not wrong him ; for here 's the Book ; and in the next page he compares Dr. St. with one who said Christ might be better represented by a Cow than a Crucifix , and another who said he detested the Image of Christ Crucified . P. D. For what good end was Dr. St. joyned with these ? ( supposing the stories true , which I hardly believe ) hath he ever said any such thing ? or that tended that way ? It is the worship he writes against , and not the bare representation of Christ Crucified . T. G. was not to seek for Dr. St.'s mind in this matter , for these are his words . I do not say there is as great incongruity in representing the humane nature of Christ , as there was in representing the infinite nature of God , but I say there is as great incongruity still in supposing an Image of whatsoever it be , can be the proper object of Divine Worship . For the humanity of Christ is only capable of receiving adoration from us , as it is hypostatically united to the Divine Nature ; and if the humane nature of Christ be not , what then is the Image of it ? What union is there between the Divine Nature and a Crucifix ? All that can be said is , that imagination supplyes the Union , and Christ is supposed to be present by representation . But ( 1. ) this overthrows all measures and bounds of Worship , and makes it lawful to worship any creature with respect to God. ( 2. ) It contradicts the argument of S. Paul , for then God may be worshipped with the work of mens hands . ( 3. ) 'T is contrary to the sense and practice of the Primitive Church which interpreted the second Commandment to hold against all Images set up for wo●ship , as well those proper to Christians , as others among Jews or Gentiles . Why did not T. G. rather answer these arguments , than make odious comparisons of him , with Viret and Beza ? But there is a reason for all things if a man can hit on it . R. P. But T. G. wonders Dr. St. should discover God so easily in his Creatures , while he saith elsewhere , the Creatures can give no greater than Moral Certainty of the Being of God himself . P. D. It was well thought upon , and deserves an answer ; because T. G. is not the only person who hath cavilled at this . If Dr. St. by Moral Certainty doth mean only a bare probability , there were some colour for the objection , but in the very place to which T. G. referrs , he asserts the highest degree of actual certainty : and that which he calls Moral Certainty , he saith is , a firm , rational , and undoubted certainty . Why then may not Dr. St. discover God in his Creatures , since he asserts so great an assurance of Gods being their Creatour ? R. P. But why then doth he call it Moral Certainty ? P. D. It is meer cavilling , when a mans mind is understood , to be quarrelling at his terms ; especially if they be such , as others have used before him , and seem most agreeable to the nature of the Evidence . For we may conceive these several sorts of Certainty . 1. A Certainty of Principles : which is that , I suppose , they call Metaphysical Certainty . For that was the proper Office of Metaphysicks , to establish certain general principles which might be of Vse to all other Sciences : such as those , that both parts of a contradiction cannot be true of the same thing : and that , of every thing , either the one , or the other part of a contradiction is true . These are such principles , * of which Aristotle saith , it is folly in any man to go about to demonstrate them , any otherwise than by shewing the absurdity of him that denyeth them : They are such , Themistius saith , which every man hath by nature , and without which he cannot be supposed to learn any thing ; and these are called self-evident and indemonstrable principles ; and Axioms ; which need no more than the bare representation of them to the mind , as that the whole is greater than a part . If you take away equal things from equal , the remainder is equal . For whatever depends upon Induction , or needs any medium to prove it , more than the bare perception of terms , was never by any Philosopher accounted an indemonstrable and self-evident principle . Much less were Identical propositions taken for first principles , by any man that ever understood what principles were ; as it were very easie to prove , if there were occasion for it . I have but two things to add concerning this kind of Certainty . 1. That the Certainty of our own Beings , is equal to this Certainty of Principles . It being a thing of natural and immediate evidence . For the very doubting as well as thinking proves the certainty of the being of that which doubts . And where there is such evident perception as of first principles , and our own beings , the assent is as necessary as for the ballance to incline where the greatest weight lyes . 2. That self-evident principles have very little influence upon our knowledge of other things ; and therefore a late Philosopher observes that even that fundamental principle , that it is impossible the same thing should be , and not be at the same time , is of little or no Vse for finding out of Truth . And supposing the first principle of the certainty of our own Beings to be granted the Cartesians ( which no man who thinks can deny them ) yet I do not see how the truth of other things conveyed by our senses can be drawn from thence ; the one being an absolute certainty , the other only depending on a supposition which carryes not equal evidence along with it : which is the next kind . 2. A certainty by sense ; or upon supposition , that we are not so framed as not to be deceived in the most plain and clear perceptions of sense . This is that I suppose they mean by Physical Certainty . It implyes no contradiction we should be so deceived , and consequently it is short of the first kind of Certainty . But withall the supposition is so just and reasonable , that such a mans understanding may be justly questioned , who questions the plain evidence of sense as to light , and day , and bodies , &c. And all mankind in spight of their most subtle arguments do trust their senses : and Epictetus well said , that if he and two or three more were servants to a Sceptick , they would make him hang or starve himself if he did not change his opinion . And Galen saith , the evidence of sense needs no demonstration ; for all those things which are evident to sense are to be believed for themselves . 3. A Certainty by Reason , or of deducing something not known from that which is known . Which is so evident in Mathematical demonstrations that no man who understands the terms , and attends to the proof can forbear his assent . Aristotle did attempt to bring the way of reasoning in other things to Mathematical certainty ; which was the great design of his Logick . To this end he begins with the explication of simple terms , and so he proceeds to propositions , and then to the joyning of two of these so together that from thence a third thing may follow by vertue of some middle term wherein they agree . But because the conclusion may not necessarily follow , where the manner of reasoning was true , therefore in order to demonstration , he supposes two sorts of principles . 1. Axioms , or common principles received by all that understand them . 2. Positions ; which are twofold : 1. Suppositions , or Postulata . 2. Definitions . But after all , he grants that only such things are capable of Demonstration which have a certain and immutable cause . And he puts a difference between a necessary conclusion , and a demonstration . The one depending on the Form of Syllogism , the other upon the necessity of the Cause . But in demonstrative Syllogisms Aristotle doth not require some degree of necessity but the highest , when the connexion between the Subject and Predicate is so great , that one cannot be defined without the other ; so that Logical Demonstration must be of an inseparable property , and by the most immediate and necessary cause . But very few things in the world are capable of such demonstrations , by reason of our ignorance of the essential properties and immediate causes of things ; and those Instances which are brought either by Aristotle or his Commentators are about such things where demonstration was least needful , and tend very little to the improvement of our knowledge . 4. A Certainty which supposes some Moral principles , and proceeds upon them . Such as these , That every Intelligent being acts for some end : That it is not the interest of mankind to deceive one another : That there are some things fit to be chosen , and others to be avoided : That circumstances vary the nature of Actions : That where comparisons are made , the greatest good and the least evil are to be chosen . Such as these , I call Moral Principles : which have self-evidence in them to any man that understands the terms . And whatever doth necessarily follow from these principles may be justly called a Moral Demonstration . 5. A Certainty which supposes an immediate Divine Assistance to preserve the mind from errour , and this is Infallible Certainty . For the mind of man being of it self lyable to mistake in its apprehension and judgement of things , nothing can preserve it from a possibility of errour , but immediate assistance from God , who cannot be deceived and will not deceive . These things being premised , we are now to enquire what kind of Certainty that is , which we have concerning the principles of Religion . 1. For the principles of Natural Religion . You are to consider what kind of Adversary Dr. St. had to deal with , viz. one who pleaded for an infallible Certainty , as that infallibility doth imply Divine Assistance , as necessary in order to an obligation to Assent . Against this Dr. St. objects , that the main foundations of all Religion , which are the Being of God and immortality of the soul , were not capable of this kind of Proof . Because this very notion of Infallibility doth suppose that which he would prove , viz. that there is a God who must give this assistance . But at the same time he yields , that we have as great evidence and certainty , as humane nature is capable of , of such a Being as God is , from the consideration of his Works : which being neither from Mathematical Demonstrations , nor supernatural infallibility he called Moral Certainty . Which he might do from these grounds . 1. Because the force of the Argument from the Creatures depends upon some Moral Principles . Viz. From the suitableness and fitness of things to the Wisdom of an Intelligent and Infinite Agent , who might from thence be inferred to be the Maker of them . It being unconceivable that meer matter should ever produce things in so much beauty , order and usefulness as we see in every Creature ; in an Ant or a Fly as much as in the vast bodies of the Heavens . 2. Because they do suppose some Moral Dispositions in the persons who do most readily and firmly assent to these Truths . For although men make use of the highest titles for their arguments , and call them Infallible Proofs , Mathematical Demonstrations , or what they please ; yet we still see men of bad minds will find something to cavil at , whereby to suspend their assent ; which they do not in meer Metaphysical notions , or in Mathematical Demonstrations . But vertuous and unprejudiced minds do more impartially judge , and therefore more readily give their assent : having no byas to incline them another way . Although therefore the principles be of another nature , and the arguments be drawn from Idea's , or series of Causes , or whatever medium it be , yet since the perverseness of mens will may hinder the force of the argument , as to themselves , the Certainty might be called Moral Certainty . 2. As to the Christian Faith. So he grants , 1. That there are some principles relating to it which have Metaphysical Certainty in them ; as , that Whatever God reveals is impossible to be false , or as it is commonly expressed , though improperly , is infallibly True. 2. That there is a rational Certainty , that a Doctrine confirmed by such Miracles as were wrought by Christ and his Apostle must come from God : that being the most certain Criterion of Divine Revelation . 3. That there was a Physical Certainty of the truth of Christs Miracles and Resurrection from the dead , in the Apostles who were eye-witnesses of them . 4. That there was an Infallible Certainty in the Apostles delivering this doctrine to the world , and writing it for the benefit of the Church in all Ages . 5. That we have a moral Certainty of the matters of Fact , which do concern the Doctrine , the Miracles , and the Books of Scripture : which is of the same kind with the certainty those had of Christs Doctrine and Miracles , who lived in Mesopotamia , at that time ; which must depend upon the credibility of the Witnesses who convey these things , which is a Moral Consideration , and therefore the Certainty which is taken from it may be properly called Moral Certainty . Of which there being many degrees , the highest is here understood , which any matter of fact is capable of . And now I pray tell me , what reason hath there been for all this noise about Moral Certainty ? R. P. T. G. owns that the Dr. in other places doth acknowledge a true certainty of the principles of Religion ; but , he saith , he can say and unsay , without retracting , with as much art and ease as any man he ever read . P. D. I had thought unsaying had been retracting . But Dr. St. saith as much in those very places T. G. objects against , as in those he allows . Only T. G. delights in cavilling above most Authors I have ever read . R. P. But doth not Dr. St. allow a possibility of falshood notwithstanding all this pretence of Certainty ? P. D. Whatever is true , is impossible to be false ; and the same degree of evidence any one hath of the truth of a thing , he hath of the impossibility of the falshood of it : therefore he that hath an undoubted certainty of the truth of Christianity , hath the same certainty that it is impossible it should be false . And because possibility and impossibility are capable of the same distinctions that Certainty is , therefore according to the nature and degrees of Certainty is the possibility or impossibility of falshood . That which is Metaphysically certain is so impossible to be false , that it implyes a contradiction to be otherwise : but it is not so in Physical Certainty , nor in all rational Certainty , nor in Moral : and yet , whereever any man is certain of the truth of a thing , he is proportionably certain that it is impossible to be false . R. P. This only relates to the person , and not to the Evidence ; Is there any such evidence of the Existence of a Deity , as can infallibly convince it to be absolutely true , and so impossible to be false ? P. D. I do not doubt , but that there are such evidences of the Being of God , as do prove it to any unprejudiced mind impossible to be otherwise . And T. G. had no reason to doubt of this , from any thing Dr. St. had said , who had endeavoured so early to prove the Being of God , and the Principles of Christian Faith ; before he set himself to consider the Controversies which have happened in the Christian Church . T. G. therefore might well have spared these reflections , in a debate of so different a nature ; but that he was glad of an opportunity to go off from the business , as men are , that know they are not like to bring it to a good issue . R. P. T. G. confesseth this is a digression ; but he promises to return to the matter ; and so he does I assure you , for he comes to the second thing , which , he saith , the Dr. ought to have done , viz. to have shewed how the Notion of Idolatry doth agree to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils . P. D. It is a wonder to me , you should think him defective in this , when he shews that there are two things from whence the sense of the Roman Church is to be taken ; 1. From the Definitions of Councils . 2. From the practice of the Church . 1. From the Definitions of Councils . And here * he entred upon the consideration of what that worship was , which was required to be given to Images : and shewed from the words of the Council , and from the Testimony of the most eminent Divines of the Roman Church , that it was not enough to worship before Images , and to have an intention to perform those external Acts ; but there must be an inward intention to worship the Images themselves ; and that the contrary doctrine was esteemed little better than downright Heresie . 2. From the Practice of the Church . For he shews many of your best Divines went upon this principle , that God would not suffer his Church to err ; and therefore they thought the allowed practice of the Church sufficient for them to defend those things to be lawful which they saw generally practised . And from hence he makes it appear that the Church of Rome hath gone beyond the Council of Nice in two things . 1. In making and worshipping Images of God and the B. Trinity , which was * esteemed madness and Pagan Idolatry in the time of the second Council of Nice ; and is justified by the modern Divines of the Church of Rome from the general practice of their Church . 2. In giving the Worship of Latria to Images ; † which was condemned by the Council of Nice ; and notwithstanding is defended by multitudes of Divines in the Roman Church , from the allowed practice in the Worship of the Cross ; both before and after the Council of Trent . After which he enquires at large into the publick Offices , and commended Devotions of that Church in respect to Images , and from thence he * proves that 1. As to Consecration of Images for worship , 2. As to the Rites of Supplication to them ; 3. As to pompous procession with them , the modern Church of Rome doth not fall short of the practice of Pagan Rome . And do you think all this is not applying the notion of Idolatry home to the Roman Church ? When , 1. He shews by the principles of the second Council of Nice , the modern practices of the Church of Rome are chargeable with Idolatry . 2. That the practices agreeable with that Council were charged with Idolatry by the Western Church in the Council of Francford , not from any mistake of their meaning , but because they looked on the Worship then decreed to be proper adoration . R. P. But T. G. saith , If the Worship defined by the Council of Nice were inferiour Worship , and not Latria , as Dr. St. confesseth , then nothing can be clearer than that it was not the Worship due to God , and consequently the Church of Rome cannot be chargeable with Idolatry from any thing contained in that decree . P. D. Will T. G. never understand the difference between the intention of the person and the Nature of the Act ? They might declare it to be only inferiour Worship , but the Council of Francford took it to be proper adoration which was due only to God. And if that Councils Judgement must stand ; all those in the Church of Rome who give Latria to the Cross , must be guilty of Idolatry . R. P. Doth not the Church of England allow bowing to the Altar , which if the Altar had any sense would think were done to it ; as T. G. saith , he was certainly informed of a Countrey fellow who being got near the Altar in his Majesties Chapel , thought all the Congies had been made to him , and so returned Congy for Congy . And if bowing may be used out of Religious respect to the Altar , why not kneeling , or prostration , or fixing our eyes in time of Prayer , or burning Incense or Lights before the Images of Christ and his Saints : but how can Dr. St. purge the Church of England from Idolatry in that practice , when he saith , that any Image being made so far the object of Divine Worship , that men do bow down before it , ( and he supposes the same will hold for any other creature ) it doth thereby become an Idol , and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment ? P. D. What would T. G. have done , had it not been for this practice of bowing towards the Altar ? when yet he cannot but know that the practice of it is not enjoyned by our Church , for the Canon leaves it at liberty ; If the Church of Rome did the same about the Worship of Images , the parallel would hold somewhat better . But the Church of Rome declares Religious Worship is to be given to Images , and our Church declares that none is to be given to the Altar , and doth not this make an apparent difference ? If the Countrey fellow standing without the rails fancied the Congies made to himself ; what would he have done , if he had stood within an Image of our Lady , and seen all the Courtship that had been used towards her by some of her devoted servants and slaves ; when he beheld the bare knees bleeding , the tears trickling , the breast knocking , the eyes scarce lifted up to shew the greater reverence and humility towards the Image , what could he have thought , but that he was shut up within the bowels of the Goddess they worshipped ? Whereas if the Countrey fellow had gone up into the Court , and seen the ancient servants make their Reverences after dinner in the Presence chamber , he would soon have been better informed ; if some of the old Courtiers had told him , it was the ancient Custome of the Court to make their Reverences in all Chambers of Presence , and from thence when they went into his Majesties Chapel they used the same custome out of Reverence to God Almighty whose Presence-chamber they accounted the Chapel to be . What is all this to giving Religious Worship to the Altar ? wherein the force of all T. G. saith must lye . R. P. But you do bow before the Altar , as we do before Images . P. D. I utterly deny that . For your Church declares bowing before Images without an intention to worship the Images is next to Heresie , ( if we are to take the sense of your Councils from their own words and the explication of Divines ; ) You explode their Doctrine who say , that we are only to worship God before them . And is there no difference between the Acts of these two men as to Images themselves ? The one declares that he looks on no Religious worship as due to an Image , but it serves him only to put him in mind of him who is the proper object of Worship , and he never intends by any Act of his to worship the Image it self : another saith , the Church requires Images to be worshipped , and for my part I think my self bound to do what the Church requires , and therefore it is my intention to give Worship not barely to the object represented , but to the very Image it self , although it be on the account of its representation . And the latter Dr. St. hath shewed to be the only allowed sense in the Church of Rome , and the other rejected either as heretical or next to it . Which T. G. never so much as once takes notice of . But however this doth not reach our case ; for we believe the second Commandment to be still in force , which is express and positive against all worship of Images , and bowing down to them , but that which was lawful among the Jews , notwithstanding that precept , viz. to Worship God towards the Mercy Seat , is still lawful among Christians , viz. to Worship God alone , but towards the Altar . And thus I hope T. G. will at last be brought a little better to understand the sense of our Church in this practice , and how far it is from being a parallel with your Worship of Images . R. P. T. G. finds great fault with Dr. St. 's citation out of Card. Lugo , about submission to Images , because he left out aliquis , and potest dici , and I tell you , he makes a huge outcry about it , and fills up several pages with it . P. D. Doth he truly ? It was a great sign he wanted matter to fill up his book . But I pray on what occasion was this passage brought in ? It may be that will give us some light into this matter . R. P. T. G. referrs to the page , but he never mentions the occasion . It is such a page . P. D. Let us see , what Dr. St. was proving in that place . It was , that by the Council of Nice as it is explained by the Divines of the Roman Church , true and real Worship is to be given to Images ; and for this he produces the several Testimonies of Suarez , Medina , Victoria , Catharinus , Naclantus , Bellarmine , Soto , Velosillus , Pujol , Tannerus , Ysambertus , Bassaeus , Sylvius , Arriaga , and at last Card. Lugo . If the thing be not proved , which he designed , why is Card. Lugo alone produced ? If it be proved , why is Card. Lugo produced at all ? R.P. Because he left out aliquis and dici potest . P. D. But suppose the other be sufficient to express his concurrence with the rest , what unfairness is there in that , to shorten his words when he layes no weight upon the manner , but upon the thing ? Had Dr. St. charged Lugo with holding greater submission than the rest , and then left out the qualifying expressions , he had done him injury . But he knew Lugo meant no more than the rest , and produced him for no other purpose . If there be but any inward affection carried to the Image , which may be called a certain kind of submission to the Image , it is all one to Dr. St.'s purpose ; which was only to prove , as he saith , in the same page , from the Acts of the Council , and the Judgement of their learned and eminent Divines , that by the Decree of the Nicene Council such true and real Worship is to be given to Images as is terminated upon the Images themselves . Did these Testimonies prove this , or did they not ? If they did not ; why did not T. G. discover them all ? if they did ; why doth he so vainly cavil , about some thing impertinent to the main business , in the very last of all ? So that , after all this cry , there is very little Wool , unless it be that which is made of Goats hair . R. P. But this tends to breed an impression in the Reader , that the inward affection Card. Lugo required was of giving submission to an Image as superiour ; because in another place he quotes the same Author for making cultus to signifie Reverence towards Superiours . P. D. But doth not the Cardinal say so ? R. P. T. G. saith nothing to the contrary , which I am sure he would have done , if he had not . P. D. Well then ; Lugo makes worship to be a Reverence towards Superiours ; but he saith , that true worship is due to Images . And is not this making the Image Superiour ? R. P. I thought where I should have you ; but T. G. hath explained Lugo's meaning from himself . P. D. Let me hear it as T. G. that candid and ingenuous dealer hath it . R. P. 1. He saith , 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 the Prototype absolutely , i. e. for its own proper excellency ; but the Image only with a relative worship , i. e. for the excellency not of the Image it self , but of the Prototype , which kind of Worship he affirms to be far inferiour to the other , which is absolute . 2. We have not the same inward submission towards the Image , which we have towards the Prototype ; for we submit our selves to the Prototype , acknowledging it to be more excellent than our selves , and superiour to us , which kind of submission we cannot prudently conceive to belong to an Image ; nor indeed any at all , by which we submit our selves to it , preferring it before us . 3. The sole external act of kissing or bowing is not so carryed to the Image but that some inward affection also goes along with it , which he saith , may be called also some kind of affection of submission ; by which he means an affection of submitting our selves to the Image ; for as much as the Act of the Will from which it proceeds is an affection of performing those acts about their Images , which we are wont to exercise towards our Superiours . P. D. Now I hope , we have the Cardinals true meaning . From whence I desire you to observe . 1. That the difference he puts between the Worship of the Image and the Prototype lyes in the inward estimation of the Excellency of the one above the other ; which is as much as to say , that he doth really think there is more excellency in Christ himself than in a Crucifix . Which deserves a special remark ; especially being made by a Cardinal . When one might venture to say , that there is scarce an Idolater so sottish in the world , but will acknowledge his Deity to be much better than the Image of him ; and that he worships one for his own excellency , and the other only out of respect to him . 2. He acknowledges , that all those Acts whereby we express reverence towards Superiours may be used towards Images , as bowing , kneeling , prostration , &c. 3. That there is some kind of inward affection which may be called a certain kind of affection of submission going along with these external Acts. And doth not all this amount to true and real worship ? which was the thing Dr. St. designed to prove . For here , without exception , all those Acts whereby our reverence towards Superiours is expressed , may be used to Images ; i. e. all tokens of submission to them , and an inward affection of some kind , which may be called affection of submission . By which we find it yielded to us that all external Acts of Adoration may be given to Images , provided , that the inward affection be carryed after a different manner to the Prototype and to the Image ; which no Idolater in the world , if Maimonides may be believed , would ever deny : if they believed any other Gods besides their Idols , as he saith , there were none but did . So that Card. Lugo upon fair ground gives up all peculiarity of any external Acts of Divine Worship ; and for all that I can see , may sacrifice to an Image , or offer up the Host to it , on the same reasons that they make their prostrations before it . And he understood the consequence of his own Doctrine so well , that he doth not seem to boggle at it on the account of adoration . But as long as T. G. yields that Cardinal Lugo doth allow all external Acts of submission to Images , and such an inward affection as to make that submission sincere and real , Dr. St. hath all which his heart could desire from this testimony of Lugo . R. P. But all this amounts to no more , T. G. saith from him , but that the Prototype deserves to be treated honourably , not only in it self , but in all things which have connexion with it , as an Image or the like . P. D. That is , God may be worshipped in any Creature ; and any act of adoration may be performed towards it , if it have a respect to him : whether by a real or imaginary presence . Which takes away the distinction of divine worship as it is applied to outward acts , and all necessary discrimination between the Worship we give to God and to his Creatures ; And if this be for the honour of his Soveraignty and Dominion over us , let the world judge . R. P. After all this , T. G. saith , that Dr. St. agrees with Cardinal Lugo in the thing , although he quarrels with him about the words . P. D. That is news indeed . How doth T. G. make that out ? R. P. Because he saith from Aquinas , that although no irrational or inanimate being be capable of that real excellency to deserve any honour from us for its own sake ; yet on the account of a relation to divine things they may deserve a different regard and usage from other things . P. D. This is true ; but he immediately distinguishes from St. Augustin between the peculiarity of use belonging to the sacred utensils , and the worship given to Images . R. P. That is no matter how he distinguishes , as long as the consequence holds from one to the other . For if a Religious respect be due to sacred places and things on the account of their Relation to God , and an inward intention of the mind to express it towards them by an outward token of submission , as bowing to the Altar , it comes to the same thing which Cardinal Lugo pleads for to an Image , so that if one be Idolatry , the other must be so too . So that T. G. concludes very triumphantly that by these edge-tools , viz. School-distinctions Dr. St. hath cut the throat of his own Cause . And then he brings in the Patronus bonae Fidei again . P. D. Methinks another writing of the same worthy Author had been much more proper , called Jugulum Causae . But is it possible for T. G. not to apprehend the difference of these things ? I will once more endeavour to make it plain to you . The reverence to sacred places and things differs from the relative worship of Images in these things . 1. In the Acts belonging to them . For this I need only to repeat Dr. St.'s words . Is there no difference between a Religious respect ( if I may so call it ) to sacred places and things , and all the most solemn Acts of Adoration which were ever given to Images by the most sottish Idolaters ? Such as kneelings before them , prostrations , praying with their eyes fixed upon them , as though they were speaking to them , burning incense and lights before them , which are as great testimonies of worship as ever were used by the greatest and most sottish Idolaters . And here Cardinal Lugo allows all external acts of submission to Images ; whereas in the other case , discrimination is all that is contended for , out of Reverence to them . As for bowing towards the Altar , it hath been so often answered before , that I shall not repeat . 2. In the Reason of Worship . For if the Reason assigned for the Worship of Images be peculiar to them , then it cannot hold for all sacred things and places . Now the Reason of the Worship of Images is representation of the Prototype as present to the fancy of him that worships ; but this cannot hold for the sacred Vtensils and places which have their honour for the sake of the use they are dedicated to . Thus if Images in Churches were appointed only for use without any worship to be given to them , it would come much nearer to a parallel , than they can do now , when they are consecrated and set up on purpose for adoration ; as they are continually in the Roman Church . 3. In the distinction the Law of God makes between them . For when it most severely prohibits the worship of Images , it not only allows but commands the reverencing Gods Sanctuary ; and the consecrating Sacred Vessels for the use of the Temple . So that where the Law distinguisheth we have reason to do it too : and so the Christian Church did , when it looked on the worship of Images as unlawful , yet they did shew respect and honour to sacred things and places : and honour is all they are capable of as St. Augustine saith , but no worship doth belong to them . So that these Edge-Tools do no execution at all but upon T. G.'s Images ; which could never have been framed without them , and yet are destroyed by them . R. P. You think to escape about the Doctor 's unfaithful reporting the sense of Authors with this one Testimony of Cardinal Lugo ; but you are deceived , I have another ready for you of Gregory Nyssen . P. D. Another ! I expected hundreds upon T. G.'s outcries . When he saith , the Citations are many and long , and out of Authors of all Nations , and all Ages , and all Religions . What! but another ? R. P. You would have T. G. write an Answer as big as Foxes Acts and Monuments , but you are deceived , he is wiser than so . For he hath a particular aversion to a great Book upon one subject . If he can discover four or five citations faulty , that will take away the reputation of all the rest . P. D. A very short way I confess . Methinks one or two may serve ; and save Candle and Firing , and Waste-paper . Nay one single Testimony may do it , with an end of an old Latine verse tacked to it , Crimine ab uno — especially such a one as this of Cardinal Lugo . But , however let us hear that of Gregory Nyssen . R. P. It is about the Arians being charged with Idolatry : which is brought in with a great deal of Pomp among other Testimonies , to shew that the Arians were charged with Idolatry for the worship they gave to Christ , whom they acknowledged to be a Creature , from thence to parallel their worship with that of the Church of Rome to the Saints . P. D. I am glad to hear but one of those Testimonies challenged ; for if that be given up , there are enough remaining to prove his design : which you mightily mistake , if you think it was only to parallel your worship of Saints with the Arians Idolatry . For this is never so much as mentioned by Dr. St. ; but he names several considerable advantages which are gained by it in this subject of Idolatry . 1. That there may be Idolatry where the true God is owned , and worshipped , as he was no doubt among the Arians ; from whence it follows , that the Nature of Idolatry doth not consist in giving Soveraign Worship to a Creature , without respect to the Creator . Which will be of use to us in the debate about the Pagan Idolatry . 2. That Relative Latria being given to a Creature is Idolatry , for notwithstanding they looked on Christ as the express Image of God ; yet because they gave divine worship to him , supposing him to be a Creature , they were charged with Idolatry . 3. That making God the Fountain and Original of those excellencies for which any Creature is worshipped doth not excuse from Idolatry . For the Arians were guilty who supposed all the excellencies of Christ to be derived from God. 4. That no distinction of Doulia and Latria doth excuse from Idolatry ; For the Fathers make the giving Doulia to Christ to be Idolatry . 5. That the notion of an Idol is so far from being a meer imaginary figment or Chimera , that it was attributed by the Fathers to the most excellent Being , even to Christ himself , when Divine Worship was given to him as a Creature . These are matters of great moment , if they hold good ; doth he pass all these by , only to fall upon one single Testimony ? If he doth , it is a shrewd sign , though he cried out of Gregory Nyssen , yet he was pinched somewhere else . Well ; but what is this horrible crime about Gregory Nyssen ? Hath he brought him under an Index Expurgatorius ? Hath he falsified his words and corrupted the Text ? Or hath he wilfully altered his sense and meaning ? Hath he done it in all the quotations out of him , or only in one ? Whatever it is , let us have it . R. P. It is in the citation out of his Oration de laudibus Basilii . P. D. But the Dr. hath three or four more out of the same Author . It seems they stand well enough . Hath not the Dr. truly cited his words ? R. P. Yes , T. G. saith , as to the general truly enough . P. D. What is the fault then ? R. P. That he doth not add the words that follow , wherein he shews what kind of worship that was which the Arians gave to Christ ; viz. not only to worship and serve him , but also to six hopes of salvation in a Creature and to expect judgement from it . And was it not neatly done of the Doctor to wrap up all this in those short words , The Devil perswaded men to return to the worship of the Creature ? Which is a Laconism not observed by him on other occasions : but it was here done on purpose to conceal from the Reader the apparent difference between the worship of Saints in the Church of Rome , and the Arians worship of Christ. P. D. I am glad , it is out at last , after so much straining . See how much choler there is in it ! Indeed , it might have done him much harm , if he had kept it in any longer . But I wonder the Laconick Gentleman doth complain of shortness . Do you think the Laconian in Boccalini would have made such a noise for missing a page or two in Guicciardins War of Pisa ? Do you in earnest think Dr. St. should take such pains to conceal that which every one knows , that the Arians fixed their hopes of Salvation on Christ , and expected him to come to Judgement ? What wonderful discovery is this , which T. G. hath made ? Nay Dr. St. himself takes notice of this Objection , that they did give a higher degree of worship to Christ than any do to Saints ; and returns this Answer to it ; that they did only give a degree of worship proportionable to the degrees of excellency supposed to be in him far above any other creatures whatsoever . But still that worship was inferiour to that which they gave to God the Father : and at the highest such as the Platonists gave to their celestial Deities . And 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 to him : so that the worship they gave to Christ must be inferiour to that honour they gave to the Supreme God whom they believed to be Supreme , Absolute and Independent . R. P. T. G. takes notice of this Answer , and objects two things against it . First , That it stands too far off from the words of Nyssen at the distance of 350 pages ; and so proves a very late salve for so old a wound . P. D. Especially , considering how poor Nyssen lay a bleeding all that while . Is it not enough for us to unswer Objections ; unless we put them just in the page you would have them , after the way of Objections and Solutions ? I pity the hard fate of the Laconian that hath 350 leaves to turn over , longer than the War of Pisa. O for the Gallies ! But I hope he will consider better of it . R. P. You may jest as you please at this Answer ; but the second is a very solid one : for T. G. shews the parallel to be inconsistent , both with the practice of the Arians , and Doctrine of the Fathers . P. D. What parallel doth he mean ? Dr. St. proves from hence inferiour relative worship given to a creature to be Idolatry , in the sense of the Fathers . Is this true , or is it not ? R. P. You have not patience to hear T. G.'s answer out . For , 1. He saith , The Fathers do acknowledge a worship due to the Saints , and particularly Gregory Nyssen in an Oration produced by him : and therefore if they had condemned the Arians of Idolatry for giving only a like worship to Christ though in a higher degree , they had condemned themselves for the like crime . 2. The Arians made no such Apology for themselves , as the Doctor makes for them , viz. that they gave Soveraign and absolute worship to God , and only inferiour and relative worship to Christ. 3. Why might not the generality at least believe Christ to be of a superiour Order , so as to have 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 ? 4. They were chargeable with Idolatry , because they did avowedly give 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 signs in the duties of Religion receive their determination , were understood to be due only to God incarnate . Which makes their case very much different from that of the Church of Rome , which gave to Saints and Images only such Acts of Worship as by the common use and practice of the Christian World before Luther , were determined and understood , when applied to Saints and Images , to express an inferiour degree of Reverence or Worship , than what is due to God himself . This is the substance of T. G.'s answer . P. D. I confess T. G. now offers something worthy a serious debate . Which may be reduced to these two things . 1. What those Acts of Worship were , which the Arians were charged with Idolatry for giving to Christ supposing him a Creature . 2. How far the Church of Rome is liable to the same charge , for the worship she gives to Saints and Images . 1. For the Acts of Worship which the Arians were charged with Idolatry in giving to Christ as a Creature . The strength of T. G.'s answer lies in two things . 1. That they were given absolutely to Christ , as a lesser God. 2. That they were such Acts which by the consent of the Church did signifie proper Divine worship . 1. Let us consider whether the worship given to Christ could be absolute upon their supposition that Christ was a Creature . T. G. speaks somewhat faintly in this matter , at first saying only , Why might it not be absolute ? at least as to the generality ? But afterwards , he takes heart , and sayes roundly that the Fathers evermore charge the Arians for giving absolute Divine Worship to Christ , although they believed him to be of a different nature from the Supreme God : which he hopes is far enough from the Doctors relative or inferior Worship . But I am very far from being satisfied with this Answer . For I pray tell me wherein lies the difference between Soveraign Worship , and Inferiour : In Acts of the Mind , or in External Acts ? R. P. In Internal doubtless ; on T. G.'s principles , who makes External Acts to signifie according to the determination of the Church . P. D. What are those Internal Acts wherein the Worship of the Supreme God consists ? R. P. A due esteem of his excellency , and suitable affection to it . P. D. Must not this due esteem distinguish him from all Creatures ? R. P. Yes surely ; for otherwise it can be no due esteem : the distance being infinite between God and his Creatures . P. D. Can a man then have an equal esteem of God and a Creature ? which he acknowledges to be made by him ? R. P. Certainly not . P. D. Then it must be unequal , according to the difference of uncreated and created excellencies . R. P. Yes . P. D. Then the Worship must be unequal ; and that which is given to a Creature must be inferiour worship . R. P. But T. G. saith , they might believe true Divinity to be in him , as the Heathens did of their lesser Gods. P. D. True Divinity ! What is that , when they believed him to be a Creature ? did they take him for an uncreated creature ? For that can be no true Divinity which is not uncreated ; and yet you confess they owned Christ to be a Creature . What nonsense and contradiction would T. G. cry out upon , if Dr. St. had ever said any such thing ? R. P. Might not they believe Christ to be assumed as Consort in the Empire , and so absolute Divine Honour to be due to him ? P. D. What do you mean by this absolute Divine Honour ? For I have already proved it must be inferiour Worship . R. P. I do suppose absolute Divine Honour is that which is given to a Being on the account of its own excellency , and relative from the respect it hath to another . P. D. But whether absolute or relative , it is proper Divine Honour you mean. And doth not that imply an esteem of proper divine excellency , and is not that proper to God alone and uncreated ? How then can this absolute Divine Honour be given to a Created Being ? R. P. How did the Gentiles to their false Gods ? P. D. Just as the Arians , for they made distinctions in their worship ; as will appear when we come to that subject . R. P. What do you make then this worship of the Arians to be ? P. D. An Inferior and Relative Worship ; for they supposed they worshipped God , when they gave those Acts of Worship to Christ which were agreeable to the excellencies that were in him . R. P. But ( 2. ) Those Acts were such as by the consent of the Church were understood to be due only to God incarnate . P. D. Here we are to know , both what these Acts were ; and what power the Church hath to impose a signification upon them . R. P. T. G. names these . 1. Worshipping and serving him with Latria . 2. Putting their trust in him as Mediator of Redemption . 3. Invoking him as the Judge of the quick and the dead , &c. P. D. What means this &c. I am afraid here is something beyond the trick about Gregory Nyssen , which lies under this Dragons Tayl. Are these all which Dr. St. mentioned ? R. P. I know not that ; if you know more I am sure to hear of it . P. D. You are not mistaken ; for Dr. St. had shewed at large , ( 1. ) That external adoration was one of those things which the Fathers charged the Arians with Idolatry for giving to Christ supposing him to be a Creature : from Peters forbidding Cornelius , and the Angel St. John ; because this is only proper to God : from the plain testimonies of Athanasius , Epiphanius and St. Cyril . ( 2. ) That invocation of Christ as a Mediator of Intercession , was condemned as Idolatry in the Arians . Athanasius supposes it inconsistent with Christianity to joyn Christ , if he were a creature , in our prayers , together with God. ( 3. ) That they made no such distinction of worshipping and serving with Latria , as T. G. insinuates . For he shews from the Testimonies of Athanasius , and even Gregory Nyssen , St. Cyril and Theodoret , that the very worship which they condemn for Idolatry is called Doulia by them . And therefore these are meer shifts and evasions which do not remove the difficulty at all . I deny not , but they did put their trust in Christ for Salvation , and expect his coming to judge the quick and the dead ; but I say these were but expressions suitable to the apprehensions they had of his excellencies above any other Creatures , but still inferiour to Gods : and the Fathers did not charge them with Idolatry meerly for these Acts , but for the other likewise mentioned before . R. P. But T. G. hath a reserve still behind , viz. that it is in the Churches Power to determine the signification of external Acts of Worship , what belongs to Soveraign or proper Divine Worship , and what to inferiour worship ; that at that time the Church might take those for Acts of Divine Worship which afterwards by consent of the Church came only to signifie inferiour Acts of Worship when applied to Creatures ; and therefore the argument cannot hold from that time to after Ages . P.D. I think you have hit upon T. G.'s meaning : and in truth it is the only thing to be said in the case . For if Idolatry be a thing in the Churches Power to determine , it is the only way in the world for the Church of Rome to free her self ( supposing that power to be lodged in her ) ; but if it should happen that the Law of God , the consent of Nations , the Reason of Divine Worship and the Practice of the Primitive Church have determined Idolatry antecedently to the power of the present Church : what a case are you then in ? The guilt of Idolatry must lie heavily upon you , and if it be so great a sin as your own Schoolmen determine , you have a great deal to answer for ; notwithstanding all the tricks and evasions of T. G. But why doth not T. G. make the external Acts of Theft , Adultery , Murder and Perjury , as much under the Churches power as those of Idolatry ? But I forbear now , supposing that we shall meet with this useful notion again before we end this debate . R. P. You are mistaken , if you think T. G. had no other answer to give : For he saith , they could not be understood of that worship which our Church gives to Saints , because they acknowledge an inferiour worship due to the Saints ; for which he quotes St. Austin , Gregory Nazianzen , St. Hierom and Gregory Nyssen . P. D. Had T. G. the confidence to quote St. Augustin again for this , when Dr. St. purposely answered this very Testimony in his Book which T. G. pretends here to answer , and proves evidently from him that no worship was then given to the Saints ? and to all this T. G. returns nothing , but however he brings the same Testimony again ; as whole and as sound , and as much to the purpose as ever . Gregory Nazianzen is quoted at peradventure , for I remember nothing in the Orat. de Nat. Christ. to that purpose , although I lately read it over . St. Hierom speaks only of reverencing the Sepulchres of the Martyrs : but all the weight lies upon Gregory Nyssen , and what , I pray , saith this single Witness to the business ? R.P. More than you will be willing to hear , or able to answer . For in his Oration upon St. Theodore that great and holy Martyr , ( which even Rivetus himself that capricious Fanatick in Criticism doth not question to be his genuine work ) he commends the peoples devotion to the Martyrs , he describes the magnificent structure of the Temple , the pieces of Sculpture in it , and especially the picture of the Martyr ; then coming to the Shrine he shews the esteem they had for his Relicks ; and if they were admitted to touch his body , they embrace it as if they beheld it yet alive ; and weeping over it as if he were whole before them , they solicit 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 . And then he dilates himself upon the Acts of the Martyr and the great benefits they received by him : and at the end of his Oration addresses himself to him in these words , We stand in need of many benefits , do thou intercede and deprecate with our common King and Lord for thy Country . Do thou as a Souldier fight in our defence . And in case there be need of greater intercession call an Assembly of thy Brother Martyrs ; let the prayers of many just persons expiate the sins of multitudes of Offenders . Admonish Peter , excite Paul , and John also the beloved Disciple to be solicitors for the Churches they have founded ; that Idolatry may not lift up its head , that Heresies may not overgrow the Vineyard , &c. But by the Power of thine and thy fellows intercession , O admirable man , and eminent among Martyrs , the Christian Church may be a plentiful Field of Harvest , &c. If Dr. St. had been present at this Oration , saith T. G. how may we think would his zeal have urged him to have cried out Idolatry , flat Idolatry , very real Idolatry , meer Heathenish Idolatry . P. D. I am not of your mind in this ; for I suppose he would have considered the allowances to be made for an eloquent person in a Panegyrical Oration ; when things are amplified , heightned , improved , with all the most moving figures and strains of Rhetorick to excite the Auditors admiration and affection to the party commended . And he must be a great stranger to the Schools of Eloquence that will form doctrines and devotions from Apostrophe's and Prosopopeia's . I do not think Dr. St. would have charged Cicero a jot the more for Idolatry for his praying to the Hills and Woods of Alba , Vos Albani tumuli atque luci , oro atque obtestor : What! flat Idolatry ! Heathenish Idolatry ! praying to Hills and Woods . No such matter . For so Rhetoricians will tell T. G. what great scope Orators may take in the representation of persons and the things done by them ; and how mightily those figures both adorn the Oration and move the Auditors ; But withal , that these are figures it is very easie to exceed in , and it requires great judgement to manage them with a due decorum . If it were needful for T. G. I could produce the Testimonies of both Greek and Latine Rhetoricians to this purpose . All the question is , whether Gregory Nyssen spake like an Orator in these expressions , for which we must consider the character of the Person , and the Occasion of speaking . As to Gregory Nyssen , Gregory Nazianzen severely rebukes him in a whole Epistle for affecting more the Glory of an Orator than of a Christian ; and this after he was a Priest , and devoted to the service of Christ ; in so much that many Christians were very much offended at him . And what wonder is it to find such a person , on such an occasion as making a Panegyrical Oration on a Martyr , laying on all his colours , opening his perfuming pots , and using more the figures of an Orator , than the exactness of a Divine ? Nay , it was become so general a Custom among their Eloquent men to exceed in their Panegyrical Orations , that I find Theodoret quoted for saying , No rule of Doctrine is to be taken from them . And it is agreed by your Divines as well as our own , that the Fathers in their popular Orations do make use of such bold figures , as are not to be made a foundation for doctrines to be taken from them . Therefore this Apostrophe to Theodorus by Gregory Nyssen is no argument to prove invocation of Saints ; there being a great difference between flowers of Rhetorick and Forms of Devotion . R. P. But he commends the devotion of the people to the Martyrs , and calls it a pure worship . P. D. That he might well do , as the solemnities of the Martyrs were observed out of honour to God and the Christian Religion . For then the Christians met at the Tombs of the Martyrs to perform the publick worship of God there ; and afterwards erected Churches upon their memories , so that the place , the time , the occasion of meeting was for the honour of the Martyrs , but the worship was given to God alone . R. P. Doth not Gregory Nyssen take notice of the peoples soliciting his supplication and intercession with God for them , as their Champion , &c. P. D. I grant he doth so ; but observe his words ; he saith the people when they touch any part of his body , ( which was very rarely granted ) they embraced it , as if it had been living ; and wept over it ; and then he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . As if he had been whole and appeared before them , ( which last word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T. G. very conveniently left out , which I leave to the reader to judge of , as a Testimony of T. G.'s sincerity , at the very same time he charges Dr. St. for the same fault ) they solicit his intercession , beseeching him as the Champion of God , and calling upon him as one that received gifts when he pleased . I do not think this Superstition of the People was to be excused , which began most early to appear in the parts of Cappadocia and Pontus , and the reason of it is not hard to give , from the turning the Heathen Festivals into Christian Solemnities to the Martyrs , of which Gregory Nyssen speaks in the Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus ; but however , this was not any solemn invocation of him , as a part of Religious Worship , but an occasional and rare thing , and done upon supposition , as if he had been alive and then present among them . And that the practice of these men who seemed most to make addresses to Saints in the fourth Century did differ from the invocation of Saints in your Church , I shall make appear by these particulars . 1. Invocation of Saints is made a solemn part of Religious Worship in the Church of Rome . For which , we do not run to some extravagant expressions of your Preachers ; nor barely to the Ave Maries they use in their Pulpits , of which no single instance can be produced out of Antiquity ; but to the publick , solemn Authorized Offices of your Church . And although you may say , the Church is not answerable for the indiscretion of Preachers , or the Figures of Poets , yet certainly she is for all standing and allowed Offices of Divine Worship . And this is that we charge you with , that by this you make Religious Worship of the Creatures , a part of your constant and solemn worship . Even in the Masse it self , you begin with confession to God and to his Creatures ( which Athanasius accounted so great an impiety , to joyn God and his Creature together in an Act of Worship ) and afterwards pray to them . And although in the plain Canon of the Masse you pretend there is scarce any , or but twice or thrice , a direct invocation of the Saints ; yet upon occasional and anniversary Masses , such Invocation is very frequent , as in the Masses of the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin , which are many in the year ; the Masse for Women with Child ; the Masses of the Apostles , the Angel Michael and many Saints : which it were tedious to repeat . It would be endless to give an account how much of your Breviaries , Houres , Litanies , and private Offices of Devotion is stuffed out with formal addresses to Saints . If you but cast your eye on any of the Offices of the B. Virgin , you cannot question the truth of this . Now I pray tell me , where you meet with any like this in Antiquity ; you may pick up some flourishes of Orators or Poets in the fourth Century ; but what are these to the standing Offices of the Church ; which are the standard of Divine Worship ? Name me any one Liturgy of the Church , which is Authentick , that had the name of a●y Saint or Creature in it by way of Invocation before the time of Petrus Fallo , who is no Author to be gloried in . And of him indeed Nicephorus saith , that he first brought the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin into the Prayers of the Church . Before his time , the Fathers utterly deny there was any Invocation of Saints in the Prayers of the faithful , as Dr. St. hath evidently proved from St. Augustin : and methinks T. G. should have said something or other to it , and not think this poor single Testimony of Gregory Nyssen would overthrow all . 2. The Invocation of Saints in your Church is direct and formal , not meerly by way of desire to pray for them , but to bestow blessings upon them . Of which Dr. St. hath produced several late Instances in Books of Devotion now in use here in England ; to which many more might be added , if it were needful . And it is a wonder to me , that any man who hath looked into the Offices of the B. Virgin can make the least doubt of this . And considering the Titles given her in the Roman Church , it were a disparagement to her , not to pray directly to her for blessings . For if she be the Fountain of Grace and Mercy , the Mother of Consolation , the Safety of all that trust in her , the Dispenser of Graces to whom she pleases , the Queen of Heaven to whom all Power is committed , the Mediatrix between her Son and us ; as she is stiled in the Roman Church ; why may not men pray as directly to her as to Christ himself ? As long as these and many other Titles are owned in their Prayers , in their Sacred Hymns , in their Commentators on Scripture , and not meerly in their Poets and Orators . Why doth T. G. go about to deceive the world in making it believe that all their Invocation is only praying to pray for them ? Which is all that is pretended to be used in the Ancient Church : And Cassander thinks they were rather wishes and desires than prayers ; for which he gives a very good reason , viz. that there was a condition expressed by them ; such as that of Greg. Nazianzen in his Oration on his Sister Gorgonia . If thou hast any regard to our affairs , and if this be part of the reward of holy Souls to be sensible of things done below , receive this Office of Kindness from me . Which shews they had no confidence or assurance that the Saints in Heaven did understand our affairs , and therefore all expressions of this kind in them were rather Wishes than Prayers . And even Greg. Nyssen in this Oration upon Theodore supposes , that unless he came down from above where-ever he was , whether in the Aethereal Region , or Celestial , or Angelical , and were actually present among them , he could not understand the honours that were done him , nor the addresses they made to him . And when they did express such an uncertainty as this at the same time they made these Addresses towards the Conclusion of their Orations , after the manner of Oratours , it is plain they are to be understood rather for Rhetorical Wishes , than formal Invocations . Now let any man compare this doubtfulness of the Ancients , with the confidence expressed in the Church of Rome , when they declare it to be de Fide that the Saints do hear them , ( although the manner be not ) and then judge whether their practises can be of the same kind . 3. The Invocation of Saints in your Church doth imply inward submission to a Creature ; and therefore goes very much beyond the addresses of the Ancients . There are three things which prove this Inward submission to a Creature in the Invocation of Saints . 1. Inward Devotion to them : 2. An acknowledged superiority over them : 3. An intention to give them Divine Worship . 1. Inward Devotion . For even mental Prayers to Saints are allowed by the Council of Trent , as Dr. St. told T. G. , of which he takes no notice ; and yet quarrels with him for two other passages in the same place . Must we impute this to a casual Vndulation of the visual rayes , as T. G. very finely expresseth it ? I am afraid , there was some other cause for it . For since that Council allows internal prayers to Saints , it must not only certainly suppose their knowledge of the heart , but a due submission of our souls to them ; which inward Prayer doth import . And therefore suppliciter invocare tam voce quàm mente , which are the words of the Council of Trent ; doth not only imply formal Invocation , but internal submission ; both which do belong to suppliants . 2. An acknowledged Superiority over them : which appears by that Authority and Government which they attribute to them , with respect to particular places and things . Whereby they make the Saints not bare Intercessours , but Tutelar Deities , and they invocate them as such . T. G. saith , they do not make them Authours of those Blessings ; not Originally , and Independently ; but subordinately and Ministerially they do . And if this be not Idolatry , no worship of the inferiour Deities among the Heathens was so . Lipsius was no Fool when he made the B. Virgin a Tutelar Deity ; and the Popes surely understand their own Religion , when they Canonize particular Saints to be Patrons of such places : which may be seen in some of the latest Canonizations . As of S. Rosa , that admirable Saint of Peru , and others . 3. An intention to give Divine Worship to them . For what else can be meant by that eminent kind of adoration which Bellarmine saith , doth belong to them ; that Divine worship , which Azorius saith , you give to the Saints ; and Serrarius saith , many of the wisest persons among you say , that Latria and Doulia proceed both from the same vertue of Religion ; that is , they are of the same kind . So that this is not meerly the Superstition of the Vulgar , but the Judgement of the wisest among you , if Serrarius his Judgement may be taken . I will not dissemble what B. Forbs observes , that some of the School-men do make the Invocation of Saints not to slow from the vertue of Religion , but another of their own making , called singularis observantia . But this is only a trick found out to avoid the imputation of Idolatry , which they thought would fall justly upon them , if they made the Worship to be of the same kind , although of a different degree : since nothing can be plainer in Antiquity , than that all truly Religious Worship belongs only to God and cannot be given to a Creature , without the guilt of Idolatry . For even in the same Age wherein Greg. Nyssen lived , the Council of Laodicea declared the Invocation of Angels to be Idolatry ; so Theodoret expresseth the sense of that Council , who certainly understood the meaning of it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , are his words , which he makes to be all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . So that praying to them is that part of divine worship which was condemned for Idolatry , being given to Angels . R. P. T. G. saith , This was a practice of nominating Angels , which he saith , cannot with any shew of probability be understood of that worship , which the Holy Catholick Church gives to Holy Angels . P. D. Good Sir , his Reason ; for to my apprehension it comes as home to the practice of the Church of Rome as may be . R. P. ( 1. ) Because the Council speaks of such as excluded our Lord Jesus Christ , making private Assemblies : which words Dr. St. conveniently omitted . P. D. Did he so ? let us hear them at length . That Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God , and go aside , to invocate Angels ; or make unlawful Conventicles ; If any one be found practising this secret Idolatry , let him be accursed ; because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ , the Son of God , and betaken himself to Idolatry . The Council speaks this of a sort of Christians , who yet were guilty of Idolatry in praying to Angels ; therefore praying to Angels is Idolatry . R. P. Yes , such praying to Angels as Theodoret speaks of , upon account that the Law was delivered by them , or that God being invisible and incomprehensible cannot be approached but by the Angels . P. D. Will T. G. stand to it , that this is Idolatry ? then it must be Idolatry in the nature of the thing , or by some positive Law ; if the latter , we see the Council of Laodicea accounts it equal Idolatry among Christians as before : if the former , then praying to a Creature is Idolatry in the Nature of the Thing : which is a very fair concession , and I suppose the Church of Rome will con him no thanks for . R. P. But it is Idolatry on those accounts I mentioned . P. D. On what I pray ? Because the Law was delivered by them ? How is that possible on T. G.'s principles , when they were only Gods Ministers therein ? and so praying to Gods Ministers in Heaven is Idolatry ; how then will praying to Saints escape ? R. P. But Theodoret adds , they brought us salvation thereby . P. D. Only Ministerially ; and this alters not the case . R. P. But suppose they thought access to God was only by them ? P. D. What then ? that might prove them no Christians , but doth it prove them Idolaters ? Suppose they were Jews ; must they therefore needs be Idolaters ? R. P. But T. G. saith , good Angels are not to be worshipped but in subordination to Christ the Head , nor their prayers to be desired as efficacious for us but through his merits . P. D. And what follows ? therefore leaving out Christ is Idolatry ? Doth T. G. talk at this rate ; and hope to excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry ? For I still ask , what it was , which made their Worship of Angels Idolatry ? Leaving out of Christ might make it Judaism or Heathenism , but how comes it to be Idolatry ? R. P. I think you will never be satisfied . P. D. Not with such answers , I assure you . R. P. Baronius saith , Theodoret was mistaken ; and that this Canon is to be understood of Heathen Idolatry ; and that the Oratories of Michael which Theodoret saith , were built by those Idolaters , were in truth built by very good Catholicks . P. D. This is plain dealing : and Baronius saw well enough , there was no way to justifie the Church of Rome , but by condemning Theodoret : but I leave it to any mans consideration , whether Theodoret , whose distance was not great , either in Age or Place , did not better understand the meaning of this Council ; and the practises of those times and places , than Baronius ; and whether his judgement be not rather to be taken , than that of a man , who turns every stone to avoid a difficulty , which he saw could no otherwise be answered . R. P. ( 2. ) How can this be the meaning of the Council of Laodicea , when it declares for the honouring , and celebrating the Feast-days of the Martyrs ? P. D. Doth T. G. call this a second Reason ? Where lyes the consequence ? The Council of Laodicea , was for honouring the Feast-dayes of the Martyrs , therefore the praying to Angels is not condemned by it for Idolatry . As though there were no way of celebrating their Festivals , but by praying to Saints and Angels . When T. G. proves that meeting at their Memories on their Anniversary dayes , and praising God for them , and rehearsing their Acts , was no keeping their Festivals without praying to them ; he will do something towards making this look like a Reason . In the mean time , let the Reader consider whether praying to Saints was practised by Greg. Nyssen , when praying to Angels about the same time by the Council of Laodicea is condemned for Idolatry . But this is not all which I have to say ; for if Gregory Nyssen's practice doth excuse the modern Invocation of Saints from Idolatry , I desire to know whether it was singular in him , or the sense of the Church of that Age ? R. P. No doubt T. G. brings it for an instance of the sense of the Church : for it were to no great purpose to produce a singular opinion or practice of one man condemned by the rest of the Church . P. D. Then I ask , whether offering up ones self , or offering up a cake to a Saint , be the greater Idolatry ? R. P. A mans self certainly . P. D. Do not they who devote themselves to a particular Saint , choosing her for their perpetual Patroness , vowing themselves to be her slaves , offer up themselves to her ? R. P. What would you have ? P. D. I will tell you , Epiphanius who lived in the same Age with Greg. Nyssen , condemns those for rank Idolatry , who offered up Cakes to the B. Virgin ; and do you think he would have excused those who offered up themselves and their devotions to her ? And at the same time he condemns the worship both of Saints and Angels ; in the places produced by Dr. St. What answer hath T. G. made to this ? R. P. I do not remember he takes notice of it . P. D. T. G. would make an excellent Commentator ; for he knows how to pass over a hard place , as well as any I have met with . But still I have one question more . Whether Greg. Nyssen did argue well against the Arians or not ? R. P. Why should you question that ? P. D. Do you think he spake consistently to himself ? Or , if not , is his opinion to be taken from a Panegyrical Oration , or a strict Dispute ? R. P. A strict dispute ; for then men consider every word , and the consequence of it . P. D. Greg. Nyssen goes upon this principle , To give Divine Worship to a Creature is Idolatry : but the Arians in worshipping Christ as a Creature do give Divine Worship to a Creature : therefore , &c. To make good the particulars of this charge , we must consider what Greg. Nyssen makes to be the parts of Divine Worship ; and if I can prove , that Greg. Nyssen doth make prayer to be such a part of Divine Worship , then by necessary consequence he makes praying to a Creature to be Idolatry . Now it is very well known that Greg. Nyssen in several places makes prayer with supplication to be peculiar to God ; therefore he calls it a conversing with God ; a request of good things with supplication unto God. In which he agrees with the rest of the Fathers , who made Religious Invocation peculiar to God. Sed tamen tu solus Domine invocandus es , saith S. Ambrose . I do not pray to any besides thy self ; saith Ephreem Syrus in the Officium Diurnum of the Maronites . We call not on the name of this man or that man , saith S. Chrysostome , but on the name of the Lord. This is an honour , he saith , God hath reserved to himself , to call upon him , and will not give it to Angels or Arch-angels ; as he elsewhere speaks . Vnto God alone do we pray , saith the Greek Catena on the fifth Psalm . To whom shall I call but unto thee , saith S. Augustine . This is the best sacrifice we can offer unto God , say Clemens of Alexandria and Tertullian . It were easie to produce many more Testimonies to this purpose , if these be not sufficient to prove , that in Greg. Nyssens ▪ Age , as well as before , Prayer was looked on as a peculiar part of Divine Worship . R. P. To what purpose ? since no body denyes , that prayer as it is a means to obtain blessings from God as the Author of them is peculiar to God. P. D. This Answer doth not take off the force of the argument . For prayer may be considered two wayes . 1. As a Means to obtain blessings . 2. As a solemn part of Divine Worship . Now if they reserved prayer to God , on the latter account , then it follows , that whatever Invocation doth take off from the peculiarity of this part of external worship , is against the design of the Fathers . So Origen argues that Invocation and Adoration do imply each other . Invocare nomen Domini & adorare Deum unum atque idem est . To invocate God and to adore him is all one ; from whence he proves that those who invocate Christ do adore him . And where the Church of Smyrna declares in her Epistle about the Martyrdom of Polycarp , that they did not worship any other but Christ , the old Latin Translation renders it , neque alteri cuiquam precem orationis impendere . And Theodoret makes praying to Angels , and the worshipping of them the same thing . So that prayer was looked on as a part of adoration ; therefore whosoever gives the external worship of prayer to another besides God , doth give to a Creature that which belongs to God. R. P. I know not what you mean , I pray explain your self more . P. D. Is not God worshipped solemnly by us , when we joyn together in prayer to him ? R. P. Yes . P. D. Is not this external worship , that which the Fathers mean , by the adoration that is implyed in prayer ? R. P. Suppose it be . P. D. Wherein lyes this external worship ? Is it not that we meet together and joyn in acts of Devotion to testifie our acknowledgement of Gods Soveraignty and dependence upon him ? R. P. What then ? P. D. Then whosoever do use the same external Acts of Worship to a Creature , do apply that to a Creature which the Fathers did suppose to belong only to God ; as if men kneel and pray to Saints in the same place , at the same time , with the same Ceremonies of Devotion they use to God himself , they take off the peculiarity of this worship to God , and make it common to his Creatures . R. R. This only reaches to the external Acts , but the intention and design of the worshippers with us make the difference . P. D. I do not now meddle with your intention and design ; but I am pursuing the force of the argument used by the Fathers . To make this yet more plain to you . The Fathers use the argument of external adoration against the Arians ; for say they , Peter forbad Cornelius to worship him , and the Angel S. John ; from whence they infer that God only ought to be worshipped , and therefore giving external adoration to Christ , supposing him to be a Creature , is Idolatry . Is this argument good , or not ? R. P. Let me consider a little : It was good then , but it is not now ; for T. G. saith , it is in the Churches power to determine the signification of exteriour signs . P. D. An admirable answer ! which makes the arguments of the Fathers in truth to have no force at all . For the Arians might say , the external acts of adoration did not signifie the same with them , which they did with Catholicks , for they only signified an inferiour and relative worship , when applyed to the Son ; and Soveraign and absolute worship , when given to the Father . So that if there be any force in what the Fathers did argue against the Arians , it will make the inferiour and relative worship of a Creature to be Idolatry ; notwithstanding Greg. Nyssens Oration upon Theodore . R. P. I am like T. G. who hates a great Book upon one subject ; so do I a long discourse upon one argument : methinks Greg. Nyssen hath taken up a great deal of our time , and I have something more yet to say to you , before we part . P. D. I pray let me hear it , and I suppose it will admit of a quicker dispatch . R. P. It is upon the same head of the Doctors fidelity in quoting Authors , and it concerns the passage in Arnobius , in which T. G. charged him with cogging in the word Divinity in the singular number instead of adorable Deities in the Plural ; and Dr. St. answers with a protestation , that he translated these words nihil numinis inesse simulachris , which he saith are but two lines above the words T. G. charges him with . P. D. And how I pray doth T. G. clear himself ? for in my mind he is most concerned to vindicate himself . R. P. He doth it very well ; for he denyes not those words to be there which Dr. St. translated , but he saith , he ought not to have translated the words of Arnobius to the Heathens , but the words of the Heathens to Arnobius , since his design was to prove the Heathens did not worship the Images themselves for Gods. P. D. A pitiful shift ! T. G. charged Dr. St. with cogging in the word Divinity in the singular number ; Dr. St. shews , it was so used but two lines before those words which T. G. cites , and those were the words he translated . Now saith T. G. those were the words of Arnobius to the Heathen ; what then ? doth he not confute them in something which they held ; if he proves , nihil numinis inesse simulachris , must not they hold aliquid numinis , &c. so that it comes all to one . But to put this out of all doubt , if T. G. had looked a little farther , he might have found these very words of the Heathens , Illud etiam dicere simulachrorum assertores solent ; surely these are the Heathens ; non ignorasse antiquos nihil habere numinis signa . What doth T. G. think now ? Had he not better look more about him , before he makes such rude and impertinent clamours about Dr. St.'s insincerity in quoting Authors ? Of which you may judge by this one Instance , where himself is so notoriously faulty , and yet from hence he concludes what a sad account of Citations we are like to have from him . R. P. What say you to Dr. St.'s obs●rvations of the Council of Trent about the Worship of Images ? P. D. Have you ever been a hunting of Squirrels ? R. P. Why do you ask me such an impertinent question ? P. D. Not so impertinent as you think : for the Squirrels leaping from bough to bough , forwards and backwards , is just like T. G.'s answer to Dr. St.'s Book . For he makes nothing of leaping a hundred or two hundred pages forwards and backwards as the humour takes him . However , let us hear what he hath to say to those observations . For I remember very well , what the design of them was ; viz. that though the worship of Latria was owned before it by many Divines to be given to Images , and that were against the decree of the Council of Nice ; yet the Council of Trent allows all external acts of adoration of Images , gives no intimation against this kind of Worship ; and since it , many of the most eminent Divines of your Church have justified the giving Latria to Images , and that from the words of this Council . R. P. But T. G. saith , those very Divines do not mean by Latria proper Divine Worship , which is due to God and terminated upon him ; but that the Act being in their opinion one in substance to the Prototype and the Images , it is terminated absolutely upon the Person of Christ for himself , and falls upon the Image after an inferiour manner , as a thing only relating to him , and purely for his sake : for which reason , some call it relative Latria ; others , secundary ; others , improper ; others , Analogical ; others , per accidens ; and the dispute in effect is rather de modo loquendi , than of the thing it self . P. D. To clear this matter , we must consider , ( 1. ) That the Council of Nice doth deny Latria to be given to an Image . ( 2. ) That the Divines of the Roman Church do say that the practice of the Church cannot be defended in the Worship of the Cross , without giving Latria to it . ( 3. ) That the Council of Trent , when just occasion was given , declares nothing against this ; for although it referrs to the Council of Nice , yet when it gives the reason of worship , it doth it in such terms , that many of your Divines say , must infer the worship of Latria to be given to them . R. P. What if it doth , saith T. G. since , it is only a dispute about words , and all agree that the worship proper to God , signified primarily by the word Latria , is not to be given to Images ? P. D. That must be a little better considered . For do you think it is possible to give the worship proper to God to an Image , or not ? If it be not , why did the Council of Nice declare against it ; if it be , tell me in what Acts that Worship of Latria doth consist ? R. P. It is when men give proper divine honour to an Image . P. D. What is this proper divine honour ? for you are not one step forwarder by this answer . I see I must come to particulars . Were the Gnosticks and ancient Hereticks to blame in their Worship of Images , or not ? R. P. No doubt they were ; for they stand condemned by the Church for that worship they gave to Images . P. D. Wherein did their fault lye ? R. P. In giving Divine Honour and Worship to the Image . P. D. Did not they worship the Image of Christ ? R. P. And what then ? P. D. Then their fault lay in giving divine Worship to the Image of Christ ? R. P. Yes , proper divine Worship . P. D. What was that proper divine worship ? was it absolute , or relative ? R. P. Absolute . P. D. Then it was giving divine worship to an Image of Christ , without respect to Christ ; which is either non-sense , or a contradiction . Is it possible to give divine worship to an Image of a person , without respect to the person ? Men may worship a piece of Wood , or a Stone , without respect to a person ; but to worship that which represents , and on that account , because it represents , without any respect to what it represents , is a contradiction ; therefore the worship of an Image as such is a relative worship ; and proper Latria as given to an Image is relative Latria . R. P. But men may give absolute divine worship to an Image ; for may not a man joyn in his mind the Image and person represented as one object of Worship , and so give proper divine worship to both considered as one ? P. D. I thank you for that : For so I find some of your Divines have determined that in this sense absolute and proper divine worship may be given to the Cross. And Dr. St. produced several of them , who contended for an absolute Latria to be due to Images : such as Ludovicus à Paramo , Paulus Maria Quarti , Gamachaeus a late Professour of Divinity in the Sorbon ; and others . R. P. But T. G. saith , they only differ in modo loquendi . P. D. I think rather in modo colendi . For are not absolute and relative worship two distinct kinds ? how else comes the giving absolute worship to be Idolatry , and not the giving relative ? And if giving absolute worship be Idolatry , all in your Church are guilty of it , who worship the Image and thing represented as one object . If it be not , then there can be none to an Image as such . R. P. Yes ; if they offer sacrifice to Images , as the Gnosticks did . P. D. S. Augustin and Theodoret say ; they adored Images , and offered Incense to them . And is not the very same practised in your Church ? If this were Idolatry in them , why not in you ? Unless your Church hath power to change the Nature of Idolatry : which is all one with changing the nature of Vertues and Vices . R. P. But they sacrificed to Images as the Heathens did . P. D. True ; for the burning Incense before Images was thought to be sacrificing to them , being joyned with adoration . And the Christians chose rather to dye , than to joyn in that act of worship towards the Images of the Emperours : whence Dr. St. observed , that burning of Incense towards Images was the same tryal of Christians , that eating of Swines flesh was of the Jews . I pray tell me , was there any harm in this or not ? supposing the Christians looked on the Emperours as Gods Vicegerents , and the Images only as representing them ? R. P. I see what you aim at ; you would have me condemn the primitive Christians or our selves : according to the sense of the Church at that time , it was unlawful , but according to the sense of our Church now , it is lawful to do the same things out of honour to the Images of Christ , or his Saints . P. D. That is , your Church is innocent , if your Church may be judge . But I now dispute upon your own principles of relative worship , whether those Acts might not have been done to the Emperours Images , which had saved the lives of so many Martyrs ? R. P. No ; for the Emperours then exacted to be worshipped as Gods , i. e. with divine worship . P. D. Was that Divine Worship supreme or not ? i. e. did they take the Emperours for supreme Deities ? R. P. No ; but they gave them the Worship of the supreme Deity . P. D. Then the giving this Worship was thought Idolatry , though mens conceptions were right as to their being Creatures . R. P. But what is this to the worship of Images ? P. D. Was it not lawful to give the same worship to the Images of the Emperours as to the Emperours themselves ? Might not they look on the Emperours as Gods Vicegerents , and so give them relative Latria on that account ; and then look on their Images as representing them , and so give a secundary , improper , Analogical relative Latria to their Images ? and by this means the Heathens and the Christians had only differed in modo loquendi ; but the Christians had saved their lives by the bargain . R. P. But our dispute is of the Images of Christ , and not of Heathen Emperours . P. D. I only shew the absurd consequences of this doctrine , and how inconsistent it is with the principles of primitive Christianity . But I return to the distinctions of your Divines about Latria being given to Images . You all agree T. G. saith , that the worship proper to God is not to be given to Images . Is not Latria the Worship proper to God ? R. P. Yes : proper Latria is ; but not improper and relative . P. D. Is there any worship so proper to God , that it cannot be improperly and relatively given to an Image ? R. P. What do you mean ? for I do not understand you . P. D. Rather , you will not . I ask you , whether there be any such act of worship so proper to God , that you may not in respect to God , do that to his Image ; or in respect to Christ , do that to the Cross ? R. P. Although there may be none such , yet the Church doth not use all acts of worship to the Image , which it doth to God. P. D. I not ask what you do ; but what upon your principles you may do . And suppose a man doth that Act which your Church allows not , is he guilty of Idolatry or bare disobedience in doing it to an Image ? R. P. Of Idolatry . P. D. Then there are such external acts of worship so proper to God himself , that the doing them to an Image for his sake is Idolatry . As to sacrifice to an Image for the sake of Christ is Idolatry . Is it not ? R. P. Yes . P. D. Is the improper and relative sacrificing to an Image Idolatry ? R. P. You ask an untoward question . For I see what you drive at . P. D. Answer me directly . Is it , or is it not ? R. P. I think it is . P. D. Then it follows , that this distinction of proper and improper , absolute and relative Latria signifies nothing . For if the Acts of Worship are proper to God , no relative or improper use of them can excuse from Idolatry ; if they are not proper , then it is no Latria . R. P. I must think again of this matter . For as you represent it , this can never excuse us . P. D. I wonder so many subtle men should ever think it would . But I will not thus give it over . When the Council of Nice did forbid Latria being given to an Image , did they mean to an Image , as a piece of Wood , or Stone ; or to an Image , as an Image ? R. P. As an Image . For they did forbid giving Latria to that which they worshipped , but they worshipped it as an Image , for the sake of the Prototype . P. D. Your reason is unanswerable . Therefore I say , they did forbid all relative Latria of an Image , call it by what name soever you please . For the Worship of an Image as such must be relative worship . Therefore all those who contend for relative Latria are condemned by the Council of Nice . Besides , I would fain know of these Gentlemen , whether their improper and relative Latria , be Latria or Inferiour worship ? one or other it must be ; and it is a contradiction to say Latria is inferiour worship ; for that is to say , It is Latria , and it is not . If it be then true Latria , I ask whether the Image as an Image be God or a Creature ; if it be a Creature , as no doubt it is , then true Latria is given to a Creature ; which according to T. G. must be Idolatry . Again ; Either it is the same Act of Latria which is terminated on the Person of Christ absolutely , and on the Cross relatively ; or it is a different Act. If the same act ; then there is a double worship , and but one Act ; for there is an absolute worship of the person of Christ , and a relative worship of the Image ; and let it be relative , or what it will , it is a real Act of worship ; and so there must be two Acts , and yet it is but one Act. For is the Image or Cross worshipped , or not ? If it be worshipped , there must be an act of worship terminated on it ; and how can there be an act of worship terminated upon it , if the same act passeth from the Image to the Prototype ? These are unintelligible subtleties , and only invented to confound mens understandings , as to the true and distinct notion of Divine Worship ; and to blind their minds in the practice of Idolatry . Farther , if this be a difference only de modo loquendi , as T. G. saith , then the very same act may be proper and improper , absolute and relative , per se and per accidens . For so T. G. saith , that it is one Act in substance ; but it is absolute as terminated on the person of Christ , relative as on the Cross ; proper in one sense , improper in the other ; per se in the former sense , per accidens in the later . Which Catharinus thought to be no less than ridiculous . Lastly , there is nothing in the world , but may be worshipped with Latria by the help of these distinctions . For a Divine presence in the creatures is really a far better ground of worship , than a bare fiction of the mind , that the Image and the thing represented are all one . But of this we have discoursed already . R. P. To tell you plainly my mind , I never liked this giving Latria to Images my self ; but it being a common doctrine in our Church , we ought to say as much for it as we can ; but I am only for an inferiour worship to be given to them , and so is T. G. if I do not much mistake his meaning . P. D. Let us then consider this inferiour worship , as distinct from Latria ; and concerning this I shall prove , that it neither answers the reasons given by Councils ; nor the practice of the Roman Church . ( 1. ) Not the reasons given by the Councils of Nice and Trent . For which I desire but these two postulata . 1. That Images are to have true and proper worship given to them ; which is expressely determined by those Councils . 2. That the Reason of this Worship is nothing inherent in the Image , but something represented by it . Which is affirmed by those Councils . From hence I argue thus . To worship Christ only before an Image is not to give proper worship to the Image , which the Councils require to be given . Therefore either the Image is to be worshipped for it self , which were Idolatry by your own confession ; or Christ is to be worshipped in and by the Image . R. P. Christ is to be worshipped in and by the Image . P. D. Then you give Christ the worship due to him , or not ? R. P. The worship due to him . P. D. But the Worship due to Christ is proper Latria ; therefore you must give proper Latria to Christ as worshipped in and by the Image . R. P. True ; but we give it to the Image of Christ otherwise than to his Person ; for we worship him absolutely , and the Image respectively and for his sake . P. D. That is it which I would have ; that there is no worshipping an Image on the account of representation , but you must fall into the doctrine of relative Latria . R. P. But may not I shew respect to the Cross for Christs sake , without giving the same worship to the Cross , that I do to Christ ? P. D. That is not the question ; but whether you may worship Christ in and by the Cross representing his Person , without giving that worship which belongs to the person of Christ ? For either you worship the Cross for it self , which you confess to be Idolatry ; or you worship Christ as represented by it : if you worship Christ , you must give him the worship which belongs to him , and that can be no other than Latria . Which not only appears by the doctrine but by the practice of your Church in the worship of the Cross. Which I prove by the second particular , viz. ( 2. ) Inferiour worship doth not come up to the practice of your Church , because your Church in praying to the Cross speaks to it , as if it were Christ himself . O Crux ave , spes unica , &c. as Aquinas observes and many other of your Divines , who never own any Prosopopoeia ; but do say , that the Cross is truly worshipped with that worship which belongs to the person of Christ , on the account of representation . And can you imagine so many of your most eminent Divines would have put themselves to so much difficulty in defending a Relative Latria , if they could have defended the practice of your Church without it ? But they saw plainly the Church did own such a worship to the Cross ; and when occasion was offered , did declare it , as in the place cited out of the Pontifical by Dr. St. , which it would never have done , if it had not been agreeable to its sense . R. P. But this is but one single passage , and will you condemn a whole Church for that ? P. D. Not , if the sense of the Church were otherwise fully expressed against it ; but here we have shewed that passage to be very agreeable to the reason of worship given by your Councils ; and to the solemn practice of your Church in adoration of the Cross ; and therefore that passage ought to be looked on as a more explicite declaration of the sense of the Church . For , let me ask you , if the Church of Rome had been against Latria being given to the Cross ; whether in a book of such publick and constant use as the Pontifical is , it should be left standing , when the Book-menders are so busie in your Church , that scarce an Index of a Father can escape them ; nor such sentences as seem to thwart their present doctrine . Of which take this Instance . You remember what stir T. G. made about Gregory Nyssen's oration upon Theodore ; now the same person disputing against the Arians , saith , that no created thing is to be worshipped by men ; this sentence Antonius in his Melissa had put down thus , that we are only to worship that being which is uncreated . This Book happened to come under the Spanish Index of Cardinal Quiroga ; do you think he would suffer it to stand as it did ? No , I assure you , Deleatur dictio solummodo , saith he ; satis pro imperio . Away with this Only . Why so ? was it not in the Author ? No matter for that . It is against the practice of the Church ; out with it . More such instances might be produced : but I appeal to your self , whether after such care hath been taken to review the Pontifical by Clement 8. and the publishing of it with so much Authority , such a passage would have been suffered to remain , if it had been any wayes repugnant to the sense of the Church ? R. P. But T. G. saith , the Terms of Communion with the Church are not the Opinions of her School-Divines , but the Decrees of her Councils . P. D. And what then ? Did Dr. St. meddle with the School-Divines any otherwise than as they explained the sense of Councils , or the practice of the Church ? And what helps more proper to understand these , than the Doctrine of your most learned Divines ? T. G. will have one Mr. Thorndike to speak the sense of the Church of England , against the current Doctrine of the rest , as Dr. St. hath proved ; yet he will not allow so many Divines of greatest Note and Authority to explain the sense of the Church of Rome ? Is this equal dealing ? R. P. T. G. saith , That for his life he cannot understand any more the Idolatry of worshipping an Image , than the Treason of bowing to a Chair of State , or the Adultery of a Wives kissing her Husbands Picture ; and that the same subtilties may be used against these , as against the other ; and therefore notwithstanding the disputes of School-Divines , honest nature informed with Christian Principles will be security enough against the practice of Idolatry in honouring the Image of Christ for his sake . P. D. What is the matter with T. G. that for his life he can understand these things no better , after all the pains which hath been taken about him ? Hath not the difference of these cases been laid open before him ? Do not your own Writers confess , that in some cases an Image may become an Idol , by having Divine Worship given to it ? Is this then the same case with a Wives kissing her Husbands Picture ? Doth not this excuse the Gnosticks worship of the Image of Christ , as well as yours ? If there may be Idolatry in the worship of an Image , we are then to consider , whether your worship be not Idolatry ? Especially , since both parties charge each other with Idolatry ; those who will have it to be Latria , and those who will not . And I do not see what honest nature can do in this case , however assisted , unless it can make the worship of Images to be neither one nor the other . I see T. G. would fain make it to be no more than bare honour of an Image for the sake of Christ ; but this doth not come up to the Decrees of Councils , the general sense of Divines , and the constant practice of your Church ; If ever worship was given to Images you give it , by using all Acts of Adoration towards them . R. P. But suppose the King had made an Order , that due honour and respect should be given to the Chair of State , ought not that to be observed , notwithstanding the disputes which might arise about the nature of the Act ? P. D. To answer this , we must suppose a Command from God that we must worship an Image of Christ , as we do his Person ; but here it is just contrary . The Reason of the second Command being owned by the Christian Church to hold against the worship of Images now as well as under the Law. But those in the Church of Rome who do charge each other with Idolatry , without supposing any such command , do proceed upon the nature of the Worship ; which must either be Divine Worship , which one party saith is Idolatry , being the same which is given to God ; or an inferiour Religious Worship , which the other party saith must be Idolatry , being an expression of our submission to an inanimate thing . And for my life I cannot see what answer T. G. makes to this . R. P. T. G. saith , the Rules of the Church are to be observed in this case as the Rules of the Court about the Chair of State. P. D. What! are the Rules of the Church to be observed absolutely , whether against the Law of God or not ? Which is as much as to say at Court , that the Orders of the Green-cloth are to be observed , against his Majesties pleasure . But not to insist on that ; I say in this case the Rules of the Church help nothing ; for they who do follow the Rules of the Church must do one , or the other of these ; and whichsoever they do , they are charged with Idolatry . And therefore Dr. St. had great reason to say ; Where there is no necessity of doing the thing , the best way to avoid Idolatry is to give no worship to Images at all . R. P. What will become of the Rules of the Church , saith T. G. if men may be permitted to break them for such Capriches as these are ? P. D. Are you in earnest ? Doth T. G. call these Capriches ? Idolatry is accounted both by Fathers and Schoolmen a crime of the highest nature ; and when I am told I must commit it one way or other , by your Divines , if I give worship to Images , is this only a Capriche ? R. P. Will not the same reason hold against bowing to the Altar ; bowing being an act of worship appropriated to God ? P. D. Will the same reason hold against bowing out of Reverence to Almighty God ? which I have told you again and again , is all our Church allows in that which you call , bowing to the Altar . I see you are very hard put to it , to bring in this single Instance , upon every turn , against the plain sense and declaration of our Church . If this be all T. G. upon so long consideration hath to say in this matter , it is not hard to judge , who hath much the better Cause . R. P. I pray hold from triumphing a while ; for there is a fresh charge behind , wherein you will repent , that ever you undertook to defend Dr. St. , it is concerning the unjust parallel he hath made between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry . P. D. I see no cause to repent hitherto . And I hope I shall find as little when I come to that . THE Fourth Conference , About the Parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry . R. P. HAVE you considered what T. G. saith , concerning the parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry , and doth not your heart fail you , as to the defence of Dr. St. which you promised to undertake ? P. D. No truly . The more I have considered it , the less I fear it . R. P. What think you of the notion of Idolatry he chargeth on T. G. ? viz. that it is the giving the Soveraign Worship of God to a Creature , and among the Heathens to the Devil , as if the Idolatry of the Heathens consisted only in worshipping the Devil ; whereas it appears from the words Dr. St. cites out of him , that he charged the Heathens with Idolatry in worshipping their Images for Gods , and the Creatures for Gods ; although withal they worshipped evil Spirits , and T. G. contends , that their Supream God was an Arch-Devil . P. D. Is this such a difficulty to be set in the Front ? I suppose it is only to try whether I will stumble at the threshold . If the Supreme God whom the Heathens worshipped was an Arch-devil , as T. G. saith , then without all question they gave their most Soveraign worship to the Devil . And when he pleads so earnestly , that all the Gods of the Heathens were Devils , under whatsoever name or title they worshipped them ; what injury can T. G. think it to his Hypothesis to say , that the Heathen Idolatry did consist in giving Soveraign worship to the Devil ? Besides Dr. St.'s words do not imply , that according to T. G. the Heathens did not give Soveraign worship to other things , but that they did it eminently to the Devil ; which must needs follow , if the Supreme God among them was no other than an Arch-Devil ; as T. G. then asserted , and now endeavours more at large to prove . R. P. Therefore waving this , I come to the main point ; whether the Heathen Jupiter were the true God , or an Arch-Devil ? P. D. You are just like the Author of a late Scurrilous Pamphlet called Jupiter , Dr. St. 's Supreme God , &c. who would fain reduce the whole Question of Idolatry to this single point , without considering either the occasion of this Question , or the main arguments used by Dr. St. , or the very scope and design of his Discourse : But he is so pitiful a trifler , that he deserves no notice at all . That we may proceed more clearly in this Debate , we ought first to attend to the principal Question ; which was , whether Idolatry be consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being ? And the reason of this Question was , because those who did plead the most plausibly in excusing your Church from Idolatry , went upon this principle , that supposing men preserved in their minds the notion of one Supreme Being , it is impossible they should give to a creature that honour which was due to God alone . To overthrow this Dr. St. undertook to shew , that this principle would equally excuse the Heathen Idolatry , since both the ancient and modern Heathens did own one Supreme God. And if this be granted him , it matters not to the main design of his Discourse whether it were Jupiter or not . And it is a wonder to me , since the man in T. G.'s Dialogues who argues against Dr. St. professes himself a Disciple of Mr. Thorndike , he should never take notice of this principle , nor once go about to defend it . But since T. G. acknowledges that the Heathens had a notion of one Supreme Being ingraffed in their minds by nature ; the point then in debate is , on what account they were charged with Idolatry ; and whether that will not reach to the practices of the Roman Church , i. e. whether their Idolatry lay in worshipping the Creature and not the Creator ; or in giving Divine Worship though of different degrees to the Creature and the Creator ? And here lies the main strength of this controvesie ; and supposing Dr. St. were mistaken as to the sense of the Fathers , about Jupiter ; yet if the true notion of Idolatry be proved to consist in giving the same Divine Worship to God and his Creatures , his parallel will be sufficient to make good the charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome . Yet , since T. G. seems to lay so much weight upon the Fathers sense concerning Jupiter , I am content to examine them together with you ; but in the first place let us consider , what the Scripture saith to this point ; for as I remember Dr. St. began with that , then he proceeded to your own Writers , and at last brought in the Testimonies of Fathers , and I see no reason we should go off from this method . R. P. Since you will have it so , I will begin with the Scripture ; and Dr. St. pretends to prove Jupiter to be the Supreme God from those words Acts 17. Whom ye ignorantly worship , him I declare unto you . P. D. Consider , I pray , the question between Dr. St. and T. G. , viz. whether it were the true God , or an Arch-devil : and Dr. St. argues in these words . Did St. Paul mean the Devil when he said , whom you ignorantly worship , him I declare unto you ? Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach the Devil to the world ? Yet he preached him whom they ignorantly worshipped . What saith T. G. to this ? R. P. From this very Inscription , To the unknown God , he notably proves , it could not be understood of Jupiter who was a known God ; and St. Paul could not be said to come to preach their Jupiter to the Athenians , when he expresly tells them , he came to declare to them a God whom they did not know . P. D. To this I answer , that the Athenians had so confounded the notion of the supreme God , with that of the Poetical Jupiter , and the Peoples fancies were so stained and polluted with those vulgar representations of Jove which they learnt from the Poets and Painters , that the Apostle rather chose to preach the true God to them from the inscription to the unknown God , than from any Altars that were inscribed Jovi Opt. Max. Because the People would have imagined , if St. Paul had made choice of any usual inscription to a Deity worshipped in common with the rest , that he must in consequence allow the nature and kind of their Worship . For they joyned Jupiter and the rest of their Gods together , the Body of their Worship consisting of an acknowledgment of one as Supreme , viz. Jupiter , and of the rest as worshipped together with him ; and so their worship being a complex thing , it was more agreeable to the Apostles design , which was to destroy their Idolatry , not to make use of that notion of God which was corrupted by their Idolatries , but to take advantage from the Inscription to the unknown God , so to declare his Nature , as to confute their Idolatrous Worship , as he doth in the following verses . Jupiter therefore as he was the Head of the Heathen Worship , and as he stood in conjunction with their other Deities , was a known God amongst them , and solemnly worshipped by the Athenians ; but as by Jove was understood the Eternal Mind as the only proper object of Divine Worship , and therefore ought not to be worshipped with mens hands , nor to be joyned with his Creatures , so he was an unknown God. For they had no other knowledge of a Supreme God , than as of one who admitted others into a participation of the same Worship with himself . And there were these two things which made those Gentiles disown the God of the Jews , who agreed with them in the acknowledgement of one Supreme God who made the world , ( 1. ) That he would be worshipped by no Images or representations of himself . ( 2. ) That he would admit no inferiour beings to have any share in Divine Worship , but all such were accounted Idolaters by the Jewish Laws , who according to the Eastern Customs worshipped any other as Mediators , or inferiour Deities . From hence the Heathens accounted the God of the Jews an unknown and unsociable Deity ; there being no representations made of him ; nor any others to be joyned in worship with him : therefore Dion Cassius calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a God who could neither be described nor represented . If we believe Georgius Syncellus , this Altar and Inscription To the Vnknown God , was but lately set up at Athens ; whence St. Paul might have the greater reason to take notice of it , and from thence to declare how unsuitable their Worship was to the true God. And therefore St. Paul when he supposes the True God to be the unknown God among them , speaks not in respect of his Eternal Being , for even T. G. confesseth the Heathens had the notion of one Supreme God ingrafted in their minds by nature ; but in respect of his way of Worship , without Images or Inferiour Deities . For so he pursues his discourse , by arguing from his perfections against that way of Worship which was in use among them . Whereas , if he had supposed them wholly ignorant of one Supreme God , his first and most necessary work had been to have proved there was such a one ; but this he supposes as a thing well enough known in General by them ; but not worshipped by them as he ought to be . God that made the world and all things therein , seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth , dwelleth not in Temples made with hands ; nor is worshipped with mens hands , &c. If St. Paul had supposed them ignorant of a Supreme God , ought he not first to have proved that there was a God who made the world , &c. But since there was no dispute about that , he shews the incongruity of their way of Worship to the Perfections of his Nature . St. Augustin proves from this place , Whom ye ignorantly worship , him I declare unto you ; that the True God was truly though ignorantly worshipped by the Athenians . For , saith he , what did St. Paul preach to them , but that the same God whom they ignorantly and unprofitably worshipped out of the Church , they should worship wisely and savingly in the Church ? One God , saith he , is worshipped ignorantly without the Church , and yet he is the same God : as it is the same faith which is without charity out of the Church ; for it is one God and one Faith , and one Catholick Church ; Non in quâ solâ unus Deus colitur , sed in quâ solâ Unus Deus piè colitur . Not in which alone One God is worshipped ; but in which alone One God is piously worshipped . The fault then of the Athenians lay in their manner of the Worship of the True God , and not in the total neglect of it , or in Worshipping an Arch-devil instead of him . R. P. T. G. doth not deny that they had some confused notion of a supreme God , but he saith , that he whom they worshipped under the notion of Jupiter was an Arch-devil . P. D. It appears by S. Augustin , that they worshipped the same God , while they were Heathens and when they became Christians , but after a different manner . And as to Jupiter , Dr. St. observes , that S. Paul quotes the saying of Aratus , For we are his Off-spring ; which words are spoken of Jupiter by the Poet , and applyed to the True God by the Apostle ; and surely he did not mean that we are the Devils Off-spring ; but from thence he infers , that we are the Off-spring of God : so that if S. Paul may be credited rather than T. G. their Jupiter was so far from being the Arch-devil , that he was the true God , blessed for evermore . R. P. To this T. G. answers , that it is no wonder a Heathen Poet should apply the attributes of the true God to Jupiter ; and the name of Jupiter to the true God , as being the name of that Deity which was supreme among them ; but S. Paul takes the Poets words by way of Abstraction from Jupiter , and applyes them to the true God ; leaving out all mention of Jupiter , and changing his name ; which he would not have done if their Jupiter was the true God. P. D. I pray tell me one thing ; did S. Paul only intend to fill up his discourse with the end of a Verse , as some Writers do , with Omne tulit punctum , &c. or did he intend it by way of argument to convince the Athenians ? R. P. S. Paul surely did not affect Pedantry , and therefore it must be argumentative . P. D. If that be granted , consider the force of the argument in T. G.'s sense of S. Pauls words . For in him we live and move and have our Being ; as certain also of your own Poets have said , For we are also his Off-spring . For as much then as we are the Off-spring of God , &c. S. Paul proves that we have our life , motion , and subsistence from God , from the words of Aratus ; For we are his Off-spring : Either Aratus did speak of the same God whom S. Paul speaks of , or not ? if not , where lyes the force of the argument ? if he did , then S. Paul allows Aratus his Jupiter to be the Supreme God. Whosoever reads the Verses in Aratus cannot imagine he should mean any else ; and the Greek Scholiast there saith , by Jupiter he meant the God that made the World. And Dr. St. produced the Testimony of Aristobulus the Jewish Philosopher , to the same purpose , viz. that under the name of Jove , his design was to express the true God. R. P. T. G. doth not deny that Aratus might apply the name of Jupiter to the true God , and the attributes of the true God to Jupiter : but , he saith , it doth not follow that S. Paul , because he cited him , thought their Jupiter to be the true God. P. D. Suppose then S. Paul was of T. G.'s mind , and that their Jupiter was an Arch-devil ; and see what admirable reasoning he attributes to S. Paul. We have all our dependence upon God , as certain of your own Poets have said , speaking of him who was really an Arch-devil ; For we are his Off-spring . If an Athenian had asked S. Paul , whose Off-spring doth Aratus say we are ? Gods or the Devils ? If Jove meant by Aratus was no other than an Arch-devil , how doth this prove us to have our dependence on God for life and motion ? If he were the true God , then I grant it follows ; and the Jupiter meant by Aratus must be the supreme God. If Aratus doth give the name of Jupiter to the true God , then he that was meant under that name was the true God ; and S. Paul bringing this sentence to prove a main point of Divinity must allow him that was called by the name of Jupiter to have been the true God. And if T. G. doth yield that the Poet did apply the name of Jupiter to the true God , he gives up the cause , for that is all which Dr. St. contends for : and surely it is not possible for T. G. to imagine the true God and an Arch-devil to be the same . And supposing that Dr. St. had such a faculty as he mentions , of changing the Devil himself into God ; it seems much more desirable , than that of T. G. of changing the true God into an Arch-devil . R. P. But doth not S. Paul say , that the Heathens offered to Devils and not to God ; and will you make S. Paul to contradict himself ? P. D. S. Paul doth not there speak of their intention and design ; for they professed to worship the true God , and good spirits as inferiour Deities ; but what their worship was in Gods account ; which being so abominably corrupted with Idolatry and Superstition , was so far from being pleasing to God , that it could be acceptable to none but impure spirits . From whence you may do well to observe , that Worship is not terminated according to the i●●ention of the persons , but according to the nature and design of the Worship ; For the Heathens , when they were urged , did stifly maintain , that the spirits they worshipped , were good in themselves and kind to us , and utterly denyed that they worshipped any other , as Dr. St. hath shewed ; but notwithstanding this S. Paul doth charge them with the worshipping of Devils and not of God. And the main argument the Fathers had to prove them to be evil spirits was because they received such worship from men , which good Spirits would never have done . This observation is of necessary use for understanding both Scripture and Fathers , when they charge the Heathen Idolaters with worshipping Devils and not God ; as will appear by our following discourse . This place doth not therefore prove that the Gentiles did not intend to worship the true God under the title of Jupiter O. M. but that Idolatrous worship doth not tend to the honour of God , but to the service of the Devil . R. P. Do not you remember , when at Lystra the Priest of Jupiter would have offered Sacrifice to S. Paul as Mercury , and to Barnabas as Jove , in whose shapes they supposed those Gods to have appeared , S. Paul not only forbad them to do it , but told them their design was to convert them from those vain things to the living God : and can you now think that S. Paul meant Jupiter by this living God , when he taught them to convert themselves from those vain things ( their false Gods ) to the living God , i. e. to Jupiter ? Was this his way to perswade the men of Lystra to leave the worship of their Gods , to tell them that he came to teach them to worship Jupiter ? P. D. Is there no difference between these two Questions ; whether the true God might not be worshipped among the Heathens under the title of Jupiter O. M. ? and whether Jupiter of Creet as worshipped by them was not a false God ? This later Dr. St. never denyed ; and the former was all he pleaded for , as pertinent to his purpose . When they did make such a description of him as to his Power , and Goodness , as could not agree to such a wretch as the Cretan Jupiter was described by the Poets ; when they rejected the Poetical Fables , and declared as plainly as men could do , that they understood the supreme Governour of the World ; as Dr. St. hath at large shewed ; the question is , whether under the name of Jove they meant the true God or not ? But doth he ever so much as intimate that Jupiter of Creet was not a false God ? or that S. Paul and the Apostles did not go about to convert mankind from the vanities of Idol-worship in the sacrifices they made to this Jupiter and Mercury , as well as any other of their inferiour Deities ? To make this matter more clear , which concerns the worship of Jupiter among the Heathens ; we are to observe , 1. That the name was more ancient in Greece for an object of Divine Worship than Jupiter of Creet . If this can be made out , then although this name might be applyed to a particular person , ( as it was usual in the Eastern parts to call their Princes by the name of their Gods ) yet originally it belonged to the Deity , and consequently might still be properly attributed to him ; and under that name they might well understand the Supreme God. For the proof of this , I make use of an observation of Pausanias , and of others from him ; viz. that Cecrops was the first who called the supreme God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Jove ; Eusebius hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; hic primus omnium Jovem appellavit , saith Isidore . It is well known that Cecrops came out of Egypt , from whence Herodotus observes the Greeks took the names of their Gods ; Cecrops lived in the time of Moses , and before the flood of Deucalion saith Varro : it happened in his time , say Eusebius and S. Hierome , in which great part of Thessaly and Greece were overwhelmed . But Jupiter of Creet , by whom Europa the daughter of Agenor was taken , was the fifth in descent from Deucalion , according to Diodorus , being the son of Tectamus , the son of Dorus , the son of Hellen , the son of Deucalion . His proper name , Diodorus saith , was Asterius , whom Eusebius follows : S. Augustin calls him Zanthus , and Strabo , Zathus ; whose son Jon carryed the Colonies of Greeks into the twelve Cities of Asia , from him called Jonia . From hence it appears that the name of Jupiter did not properly belong to him of Creet , but was assumed by him , when he affected divine honours . 2. This Jupiter of Creet did obtain Divine honour under that name among the rude and barbarous Greeks . And this was the great discovery made by Euhemerus , from the inscription in the Temple of Jupiter Triphylius in Greece : from whence it appeared , that this King of Creet was a very busie and active Prince , having great command both at Sea and Land , and was very successful in reducing the barbarous people under Laws and Government , and in many useful inventions for the benefit of humane Life : which made the people after his death in Creet , bestow the greatest Divine honours upon him , and worship him under the most sacred name . For it had been a custome long before among the Greeks to Deifie the most useful men ; as S. Augustine observes of Phegous the Brother of Phoroneus ; of Apis King of the Argives who dyed in Egypt ; of Argus who had a Temple and Sacrifices allotted to him ; of Phorbas , Jasus , Sthenelus , who were all Princes among the old Greeks . And therefore it was no wonder such people should give Divine Worship to this Prince , who had brought them into so much order in comparison of what they were in before . From hence we find him not only worshipped in Creet , where he had several titles from the places where his Temples stood , as Idaeus , Dictaeus , Arbius , Asius , Temillius and Scyllius , &c. but in Greece , as Ithometes , Atabyrius , Triphylius , Olympius , Cithaeronius , &c. and whereever the Colonies of Greeks in Asia were , as at Tarsus , S. Paul's own Countrey ; and he was called Sardessius , from a City of Lycia , Chrysosoreus from a place in Caria , Tarantaeus from a City in Bithynia , Dolichaeus from a City in Comagene , Abretanus from a place in Mysia , and Asbameus from a Fountain in Cappadocia . Is this now any such mighty argument to prove that Jupiter could not be taken for the supreme God , because in Lystra a City of Lycaonia S. Paul and Barnabas refused the worship the people would have given to them , as to Jupiter and Mercury ? Among the Grecian Colonies , what wonder is it , if the Grecian Jupiter was worshipped ? and who ever said , that he was not a false God ? But , after all this , suppose they did mean the great and original Jupiter , the maker of the world , had not S. Paul and Barnabas reason to turn them from the vanities of their worship , when they found them so ready to give divine honours to two men whom they fancied to appear in the likeness of their Gods , by doing a sudden and unexpected miracle ? And if it were lawful , by the light of nature to give divine worship of an inferiour degree to mankind , what made the Apostles so concerned to run in among them , and to rent their clothes , and to cry out , We are men of like passions with you . Therefore all that strain of T. G.'s Rhetorick whereby he endeavours to return Dr. St.'s arguments upon himself from this place , hath no manner of strength or pungency in it . But what saith T. G. to Dr. St.'s other argument from Scripture , viz. that S. Paul to the Romans doth say , that which is known of God was manifest among the Heathens ; that his Eternal Power and Godhead were so far discovered that they were left without excuse in their gross Idolatry ? How could this be , if their supreme God whom they worshipped were only an Arch-devil ? Or doth T. G. suppose , that they did own one true God , but gave all their worship to the Devil ? And since the name of Jupiter was used to express alwayes the chief God whom they did own , and by such characters as could only agree to the true God , is it any wayes likely they should never intend to worship him under that name ? When Dr. St. hath shewed from Dio Chrysostom , that by Jupiter they meant the first and greatest God , the supreme Governour of the World , and King over all rational beings . R. P. I do not find T. G. takes any notice of the other argument from Scripture , but he applyes himself to the Fathers . P. D. But what saith he to the Testimonies Dr. St. produced of the Writers of his own Church , a full Jury of them , who frankly acknowledge that the Heathens did own and Worship one supreme God ? R. P. I suppose he thought none of the rest worth answering : but he finds great fault with the testimony out of Aquinas . P. D. This is a rare way of answering . Dr. St. produced twelve several Authors of good reputation , T. G. takes no notice of eleven of them , and because he makes some cavils at the twelfth , he would have this pass for an answer to them all . R. P. But the Dr. loseth his credit so much in that , that we need not to examine the rest . P. D. Why so ? It is possible a man through haste or inadvertency , or as T. G. expresseth it , through a casual undulation of the visual rays , may for once mistake ; but doth it follow , that he must do it for twelve times together ? But I have not yet found any cause for these clamours ; and I suppose there may be as little as to this Testimony : I pray tell me where lyes it ? R. P. T. G. makes a great many words about it , but the short of the charge is this , that what Aquinas spoke of some of the Philosophers , viz. the Platonicks , who acknowledged one supreme God , from whom they said , all those others whom they called Gods , did receive their being : Dr. St. interprets as spoken of the Generality of the Heathens , who are there said to acknowledge a multitude of Gods properly so called . P. D. I know not whether to express greater shame or indignation at this disingenuous dealing . There needs no other answer , but to set down Aquinas his words , and to leave the Reader to construe them . Hac autem veritate repelluntur Gentiles Deorum multitudinem confitentes , quamvis plures eorum unum Deum summum esse dicerent , à quo omnes alios quos Deos nominabant , creatos esse asserebant , &c. Can any thing be plainer from these words , than that those Gentiles are refuted who held a multitude of independent Deities , although the greater number of them ( of whom ? is it not of the Heathens he spake of before ? and where is there one word of Platonists or Philosophers in the whole sentence ? ) do acknowledge one supreme God , of whom all others whom they called Gods did receive their being . What can be more evident from these words , than that although some among the Heathens might hold a multitude of independent Deities , yet the greater number did not ? The single question here is , whether plures Gentilium , doth signifie the greater number of Gentiles , or the small number of Platonists , who are not once mentioned ? But besides this , Dr. St. produces another Testimony out of the same Book of Aquinas , where he makes three several schemes of the Heathen Worship , viz. ( 1. ) Of those who held one First principle , but thought Divine Worship might be given to inferiour Beings . ( 2. ) Of those who supposed God to be the soul of the world . ( 3. ) Of those who worshipped animated Images . If the other had been the general opinion of the Heathen , he would have ranked it in the first place ; viz. of those who gave Divine Worship to many independent Deities , but he doth not so much as mention it , where it had been very proper to do it . And it is plain from this Testimony of Aquinas , that it is Idolatry to give Divine Worship to any Creatures , although of never so great excellency . R. P. Let us come to the Fathers I beseech you , for my fingers itch to be at them ; for I see T. G. hath taken more than ordinary pains to prove , that the Fathers make the Heathens supreme God to be an Arch-devil : but it is necessary in the first place to state the question aright . P. D. I think so too . R. P. T. G. hath taken some pains to do it , to prevent misunderstanding . For he takes notice of four several questions which may relate to this matter . ( 1. ) Whether the Heathens did not acknowledge one Supreme God ? which he yields , and produces several Testimonies of the Fathers to that purpose . ( 2. ) Whether the Heathens did not pretend that they understood this Supreme God by Jupiter , and accordingly gave him the titles due to the Supreme God ? This T. G. denies not , to be fully proved by Dr. St. , but he saith all these Testimonies are impertinent . ( 3. ) Whether the Fathers do not acknowledge that this was pretended by the Heathens ? This T. G. accounts impertinent too : For , saith he , they might cite some sayings of the Heathen to that purpose , and yet be of a contrary judgement themselves . But the point in debate between the Dr. and T. G. is this , ( 4. ) Whether it were the Fathers own sense that Jupiter was the Supreme God ? P. D. I pray tell me for what end were the Fathers appealed to in this dispute about the nature of Idolatry ? Was it not to prove Idolatry consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme God ? For doth not Dr. St. propose several ways for the proof of this concerning the Heathens , either the Testimony of the Heathens themselves ; or of the Writers of the Roman Church , or of the Scriptures , or of those Fathers who disputed against their Idolatry , or of the Roman Church it self ? Therefore the Fathers were appealed to as Witnesses concerning this main point ; and if it appear from them that it was Idolatry in the Heathens to own a Supreme Deity and to give Divine Worship to any created Being , then the notion of Idolatry will reach to the Roman Church . But T. G. endeavours to get off from the close debate of this , which was the most pertinent of all , and would fain substitute another question in the place of it , which was but a secondary and accidental dispute occasioned by T. G.'s saying that the Heathens Supreme God was an Arch-devil . Although Dr. St. hath proved that was not agreeable to the general sense of the Fathers , yet any one may see that quite through his discourse his chief aim was at stating the Nature of Idolatry according to the sense of the Fathers . From Justin Martyr he shews that the question between the Christians and Heathens was not about one Supreme God , which he acknowledges to be owned by them ; but whether Divine Worship ought in general to be given to any creature , and in particular to the Heathen Gods ? And he lays the force of the Christian Doctrine as to worship upon that peremptory declaration of the Will of God ; Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . The same he shews as to Athenagoras , Clemens Alexandrinus , Origen , Cyril , and all the Fathers who managed the dispute against the Heathen Idolatry . Is it impertinent to the right stating the nature of Idolatry , to consider whether they who charged the Heathens with it , did at the same time confess they owned one Supreme God ? Doth not T. G. himself grant that it is very material towards the right understanding the nature of Idolatry to consider what was the design of the Fathers to charge them with Idolatry in ? Whether in worshipping the Creature and not the Creator with Divine Worship ; or in worshipping more Gods than one properly so called ; ( which he seems to fix the Heathen Idolatry upon ) or in giving the same worship to God and his Creatures ( which Dr. St. asserts ) which notion soever of these be true , it cannot be said to be impertinent for Dr. St. to prove his notion to be the sense of the Fathers . And if the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God , as T. G. grants , and the Fathers do allow this in their disputes of Idolatry ; which T. G. cannot deny ; then the question comes to this , whether they charged them with Idolatry only for neglecting to worship the Supreme God which they owned ; or in holding one Supreme and many Supremes at the same time ? For if they believed one Supreme God , as T.G. grants , and yet held many independent Deities which they worshipped as such , they must hold one Supreme and yet many ; for every independent Deity must be Supreme . I wonder therefore if T. G. designed to debate this matter fairly , why he should account the other questions impertinent ; and account that the only point in debate , whether according to the sense of the Fathers Jupiter was the Supreme God ? R. P. Do not you remember how Dr. St. insulted over him as to the sense of the Fathers in this matter ; and had he not reason then to speak to this point ? P. D. I allow him all the liberty he can desire , provided he do not reject the main evidence as to the Cause of Idolatry to be impertinent ; which he would cut off by this trick , that they do not refer to his question about Jupiter . But since you have such a mind to tell me the sense of the Fathers in this matter , let us hear and consider them in order . R. P. T. G. begins as Dr. St. doth with Justin Martyr : and he shews from him that the Devils appearing in humane shapes were the first beginners of Idolatry , the people taking them for Gods , and worshipped their Images . P. D. This is no great discovery to Dr. St. for he takes notice of this very opinion of Justin Martyr . R. P. But he makes Jupiter to have been one of these Devils in his first Apology , Where he saith , the Poets and Mythologists not knowing that the Angels and Daemons begotten by them had been the Authors of the infamous practises he there speaks of , attributed them to God himself and to the sons begotten by him , and to those who are called his Brethren , Neptune and Pluto . P. D. What follows from hence I beseech you ? R. P. That according to the sense of Justin Martyr , Jupiter the Supreme God was a Devil . P. D. That should be better proved ; For how doth it follow from Justins words ? That which Justin saith is , that what he attributes to Devils , the Poets attribute to God himself and his Sons : and what then ? It thence follows that Justin thought they attributed very unworthy things to God , but not that he thought him to be a Devil . For doth not the same Author prove that their Poets as well as Philosophers did own one supreme God , and that Homer calls him Emphatically , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which is the very expression Justin useth in this place , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and by that he saith , is meant the truly existent Deity , whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . R. P. But Justin saith , the Devils were the causes of Idolatry , and the Poets say the true God was the cause , therefore according to Justin Martyr their true God was a Devil . P. D. Which is just like this kind of reasoning . The Poets and Mythologists of the Roman Church attribute the miracles wrought by Images to the true God ; others say , they are wrought by the power of the Devil ; therefore they make the Papists God to be a Devil . Which is altogether as true reasoning as the former . For Justin saith , he believes Idolatry to have come from the Devils , the Poets they say it came from God : and although he quotes this opinion of theirs , it doth not follow that he thought their God to be a Devil ; but that they attributed those things to God , which did come from the Devil . So much for the first Testimony , let us come to the next ; and if the rest prove like it , notwithstanding T. G.'s fluttering , all his Fathers will be but a Covie of one still . R. P. The next is , Athenagoras , who first shews from what the Poets and Historians relate concerning the Heathen Gods , that there was nothing that might induce us to believe Saturn , Jupiter , Proserpine and the rest of them to be Gods , but rather that they were men , and by their actions Devils : and then that Jupiter according to the interpretation of the Philosophers was no God. P. D. Is not this , the same Athenagoras who said , that the generality of mankind were agreed in this , whether they would or no , that there was but one God ? And who proves this from the Testimony of the Heathen Poets and Philosophers , and that with the very name of Jupiter too ? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Doth Athenagoras yield this to be a good proof concerning one true God , and yet deny the true God to be meant by Jupiter ? No ; but we must consider a threefold sense of Jupiter among the Fathers . ( 1. ) The Original Jupiter , the Father of Gods and Men among the Poets , the supreme mind and Governour of the world among the Philosophers ; the one God confessed by all mankind ; whom Athenagoras mentions under that name , in the verses of Euripides . And if Athenagoras took this Jupiter for a Devil , he doth not prove any thing to his purpose from those Testimonies of the Poets and Philosophers . For his design was to vindicate the Christians in holding the Vnity of the Godhead , which I desire T. G. to observe ; You accuse us , saith Athenagoras , because we reject your popular Gods , and assert one God ; yet saith he , you condemn not your Poets and Philosophers who applyed themselves most to the consideration of things , and agree with us in the Vnity of the Godhead . What force were there in this argument ; if the God they owned were not the true God , but an Arch-devil ? How could the Christians plead the consent of the Wiser Heathens with them , if they owned a Devil instead of the true God ? Suppose any loyal subjects in the late times had been accused as enemies to the Government , would it have passed for any vindication of them to have pleaded that they owned O. C. who was a single person , as well as our lawful King ? It is true , they both agreed in a single person , but the rights of those two single persons were so opposite to each other , that the same men could not be friends to both , or both be said to own the same Monarchy . But when the Christians pleaded the consent of the Heathens , it was not meerly to purge themselves from Atheism ; but to shew that the wisest Heathens were of their mind ; As T. G. confesseth , the Fathers appealed to the Testimony of the Consciences of men to this purpose , as giving evidence for Christians , ( mark that ) What evidence was this for Christians , unless it were not only for one God , but for the true God ? For they who did own one God , who was so far from being the true , that in the Fathers judgement , he was the greatest enemy to him in the world , viz. an Arch-devil ; these were far from giving testimony to the Christians ; as who would say , that the Indians who worship the Devil do give testimony to the true God ? If therefore it was the Arch-devil , as T. G. saith , whom the Poets and Philosophers according to the Fathers , did give testimony to , instead of producing their evidence as they did on all occasions , they ought to have rejected it with scorn and indignation . For what consent could there be between God and the Devil ? If the Fathers thought they owned one supreme Devil , and yet produced their testimonies to justifie their belief of one true God , it would have been just , as if the Kings Subjects should have said to O. C.'s friends ; why are you angry with us for not submitting to his Government ; since D. and H. and P. and the rest , own a single person as well as we ? True , would they have said , but our difference is the more irreconcileable , for you are for one single person and we for another ; and their interests can never be united , there being a competition between them for the same Power . Thus when Athenagoras and the rest of the Fathers produce the Testimonies of Euripides , Sophocles , Plato , Aristotle , &c. to shew their consent with the Christians in the acknowledgement of one supreme God ; we will suppose the Emperour Antoninus to whom Athenagoras addressed himself , to ask him this question , You produce their testimonies to prove their consent with you as to one supreme God ; do you mean the same God ; or an Vsurper and an Arch-devil ? If you think it was not the same , but his utter enemy , What madness is it to produce those who owned him whom you account the greatest usurper , to prove a consent with you , who pretend to discover his usurpation , and do cry out upon him as the greatest enemy to God and mankind ? If you think they meant the same God with you , who is the Lord and Governour of the world , we cannot deny the force of your allegations , and judge it unreasonable to condemn you for that doctrine , which the wisest among our selves did own . Since therefore T. G. confesseth that the Heathens did own one supreme God , and that under the name of Jupiter , and that the Fathers do produce many testimonies of theirs to that purpose : and that , as it appears , to shew their consent with Christians as to the unity of the Godhead , as Athenagoras saith expresly ; what can follow more naturally from hence , than that the Fathers did look upon that Jupiter whom they owned to be the one supreme God , to be the same true God , whom the Christians worshipped ? And when Athenagoras produced the Testimony of Plato concerning the Maker and Father of the Vniverse , he immediately adds , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 · · understanding thereby one unbegotten and eternal God. Was this meant by Athenagoras of the true God , or of the Arch-devil ? And from hence he argues thus ; If Plato's opinion were not impious or Atheistical , neither is ours who hold the same God who made the world . What force is there in this arguing , if Athenagoras did not look on Plato's God and the Christians to be the same ? And in another place speaking of Plato's saying concerning Jupiter , that he rides first in Heaven upon his winged chariot , ordering and disposing all things ; and an army of Gods and Daemons follows him ; he subjoyns this caution , that this is not to be understood of Jupiter the son of Saturn ; but that this name belongs to the Maker of all things . Can there be a plainer testimony than this , that there was a more ancient and greater Jupiter than the son of Saturn , and he no less than the Maker of the World ? When Athenagoras himself makes this distinction , and owns that the name of Jupiter belongs to the maker of all things , is it possible to think that by this Jupiter , Athenagoras did not mean the supreme God but an Arch-devil ? But he goes on and saith , that Plato added the word Great to Jupiter , on purpose to distinguish the Celestial Jupiter from the Terrestrial , and him that was unbegotten , from him that was begotten ; and not only junior to the Heaven and Earth , but to the Cretans who stole him away to prevent his being killed by his Father . ( 2. ) The Poetical Jupiter . Of him Athenagoras speaks , when he joyns him with Saturn and Proserpina . Where he mentions the Poetical Theology ; and he saith , that Orpheus , Homer , and Hesrod were not much inferiour in age to the Gods they describe , as to their Genealogies , shapes , actions and passions ; which he shews at large to be unworthy of any who are called Gods. Towards the latter end of his Apology , he gives the true account of these things , viz. that those whom they worshipped for Gods had formerly been men of interest and power , and either through fear or flattery had divine worship given to them ; and particularly of Jupiter , he proves from Callimachus , that he was born in Creet , although the Poet will by no means allow that he died and had a Sepulchre there . From hence he shews , that under the names of Deified men the evil spirits did assume the divine worship which was given to themselves ; which he proves from the cruel and impure actions which they did put men upon . He shews , that the Image of Neryllinus who lived in their time did give answers to those who consulted it ; and so did that of Proteus , or Lucians Peregrinus , who cast himself into the fire at Olympia ; since therefore the Images themselves could not do these things , nor those whose Images they were , he concludes they were evil Spirits who were busie about those Images , and wrought upon the imaginations of those who came to consult them . And who denies that these were evil Spirits which drew men to Idolatry , and encouraged them in it , as Athenagoras observes , who under the names of great men did assume divine worship to themselves ? And in this sense Dr. St. never denied that Jupiter of Creet was a false God , and the Devil under his name drew men to the practice of gross Idolatry . ( 3. ) The Allegorical Jupiter . For Athenagoras saith , that the Poetical Fables were so filthy and base , that the Philosophers had no other way , but to turn them into Allegories ; and to interpret them Physically of the nature and mixture of the Elements . And thus according to Empedocles , Jupiter was Fire , Juno Earth , Pluto Air , Nestis water . However , saith Athenagoras , these are but Elements , and parts of matter , and therefore cannot be Gods , nor deserve divine worship . The Stoicks made Jupiter to be Fire , Juno Air , Neptune Water . Others made one part of Air to be Jupiter , and another Juno : however they cooked and dressed their Allegories , they were but Pork still ; it could arise no higher than a worship of the Elements instead of God. And now let any one judge how sufficiently T. G. hath proved from Athenagoras , that the supreme God of the Heathens was an Arch-devil . I pray proceed to your next . R. P. Theophilus Antiochenus saith , that neither the Mother of the Gods , nor her Children are Gods , but Idols , the works of mens hands , and most impure Devils : which T.G. saith , was cited by him in the same page with Origen before , although Dr. St. makes so much sport with him about crying out the Fathers , when he named , he saith , only Origen . P. D. And was not this true ? Doth T. G. name any more than Origen to prove that Jupiter according to the Fathers was an Arch-devil ? Look the place and you will find it punctually true . I grant he mentions Theophilus Antio●hemis in the same page ; but to what purpose ? Not to prove the supreme God an Arch-devil ; but the inferiour Deities to be Inferiour Devils : which was a thing never denyed by Dr. St. and therefore this Testimony signifies as little now , as it did before . R. P. But you will not so easily reconcile Tertullians Testimonies with Dr. St. 's abominable pretence , as T. G. calls it , that the God of the Romans was the true God. P. D. It is one thing to say , the God of the Romans was the true God , and another to say , they did worship the true God under the title of Jupiter O. M. For the former may imply that they had no other Gods besides him to whom they gave Divine Worship ; which I dare say never came into Dr. St.'s head . But all that he asserted was , that the Romans did own and worship the supreme God under the titles of Jupiter O. M. and gave such characters and descriptions of him as could agree to none but the Lord and Governour of the World : which he proved from many testimonies of Cicero , Seneca , and others the gravest of the Roman Writers . And what doth Tertullian say to take off these testimonies ? R. P. First , he saith , we are not ignorant that those who act and are pleased and counterfeit a Divinity under those names ( of dead men ) and consecrated statues , are wicked spirits , i. e. Devils . P. D. And what then I beseech you ? Was Jupiter O. M. one of these dead men ? if not , to what purpose is this Testimony brought ; unless it be as Countrey people say , for want of a better ? R. P. Not so , for he saith elsewhere , We worship one God whom ye all know by the light of Nature : As for the rest whom you think to be Gods , we know them to be Devils . P. D. Admirable ! who can stand before such demonstrations ? Tertullian here grants they all knew the true God , therefore the supreme God of the Romans was a Devil . He might as well have brought another Testimony out of the Book de spectaculis ; No man can be ignorant of that which Nature suggests , that God is the Maker of the World. Were the Romans ignorant of that , which Tertullian saith , no man could be ignorant of ? And when they made use of the most proper Epithets of Good and Great to describe and worship him by ; is it probable they should not understand him ? Or that Tertullian should think their supreme God was an Arch-devil ; when he saith in the words cited by T. G. he was the same God whom the Christians worshipped ? Doth T.G. consider what he writes ? when he puts down this for a Testimony against Dr. St. We worship one God whom ye all know by the light of Nature . Doth it not hence follow , that the God whom the Gentiles knew , was the same whom the Christians worshipped ? and he was not certainly an Arch-devil . I pray judge , whose pretence is the more abominable upon his own Testimonies . R. P. For all this , Tertullian shews , that Jupiter worshipped in the Capitol was not the true God. For speaking of the supplications the Heathens made there , he saith , they were averse both from God and Heaven . P. D. And had he not great-reason to say so , when he saith , The Romans with full bellies , and wallowing in all kind of Luxury , did offer up their sacrifices to obtain rain , and thought to have it drop down from the Capitol upon them , if the people went barefoot thither ? Doth not God himself tell the Jews they were far from him , when they seemed most to draw nigh unto him ? i. e. their sacrifices and oblations signified nothing , while they continued in their sins . I should not stick to say that intemperate and wicked men are averse both from God and Heaven , though they walk barefoot and make the richest presents to the true God. But how doth this prove they did not intend to worship the true God there ? Although withal their worship , even in the Capitol , was Idolatrous worship ; both as to the Image of Jupiter , and the conjunction of other Gods with him ; therefore whatever their intention was as to the worship of Jupiter O. M. their supplications might well be displeasing to the true God ; and on that account they might be said to be averse from God and Heaven . R. P. I have another testimony of Tertullian still good ; which if I mistake not will put you hard to it . It is in his Apologetick . We are esteemed not to be Romans but injurious to them , because we do not worship the God of the Romans . 'T is well , he is the God of all , whether we will or no. But among you it is lawful to worship any thing but the true God ; as if he were not the great God of all , whose no are all . What could be said more express to remove that abominable pretence of the Doctors , that the God of the Romans was the true God ? P. D. I see no reason in the world for your accounting the Doctors pretence abominable , unless he justified the way of worship then used , which he confesseth to be abominable both in the old Romans and others who too much imitate their Idolatries . Observe , that Tertullian speaks of their worship , which being Idolatrous , the Christians had just reason to refuse joyning with the Romans in it . From hence they were accused for worshipping another God from him whom the Romans worshipped , and Tertullian before mentions the several suspicions which they had concerning the God of the Christians ; some said it was the head of an Ass , some the Cross , some the Sun , and some set forth a ridiculous picture with the ears of an Ass , a Book and a Gown , and called this the God of the Christians . Tertullian upon this declares that the Christians worshipped the God that made the world and none else ; or as he said to Scapula , the God whom all men know by Nature . And in that very Chapter from whence those words are cited , he saith , it was the common opinion among the Romans , that there was one God higher and more powerful than all the rest , of perfect Wisdom and Majesty : for the greatest part , saith he , did make this scheme of Divinity , that the chief Power lay in one God , to whom the rest were only ministerial and subservient . I am afraid T. G. will allow my sense of these words no more than he is wont to do Dr. St.'s . I will therefore give you Tertullians own words . Nam & sic plerique disponunt Divinitatem , ut imperium summae Dominationis esse penes unum , officia ejus penes multos velint . Which words are of mighty weight and consequence in this matter , towards the right understanding Tertullians meaning . Here we see from whence Aquinas had his plures eorum , and in what sense it must be understood . From hence it appears , that the Generality of the Heathens did not assert a multitude of independent gods : nor were charged with Idolatry on that account . And to let us see whom they meant by this supreme God , he produces in the next words the place of Plato mentioned by Athenagoras of the great Jupiter in Heaven with his Army of Gods and Demons . R. P. But Tertullian saith , the Christians did not worship the God of the Romans ; and the Romans would not suffer them to worship the true God : how could this be , if they did own and worship the true God ? P. D. I will tell you , The God of the Romans was he who was worshipped after an Idolatrous manner in the Capitol and elsewhere : the Christians chose rather to to dye than to worship God after this manner : the Romans would permit no other kind of Worship than their own : and when the Christians refused to joyn in their worship , they could not believe , let them say what they would , that they worshipped that God whom all men know by the light Nature . The God of the Romans is the God worshipped after the Roman manner ; as the God of the Jews , of the Turks , and of the Christians is the God worshipped according to those several Laws , although he be the same God in himself the Maker and Governour of the World. This place then doth imply no more , than that the Roman Religion as it stood at that time and the Christian were inconsistent ; but it doth not follow from hence that the Romans did not intend to worship the Supreme God under the title of Jupiter O. M. R. P. Before we leave Tertullian , I have something more to say to you concerning him : it is about a passage of his Book ad Scapulam cited by Dr. St. where he endeavours to prove that the Heathens Jupiter was the Supreme God , by a miracle wrought upon the Heathens supplications to him under the name of Jove . P. D. Are you sure that Dr. St. ever meant any such thing ? R. P. T. G. quotes his words , God , saith he , shewed himself to be the powerful God by what he did upon their supplications to him under the name of Jove . P. D. But doth not Dr. St. expresly say , that it was upon the prayers of Christians , that miracle was wrought ? R. P. Yes , T. G. takes notice of that , and from thence proves that he wilfully corrupted Tertullians text , and makes a very Tragical business of it . Methinks I see the great Dionysius with his Birchen Scepter walking round him , telling him of his faults , and then one or two lashes ; but lest his pain should be too soon at an end , he takes off his hand , and walks the other turn , with a stern and Magisterial Countenance bidding others beware , and telling them what an example he will make of him , he laies on again , with such a spring in his arm , and so many repeated strokes , that I even pity the poor Doctor , and I could not think Dionysius himself could have expressed more severity on such an occasion ; but I consider , it is against an Heretick , and it is necessary sometimes to let you see how sharp we can be . P. D. You need not to tell us that ; but we had need to keep out of your lash as long as we can , for we expect no great kindness from you , if ever we fall under it . But why should T. G. think that Dr. St. designed to corrupt Tertullians sense in that place , when himself had before owned that the miracle was wrought by the prayers of the Christians ? He would never have done this , if he intended the other . I do confess the words , as they lye , are capable of that construction T. G. puts upon them ; but in common ingenuity they ought to be understood according to his own former sense of them ; unless the force of the argument lay in the other sense ; which I do not perceive it doth . For Dr. St. designed to prove in that place from Tertullian , that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God , from the testimony of their Consciences , and lifting up their hands and eyes to Heaven upon any great occasion : and then brings in those words before mentioned ; which are there produced for no other end , but to shew that the same powerful God was owned by the Gentiles and Christians in that famous miracle . He did not intend there to prove , as T. G. suggests , that Jupiter whom they worshipped in the Capitol was this one Supreme Being , from the testimony of Tertullian and the Miracle wrought by God himself upon the Heathens supplications to him under the name of Jove ; And where he did purposely set himself to prove this , he there confesses that the miracle was wrought at the prayers of the Christians , and that the whole Army made the exclamation , Deo Deorum & qui solus potens , whereby they did in Jovis nomine Deo nostro testimonium reddere , saith Tertullian ; and Dr. St. adds that the Heathens did intend this honour to their own Jove . From whence it appears that all the force of the argument from this Testimony lies in this , that the Heathens did confess there was one supreme and powerful God whom they called Jove . And this I say in Dr. St.'s name is the whole strength and force of his argument , and that he never thought of what T. G. imposes upon him , viz. that God wrought that miracle upon the supplications of the Heathens to prove that Jove was the true God : which was not necessary to his design . But I do insist upon it , as an invincible proof of that which he intended , the acknowledgement of one supreme God , whom they called Jove . I do yield then , that the miracle was wrought by the prayers of the Christians ; that the Christians did not pray to God under the name of Jove ; that the Heathens did attribute the honour of the miracle to their Jove ; that in the titles they gave to him on this occasion they did give testimony to the mighty power of that God whom the Christians worshipped ; I will not deny , that M. Aurelius did write a Letter to the Senate , wherein he acknowledged this miracle to be wrought by the Christians , ( although it may be that was not the Letter , which is extant in Baronius ) But after all these concessions , I say , that Dr. St.'s argument holds good , that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God under the name of Jove . For what could the Army mean else , by that acclamation , Deo Deorum & qui solus potens ? From whence it unavoidably follows , that the Heathen Army did acknowledge one Supreme and Omnipotent God , whom they called Jove : And in Antoninus his Column at Rome , this God is described under the title of Jupiter Pluvius : therefore according to the sense of the Heathen Army , this Jupiter was Deus Deorum , & solus Potens . T. G. could not but see , that herein lay the strength of Dr. St.'s argument ; but he dissembles it , and makes him to aim at what he never thought of , and catching hold of an ambiguous expression , he runs away with that , and uses him with more severity than ever Dionysius turned Pedant , or reforming Stepmother used , which are his own expressions upon a far less occasion . R. P. But Tertullian distinguishes the true God from him who was worshipped under the name of Jove . P. D. I deny not , that Tertullian doth distinguish the worship of the true God from the worship of Jove . And when the Heathens attributed such miracles to their Jupiter , with a design thereby to justifie the Heathen Worship , the Christians had great reason to stand upon this distinction ; and to complain that what the Christians obtained by prayers and fasting , they attributed to their Jupiter , i. e. what the Christians hoped would convince them of their Idolatry , they used for an argument to prove that God was not displeased with it . But it doth not follow , from any thing Tertullian hath said , that he did not suppose the Heathens did not intend to worship the true God under their Jupiter , when he confesses the greatest part of them did suppose one Supreme God , and that the Christians worshipped the same God whom all men knew by the light of Nature . R. P. What say you to Clemens Alexandrinus , who affirms the Gods of the Heathens to be Devils ; and among the rest he reckons up Jupiter himself ; so far was he from thinking Jupiter to be the true God ? P. D. Dr. St. had prevented this objection , by saying that in that place Clemens speaks of the Poetical Theology , and of Jupiter of Creet ; but withall he shews not only that Clemens doth acknowledge that all mankind had a natural knowledge of the true God , but that they meant him under the name of Jupiter : and commends the manner of speaking concerning God as grave and decent , where the Divine perfections are attributed to Jupiter : he quotes a saying of Xenocrates wherein he calls God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Supreme Jove , and some others of a like nature . Which seem to be as plain evidences as Dr. St. could desire . And what answer doth T. G. give to them ? R. P. He saith , it doth not follow from hence that it was the sense of Clemens himself , that Jupiter who was worshipped in the Temples was that true God. And his meaning was not to assert Jupiter to be that supreme Being , but from the Epithets and Titles of Omniscient , Omnipotent , &c. which the Poets and Philosophers attributed unto God under the name of Jupiter , to convince them , that there was but one supreme Being , Maker and Governour of the World. P. D. His design then was to convince them of that , which he proves they all knew already . If they had such a knowledge of God , as T. G. grants that Clemens doth prove from their Testimonies , either it was the true God they knew , or a false God or an Arch-devil . If the later , they do not reach to what he brings them for , which was to prove the inbred notion of one supreme Disposer of things ; if the former , then all those Titles and Epithets did express the true God ; according to Clemens his own sense of them . But doth T. G. think that they gave the Titles and Epithets of Omnipotent , Omniscient , &c. to the Devil ? and that Clemens believed it at the same time , when he proves from hence that all men have the natural knowledge of God ? If he can think so , he must make Clemens a man of much reading , but of no judgement . But I pray reflect a little ; T. G. confesses that Clemens saith , that those Epithets were attributed to Jupiter with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God ; then according to T. G. the Devil may very decently and gravely be said to be an omnipotent and omniscient Devil . For I pray observe but this one passage and you will find what pitiful shifts T. G. is put to . The things which the Poets attribute to Jupiter in express terms Clemens saith are spoken with great decorum of God : and at the same time he grants , that they meant God by their Jupiter ; what then follows but that although they used the name Jupiter , yet under that name they spake those thinks of God which were very agreeable to him . No , saith T. G. this is not his meaning , but that they spake those things concerning their Jupiter , which being applied to the true God would be spoken with great gravity and decency . Which in plain terms is , that they attributed the perfections of God to the Arch-devil , which was very ill done of them one would think , and horrible blasphemy ; but however , saith T. G. these things may be said to be spoken with great gravity and decency concerning God , because if you take them from the Devil and apply them to God , they are decent expressions . Let us suppose James Naylor riding through the streets of Bristol assuming to himself the title of the Son of God , and some of his followers crying Hosanna to the Son of David : would T. G. say this were spoken with decency a●d gravity ; because it would be so , if it were rightly applied to his Son Christ Jesus ? T. G. doth not seem here to consider wherein the decency of speech lies ; for there is the greatest indecency , nay blasphemy in the misapplication of the best titles and most glorious attributes . And were there no other reason to convince me of the sense of the Fathers in this matter , this alone were sufficient ; that if T. G.'s hypothesis were true , all those great things which the Heathens spake of their Jupiter were most abominable blasphemies ; for the Divine Perfections were attributed to the chief of Devils . And if to attribute the miraculous works of God to the Devil be the sin against the Holy Ghost ; what then is it to give to the Devil all the perfections of God himself ? And yet , if T. G. say true , the Fathers must believe that the most learned and wise of the Heathens did so , when they spake of the Wisdom , and Power , and Goodness of their supreme Jupiter : and if they did believe they were guilty of such horrible blasphemy , would they so often quote , approve , extol these sayings as they do ? Would they not rather have reproved , censured , condemned them for them , as the most intolerable reproaches of the Divine Nature ? Would they have born such things in Plato , Euripides or any other Philosopher or Poet ? For to call a Stone , a Stock , a dead Man , a God ; to attribute life , sense , understanding to meer matter ; were tolerable blasphemies in comparison with making the Devil to be the supreme Governour of the world ; to be One and All ; to be infinite Wisdom as well as Power ; and yet all these must be thus given to the Devil by the wisest Poets and Philosophers which the Heathens ever had . Nay farther , their best and most understanding men who are most commended by the Fathers themselves , must be the greatest blasphemers of all others , and be thought so by the Fathers at the same time when they magnifie their sayings , for the Wisdom , Gravity , and Decency contained in them . This is so gross , so wild , so absurd an imagination as could hardly enter into any mans head who had any manner of esteem for the Fathers . And I would advise T. G. rather to let the Fathers quite alone , than to fix such absurdities upon them . R. P. Methinks you are grown very warm of a sudden ; but I have another Father to cool you , and he is Minucius Felix . P. D. He is but a Paterculus a very diminutive Father , as T. G. speaks ; however I hope he is able to speak for himself . R. P. He saith , the impure Spirits lurking in the consecrated statues gained to themselves the Authority and Esteem of a Deity that was there present . P. D. And what then ? How often must you be told , that the question is not , whether the Devils were not assisting in the practice of Idolatry ? which Dr. St. never questioned ; either by presence in consecrated Images , or by assuming divine honours under the names of Deified men ; but this doth not come up to the question in hand ; which is , whethers the Fathers did not believe they did intend to worship the supreme God under the name and Titles of Jupiter O. M. ? I will make this plain to you , that if possible you may understand the difference of these questions . You know what boasts are made in your Church of the Miracles wrought by our Lady of such and such a place , as of Mointague , Hall , Loretto , &c. what do you mean by this , but that such Images which are there of her did effect them , not by the power of the Wood or Stone , but of some spiritual power which was present in or about them ; suppose now a person who hath heard of the coming of Satan with signs and lying wonders , should believe that the evil spirits did endeavour to retrieve Idolatry in the Christian World after the way by which they advanced it in the Heathen World ; and so concludes that they work these pretended miracles , might not such a one say , that impure spirits lurk in your consecrated Images , and there receive Divine Worship under the names of Saints and Angels ; and yet at the same time believe that you worship one supreme God ? R. P. But here the case is different ; for Minucius saith , that Saturn , and Serapis , and Jupiter ( mark that ) confess themselves to be Devils . P. D. Two wayes Jupiter might be a Devil , and yet not prejudice Dr. St.'s assertion . ( 1. ) As he assumed the honours given to the Poetical Jupiter ; who was really a Prince of Creet ; but the Poets by attributing to him the villanies of many others ( as to the ravishing of women , &c. ) had made him one of the greatest monsters of Wickedness that ever was ; and therefore it was no wonder the Devil should be worshipped under his name ; not intentionally but terminatively , in as much , as all this worship ended in the service of the Devil , who was alwayes very active to subdue the minds of men to the Folly and Wickedness of Idolatry . ( 2. ) As he was busie about consecrated Images , even to the supreme Jupiter . Thus although the Greeks and Romans might set up Images with Scepters , and Globes , and Thunderbolts in their hands , on purpose to declare that they intended to worship the supreme God by them ; yet this way of worship being so disagreeable to the Divine Nature and Perfections , God might justly suffer the impure Spirits to be active in those very Images , which were consecrated to himself : and they might by this means run away with that honour which they intended to give to the Divine Majesty . But the Question still remains , whether notwithstanding all this , the Heathens did not design to worship the supreme God under the name of Jove ? and nothing of this nature doth shew that the Fathers believed the contrary ; and as to Minucius Felix , Dr. St. had produced a material passage out of him to prove , that they who make Jove the chief God , are only deceived in the name , but agree in the power . R. P. I am glad you mention that place ; for T. G. hath at large proved that Dr. St. hath corrupted both the sense and words of Minucius to make him speak as he would have him . P. D. I am now so used to these false and shameless charges of T. G. about Dr. St.'s corrupting of Authors , that I dare stand the shock , let T. G. make use of all his strength and skill . R. P. T. G. saith , that Minucius intended nothing less than to assert Jupiter to be the one supreme God ; but that he argued only ad hominem ( as we say ) from what the wiser Heathens pretended they thought of Jupiter , that they ought to acknowledge but one supreme God , Maker and Governour of the World : and the design and sense of Minucius was this , That although they were deceived in their pretence of assigning Jupiter to be the supreme God ; yet by what they affirmed of him , viz. that he was the Prince or the Chief , and the Poets setting forth one Father of Gods and Men , they were sufficiently convinced , that they ought to acknowledge but one supreme and undivided Power , by which the world was made and governed ; which was the point Minucius was proving in that place . But the Dr. by putting in and leaving out what he thought might make for his advantage , hath corrupted the very Text of Minucius , to make it speak his sense . P. D. A very heavy charge ! But what if there be no ground for all this ? Is not T. G. a man of admirable dexterity , and unparallel'd ingenuity ? I will take T. G.'s own translation of the words ; and if from thence all that Dr. St. saith , doth follow , there can be certainly no cause for all these clamours . Those also , saith he , who will have Jupiter to be the Prince or Chief , are deceived in the name , but agree as to the Vnity of Power . The matter lies within a narrow compass : Either they who agreed as to the Vnity of Power and called that Power by the name of Jove did mean the same God with Minucius , or not . If they meant the same God , Dr. St. gives the true sense of Minucius , for then they who make Jove the chief God are only deceived in the name and agree in the Power : ( and it is ridiculous Pedantry to quarrel at his translating , Qui Jovem Principem volunt , They who make Jove the chief God : and for putting in only , it is no more than the sense implyes , for if they agree in the thing , they must be only deceived in the name . ) This is therefore the single point to be debated , whether according to Minucius they understood the same God or not ? And to make this out I desire no other method than what T. G. proposes , viz. to consider the design of Minucius in that place . Providence being supposed , he saith , the question is whether the world be Governed by one , or more , and after other arguments for Monarchical Government in general , he produces the consent of mankind in lifting up their hands to Heaven , and calling upon God , and saying , God is great , God is true , and if God give . Is this , saith he , the voice of Nature in the common people , or the confession of a Christian ? Where nothing can be more evident , than the consent between the voice of Nature , and the confession of a Christian as to the same God. And then it immediately follows . Et qui Jovem Principem volunt , falluntur in nomine , sed de unâ Potestate consentiunt . These agree too as to the Vnity of Power , who would have Jove to be Chief . Is there not all the reason that may be , to understand this agreement to be with those mentioned before ; viz. the common people and Christians , who all consent in the Vnity of Power ; but these call that Power by the name of Jove ; and although Minucius thinks they are deceived in attributing that name to God , yet he yields that they agreed in the thing . This is the plain and easie sense of Minucius ; Let us now consider T. G.'s sense of these words , and see how well that agrees with his design . His sense is this ; They who would have Jupiter to be the Prince or Chief , were agreed as to the Vnity of Power , but were so much deceived , not only in the name , but in the thing it self , that they attributed this Power , not to God but to the Devil . For , saith T. G. Minucius his own thoughts were , that this Jupiter was a Devil . Let this be supposed , and his meaning is this , The common People call upon God , and say , God is true , God is great ; and therein agree with the confession of Christians ; and they who will have Jove , i. e. the Devil to be the Chief of Gods , do agree as to the Vnity of Power . They who make God to be Chief , and the Devil to be Chief , do both agree that one is Chief I grant : but will any man of common sense say only that these are deceived in the name , who thinks at the same time , they mean the Devil ? Are they not deceived in much more than the name , in the very thing it self ? Do they not set up an Vsurper instead of God , and his most inveterate enemy , and attribute infinite and undivided power to him ? And is this dwindling expression fit for a Christian , to say only , falluntur in nomine , they are deceived in the name ? No : but he ought to have told them , they were deceived much more in the thing than in the name . It was but a trifle in comparison what name they used , if their sense and meaning were good . Call him Jove or what they pleased , if they meant the same thing , it was only a difference about a name : but if they did really attribute the Divine perfections to the Devil , this was a crime of the highest nature , it was notorious blasphemy ; and no true Christian could pass it over so gently and slightly , as Minucius doth , if he were of T. G.'s opinion . But to convince us that he was far from it ; he afterwards produces the consent of Philosophers with the Christians , so he saith , ( in the same page of the Leyden Edition ) that they did consent with them : and surely it was no consent with Christians to give the divine perfections to the Devil . Speaking of Thales , he saith , Vides Philosophi principalis nobiscum penitus opinionem consonare . ( I forbear to translate lest T. G. should want matter to fill up some empty pages as he did by proving that volunt doth not signifie making , &c. ) However , Minucius shews , that this Prince of Philosophers did fully agree with the Christians . Wherein I beseech you ? in attributing that power to the Devil which they give to God ? this is an agreement which I dare say , no Christian would ever own . And therefore it must be , in acknowledging the same Divine Being which the Christians did . And after he hath reckoned up the several opinions of the most noted Philosophers , he hath this remarkable expression ; Exposui opiniones omnium fere Philosophorum , quibus illustrior gloria est Deum unum multis licet designasse nominibus : I have set down the opinions of almost all the famous Philosophers , who all set forth one God though under many names : And lest any should fall into T. G.'s extravagant imagination , that this was not a consent in the same Being , but as to a meer Vnity of Power , though lodged in the Devil himself , he adds these words , Vt quivis arbitretur , aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse , aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos . Let T. G. construe this to his sense , if he can for his heart . Would any man in the World , who believed the Heathens supreme God to be the Devil , have said , either that the Christians now were Philosophers , or the Philosophers then were Christians : i. e. that those who asserted that God , and those who said , the Devil were supreme Governour of the world , were of the same opinion . Which is so foolish , so ridiculous an assertion , that I wonder to find T. G. resolve to maintain it . And I now desire you , or any man to judge whether the half dozen Fathers T. G. hath produced before Origen can amount to a Covie of One. I have exercised great patience in examining these testimonies , and not after T. G.'s way turned off all the rest , because one was defective ; and if you have any more that speak to the point , I am content to give you all the satisfaction you can desire , provided they prove more than that in general , the Gentiles sacrificed to Devils , which was never denied . R. P. T. G. produces the Testimonies of Eusebius , Athanasius , S. Cyprian , S. Chrysostom , S. Hierom and others . P. D. To what purpose ? R. P. To prove that they were wicked spirits who delighted in their worship and Sacrifices . P. D. Who ever denyed this ? Will T. G. quote the Fathers from one end to the other to prove that all men are sinners ? Name me those who seem to speak to the poin● , and I will answer them . R. P. You cannot deny that Arnobius , Lactantius , and S. Augustin do speak to the point about Jove being worshipped as the supreme God , will you hear them ? P. D. Yes ; what have you to say more about them ? R. P. Arnobius saith , that Jupiter O. M. to whom the Capitol was Dedicated was not the true omnipotent God : and Lactantius makes Jupiter the King of those Celestial Gods , which the evil spirits feigned . P. D. Are not these the two persons whom Dr. St. goes about to excuse for applying the Poetical Fables to Jupiter O. M. ? R. P. That is a fine way of defending the Fathers , to take the parts of the Heathens against them ; as Dr. St. doth . P. D. He never doth it as to the main of the cause , as to any of them ( which were to take the part of Idolatry against Christianity ; which in my opinion , others are far more lyable to the guilt of than he ) nor doth he charge any of them with wholly mistaking the state of the Question ; but he instanceth in two Rhetoricians ( who must be excused in many other things , as it were easie to shew ) and he saith of them , that they could not forbear giving a cast of their former imployment in this matter . And when Dr. St. saith , we ought not to charge the Heathens with more than they were guilty of ; doth T. G. think we ought ? but I am of another opinion , though we should grant their supreme God to be a Devil , for we ought to give the Devil his due . R. P. But what say you to S. Augustin whom Dr. St. represents as the most baffled by the Heathens in this point ? Is not this kind of procedure more suitable to the design of Julian , than of the Reformation ? P. D. Cannot a man write against your Idolatry , but he must be another Julian ? i. e. a man cannot write like a Christian , but he must be an Apostate . Are you the only Christians in the world ? and your peculiar doctrines the only Christianity ? If it be , it is a Christianity , which the Christian Church never knew in its best Ages ; a Christianity never taught by Christ nor his Apostles . but for S. Augustin , I do not find that Dr. St. thinks him in the least baffled in this matter ; but being a learned and ingenuous man , he saith , that he quitted the argument from the Poetical Fables concerning Jupiter , and reduced the controversie to its true point , about the Idolatry committed in the worship of inferiour Deities . But what an itch of calumniating had seized T. G. when he could not hold from paralleling Dr. St. with Julian meerly for giving an account of the state of the Controversie about Idolatry , as it was managed by S. Augustin ? R. P. This leads us into another weighty subject , viz. on what account the Fathers charged the Heathens with Idolatry . P. D. I grant it is so , and tends very much to the right understanding the nature of it . And what account doth T. G. give of it ? R. P. I assure you T. G. shews himself to be a man very well versed in the Fathers , and seems to have them at his Fingers ends ; nay , he hath such great plenty of them , that they serve him not only for freight but for ballast too ; filling his Margent as well as his Book with them : and had he not studied brevity , he might have outdone the Dr. himself in being Voluminous . P. D. No doubt of it ; if he had a mind to produce all that the Fathers say on the subject of Heathen Idolatry ; but let us pare off all impertinencies which tend only to amuse and confound a Reader , and keep close to our subject . Tell me on what account T. G. saith , the Fathers did charge the Heathens with Idolatry . R. P. I suppose it may be reduced to these following . ( 1. ) In worshipping their Images for Gods. ( 2. ) In worshipping a multitude of false Gods. ( 3. ) In worshipping the Creatures and not the Creator . And as to every one of these he shews how false Dr. St.'s parallel is of the Heathen Idolatry and the worship practised and allowed in our Church . P. D. I pray begin with the first of these ; and let us hear what account T. G. gives of the Heathen Idolatry in the Worship of Images . R. P. The Images , he saith , were erected to the memory of dead men , whom the people out of flattery or affection had placed in Heaven ; but evil Spirits as it were incorporated themselves in those Images ; and by working strange things about those who worshipt them , they gained the reputation of Gods ; and consequently the Images were held to be Gods , and worshipped as such . P. D. I am far from being satisfied with this account of the Heathen Idolatry in the Worship of Images . For when a man pretends to give an account of a thing , there are three things he ought to regard ; First , that it be full ; Secondly , that it be clear and distinct ; Thirdly , that it be general . But I shall shew you , that this account fails in all those particulars , and withall that it doth not clear the Image worship of the Roman Church . ( 1. ) That it is not full , because it supposes all their Idolatry as to Images to lye in taking the Images of Deified men for Gods on the account of the presence of evil Spirits in them . But I find another reason alledged out of the Fathers against the Worship of Images by Dr. St. which T. G. takes no notice at all of ; viz. that Image Worship was very unsuitable to the Divine Nature , as well as repugnant to the Will of God ; and although the latter reason may seem to hold only for those who received the Scriptures , yet the former doth extend to all mankind . For he shews from the Fathers , that Zeno the Stoick , Antisthenes , Xenophon , Numa and others condemned the Worship of Images on this account , because they were a disparagement of the Divine Nature . And for this , he produces the Testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus , Justin Martyr , Athenagoras , Origen , Lactantius and many others . Is this account true , or false ? if false , why is it not proved to be so ? if true , why is it not allowed ? Is this fair or honest dealing , in pretending to answer , and not taking notice of the main objections ; or to give account of the Fathers opinions of this matter , and to say not one word to all this ? But it is one thing to write an Answer to a Book , and another to write a Book which must pass for an Answer . ( 2. ) This account is not clear and distinct . For it doth not express whether it were Idolatry or not , to worship Images , where there was no incorporation supposed of evil Spirits , nor doth it shew how it could be Idolatry on that supposition . I do not deny , that there was such an opinion among the Heathens , that Spirits might possess Images , and be incorporated with them ; but I say this was a particular opinion , and not the general belief . For Hermes , from whom S. Augustin gives the most exact account of this hypothesis ( from the Asclepian Dialogue ) looks upon it as a Divine and peculiar art of drawing invisible Spirits into Images in such a manner as to animate them ; and thereby making Gods. Which , he saith , is the most wonderful of all wonders , that it should be in mens power to make Gods. Not by producing the Divine Being ; but by so uniting it to the Image , as to make that a fit object for divine worship . But you of the Church of Rome pretend to do as much as this comes to with five words ; and somewhat more , for you pretend to annihilate a substance which they did not : but as to the main wonder , yours is of the same nature , viz. so to unite the Divinity to the species of Bread and Wine , as to make them together a fit object for divine worship . And therefore T. G. doth not at all clear the nature of Idolatry , as to Images , by such an Hypothesis which doth justifie the Worship of Images upon his own grounds . For this principle being supposed , that God was really incorporated in the Image , it was as lawful for them to Worship that Image , as for you to Worship the Host. If you say , those were evil Spirits , and not the true God , that doth not clear the matter . For we are not now disputing whether they were good or bad Spirits which were in those Images ; but on what account they were charged with Idolatry in the Worship of Images . If it were for worshipping their Images as Gods on the account of one of their Gods being incorporated in the Image , this I say , is no account at all on T. G.'s principles : for then such an Image was as fit an object of worship , on their supposition , as the adoration of the Host is on yours . So that this is rather a clearing the Worship of Images from the charge of Idolatry among the Heathens , than giving any account of it : all the Idolatry in this case lying in the worship of Evil Spirits , and not in the Worship of Images . ( 3. ) This Account is not general as to the Heathens . For many and those the most learned among them declared , that they did not take their Images for Gods ; as Dr. St. proved in his First Book , not barely from the Testimonies of the Heathens , but from the Fathers too ; which passages he repeated and urged against T. G. in his Defence . And among others he produced the Testimony of Eusebius speaking of the Heathens in general , who saith , they did not look on their Images as Gods ; and of him , T. G. saith , that no man understood the Heathens Principles better . And yet after all this , T. G. hopes to have it pass for a good account of the Heathens Idolatry as to Images , that they took their Images for Gods. ( 4. ) This Account doth not clear the practice of your Church in the Worship of Images . R. P. There I am sure you are mistaken . For do we take our Images for Gods ? And T. G. well observes , that when the Fathers spake against the Worship of Images , from their vileness and impotency ; they did not found their arguments meerly on the matter of the Images , and the Art of the Artificers , but upon these two conditions conjoyntly taken , viz. that they were held to be Gods and yet were made of such materials ; whereas we do not believe our Images to be Gods , nor worship them as such , as the Heathens did . For the Council of Trent declares that it believes no Divinity in them , for which they ought to be worshipped . P. D. This is the utmost which can be said in your Defence ; and to shew you how far this is from clearing your Worship of Images , I shall consider , ( 1. ) The force of the Fathers arguments . ( 2. ) The difference of the Heathens opinions from yours as to the Divinity of Images . And if their arguments be such as equally hold against your practises ; and your answers do not really differ from theirs ; then the parallel will hold good between your Idolatry and theirs in this particular . 1. For the force of the Fathers arguments ; the thing to be considered is , whether they held only in conjunction with believing their Images to be Gods. What connexion was there between this Hypothesis , and the disparagement which Images did imply to the Divine Nature ? For this was wholly on the account of representation ; ( and this is the great argument the Fathers insist upon . ) The infinite distance between God and the Work of mens hands ; the disproportion that dull and senseless matter , however Carved and Adorned doth bear to a Divine Majesty : that no Image of God ought to be worshipped ; but what is what he is ; i. e. his Eternal Son ; the light of Nature teaching men that it was greater purity of Worship , greater reverence to the Deity , less danger of errour to mankind to worship God without an Image ; are all arguments used and pressed by the Fathers against the Worship of Images ; which have their full strength and force supposing nothing were intended beyond bare representation . What think you of the Christian Church condemning the Carpocratians for worshipping an Image of Christ ? Did they believe Christ incorporated in that Image too ? Or did Epiphanius believe him to be so in the Image on the Veil , or the Council of Elvira in the Pictures upon Walls ? By all which we see what numbers of arguments the Fathers used against the Worship of Images , which have no relation at all to the believing their Images to be Gods. Besides , several other arguments they used which would lose their force upon this supposition ; as those taken from the meanness of subjecting our selves to vile and senseless Images ; and all the enforcements drawn from the matter and form of them ; which would have no great strength if this had been the general belief of the Heathens , that the God whom they worshipped was incorporated in the Image : and therefore why might not he be worshipped thereby , as well as God incarnate in humane nature , notwithstanding all the vileness and contemptibleness of our Flesh ? 2. As to the difference between them and you about the Divinity of Images , I do grant , that your Church doth in terms declare against it . And so in probability would a Council of the Wiser Heathens have done ; as appears by the Testimonies of Celsus , Julian , Maximus Tyrius and many others . But when men attribute such divine effects , as miraculous cures to Images , what can they believe but there is some Divinity either in or about them ? And when this is assigned as the reason of the Worship of such an Image , as at Loretto , or Mointague , or elsewhere ; and of the mighty resort thither on that account ; what is this but to believe such Divinity to be in or about them ? which doth inhance the peoples Devotion to them . And this was the general perswasion of the Heathens ; not , that there was an Hypostatical union between the Deity and the Image by incorporation : but that there was a vertual and powerful presence of the Deity in and about the Image by reason of its Dedication . And upon this account of a more peculiar presence of the Deity after consecration , and because Divine Worship was given to them , it was that the Heathen Images were called Gods. According to Minucius his account of the Image-God ; Quando igitur hic nascitur ? ecce funditur , fabricatur , scalpitur ; nondum Deus est : ecce plumbatur , construitur , erigitur ; nec adhuc Deus est : ecce ornatur , consecratur , oratur ; tunc postremo Deus est , cum homo illum voluit & dedicavit . From which it appears , it was solemn dedication and divine worship which made the Heathen Images to be looked on as Gods. And on these accounts the Scripture as well as Fathers call the Heathen Idols by the name of Gods , in the places produced by T. G. As , when they are said to be molten Gods , Lev. 19.4 . And the Gods of the Nations are Idols , Isa. 44.16 , 17 , &c. Where St. Hierom observes , that the residue thereof is made a God , when the maker worships what he has made ; and begs for help from the work of his own hands . And in this sense I grant the Heathens did make their Images Gods ; and so do all those who give Divine Worship to them . R. P. But Dr. St. seems to say , that there never were any such fools in the World who worshipped their Images as Gods : which T. G. proves abundantly from plain and express words of Scripture . P. D. By the very same I have mentioned already : and which in the former sense Dr. St. never denied . All that he saith , is this , As though there ever had been such Fools in the world , to say there was no other God besides their Images : and as I remember he quotes Maimonides , saying there were none such . But if T. G. can find out such Fools in the world , by my consent , he shall have the begging of them . R. P. T. G. grants there were some of the wiser Heathens , who did not worship their Images as Gods , but the Deities represented by them : against these the Fathers prove at large , that they were but men whom they commonly worshipped , and some of the worst of men . P. D. Wherein did the nature of this Idolatry lye ? In worshipping bad men instead of good ? or in giving divine worship to any men ? R. P. You are so troublesome , that you will not let a man shew his skill in the Fathers , but you interrupt him with such idle questions . P. D. I have a mind to bring you to our business ; for nothing is more easie than to tell long stories of the Heathen Idolatries out of the Fathers . I must press you again to tell me , wherein the nature of this Idolatry consisted . R. P. I shall desire you as you are a lover of Truth , to answer me ingenuously but this one question , which I take to be very material towards the true understanding the nature of Idolatry , viz. whether you do not think that the Heathens , at least the generality of them did not acknowledge and worship more Gods than one ? P. D. I will answer you as freely as you can desire , provided you answer me another question which I take to be as material , viz. whether the generality of the Heathens did not worship Deified men ? R. P. What need you ask that , when I have told you already ? T. G. takes a great deal of pains to prove it from many Testimonies of the Fathers : as I was about to have shewed when you interrupted me ; because the places of their birth were known and their Sepulchres extant , &c. P. D. I pray remember this ; and now ask what questions you please . R. P. I see you have no mind to answer : but T. G. proves that the generality of the Heathens did believe them , whom they publickly worshipped , to be truly and properly Gods , and not only in name , or by way of participation . P. D. But have you forgotten already , what you so lately told me , that T. G. proved that the generality of the Heathens did worship Deified-men ? and that these were their Gods ; viz. Jupiter , Saturn , Juno , Aesculapius , &c. I pray consider , were these their Gods or not ? R. P. Doubtless they were ; for T.G. hath plainly demonstrated it from the Fathers . P. D. And were those who were only Deified-men , truly and properly Gods and not by way of participation ? R. P. I confess you stagger me , surely T. G. did not lay these two assertions together , that the Heathen Gods were originally men , and yet were truly and properly Gods ; but he proves this later assertion , that I am sure of . P. D. So you were but just now of the former ; however these contradict each other , let us hear his proofs of this later , which is not so true as the former . R. P. First , The whole Christian world till Dr. St. did ever condemn the Heathens of Polytheism . P. D. And so doth he too . Only he doth not believe Deified-men to be independent Deities . They were Gods as they gave them not barely the name and title of Gods ; but as they supposed them to be admitted into some share in administring the affairs of the world ; and had therefore Divine Worship given unto them . R. P. Secondly , The Heathens accused the Christians of Atheism , because they denied them to be Gods who were publickly worshipped . P. D. The Heathens did not believe there was any such God who disallowed the worship of any other Gods besides him ; and therefore when they found the Christians utterly reject their worship , they charged them with Atheism . But is not this an admirable way of reasoning , from the Heathens objections against the Christians ? Might he not prove as well that the Christians God had Asses ears , that they eat Children , that they had promiscuous Conjunctions , &c. for all these were objected by the Heathens , as well as Atheism ? And Athenagoras whom T. G. cites , shews what kind of Gods those were , whom the Christians rejected , in the very beginning of his Apology , such as Hector , Helena , Agamemnon , Ericttheus , &c. and because the Christians rejected such Deities they were accused of Atheism ; but doth this prove Hector , and Agamemnon to have been Original and Independent Gods ? R. P. Thirdly , They persecuted the Christians to death , and they willingly suffered it , for maintaining there was but one only true God , who deserved Divine Honour to be given to him . P. D. Very true . Because they thought it unlawful to give Divine Worship to any Creature whatsoever . But did not the Heathens require Divine Worship to be given to Deified-men ? R. P. Fourthly , They erected Temples , instituted Priests , and appointed Sacrifices to be offered to them . P. D. That is , they gave them Divine Worship , and what then ? they did so to Deified-men , saith T. G. R. P. Fifthly , The Fathers bring infinite arguments to prove that those whom the Heathens called Gods , were not really and truly Gods ; which had been a superfluous labour , if the Heathens had not believed as well as called them Gods. P. D. And did not the same Fathers bring infinite arguments to prove that these Gods were but men ? Their design was to shew that nothing but what was truly and essentially God , could deserve Divine Worship ; which their vulgar Gods were so far from being , that they were meer men , and some of the worst too . R. P. Sixthly , Many of those who wrote against the Heathens had been such themselves ; and therefore would not charge them with more than they were guilty of in this matter . P. D. Those were the very men T. G. cited to prove their Gods had been Men , and had Fathers and Mothers , and Vncles and Aunts as other Mortals have . R. P. Seventhly , The Devils perswaded most of the Heathens that they were Gods , as St. Augustin saith , by their fallacious signs and predictions . P. D. St. Augustin speaks of their dominion over mankind by reason of Idolatry ; which might have been , although the Heathens had only worshipped Deified men ; but I grant , that the Heathens did give divine worship to Daemons too ; whom some believed to be intercessors between the Gods and Men ; carrying up our prayers to them , and bringing down their help to us : as he there expresseth it ; and others thought them to be Gods , i. e. a superiour kind of Spirits ; however all agreed in giving divine honour to them . But those who believed them to be Gods , i. e. of a higher rank than the subservient Damons , did not suppose them to be self-existent and independent Deities , but to have received their being by participation from God ; and supposing them good , St. Augustin thinks their notion of them not much different from what Christians have of Angels : and that it was a controversie about a name , whether they be called Gods or not ; but he is far from thinking it so , whether Divine worship were to be given to them ? For this he utterly denies , it being inconsistent with the Christian Religion , as he proves in the beginning of his tenth Book . From whence it appears , that the Controversie was not about the name of Gods ; but about giving Divine Worship to any Creature . For St. Augustin would allow them to call them Gods , if they reserved Divine worship as peculiar to God ; but if they did give this to them , it was no excuse to call them Angels , or inferiour Gods ; as the Platonists did . And when he saith , the Devils had perswaded the greatest part of mankind by their lying wonders that they were Gods : his meaning is no more than that they were good Spirits ; which he saith , Apuleius and others observing them more narrowly found they were not , but a sort of malicious and deceitful beings ; notwithstanding which , he saith , these agreed with the rest in giving divine worship to them . So that whatever men do give Divine Worship to , that they do make a God of , whatsoever notion they have of its Original , and receiving Being from another . R. P. Eighthly , The wisest of the Heathens not only concurred with the vulgar in the external practice of worshipping many Gods , but looked on it as a point of State-policy , not to let the people know that they were no Gods whom they worshipped . P. D. And what then I beseech you ? They were rather willing to maintain Idolatry , than to hazard the disturbance of Government ; therefore the Gods whom they worshipped were truely and properly Gods. All that follows from hence is , that there were many follies and superstitions among the people , which they thought better to let them alone in , than to run the hazard of all by a change ; that the Poets , and Painters , and Statuaries had tainted the Religion of the Vulgar with false and unworthy notions of their Gods ; and would in spite of Laws represent their Gods in the publick Sports doing things unsitting for men to do or see ; that although they thought it were much better to have these things redressed , yet they had so much greater regard to the safety of the Government than to the honour of Religion , that they chose rather to let things stand as they found them ; and to joyn with the people in the same Acts of publick worship , retaining their opinions to themselves . But we shall have occasion to discourse of these wiser men afterwards . R. P. I have one thing yet more to say , which I am sure ought and will weigh with you more than all the rest . P. D. So it will , if it weighs any thing at all . R. P. It is , that God himself forbids the Jews to have any other Gods besides him : and yet he doth not forbid the name of Gods to be given both to Angels and Men. P. D. Is this the weighty observation ? the bit reserved to close up the stomach with ? God doth allow I grant the name of Gods to be given to Creatures ; but where doth he allow Divine worship internal or external to be given to any other Being besides himself ? Whether Angels , or Stars , or Elements , or whatsoever creature it be , to give that worship to it , which is due only to God , is to make other Gods besides him , and this I thought had been agreed on all sides . R. P. If they give Divine Worship to any one of these as an absolute Deity , as T. G. well observes ; and not if they refer the worship they give to them to the true God. P. D. What means the giving divine worship as to an absolute Deity ? Is it to suppose that which they worship to be truly and properly God , as T. G. saith ? That is to suppose it , not to be a Creature . And upon this ground those who supposed the Spirits , or Stars , or Elements to be Creatures could not be guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of them : and so the greatest part of the Heathen World will be excused from it . Or is it to give divine worship to the Creatures without any respect to God the Maker of the World and of all things in it ? But then either they did at that time believe him to be the Maker of those Beings , or they did not : if they did , either they worshipped them as created , or as uncreated beings ; if as created beings , how could they wholly pass by the Creator ? if as uncreated , how could they at the same time believe them to be created by him ? R. P. T. G. was aware of this , for he puts the question concerning the Heathens , how those who acknowledged one Supreme Being , could think any others to be truely and properly Gods besides him ? And he resolves it thus , that the generality of the Heathens had no clear and distinct notion of one Supreme Being ; but only the Wiser Philosophers . P. D. By this answer , none but the dull and stupid vulgar could be guilty of Idolatry , such who believed ( if any did ) there were no other Gods besides their Images ; or if there were , they never considered more , than that they were all called Gods alike , and they knew no distinction between one Chief and the rest : but if they happened to suppose one Supreme and the others made by him , as I have shewed from Tertullian they generally did , then they are free from Idolatry in all acts of worship performed with that opinion . For if Idolatry doth suppose a belief of more Gods than one truly and properly so called , then all those who did own and acknowledge one first cause from whence all other beings were derived , could not be guilty of it , and consequently all those who had the true knowledge of God could not commit Idolatry : because they could not at the same time believe but one true God , and many true Gods. And if the true notion of Idolary doth consist in believing and worshipping many Gods truely and properly so called ; then let us see how many of the Heathens will stand clear from the guilt of it . ( 1. ) All those who worshipped Deified men and believed them to be such , although they gave them the worship proper to true Gods. For as long as they did not think them to be such , it could not be real Idolatry : and so Cicero , Varro and Seneca , and the rest of the Wise Statesmen will be excused . ( 2. ) All those who believed Inferiour Gods having their first being from one Supreme ; as the ancient Poets , Platonists and many others . ( 3. ) All those who worshipped the parts of the World with respect to one God , as the Stoicks and others . ( 4. ) All those who opposed Christianity upon this ground , that although there were but one Supreme God , yet others might receive divine worship together with him ; and upon this principle the most bitter enemies of Christianity disputed , viz. Celsus , Porphyrius , Hierocles , Julian , Maximus , Symmachus and others . And to own it not to be Idolatry to give divine worship to created beings supposing them not to be owned to be truely and properly Gods , is in plain terms to give up the Cause of Christianity against Heathen Idolatry . And this I insist upon as the main argument in this matter : and desire you or T. G. or any one else to answer it . Dr. St. hath made it evident from the Testimonies of Celsus , Julian and the modern Platonists , that the Dispute about Idolatry , between them and the Christians was not , whether there were only one God truely and properly so called , and others only by participation from him ; for this they yielded : but the question was , whether upon that supposition that they were inferiour and subservient Gods , they might not have divine worship given to them in a degree suitable to their excellencies ? And upon this point the hinge of the Controversie turned . Either the Christians were right in condemning such Worship for Idolatry , or not ? If not , the Cause of Christianity is given up to Celsus and Julian ; if they were in the right , then Idolatry doth not lie in believing and worshipping many Gods properly and truely so called ; but in giving divine worship to any Creature whatsoever . And why did not T. G. answer to this , which was the most material point of all others ? but run out into long discourses of the Ignorance of the vulgar Heathen ( which no man doubts any more than the Ignorance of vulgar Papists ; although I hope not to the same degree ) concerning the true God. And yet we could tell him of another sort of Statesmen , who love to keep the People in Ignorance , lest they should by the help of the Scriptures see too far into these matters . And some of your own Church have told us that they could find no difference between the common peoples opinion of Saints , and what the Heathens had of their Gods. And thus the parallel holds good still . But the common people though more gross in their apprehensions and do commit greater follies in their practices , may yet be safer in their Ignorance , than those who ought to inform them better . But when we enquire what is lawful , we must not run to the practices or opinions of the vulgar , as T. G. doth here ; but to the state of the case as it was managed by those who best understood it . And they did not put it upon that issue whether it were lawful to worship many independent Deities ; but whether it were lawful to give Divine worship to any created beings , on the account of that power and authority which God had put into their hands ? And if this were not Idolatry , Celsus and Julian thought Heathenism justified , and the doctrine of Christianity overthrown ; and so did Origen , S. Cyril , and S. Augustin too . ( 5. ) The modern Idolaters will be excused too , if the nature of Idolatry doth consist in a multitude of independent Deities , or of Gods truely and properly so called . For Dr. St. hath proved abundantly , that the Eastern , Western , Southern and Northern Nations , which are , or have been charged with Idolatry by the Roman Church , do own one Supreme God , and others as inferiour Deities . And this he chiefly proves from the Testimonies of those of the Roman Church who have been sent as Missioners to convert them from their Idolatry . And what saith T. G. to that ? R. P. Truely he had forgotten to speak to it , but a Friend of his putting him in mind of it , he hath added something by way of Appendix about it ; to shew how unnecessary it was to speak to it . P. D. All in good time : but it was well the Printer informed him of two or three vacant leaves too , or else we might have wanted those rare observations . But why so unnecessary to answer an argument of that consequence ? which to my apprehension hath effectually overthrown this hypothesis of T. G. that Idolatry lies in the esteem and worship of many Gods truely and properly so called ; for if that were the general supposition that Idolaters went upon , that there was one Supreme and many inferiour Deities , as Dr. St. hath proved of the * Arabians , † Persians , * Brachmans ( who are shewed to have no other † esteem of the inferiour Deities than you have of your Saints , and that they give only a relative worship to them , and to their Images ) and of the very * Tartars and † West-Indians , and * Northern Idolaters ; how then can T. G. hope to make it appear to any man of common sense that the nature of Idolatry lies in the worshipping many independent Gods ? If T. G. were sent upon a Mission to them , I would fain know by what arguments he could convince any of these of Idolatry ? T. G. charges them with Idolatry for worshipping many Gods truely and properly so called ; they deny it , and say they worship only one Supreme and others in subordination to him , what hath T. G. further to say ? Will he tell them , he knows better what they do , than they do themselves ? I say therefore it is impossible upon T. G.'s principles to convince these Heathens of Idolatry . But there is another thing , I think , very material in this Discourse concerning the modern Idolaters ; which is , T. G. insinuates , that although some few of the wiser sort of Heathens might understand the difference between the Supreme God and inferiour Deities , yet the generality of the People did not ; and so might easily worship many Gods properly and truly so called : whereas by this Discourse it appears that the difference between the supreme and inferiour Deities was a thing known and received among the most rude and barbarous Nations . And it is no great civility towards the Greeks and Romans to imagine them to be more sottish Idolaters than the Tartars and West-Indians . I will confess freely to you , that I think there was not a more absurd and impious Scheme of Divinity extant in the most barbarous parts of the world , that are come to our knowledge , than the Poetical Theology of the Greeks and Romans , if it be understood literally ; and therefore the common people who had the Poets in mighty esteem , lay under great disadvantages ; but yet , the Poetical Fables being rejected by their Laws as well as by their Wise Men , and the Poets themselves confessing one Supreme God , but above all , the natural sense of Conscience , did keep up the Notion of one God among the People , who was Lord over all , insomuch that upon any solemn occasions they made their appeal to him , as the Fathers observe . Lactantius saith , not only the Wise , but all sorts of People confessed the unity of God ; even those who seemed to assert the multiplicity of Gods truely and properly so called ; for these are his words , Quod quia intelligunt isti assertores Deorum ; ita eos praeesse singulis rebus ac partibus dicunt , ut tantum unus sit Rector eximius . Jam ergo caeteri non Dij erunt , sed satellites ac ministri ; quos ille unus maximus , & potens omnium officiis his praefecit , ut ipsi ejus imperio ac nutibus serviant . Let T. G. construe this to the confusion of his Hypothesis , that the Heathen Idolatry lay in the worship of many Gods truely and properly so called : when even Lactantius saith the contrary so expresly : Those cannot be Gods truely and properly so called who are under the command of another ; and this is Lactantius his own argument , Ergo Dij non sunt quos parere uni maximo Deo necessitas cogit . And this truth , he saith , of the Vnity of God is so plain , that no man can be so blind not to discover so clear a light . Seneca in his Exhortations quoted by Lactantius , calls the inferiour Gods , the servants to the Supreme ; Ministros Regni sui Deos genuit : and the difference between them and the holy Angels he places in this , that these would not be called Gods , nor be worshipped as Gods : the former we see S. Augustin makes nothing of , so that the true ground why the Heathens attributed Divinity to them , was because they gave to them Divine Worship which the Christians utterly refused . The same Lactantius saith , in general of the Romans , that in any great distress they made their application to the supreme God , and prayed to him , and expected help from him , and begg'd relief from others per ejus Divinum atque unicum Numen ; and these beggars surely were some of the common sort of people ; from whence it follows that the generality of the Heathen even among the Romans did not esteem and worship many Gods properly so called . R. P. But methinks , You seem to have forgotten T. G. 's Appendix about the - modern Idolatry , as well as he had to write about it , till he was put in mind by a friend . P. D. I am not very apt to believe T. G. could forget so material a part of the Doctours Book : but there was some other reason , for passing it over ; which it is not hard to conjecture . But I thank you for putting me to ask you , why he thought it so unnecessary to speak to it . R. P. First , because the Doctour reduces their worship to one of these two principles , either that God hath committed the Government of the World to inferiour Deities ; or that God is the soul of the World : now T. G. having proved that those who do hold the latter principle are guilty of Idolatry ; and those who hold the former , of the exteriour profession of it in concurring with the Vulgar in the external practice of their Idolatry , it would have been but actum agere to repeat the same things over again . P. D. This is scarce a tolerable shift . For the great force of that discourse , lay in two things ; ( 1. ) The almost universal consent of Idolaters that there was one supreme God , against T. G.'s hypothesis of many Gods truly and properly so called . ( 2. ) That all these were charged with Idolatry by the Roman Church : and therefore according to the sense of that , Idolatry could not lye in worshipping many independent and absolute Deities . But the prettiest shift , is , that he had condemned the Platonists for the exteriour practice of Idolatry in concurring with the Vulgar , and therefore he need not speak to whole Nations who agreed in that principle of Worship , and yet are charged with Idolatry . If I were given to quoting ends of Verses I would cry , risum teneatis amici . R. P. Secondly , the force of the Parallel lies in Citations . P. D And what then ? ought he not to examine and disprove them ? R. P. No such matter : he hath found out a far better away than that ; he proves that Dr. St. hath forfeited all right of being believed in things of that kind . P. D. Commend me to T. G. for shifting . This is really the notablest trick I ever met with . He finds abundance of Authors quoted both new and old , to prove something he doth not like . What should he do ? Must he search and examine them , one by one ? no , that is intolerable ; and how if they prove true ? Therefore the only way is to say , he hath lost all credit in his citations . Which is as much as to say , he deserves to stand in the Pillory for suborning Witnesses , and why should he be credited in any thing he saith ? But this is a very high accusation , and T. G. in common justice is bound to prove it , or else he deserves the same infamy himself . R. P. Yes , he proves it , by his notorious misrepresenting and corrupting the Fathers . P. D. I think I have sufficiently cleared the Doctours integrity and faithfulness therein ; but I am sure you cannot so well clear T. G. from bearing false Witness against his Brother . R. P. But he gives one instance in this case , viz. a testimony of Trigautius wherein he translates , certum Triadis modum inducit quo tres Deos in unum deinde Numen coalescere fabulatur . They worship the Trinity after a certain manner , with an Image having three heads and one Body . T. G. saith , an ordinary Reader will here find neither Head nor Foot. P. D. That is very strange , when there are three . But must T. G.'s quibble destroy all Dr. St.'s credit ? Any one that reads Trigautius will find he exactly expressed his sense ; but our Dionysius will make him construe word for word , or else he must be set in the Pillory , for suborning Testimonies . Methinks this savours a little too much of Dionysius indeed . R. P. But he charges him more with another Testimony of Trigautius , where he leaves out the Emphatical words which shew the difference between the Worship which the Chineses give to Confutius and to the Tutelar Spirits . For first , he omits the Ceremony of the Magistrates taking the Oath before the Tutelar spirits ; then he leaves out what Trigautius affirms , that the worship was not the same . ( 3. ) He omits nam and Divinam , which shew the reason of the difference to be the Divine Power which they believed to be in the Tutelar Spirits . P. D. And what if T. G. be mistaken as to every one of these ? shall we not applaud him for a man of wonderful integrity , and most commendable ingenuity ? ( 1. ) Dr. St. doth not omit the Ceremony of the Magistrates taking their oath to or before these Tutelar Spirits ; for he saith expresly , that the Mandarines are to swear in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirit when they enter into their office ; and he particularly insists upon it , as one of the instances of the allowances the Jesuites gave to their Converts to go and perform all external Acts of adoration in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirits , provided they directed all those Acts to a Crucifix which they held in their hands or conveyed secretly among the flowers of the Altar . ( 2. ) He distinguishes the Worship of Confutius from that of the Tutelar Spirits . For , he saith , in that very place , that they make no prayers to him , neither seek , nor hope for any thing from him ; but that they acknowledge the Tutelar Spirits to have power to reward and punish . Is not this enough to shew the difference of their Worship to any men of common sense ? ( 3. ) Is not a Power to reward and punish in the Tutelar Spirits set down by Dr. St. out of Trigautius ? and to what end should he then leave out nam and Divinam , but that he thought them needless when the sense was expressed ? But the birchen Scepter would be of little use , unless Dionysius shewed his Authority upon such occasions . Judge you now whether upon the account of such pitiful cavils , Dr. St. hath forfeited his right of being believed in his Citations ? R. P. T. G. gives a third reason , viz. because it appears from his own Citations , that these modern Idolaters either worshipped a false God for the true one ; or false Gods together with the true one , if they worshipped him at all . P. D. This can be no reason at all ▪ for Dr. St.'s design was to shew that inferiour Deities were false Gods : and that it was Idolatry to give Divine Worship to Creatures , although men did acknowledge one supreme God. But unless T. G. can prove these false Gods to have been Gods truly and properly so called , i. e. absolute and independent Deities , his Hypothesis is utterly overthrown by this discourse of Dr. St. which was the true reason he had no mind to meddle with it . R. P. Lastly , It is not credible , he saith , that the Cardinals de propaganda Fide , with the full consent of the Pope should make such Decrees about Idolatrous Acts , as should condemn the giving external Acts of Worship to Saints and Images as Idolatrous . P. D. Dr. St. punctually produced the resolution made by the Cardinals about the Worship of Confutius and the performance of external Acts of Idolatry in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirits by the Jesuits Converts in China . He names the Date , the Place of Printing it , and saith the Copy he had seen was attested by a publick Notary ; nay , he directs T. G. where he might see not only the Decree but an explication of it . And after all , is not this Credible ? R. P. Dr. St. sets down the resolutions and doth not let us know what the Quaeres were . P. D. He thought those might be easily understood by the Case ; viz. about performing the same external Acts of Worship , with Idolaters , but with a different intention ; i. e. the Mandarins were permitted by the Jesuites to go into the Temple of Tutelar Spirits , and to use all the external Acts of adoration which others used , provided they directed them to the Crucifix and not to the Idol ; which the Cardinals declare to be utterly unlawful notwithstanding this Intention . From whence Dr. St. observed , ( 1. ) That they called the Worship of the Tutelar Spirits Idolatry , although they looked on them only as inferiour Deities , and consequently Idolatry doth not consist in worshipping many absolute and independent Gods , or truly and properly so called . ( 2. ) That inferiour Worship on the account of created excellency is unlawful , when it appears to be Religious . This he proved from their condemning the Worship of Confutius , which the Jesuits allowed . And T. G. is so much mistaken in thinking that Dr. St. had any design to corrupt the Testimony of Trigautius by confounding the Worship of Confutius and the Tutelar Spirits , that his argument is the stronger for the distinction between them . For , although no prayers be made to Confutius , no divine power be supposed to be in him as in the Tutelar Spirits , yet because he had a Temple in every City with his Image in it ; and all other external Rites of adoration used , as genuflections , wax-candles , incense and oblations ; ( such as your Church useth to Images without prayers ) yet these are condemned as Idolatrous . And although the Cardinals might not then reflect on the consequence of this resolution as to their own practices ; yet I cannot but admire at the Wisdom of that Providence , which once directed Caiaphas to speak a great Truth beside his intention , that so overruled the Congregation of Cardinals to condemn their own Idolatry under the name of Confutius . For if the using those external acts of adoration towards the Image of Confutius be Idolatry ; why shall it not be so , where prayers are added , as they are in your Church to the Images set up in your Churches ? Let T. G. tell me wherein the Nature of that Idolatry lay , which consisted in external Acts of adoration , without any opinion of Confutius being a God truly and properly so called . ( 3. ) That external Acts are capable of Idolatry , however the intention of the mind be directed . For , although the Cardinals believed the Crucifix to be a proper object of Divine Worship , yet they condemned those Acts as Idolatrous which were directed to it in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirits . And upon the whole matter , I think , no impartial Reader will believe that T. G. hath said any thing to purpose upon this matter , and that he had better left those few leaves still vacant , than have filled them with such an insignificant Postscript ; and he hath no reason to thank his Friend for putting him upon laying open so much the Weakness of his Cause . For , from hence it farther appears that the Modern Idolaters will likewise be excused , if the nature of Idolatry doth consist , as T. G. saith , in Worshipping many Gods truly and properly so called . R. P. But you are mistaken , if you think T. G. placeth the Nature of Idolatry wholly in this , for he saith , that the Heathens were guilty of Idolatry in worshipping Nature instead of God , either the several parts of the Vniverse as Sun , Moon , and Stars , &c. understanding the Fire by Jupiter , the Air by Juno , &c. or the Soul of the World , as the Stoicks did ; whereby the Heathens did , as T. G. often repeats it from Vossius , relicto Deo in Naturae Veneratione consistere , forsaking God stay in the worship of the Creatures : and for this he quotes Athanasius , S. Augustine , and Athenagoras . P. D. It is sufficient for Dr. St.'s design , if the worship of Images , and of intellectual Beings under one supreme God were Idolatry among the Heathens , for then it must remain so among Christians ; as well as Murder and Adultery are the same whereever they are found . But since you have proposed it , I shall consider with you how far the worship of the Creatures in general is Idolatry . But I have some few questions to ask you about this sort of Idolatry . ( 1. ) Whether you think the Heathens Idolatry did lye in worshipping meer matter as God ? Or , ( 2. ) In worshipping God as the soul of the world , and the several parts of it with respect to him ? Or , ( 3. ) In acknowledging a Creator , but giving all the worship to the Creatures ? R. P. In all these , according to their several opinions . P. D. Do you really think any of them did worship meer matter , without life , sense , or understanding for God ? For , either they did believe some other God or not ? if they did , how is it possible they should not worship that , which could hear , and understand , and help them ; and worship that which could do none of these ? If they did not believe any other God , they were Atheists and not Idolaters . For are not those Atheists who acknowledge no other God but meer matter ; i. e. no God at all ? For so Vossius himself saith , those who held meer matter to be God , verbo Deum fatebantur , re negabant : did only seem to believe a God whom they really denyed . For what kind of God , saith he , was that which had neither sense nor reason ? R. P. It was Idolatry then to worship the parts of the world with a respect to God as the Soul of it ; which as T. G. saith in his Postscript , is to make a false God. P. D. There are two things which deserve to be considered as to this matter . ( 1. ) In what sense making God the soul of the world is setting up a false God ? ( 2. ) How far the Gentiles could be charged with Idolatry , who worshipped the parts of the world with respect to God as the soul of it ? R. P. Do not you think making God the soul of the world is setting up a false God ? P. D. I pray tell me what you mean by the soul of the world . For either you mean the natural series of Causes , or the more subtil and active parts of matter diffused through the Vniverse without Mind and Vnderstanding ; or you mean an Intelligent Being which by Wisdom and Providence orders and governs the world , but withall is so united to it , as the Soul is to the Body ; If you mean the former , I say all such who held it were really Atheists , and only differed in the way of speaking from those who worshipped meer matter ; for let them call God the soul of the world never so much , they mean no more than that there is no other God but the Power of Nature . If you mean an Vnderstanding Being Governing the World whose essence is distinct from matter , but yet is supposed to be so united to it as the Soul is to the Body ; then I pray tell me in what sense you make him to be a false God , and how it comes to be Idolatry to worship the parts of the world with respect to him ? R. P. S. Augustin proves against Varro that God was not the Soul of the World , if there were any such thing , but the Creator and Maker of it : and he shews that this opinion is attended with impious and irreligious consequences . P. D. I do not go about to defend the opinion , but I hope I may ask , wherein the Idolatry lay of worshipping one God under this notion as he animated the world and the several parts of it ? R. P. In worshipping the several parts of the world with Divine Worship ; not with a respect to the Body , but to God as the Soul of it ; for therein Aquinas placeth their Idolatry . P. D. Is relative Latria Idolatry ? R. P. Why do you ask me such an impertinent question ? P. D. Nothing can be more pertinent , for this is meer relative Latria . R. P. It was Idolatry in them , but yet not so in us when we worship the Crucifix with respect to Christ. P. D. You may as well say , Lying with another mans Wife was Adultery in them , but not in You. I pray shew the difference . R. P. You would fain bring me back again to the worship of Images ; but you shall not . For I say their Idolatry lay in worshipping God as united to the parts of the world ; and giving Divine Worship to them on that Account . P. D. Will you stand to this ? R. P. Why not ? P. D. Then I will prove worshipping the Host to be Idolatry on the same grounds . For in both cases , there is a supposition really false , but which being true would justifie the Act of Worship ; and if notwithstanding that supposition that God is the Soul of the world , the worshipping of God as so united is Idolatry , then the worship of the Host notwithstanding the supposition of Christs Body being united to the species is Idolatry too ; they being both acts of adoration given to those objects which in themselves deserve no worship , but yet are adored upon such a supposition which being true would justifie the performance of them . R. P. You are much mistaken in your parallel . For , as T. G. well observed , in the worship of the Host , the Act of adoration is not formally terminated upon the bread , supposing it to remain , but upon God : but we conceive the bread not to be there at all ; but in place thereof the only true and Eternal God. And whatever is taken for an object of worship , the understanding must affirm ( either truly or falsly ) to be ; but Catholicks , whether mistaken or not in the belief of Transubstantiation , do not in their minds affirm the bread to be , but not to be ; because they believe it to be converted into the body of Christ. But they who worshipped the parts of the world with a respect to God as the Soul of it , did however believe those to have a real Being , and not to be turned into the substance of God. P. D. All that this proves is , that you do not take the Bread it self for God ; no more did they , who worshipped the parts of the world , as members of that Body to which God was united as the Soul , take those parts for God. But in both cases there is a supposition equal to justifie the Worship if true ; and if notwithstanding this supposition , the Heathens were guilty of Idolatry ; why are not you upon a far more unreasonable supposition than that ? If Christs Body be present in the Eucharist , you say , you may worship it as there present ; so say they , if God be the Soul of the world , we may lawfully worship the several parts of it ? But you say , whatever is an object of worship must be supposed to be ; whereas you suppose the bread not to be , but to be converted into the Body of Christ ; which alters not the case ; for the question is not about the bare being or not being of the thing , but of the being or not being of a fit object of worship . I will make the matter plain to you by this Instance ; One of the most common Idolatries of the Heathen world was the worship of the Sun ; they who did worship it , did suppose it to be a fit object for worship , but they who looked on the Sun as a meer creature could not think so : therefore to make any creature a fit object for worship , there must go a farther supposition ; viz. of the Divinity being in it or united to it . Now the main point lyes here , whether on supposition that the substance of the Sun doth not remain , it would not be Idolatry , but on supposition that it doth remain it would be Idolatry ? I pray then answer me , would it be Idolatry or not to worship the Sun , suppose a man believed the very substance of the Sun to be turned into the Divinity ? R. P. No surely . For that is our own case . P. D. How comes it then to be Idolatry supposing the Divinity united to the substance of the Sun ? R. P. In one case we may be supposed to worship a thing which is ; but in the other we cannot be supposed to worship that which at the same time we believe not to be . P. D. If it be Idolatry to worship that as God which is not God , then the worship of the Host may be Idolatry , though you suppose the bread not to be . For to suppose that not to be which really is , doth no more alter the case ; than to suppose that to be God which is not , for that is to suppose that not to be a Creature which is . For the worshippers of any parts of the World might profess as solemnly as you do about the Bread , that if they did believe the Sun to be a meer creature , they should abhorr the thoughts of worshipping it ; but believing it either to be God it self , or at least that the Godhead is united to it ; why are not they as excusable as those who declare they abhor the thoughts of worshipping the Bread ? but they believe it not to be Bread , but the Body of the Son of God. R. P. But T. G. observes , that the formal term of Idolatrous worship is an undue object ; viz. a Creature instead of the Creator ; but Catholicks in case of a mistake , would have no other formal object in their minds , but the Creator himself . P. D. As though the nature of Idolatry did consist in the worship of a Creature , knowing it to be a meer Creature . Might not the Heathens have said they had no other formal object of adoration in their minds , but God ; but supposing him united to the parts of the world they might worship them on his account ; as well as those of the Church of Rome give adoration to that which appears to be meer bread ? If they who worship the Sun on the account of the Divinity which is in it or united to it , be yet guilty of Idolatry , because though on supposition the Divinity were so united the worship would be lawful , yet the supposition being false they are guilty of Idolatry ; why then should not those be equally guilty of it , who worship a Divinity as present under the species of bread , if the substance of bread doth still remain ? for then the worship however intended falls upon a meer creature , as it did in the former case . R. P. Those who worshipped the Sun , did suppose the substance of the Sun still to remain ; but Catholicks do not suppose the substance of bread to continue , but in place thereof do worship the only true and Eternal God. P. D. It is true they did suppose the substance of the Sun to remain ; but they did not intend to terminate their worship on that substance , but on the Divinity united to it ; and to suppose that not to be bread which is really bread , doth no more excuse from Idolatry , than supposing that not to be a meer creature , which really is no more . But to drive this matter home to you , I will ask a farther Question , Were those Idolaters who worshipped the parts of the world as a part of the substance of God himself ; so that he is One and All ? R. P. Suppose they were . P. D. Did not they believe there was no other substance but of God present in what they worshipped ? R. P. And what follows ? P. D. Do you not perceive ? That to suppose that not to be which really is , and that to be which is not , doth not excuse from Idolatry . R. P. I must talk a little farther with T. G. about this matter . But I have another reason yet to charge the Heathens with Idolatry , viz. that they forsook the Worship of the Creatour , and staid in the Worship of the Creature . P. D. Do you mean that they gave him no external Worship , or that they gave him no worship at all ? or do you think any that believed a God , gave him no inward worship , i. e. no Reverence or esteem suitable to his Excellency ? R. P. Why do you ask these questions ? P. D. Because many of the Heathens thought external Worship beneath the excellency of the Supreme God , as Dr. St. hath fully shewed from the Testimonies of Porphyrius , Numa , the Platonists , the Mandarins in China , and the Ynca's of Peru . Is it then Idolatry to deny external Worship to God out of Reverence to his Majesty , and to give it to inferiour Beings ? R. P. It is Idolatry to give all external Worship to his Creatures and to reserve none to himself : because some external Worship is due to him . P. D. If external Worship be due to God , it is not because he needs it , but because it is fit for us his Creatures to testifie our subjection to him as our Creatour . R. P. Be it so . P. D. Ought not that Worship then to be so peculiar to him , as to manifest the different esteem we have of the Creatour and his Creatures ? R. P. Yes . P. D. Is it not then an injury to Gods honour to give that Worship which ought to be peculiar to himself , to any of his Creatures ? and that which the Scripture calls Idolatry ? R. P. But how will you know what external Acts of worship those are which are peculiar to God ? for therein lyes the great difficulty . P. D. Either we suppose God to have revealed his will to mankind , or not . If not , we have the light of Nature , and the consent of mankind to direct us ; if he hath , we must consider the Revelation he hath made of his Will in this matter . For since God hath the power to determine our duty , and he knows best what makes for his honour , it is but just and reasonable that we should judge of these things according to his Will. What he appoints as due to himself , becomes due by his appointment ; and to give that to another which he hath made due only to himself , is without question the giving the worship due to God to his Creatures ; which is Idolatry . Our business therefore is , to consider whether God hath appropriated any Acts of worship to himself ; what those Acts are ; how far the obligation of them doth extend to us ; what we find to that purpose in the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles ; what the sense of the Christian Church hath been concerning them in the best and purest times of it . If you can think of any better wayes than these , I pray acquaint me with them . R. P. I see what you are coming to , viz. the appropriate Acts of Divine worship ; but before we debate that business , I have something more yet to say to you about the Heathen Idolatry . P. D. What is that ? R. P. T. G. observes , that the Heathens did worship their Gods as sharers with Jupiter in the Divine Power and Authority , and upon that account believed them to be truly and properly Gods , in whose power it was to bestow those benefits upon them , which they desired , and they were justly charged with Idolatry by the Fathers for so doing . And he observes from T. Godwin in his Roman Antiquities , that some were Gods by their own right , others only by right of Donation : of the former sort were those who were partners in the Government of the world . Now , saith he , to give worship to any other besides God 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 in our Church we own God to be the sole Giver of every good and perfect gift , and make our addresses to Angels and Saints as his Ministers and Servants not to obtain of them the benefits we desire , but of God alone by their intercession through his only Son and our only Redeemer Jesus Christ , as the Council of Trent hath declared . P. D. Here are two things to be cleared , ( 1. ) How far the Heathens did make other Gods sharers with the Supreme in the Government of the World. ( 2. ) How far your opinion and practice differ from theirs . 1. How far the Heathens did make other Gods sharers with the Supreme in the Government of the World. For which we are to consider a double Hypothesis which was received among the Heathens . First , Of those who worshipped the same God under several names and titles with respect to particular powers ; which Dr. St. proved from Plotinus , Plutarch , Apuleius , and your own Simon Majolus , who on this account commends the Poetick Theology beyond that of Pythagoras and Socrates . And this hypothesis S. Augustin takes particular notice of , viz. that the same God was Jupiter above , Juno in the Air , Neptune in the Sea , and in the bottom of it Salacia , Pluto upon Earth , Proserpina under it , Vesta in the Hearth , Vulcan in the Forge , Apollo in Oracles , Mercury in Trade , Mars in War , Ceres in Corn , Diana in the Woods , Minerva among Wits ; with many more which he reckons up , and then concludes , that all these Gods and Goddesses are but one Jupiter ; or the several parts and powers of the same God ; and this , he saith , was the opinion of many learned , and great men among them . ( Quae sententia velut magnorum multorumque Doctorum est . ) All these made no sharers in Divinity by believing them to be truely and properly Gods , but only different titles and powers of the same God. Secondly , There was another hypothesis more general than this , viz. of one Supreme God and many inferiour who were imployed by him . Of which you may remember the words of Tertullian , that the greatest part asserted the Supreme Power to be in one , and the subordinate Offices to be in many . And Orosius saith , that both the Philosophers and common Heathens did believe one God the Author of all things ; but under this God they worshipped many inferiour and subservient Gods. In the Council of Carthage under Cyprian Saturninus a Tucca ( who was both a Bishop and Confessor ) saith , that the Heathen Idolaters did acknowledge and confess the Supreme God , Father and Creator . And this was so known a thing , that Faustus the Manichee charged the Christians with being of the same faith with the Pagans , as to one Supreme God. Although therefore the Heathens did own and worship many Gods , yet they looked on them as inferiour and subordinate to the Supreme , and only imployed by him in the administration of things under him . And as for the partners you mention , they were not such quoad plenitudinem potestatis ; but only made use of in their particular Offices ; you know the distinction ; and it serves better here than in the Court of Rome . But I cannot but wonder , when T. G. had upbraided Dr. St. for two pages together with his Father Livy , Father Varro , Father Cicero , Father Seneca , Father Virgil , &c. he should at last sink so low as to quote Father T. G. in his Roman Antiquities against him ; surely any one of those Fathers in a matter of Roman Antiquities would weigh down a hundred Father T. G.'s ; and yet even this Testimony doth not prove that the Gods that were supposed to be in Heaven by their own right were supreme and independent Deities , but the Dij Consentes were of a higher rank than the semidei or indigites , the one having been always in Heaven according to the Platonists supposition , the other being assumed from among men ; which comes at last to the distinction of Angels and Saints . 2. How far your opinion and practice do differ from theirs . And here I pray remember that I go not about to compare the Heathen Gods with Angels and Saints as to their excellencies , for the Apostle tells us , however the Gentiles intended it , they did really sacrifice to Devils and not to God : but I am only to compare the Heathens notion of worship and yours together . And if you do allow Gods by participation , viz. Spirits assumed into such a share of Government as to have the care of some things and places committed to some more than to others ; and if addresses and supplications are allowed to be made to them on that account , I desire to know how the Heathens are justly charged with Idolatry , and you not ? Was it Idolatry to pray to Diana as an inferiour Deity which presided over hunting , and is it none to pray to S. Hubert on the like account ? Was it Idolatry to pray to Vesta to preserve from the Fire , and is it none to pray to S. Agatha ? If two persons in the same storm prayed as to their Tutelar Deities , the one to Neptune , the other to S. Paul ; is the one guilty of Idolatry , and the other not ? If two women in travail prayed for help , the one to Lucina , the other to the B. Virgin , is the first only guilty of Idolatry ? They might be accused of Ignorance and Folly in making a bad choice , but I do not see how the Heathens could be charged with Idolatry , and not the other . When Saints are Canonized to be Particular Patrons of Places , as S. Rosa lately for Peru ; why may not the inhabitants make particular addresses to her as their Patroness , and Tutelar Deity , as Lipsius did to the B. Virgin ? Is not this to make such a Saint a sharer in the Government of the World , as much as the Heathens did their Tutelar Gods under one Supreme ? And therefore upon T. G.'s own ground , you are as justly charged with Idolatry as the Heathens were . For the Heathens did not look on their Tutelar Gods as the Original Givers , but as the subordinate Ministers . R. P. But as T. G. saith , we do not pray to them to obtain the things we desire , but that they would be our Intercessors with God for us . P. D. I wonder T. G. would say this again without answering what Dr. St. had said in his late Defence to shew ( 1. ) That the very words of the Council of Trent do allow more than bare intercession . ( 2. ) That formal prayers to them to bestow blessings are allowed and practised among them ; of which he produces several Instances of present use in the approved Books of Devotion . ( 3. ) That such prayers do not contradict any received Doctrine of the Roman Church : and he challenges T. G. to shew , what Article of your Creed , what Decree of your Church , what Doctrine of your Divines it doth contradict , for any man to pray directly to the Virgin Mary for the destruction of heresies , support under troubles , Grace to withstand temptations , and reception to Glory ? And what can we beg for more from God himself ? But I do not yet understand how you can charge those Heathens with Idolatry , who owned a Supreme God and worshipped inferiour Deities as subordinate to them , and their Images ; but the charge will return upon your selves . R. P. Will you never be satisfied ? Did not T. G. say , they were justly charged with it on two accounts . ( 1. ) Because those Images were instituted by publick Authority for the worship of false Gods ; and they concurred with the vulgar in all the external practices of their Idolatry . ( 2. ) Because though in their Schools they denied them to be Gods , yet they gave divine honour to them as the people did . P. D. You must excuse me Sir , I have such an imperfection in my understanding that it will not be satisfied , without the appearance at least of Reason ; which I confess I cannot yet see in this answer . For , I pray , how comes it to be Idolatry in them who give only an inferiour and relative worship , if that worship be not Idolatry ? R. P. T. G. saith , they were not guilty of internal Idolatry , but of external , complying with the vulgar who did worship them as truely and properly Gods ; and that in such a manner that they were judged to do the same thing , and therefore it was at least an exteriour profession of Idolatry in them . P. D. But you have not yet proved that the Gentiles did worship many independent Gods ; and I have very lately shewed the contrary from the express testimonies of the Fathers : and therefore this answer doth not reach to the case . Yet suppose , that against the general sense of understanding men , the common people should take the inferiour Gods for independent and absolute Deities , is not this the case of your own Church ? as Dr. St. observed , the common people take their Images for Gods , or take the B. Virgin for the Queen of Heaven , and pray to them accordingly , which is both internal and external Idolatry in them , however T. G. and their learned men comply with them in all their external Acts of Worship , are they guilty of the exteriour profession of Idolatry or not ? R. P. I thought where you would be , but is it the same case of some few men complying with a common and publick custom of Idolatrous worship ; and of those who follow the publick profession and do the same Acts with some private men who turn them to Idolatrous worship ? P. D. But if the publick profession of the Gentiles was to worship one Supreme God , as I have already proved , then the case is the very same as to the profession and practice of Idolatry ; which is the main thing insisted on . And the shewing of many other circumstantial differences will not vary the case , and destroy the parallel . If this be all you have to add about the Heathen Idolatry , I pray let us come to the appropriate Acts of Divine Worship . For since God may appropriate Acts of Worship to himself ; since upon that they become due only to him ; since Idolatry is giving to the Creature the worship due to God ; Dr. St. from hence proves , that they who do those Acts by way of worship to any creature must be guilty of Idolatry . R. P. As to this mighty argument T. G. saith , the only thing to be wondred at in it are the many Equivocations , False suppositions , and Self-contradictions contained in it . P. D. Fair and soft good Sir , let us not have so many charges at one time ; take which of them you please , provided you hold to it , and not ramble from one to another . R. P. What is it you understand by appropriate acts of Divine Worship ? for more or less may be required , and so the term be equivocal . P. D. I mean such which by his appointment and command become due to him , and by his prohibition to give them to any other they become due only to him . R. P. There is something still wanting to make the Argument conclusive against us , which is , that God hath so tied these Acts to his own Worship , that in all cases , and upon all occasions imaginable they become incommunicable to any other , and this so fastned to them , that it cannot be separated from them . For if the appropriation may be separated upon any accounts , we may and will pretend it is . P. D. How doth it appear necessary , that such an appropriation must be in all circumstances ? Is it not sufficient that it be in all Acts of Religious Worship ? For instance , Adoration is an appropriate Act of Divine Worship , but he doth not hereby exclude mens bowing to each other on account of civil respect , but where the circumstances of time , place , &c. do shew it is for Religious Worship , there Dr. St. saith it ought to be given to none else but God. R. P. But if those Acts be communicable to any other besides God , as limited with such and such circumstances , they are not absolutely appropriated to God in all cases and upon all accounts imaginable ; and so the Argument doth not conclude . P. D. I wonder to hear you talk at this rate . For the force of your Argument lies in this , If it be lawful to bow to one another on a civil account , then Religious Worship is not appropriated to God ; what a strange consequence is this ? Dr. St. doth say , that the circumstances of time and place , &c. do put a sufficient discrimination between Acts of Civil and Religious Worship ; as between eating and drinking upon a natural account at a common Table , and eating and drinking at the Eucharist . What a sensless way of reasoning were this , for a man to say , that eating and drinking could not be appropriated to that act of Divine Worship in celebration of the Lords Supper , because men eat and drink upon other occasions ? It is true , they do so and must do so if they would live ; but what then ? May not Christ therefore institute a Supper of his own with such rites and solemnities belonging to it , as may sufficiently discriminate it from a common eating and drinking ? And were it not a horrible profanation to appoint such a Supper as that of our Lord is , in commemoration of of S. Francis , or Ignatius Loyola ? I see , I must put some questions to you to make you apprehend this a little better , than I fear you do . Is not the celebration of the Eucharist an appropriate Act of Divine Worship now under the Gospel ? R. P. I do not well know what you mean. P. D. So I thought by your way of talking . Is it lawful to meet together at Mass , to set apart Bread and Wine , and afterwards to partake of them with a design to commemorate S. Francis and St. Rosa , by such a solemnity ? R. P. I think not ; because that would be a profane imitation of our Lords Supper , which was instituted by Christ himself for the commemoration of his own sufferings . P. D. But is it not lawful to eat Bread and to drink Wine together ? R. P. Who doubts of that ? P. D. But eating Bread and drinking Wine are the same Acts in substance which are used at the Lords Supper . R. P. And what then ? P. D. Then the substance of the Acts being the same when done upon a civil and a religious account , doth not take off from the appropriation of them to God when the circumstances declare it to be an Act of Religious Worship . Therefore when a dispute arises concerning the Nature of an Act , whether it be for Civil or Religious Worship , common prudence is to judge of that from the circumstances of it ; if once it be found to be for Religious Worship , then comes in the consideration of the Law of God , and the appropriation of all Acts of Religious Worship to God alone . And by this time I hope you understand how impertinent it is to say , that if there be appropriate Acts of Divine Worship , they must be so in all cases and upon all accounts imaginable . Which is as much as to say , that eating Bread and drinking Wine in a solemn manner , in a place appointed for Divine Worship , cannot be appropriated to the Lords Supper , unless we never eat Bread , or drink Wine , but upon that occasion . R. P. But what are these appropriate Acts of Divine Worship ? For it may be some farther light may be gathered from the Acts themselves . P. D. Dr. St. hath named six ; Sacrifice , Religious Adoration , Solemn Invocation ; Erecting Temples and Altars , Burning of Incense , Making of Vows . R. P. Hath God tyed us by his command to offer Sacrifice , or burn Incense , or make Vows to him ? How then can he argue the Romanists guilty of Idolatry upon the account of giving Acts appropriated to God to others beside him , when himself if put to it , will deny that God hath commanded them to be done at all to him ? P. D. To clear this matter a little more to you , you may consider two things concerning appropriate Acts of Divine Worship . 1. The general prohibition of giving Religious Worship to any thing besides God. Which our Saviour hath delivered in those words , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . Which the Primitive Church took for their fundamental Rule of Worship ; and understood it in this sense , That all Acts of Religious Worship were to be performed to God alone . And therefore of what kind soever the Acts were , whether we were tied to perform them to God or not , if they were looked on as Acts of Religious Worship given to any Creature , they utterly and peremptorily refused to do them , and rather chose to suffer Martyrdom ; as was plain in the case of burning Incense to the Emperours Image . No Christians did then think that we were tied to offer incense to God , and yet they esteemed it Idolatry to offer incense to any Creature ; therefore it is not necessary to the nature of Idolatry , that the Act of Worship be such as we are tied to give unto God ; it being sufficient that it is an act of Religious Worship ; and the giving of any such to a creature is Idolatry ; and without this , it is impossible to defend the Martyrs of the Primitive Church ; which all Christians are bound to do . 2. As to particular Acts of Divine Worship , though they are always unlawful to be given to any thing besides God , yet we are not tyed after the same manner to perform them to him . For ( 1. ) Some Acts of Worship are natural and always equally agreeing to the Majesty of God ; such as Prayer and Invocation ; Dependence on his Goodness and Providence ; Thanksgiving for Mercies received ; and all internal Acts of Worship , which result from the relation we stand in to God , and the apprehensions we ought to have of his Perfections ; as Fear from his Power , Submission from his Providence , Faith and Trust in him from his Truth and Wisdom , Love from his Goodness , &c. All these are necessary Acts of worship , and proper to God. ( 2. ) Some Acts of worship are appropriated to him when they are due , but they are not alwayes due : such as making vows , and swearing by his name . Although we are not tied to perform these at any certain times , yet whenever they are done , they must be done to God alone . ( 3. ) Some acts are not necessary to be done to God at all ; and yet it is unlawful to do them to any other . And of this kind are the offering Sacrifices and burning Incense ; which were strictly required under the Law , but that dispensation expiring after the coming of Christ , the obligation to those Acts was wholly taken away , and yet it was Idolatry to use them to any thing besides God ; because they were Acts of Religious Worship , and therefore if to be performed at all , they were so due to him that they could not without Idolatry be applied to any besides him . And thus , I hope , I have a little helped your understanding about these appropriate Acts of Divine Worship . R. P. But the force of the ceremonial Law being taken away ; whatever is not obliging by the Law of Nature , or some express declaration of the will of Christ , is left at liberty for the Church to use conformably to the light of nature , and the design of Christs Doctrine . P. D. All this I yield . But that which I insist upon , is that fundamental precept of worship as declared by Christ , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve . R. P. But do you think that Christ hath made a re-establishment of those Acts in the new Law which were before peculiar to God , as Sacrifice , Incense , &c. for then Christians will be as much bound by this precept to give them to God , as not to give them to any other . But if they are not re-established , how doth it follow , that because they were appropriated to God by the Law , therefore now that Law is taken away , they are forbidden to any other besides God ? P. D. I do not say that Christ did intend a re-establishment of those Acts of Worship which were peculiar to the Law of Moses ; but I do say , that Christ by this Precept as explained by himself , doth make it utterly unlawful to perform any act of Religious Worship to any but God alone . And if this be all you have to prove the Mass of Equivocations , False Suppositions , and Self-contradictions in Dr. St.'s Discourse of appropriate Acts of Divine Worship , it had been more for T. G.'s honour to have passed over this with as much silence as he did many other places which he found too hard for him . R. P. Suppose this argument were good , it proves nothing against us , who neither give any act absolutely appropriated to God to any else besides him ; nor any other in the manner it is appropriated to him . P. D. If you perform any act of Religious Worship either to Saints or Images , this Discourse must concern you ; because the Law against the worship of Images is still in force among Christians ; and our Saviours general Rule doth forbid all external Acts of Religious Worship being applied to any besides God. R. P. Nay , supposing those external acts of worship to be now due to God by his Law , the giving them to any besides himself will not be to give to the creature the worship due to God , unless it be done with an intention to give them to a creature as esteemed worthy of Divine Honour . For that is the definition of real Idolatry . P. D. Then the Mandarins in China who performed all external acts of adoration in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirits secretly directing their intention to a Crucifix were not guilty of Idolatry ; notwithstanding the Decree of the Congregation at Rome . For they did not perform those acts , with an intention to give the worship to the Tutelar Spirits as esteemed worthy of Divine Honour . Then the Thurificati of the Primitive Church who through fear offered incense , could not be charged with Idolatry ; nor Marcellinus though he sacrificed in the Temple of Vesta , when he only complied with Dioclesian . But did not T. G. blame the Philosophers for an exteriour profession of Idolatry ? What is that I beseech you ? Is it Idolatry or not ? Doth not T. G. grant , that there ought in reason to be some peculiar external acts appropriated to the worship of God as most agreeable to his incommunicable excellencie ? Why so I pray ? Is it not , because Gods incommunicable excellency requires an external worship peculiar to it self ? And if so , is it not to give the worship due to God to something else , to apply those acts which are peculiar to himself , to any thing besides him ? This debate in truth comes to this point at last , whether there ought to be any such thing as a peculiar external worship of God or not ? For , if external worship be due to him , and such worship be due to him alone for his incommunicable excellencie , then the giving external worship to a creature , must be giving to it what is due only to God. And to resolve the nature of Idolatry into the inward intention , is all one as if one should say , that Adultery were to lie with another mans Wife with an intention to cuckold her Husband ; but if a man did it out of love to her Person , it were no adultery . Why is there not an external act of Idolatry , as well as of perjury , theft , murder and the like ? Where doth the Scripture give the least intimation that the nature of Idolatry is to be taken from the inward intention , when the Law is express against the outward action : and all men are charged with Idolatry who were guilty of the external acts , without running into the thoughts and designs of their hearts ? Nay , your own Authors cannot deny that there is an external Idolatry as well as internal ; and where the outward acts are Idolatrous we ought to presume there was an implicit and indirect intention ; and no more is necessary to make an act Idolatrous than a voluntary inclination to do it . This is therefore a meer subterfuge , and can never satisfie a mans Conscience , nor excuse the Roman Church from Idolatry . R. P. But T. G. grants that supposing such an appropriation of external acts to remain in force ; to apply such acts to a creature may and ought in reason to be interpreted to be real Idolatrous worship ; because Idolatry is a sin directly opposite to Religion , as a false worship to a true one . P. D. What is it then but to cavil about words , to deny that to be real Idolatry which at the same time he confesses ought to be interpreted to be so ? For since we cannot judge of mens intentions but by their actions , when we dispute about the Idolatry practised in any Church , we can be understood only of that which lies open to our judgement , and that can be only the external act . And since T. G. grants , that the thing which the Dr. means is confessed by your selves to be inconsistent with salvation , there is nothing further necessary to be done , but to debate whether you are guilty of that sin or not , in applying appropriate acts of Divine Worship to a Creature . R. P. But doth not Dr. St. himself shew from Card. Tolet , that Idolatry doth suppose an error in the mind , in judging that to deserve divine honour which doth not ? P. D. I grant it , but that only shews what practical judgement doth precede a voluntary act of Idolatry : as it is distinguished from an involuntary compliance . In this later case , persons are really guilty as to the external act ; as a man that takes away his Neighbours goods out of fear of his own life is really guilty of theft , although the fear he was in may lessen the wilfulness of it : so in Idolatry when committed through the power of a sudden passion is a sin of the same kind with other Idolatry , but not so wilful and deliberate a sin . But in case of wilful Idolatry , there must be a practical judgement determining the will to the act of Idolatry . If you ask me what that judgement is , whether true , or erroneous ; I say it is an erroneous judgement , for it determines the giving divine worship to that which doth not deserve it . Not as though Idolatry implied the believing that to be truly and properly God which is not ; ( which T. G. would infer from thence ) but it implies only the practical judgement determining the will to give Divine Worship to that which really deserves it not . As for instance ; suppose an Image of our Lady to stand before two persons ; the one declares against the Worship of it , though he may be forced to do it , he is guilty of real but involuntary Idolatry ( taking involuntary as to the free inclination of the Will ) the other readily and spontaneously falls down upon his knees before it , and says his prayers to the Image as gravely and devoutly as if the B. Virgin were present ; both these do concur in the same external act of worship , but from a very different judgement ; the one judges it fit to comply for his own safety ; the other judges the thing fit to be done : but it is not necessary that he judges the Image to be the B. Virgin her self , but that he ought to give such worship to her Image ; so that judging divine worship to belong to that which doth not really deserve it , is all the erroneous judgement necessary to a wilful act of Idolatry ; and if this be any kindness to T. G. much good may it do him . R. P. But T. G. saith , that from hence it follows , that it is not real Idolatry to worship an Image with divine worship unless it be done out of an erroneous judgement , as to a thing that deserves Divine Honour . P. D. No such matter ; for from hence it only follows , that in a wilful act of Idolatry there must be a practical judgement determining the act of Divine Worship to an Image , though it deserves it not . So that this doth not refer to the manner of applying the external act to the object as deserving divine honour , but only the antecedent judgement that the act of divine worship be given to such an object . R. P. Again T. G. saith , that from hence it follows , that the case of the Heathens and ours is different , because their Idolatry proceeded upon an erroneous belief of a creatures deserving Divine Honour when it doth not ; but we do no such thing . P. D. Cannot T. G. understand the difference between an erroneous belief and an erroneous practical judgement ? I do not deny that the Heathens had a very erroneous belief in many particulars ; and so have other Idolaters too . But the question now is , what error of judgement that is , which the wilful act of Idolatry doth suppose ; and I say , it requires no more than an error in the practical judgement , determining the will to give Divine Worship to that which doth not deserve it . And herein I see no difference between the Heathens Idolatry and yours . R. P. But let us now set aside the strict notion of Idolatry , and consider , whether the Church of Rome be guilty of damnable sin in the manner of their worship , which must either be in not giving to God the worship due to him , or by giving the worship due only to him to his Creatures . P. D. The later is that which Dr. St. chiefly insists upon , although , he saith , your Divines are to blame in the first particular , because they reserve no one act of external adoration as proper to God and to be performed by all Christians , and for this he quotes the resolution of Cardinal Lugo . R. P. I wonder you would mention that citation of Lugo , since T. G. saith the Dr. is so unhappy in his citations : and the Jesuits will say , that he evidently abuses both his Authority and his Eminency . P. D. I have had so much experience of T. G.'s intolerable disingenuity in this matter , that I durst venture an even wager ( which is the way T. G. proposes often in his Dialogues for ending such disputes ) that Dr. St. hath not miscited Cardinal Lugo . R. P. T. G. saith , that Cardinal Lugo doth not deny sacrifice to be an external act of worship proper to God ; for his words are , qui non potest offerri nisi soli Deo , as may not be offered but to God alone ; but , he saith , that sacrifice is not properly an act of adoration in the strict sense , but of another kind distinct from it . P. D. Those are not Lugo's words , but licet non possit offerri nisi soli Deo ; yet I shall not insist upon that . For that which sufficiently clears Dr. St. is , the consideration of his design in bringing those words of Lugo , which was to prove that there is no one external act of adoration which is proper to Latria , or the worship peculiar to God. And are not Lugo's words plain and full to this purpose ? R. P. That cannot be denied , but he takes adoration in the stricter sense . P. D. Let him take it in what sense he will ; doth he not speak of the adoration proper to Latria , or the worship peculiar to God ? And doth not Latria take in any peculiar act of Divine Worship ? And if there be no external act of adoration peculiar to God , doth it not follow , that there is no peculiar act whereby you express your inward submission to God in all things ? for that , Lugo saith , is the strict sense of adoration he there means . And doth not this fully prove what Dr. St. brought this Testimony for ? R. P. But the Church of Rome doth hold sacrifice to be peculiar to God. P. D. And doth not Dr. St. say as much ? For his words are , that you confess , that sacrifice is so peculiar to God that it ought not to be offered to any else ; but not as an Act of Latria saith Cardinal Lugo , for there is no act of adoration that is so ; but upon another account as it signifies Gods absolute Dominion over us as to life and death , and that we ought to lay down our own lives when he calls for them ▪ Which is to make sacrifice a significant ceremony peculiar to God expressing his Soveraignty , but not an immediate act of worship peculiar to him : for of that kind , he saith , there is none . And therefore according to him , your Church hath no one external act of Divine Worship so proper to God , that it may not be offered but to him alone . And from hence it appears that Lugo did not take adoration meerly for that act of Religious Worship which is performed by the motion of the Body , as T. G. suggests ; but for whatsoever act that may tend to express the submission of our souls to God ; of which sort he denies any to be peculiar to Gods worship . And what can be more contrary to that which T. G. admits for a Law of Nature , viz. that man ought to use some external acts to testifie his submission to God , and therefore there ought to be some peculiar external acts appropriated to the worship of God , as most agreeable to his incommunicable excellency ? I could not but rejoyce to see T. G. own so reasonable a principle , and I desire no other , as to the meer light of Nature to prove your Idolatry . For , if this be a principle of Natural Religion ; then Idolatry even by the light of Nature lies in applying appropriate acts of Divine Worship to any but to God himself ; for since his excellency is incommunicable , and the submission we owe to God peculiar to him , and that submission ought to be expressed by external acts , all which T. G. grants ; then all those who do use such acts to any besides God , are guilty of giving the worship due to God unto a Creature . For God hath not only a right to our inward submission , but to the acknowledgement of it , which cannot be done but by external acts : and which is observable as to this matter ; the honour of God as to his incommunicable excellencies with respect to mankind as a body , doth not lie in the bare Acts of the Mind , but in the external performance of Religious Worship to him . For , if it be necessary that Gods Authority be owned in the world , it is necessary it be done by visible acts of Worship ; which ought to be so appropriated to him , that any one who discerns them may see the difference put between God and all his Creatures . For herein lies the manifestation of that inward sense we have of Gods incommunicable excellencies , when we set apart times , and places , and offices of Religious Worship , by which we declare our submission to God , as our Creator and Governor of the World. And the confounding this distance between God and his Creatures is the great sin of Idolatry : from whence Aquinas and others conclude it to be a sin of the highest nature , and including blasphemy in it , because it robs God of the honour due to him for his incommunicable excellencies . R. P. What do you mean by this appropriating acts of worship to God ? Do you mean all of them so absolutely appropriated to God , that it is not lawful upon any account to give them to any other ? And then the Quakers will be the only good Christians in the world ; or only some of them , and not others , as kneeling and prostrating , but not bowing ; and then you must tell us what makes the discrimination . P. D. I mean that which all mankind meant , when they set apart times , and places , and offices for Divine Worship ; and every man by the help of his mother wit knew the difference between going to serve God and going to Market . I say then as Dr. St. did , that the circumstances do sufficiently discriminate Acts of a Religious and of a Civil Nature . R. P. May not the Churches declaration , that such acts are intended only for inferiour Worship towards Images or Saints , make a sufficient discrimination between such acts , and those which are appropriated to God ? P. D. If you suppose the whole power of determining Acts of Divine Worship to lie in your Churches Breast , you had asked a very material question ; but in this case , there is a Law of God antecedently prohibiting such acts being given to any besides God himself ; and this Law was so understood by the Christian Church when the Christian Religion put men upon suffering Martyrdom on that principle , that all Religious Worship was appropriated to God : because Christ had said , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve . R. P. Who is so blind as not to see , that this prohibition fell upon the external act as determined to be a sign of Religious Worship by the circumstances in which it was required ? P. D. And what then , I pray ? for doth it not equally fall upon all external acts where the circumstances do determine them to be signs of Religious Worship ? Which is all I desire . R. P. Doth not this justifie the Quakers in denying to give any external honour to a Creature ? P. D. So far from it , that it shews the folly of their doctrine , which arose from not being able to distinguish acts of Religious and Civil Worship . R. P. But Dr. St. allows some kind of Religious Worship to be given to a Creature . P. D. Not any which is Religious in its nature or by circumstances ; but that which might be so called being required by the Rule of Religion , as civil worship is . R. P. But he allows religious respect to places , and religious honour to Saints , and then why not those acts we give to Images and Saints on the same accounts ? P. D. Because the circumstances do declare those are not acts of religious worship ; but those you give to Images and Saints are . R. P. I see the weight of this whole debate lies at last upon this determination of circumstances ; but how comes the Dr. after all the great bustle he makes about Gods appropriating external acts of worship to himself , to put the trial of his cause at last upon the determination of circumstances ? P. D. What other way should the difference of moral actions be tried ? What incongruity is there between Gods appropriating acts of religious worship to himself , and the finding out what those acts are by the circumstances ? Is it not thus in the other Commandments ? God in general forbids Murder , Theft and Adultery ; but are not those prohibited acts to be judged by the circumstances ? For , there is the same substance of the act in and unlawful actions . If a man kills another by chance , or out of malice ; if a man takes away another mans goods with his consent or without ; it is the same act as to its substance ; and what discrimination can be made but by the circumstances ? and therefore I cannot but wonder to hear you object against this , or think it any repugnancy to Gods appropriating acts of Divine Worship to himself . R. P. How can the nature of such acts be determined wholly by circumstances , unless the appropriation of them be taken away ? for if that continues , the Law determines the nature of the acts . P. D. Do you not apprehend the difference between the discrimination of acts of civil and religious worship , and the appropriation of the latter to God by his Law ? I say the Law makes them peculiar to God when they are found to be acts of religious worship , but the circumstances are to determine whether they are civil or religious acts . As all acts of murder are forbidden by Gods Law , but whether such an act be murder or no , is to be judged by circumstances . R. P. But then if the external acts of worship given to Creatures in the Church of Rome chance to prove accompanied with such circumstances , by which they may and generally are understood not to be acts of Divine Worship but of inferiour veneration , then they are acquitted from the guilt of Idolatry according to the Dr.'s own principles . P. D. No such matter ; unless we suppose those acts to be wholly indifferent and left free by any Divine Law : and that it is in the Churches Power to declare what is to pass for divine worship , and what for inferiour worship . But no particular circumstances can make an act lawful , which the Law of God hath made unlawful . As suppose the Spartan Common-wealth allow pilfering or taking away Goods from each other without consent of the owners , here is one circumstance which goes a great way towards the altering the nature of such actions ; but if there be an antecedent Law of God which makes such acts unlawful , they remain so still notwithstanding the declaration of the Spartan State. Just thus it is in the present case , your Church declares such Acts of Worship may be lawfully applied to Images and Saints ; but what then ? hath your Church the Power to repeal the Law of God ? if not , the acts remain as unlawful as ever , notwithstanding the circumstance of such a declaration . R. P. But T. G. saith , all Dr. St. 's discourse about discrimination of acts of civil and religious worship by circumstances , is only a popular discourse , and upon enquiry will be found as incoherent and weak as an adversary could wish . P. D. I shall not take T. G.'s judgement in this matter ; for I have not found him so impartial and just , that I should submit to his arbitration . If you have any thing to object against that discourse , I do not question we shall hear of it . R. P. First , Acts take their nature from the formal reason or account upon which they tend to their objects , and from thence they become either civil or religious , though they may receive another denomination from the circumstances which do accompany them . P. D. I pray consider ; the thing we enquire after , is the difference between Acts of Civil and Religious Worship ; which Dr. St. saith is to be taken from the circumstances , no , say you , it must be taken from the formal reason , or account on which they tend to their objects : but the formal reason of acts being secret and invisible , the question is whether that be sufficient to put a discrimination between Acts of an external and visible nature , as those of civil and religious worship are . I will make this plain to you by a noted instance : While the Christian Emperors required no more than meer civil worship , the Christians made no scruple of giving it to them in the same postures which were used in divine worship ; but when they suspected that divine worship was required , they utterly refused it : here we have the same acts as to the substance of them in both cases ; and yet the Christians could easily discern which did belong to civil and which to religious worship ; was it from such a reason and intention of the persons which none could know but the doers ? or else from the circumstances which did make it appear that more than civil worship was required ? And yet this worship which the Heathens gave to their Emperours was only an inferiour sort of divine worship , and so understood by the general consent of the Heathens themselves ; from whence we gather ( 1. ) That the discrimination of acts of civil and divine worship do not depend upon the intention of the Doer , but the outward circumstances of them . For , if it had depended on the inward intention of the person , the Christians might have saved their lives and honours by doing the external acts with a different intention ; and that which was divine worship in him that designed it for such , were but civil worship in him that intended no more . ( 2. ) That the declaration of an inferiour sort of divine worship doth not make it lawful . For it could be no otherwise understood by the Christians , and yet they refused it as Idolatrous Worship . R. P. ( 2. ) If the circumstances of time , and place , and such like do so restrain and limit the signification of external acts , that it is easie to discern one worship from another , how can you make it out that the people did not give religious worship to David when in a most solemn act of devotion , it is said , that the people worshipped the Lord and the King ? where we see the same act 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. P. D. T.G. need not have gone so far back for such an argument . For the Kings Chaplains in a sacred place and at a solemn time of devotion , do bow three times to the King , when they enter into the Pulpit ; and yet who is there imagines they give him divine worship ? It is not therefore the circumstance of time and place alone , which Dr. St. makes to discriminate civil and religious worship ; but the concurrence of all circumstances together . If I bowed to a Friend at Church , is any man so senseless to take this for Idolatry ? Where there is an antecedent ground for civil worship and respect , which is well known and understood among men , there is nothing like Idolatry , although we do use the same external acts towards men which we use towards God himself . As among the Israelites no man doubted that their bowing to the King was upon a quite different account , from their bowing to God ; although they bowed to the King in a place dedicated to divine worship . And where the reason of worship is so well understood to be of a quite different nature from that of religious worship , that very reason makes a discrimination besides the circumstances of time and place . Which I shall make appear from the case of Naaman the Syrian ; whose bowing in the house of Rimmon was therefore free from Idolatry because of the known custom of paying civil respect every where else to his Prince in that manner , and by his publick protestatition against the Idolatrous worship there performed , as T. G. shews at large from Dr. H. T. G. therefore very much mistakes Dr. St.'s meaning , if he thinks he assigned the discrimination of acts of religious and civil worship barely to the circumstances of time and place without taking in the object and reason of worship . R. P. But from hence it appears , that bowing in the House and Presence of an Idol and in the very time of worship , is not Idolatry : For then Naaman could not be excused . P. D. Where the worship is known to be given not to the Idol , but to the Prince to whom it is acknowledged to be due elsewhere ; Dr. St. never supposed such an act of worship though done in an Idol-temple to be Idolatry . R. P. But suppose men should ask a Bishop blessing in a Church and at Prayer-time , this is not civil worship , and is this Idolatry . P. D. Worship may be said to be civil two wayes ; 1. When it is performed on a meer civil account , as it is to Magistrates and Parents . 2. When it is performed on the account of a spiritual relation , as in the respect shewed to Bishops as spiritual Fathers . The worship is of the same kind with that which is shewed to natural Parents , but the relation is of another kind ; on which account it may be called Spiritual Respect ; but it is in it self an act of civil worship arising upon a moral relation , which being of a different nature from that which is between Princes and Subjects , and Parents and Children ; and being founded upon Religious Grounds may be said to be Religious or Spiritual Respect rather than Worship . R. P. If the first Christians had upon their knees in time of prayer begged S. James his benediction , had this been an unlawful Act of Worship ? P. D. If they were upon their knees in prayer to God , I think it was a very unseasonable time to ask their Bishop blessing ; although the act in it self were lawful . R. P. But is not this an act of the same kind with that of invocation of Saints in times and places of Divine Worship , when we only pray to them to pray for us ? P. D. I say again , that is not all You do ; for you own their Patronage , Protection and Power to help you in your necessities ; and your Prayers must be understood according to your Doctrines . But suppose you did only pray to them to pray for you , yet ( 1. ) You do it with all the solemnity of Divine Worship in the publick Litanies of the Church , when you are in the posture of your greatest Devotion . And the Angel rebuked no less man than St. John , for using the posture of Divine Adoration to him . ( 2. ) In kneeling to a Bishop to pray for us we suppose nothing that encroaches upon the Divine excellencies ; for we are certain he hears and understands us , and we desire nothing from him , but what is in his power to do , and is very fitting for us to request from him . But when you pray to Saints , you can have no possible assurance that they do or can hear what you say to them ; and so it is a foolish and unreasonable worship : and when you do it with the same external Acts of Devotion which you use to the Divine Majesty , you take away that peculiarity of Divine Worship which is due to God by reason of his incommunicable excellencies ; and so it is superstitious and idolatrous Worship , these two wayes , ( 1. ) As it supposes as great excellencies in Creatures as those did who for that reason were charged with Idolatry . I do not meddle with the possibility of an intelligent being disunited from matter 's hearing at such a distance as the Saints are supposed to be from us , nor whether God may not communicate such knowledge to them ; but that which I insist on is this , I find those charged with Idolatry not only in Scripture and the Fathers , but by the Church of Rome it self , who professed to worship some inferiour Spirits as Mediators between God and men ; and such Mediators as were never imagined to be Mediators of Redemption but barely of Intercession , as being believed to carry up the prayers of men and to bring down help from above . Now here is no Omnisciency , or Omnipotency , or other incommunicable excellency attributed to these Spirits ; and all the addresses made to them was under the notion of Mediators to intercede for them , i. e. to pray to them to pray for them ; and yet these were charged with flat Idolatry . It were easie to make it appear from unquestionable testimonies , that the Heathen Idolaters did worship inferiour spirits only as Mediators , ( as Apuleius expresses it , inter caelicolas terricolasque vectores hinc preeum inde donorum , wherein he only interprets Plato's sense ) and that this was one of the most common and universal kinds of Idolatry ; and therefore I would fain know why they must be charged with Idolatry , and you escape ? Either be just to them , and vindicate the Heathen Worship , or else you must condemn your own . ( 2. ) T. G. confesses , that by the Law of Nature there ought to be some peculiar external Acts appropriated to the worship of God as most agreeable to his incommunicable excellency : now among all mankind no one external Act of Worship hath been supposed more peculiar to the Divine Nature than solemn Invocation in places and times appropriated to Divine Worship ; but the Invocation practised in the Roman Church hath all the solemnity and circumstances of Divine Worship , and therefore it is robbing God of the peculiar Acts of his Worship which is Idolatry . And he must be very dull indeed , who cannot distinguish this Invocation from a casual or accidental meeting with a Bishop at Church and kissing the hem of his Garment , or asking his Benediction on ones knees . R. P. But where there are different objects in themselves , and a publick profession and consent that those acts are applyed to those objects upon different accounts ; it is intolerable impertinency to understand such Acts as are in themselves equivocal in any other sense than the Church declares , viz. as applyed to Saints or Images , the outward Acts of Worship , as bowing , kneeling , &c. are used only as tokens , or expressions of an inferiour respect and Veneration . P. D. If this be all you have to say for your selves , the Heathens must be excused from Idolatry as well as You. For they acknowledged by common consent and publick profession a difference between the supreme God and inferiour Spirits ; they allowed of different degrees of Worship ; and without all question did not look on their Emperours , as the Supreme Deity that made and governs the world ; and yet I hope the primitive Christians were not guilty of intolerable impertinency in charging them with Idolatry . But it seems the holy Angel was guilty of the same intolerable impertinency in so rashly rebuking the Apostle for falling down to Worship him , for this was an equivocal Act , and in all probability was intended only as a token of respect and Veneration inferiour to what was thought due to God over all , Blessed for evermore . But those Acts of Divine Worship which by the Law of God become due only to himself , can by no consent or declaration of a Church be made lawful to be given to any creature , however they may call them Acts of inferiour respect and Veneration ; as long as they are of the same nature with those which were condemned both by the Scripture and Fathers as Idolatrous Worship . R. P. Doth not Dr. Hammond say that Naaman the Syrian was excused from Idolatry , because of the publick profession he made , that he intended not the Worship to the Idol , but to his Master ? And will not the same plea hold for us who declare we do not give Soveraign Worship to any Creatures , but only inferiour Worship ? P. D. If Naaman had desired leave to worship Rimmon or Saturn with an inferiour Worship , declaring that he did not take Saturn for the true and Supreme God , but the God of Israel ; and therefore he might apply the same Act after a different manner , and the Prophet had then bid him Go in Peace , You had some reason for your parallel . But as long as Naamans question only related to the performing an act of Civil Worship to his Prince in the House of Rimmon , what colour can be hence taken for giving any kind of Religious Worship to Saints or Images in places and at times set apart for Divine Worship ? R. P. But Monsieur Daillé saith , that external signs 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 . P. D. And what then I beseech you ? Monsieur Daillé discourses against those who would use all the external Acts of adoration of the Host which others did , but with a different intention , and hoped this would excuse them from Idolatry . Now in this case he saith , that signs of Religious Worship , as uncovering the Head , kneeling or prostrating the body at the sound of a little bell , and such other actions are the plain and ordinary signs of the adoration of the Host ; and are so appointed by the Church of Rome , and so understood by those who generally practise it ; therefore , saith he , those who do use these outward signs are to be understood to give adoration to the Host. From whence it follows , that men cannot comply with others in the Acts of adoration of the Host without hypocrisie or Idolatry : which it was Mons. Daillé's design to prove . But what is all this to the proving that inferiour worship is not Idolatry ? we desire that these signs of Worship may be interpreted according to the common and publick practice of those who use them ; by which we say , it is as truly Religious Worship , as the Nations used , which all Christians do charge with Idolatry . But if your meaning be , that your actions are to be interpreted in your own sense , it will come to this at last , that You are not guilty of Idolatry , because you declare you are not guilty of it ; And whoever condemned themselves for it by publick declarations ? unless it were when they repented of it as a great sin , which I do not find you are yet willing to do . I pray remember this saying of Daille's , when you think to justifie giving acts of Divine Worship to a Creature , by your secret intention ; for he saith , and you seem to approve his saying , that such Acts when they are of the nature of Religious Worship , are to be interpreted by the common and publick practice , and not by particular intentions ; if therefore the Acts of Worship be such , as by the Scriptures , and sense of the Primitive Church belong only to God , no intention of yours of applying them after an inferiour manner can excuse you from giving adoration to a Creature , Especially , if they be such Acts which God hath appropriated to himself , as the six mentioned by Dr. St. for who dares alter what God himself hath appointed ? R. P. I think you are turning Quaker , for this is their principle , do not they alledge Christs precept against swearing , and then say who dares alter what God himself hath appointed ? P. D. I may as well fear you are renouncing Christianity ; for what Christian ever said or thought otherwise , than that it is not in the power of men to alter the Laws of Christ ? If Christs precept were to be understood of all kind of swearing , do you really think it would be lawful to swear at all ? I am ashamed of this loose , not to say , profane way of talking about the obligation of Divine Laws . R. P. I only mentioned this by the by , to let you see what kind of principles the Dr. makes use of to combate the Church of Rome . P. D. Just such principles as all Christians own ; and are bound so to do by their being Christians . But do you think in earnest , that it is in the power of men to alter the Laws of God ? R. P. No. But T. G. means , that there is now no Law of God binding men concerning these external Acts of worship , and therefore it is in the Power of the Church to appoint these as well as other Rites and Ceremonies , and to determine the signification of them . P. D. If this be his meaning , it is very ill expressed . But I say , that our Saviour hath declared the immutable obligation of that Law concerning applying all Acts of Religious worship only to God ; and that the Vniversal Church of Christ in the first Ages so understood it ; as appears not barely by their words , but by the greatest testimony of their Actions : when such multitudes laid down their lives upon this Principle . Therefore I say again , You must call in question their Title to Martyrdom , or you must own this for a true Christian Principle . R. P. But we declare our meaning in those which Dr. St. calls appropriate Acts of Divine worship , when we apply them to any creatures , to be only to use them as tokens of inferiour respect and Veneration : as Invocation , Building of Temples and Altars , burning of Incense , making of Vows , &c. But that which God hath forbidden is , that we shall not use them to any besides himself , as tokens of that inward submission of our souls which is proper to him . P. D. Did not you say , that the Appropriation of these Acts by the Law of Moses , being taken away by the ceasing of that Law , they are now to be looked on as indifferent Rites and Ceremonies ? R. P. And what then ? P. D. Did that Law cease at the coming of Christ , that those Acts were to be used only to God as tokens of that inward submission which is proper to him ? R. P. No ; that doth never cease . P. D. But this you say was the sense in which God did appropriate them to himself ; and therefore the Appropriation doth still continue . R. P. I suppose T. G.'s meaning is , that the appropriation before extended to them as tokens of inferiour respect and veneration , which Law ceasing , it is now lawful to use them in that sense . P. D. Then these Acts under the Law , were forbidden in that sense , whatsoever profession or declaration were made by those that used them . As suppose that the Jews had invocated Saints and Angels in their Temple or Synagogues and worshipped Images just as you do , and made the same professions of their meanings and intentions as your Church doth ; this had been Idolatry in them , but not in you . Is this his meaning ? R. P. I suppose it must be . P. D. Then inferiour Religious worship was once Idolatry , but it ceased to be so at the coming of Christ. Is not this a rare invention ? And by this means Christ destroyed Idolatry , not by rooting it out , but by making that not to be Idolatry which was so before : and so he might take away all other sins by making those breaches of the other nine Commandments not to be sins to Christians which were so to the Jews . But we have not only the express words of Christ , making all Religious worship of a Creature unlawful , against this invention , but the Doctrine of the Apostles who charged the Gentiles with Idolatry without regarding this distinction , who were not under the Law of Moses ; and the Consent of the Christian Church which judged this inferiour Religious Worship to be Idolatry still . And if this be all you have to say , it is impossible to clear your selves from the charge of Idolatry , notwithstanding all your meanings and intentions . R. P. I have one thing yet more to say , viz. that Christ appropriates the Titles of Good , Father , and Master to God , and yet we apply them to men in a different sense , and why may we not do the same in equivocal Acts of Worship ? P. D. Our Saviour's design was to deter men from assuming or affecting such titles of excellency , superiority , or Authority over others in teaching , as seemed to encroach too much on the divine perfections : but this holds much more against the pretence of infallibility in any person , than for the lawfulness of inferiour Religious worship . For Christ never forbids the common use of those titles among men , when they have no respect to Divine Matters ; no more than he doth the Acts of Civil worship in men towards Magistrates or Parents ; and thus far the parallel is good , as to Words and Actions : but as Christ doth forbid the affectation of Infallibility though of an inferiour sort under the titles of Rabbi , Father , and Master ; so he doth likewise all inferiour sort of Religious worship when he saith , Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , and him only shalt thou serve . And therefore the equivocation which lyes in mens power to determine , is not that of the degrees of Religious worship , but of the acts of Civil and Religious worship . But if it be lawful to apply the signification of external Acts of worship to higher or lower degrees , why may ye not do the same as to Sacrifice , as well as Invocation , &c. R. P. This is a scruple which hath troubled the Doctours notions from the beginning ; But T. G. gives two answers to it . 1. That Sacrifice in general is both by the custom of the Church and the consent of all mankind ( as S. Augustine teaches ) appropriated to signifie the absolute worship due only to God. 2. For the particular sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ , the nature and dignity thereof requireth that it be offered to God alone . P. D. I am sorry to see you dissemble the force of the Doctours argument , when you pretend to give an answer to it . For he saith , that S. Augustine joyns adoration and Sacrifice together , as appropriated to signifie the worship peculiar to God. How then , saith Dr. St. comes S. Augustines Authority to be quitted for the one , and so greedily embraced for the other ? What doth T. G. answer to that ? R. P. I do not find he takes notice of S. Augustine for any thing more than the consent of mankind about Sacrifice . P. D. Was it not wisely done ? and then to talk a great deal about the remainder of the Doctours Discourse , whether sacrifice of it self doth signifie absolute worship more than adoration , without taking notice that S. Augustine joyned them together , though the Church of Rome separates them . And T. G. gives no manner of reason why the antecedent consent of mankind as to one of these should not prevail in your Church as well as in the other : which is the main ground according to T. G. why sacrifice ought still to be appropriated to the peculiar Worship of God. R. P. What advantage doth the Doctor get , by insisting so much on that question , why Sacrifice may not be offered to Creatures as well as other external Acts of Worship , for he can only infer from thence that in such case the Church of Rome might possibly have no external act of Worship appropriated to God , if she have none but Sacrifice ; but whilest she hath no such custom de facto as offering Sacrifice to Saints and Images , 't is manifest he cannot accuse them in that point of having no external Act of Worship proper to God , or of giving it to any besides him . P. D. It was to very good purpose that he insisted on that question , on these accounts . 1. Because either it is in the power of the Church to appoint appropriate Acts of Divine Worship , or it is not . If it be in the Churches Power , then sacrifice may be as lawfully offered to the B. Virgin , if the Church think fit , as prayers and invocations , notwithstanding the general consent of mankind in appropriating Sacrifice to God. If not , then there is some antecedent reason why some external Acts of Worship are appropriated to the absolute worship of God ; if so , then all such Acts are appropriated where the same reason holds ; whether it be Divine Institution , or the consent of mankind in general , or of the Fathers of the Christian Church : and consequently , though the Church of Rome may reserve Sacrifice to God as peculiar to him , yet they may give other acts of Divine worship to his Creatures , which have the same reason to be appropriated which Sacrifice it self hath . 2. Because though in words they seem to appropriate Sacrifice to God as a peculiar act of external worship , yet they do in effect overthrow it by these two assertions . ( 1. ) That its peculiarity is not as being an Act of Adoration , but upon another account as a significant Ceremony of our total subjection to God. And this was that which Dr. St. charged your Divines with , that they reserve no one Act of external adoration as proper to God ; and that they say , that Sacrifice doth not naturally signifie any worship of God , but only by the imposition of men . So that your Divines confess there is no natural Act of Divine worship , no external Act of Adoration which is reserved as peculiar to God ; but only an outward Ceremony which doth not of it self signifie the worship of God , nor our subjection to him . But solemn Prayers and Praises do of themselves signifie our dependence on God , and therefore have an antecedent reason to the consent of mankind , why they should be appropriated to the worship of God. ( 2. ) That even Sacrifice is allowed by the Roman Church to be offered for the honour of Creatures : which Dr. St. saith , is joyning Creatures together with God in the honour of Sacrifice : and if Sacrifice be so appropriate to the honour of God that it cannot signifie any thing else , then it is nonsense to sacrifice to God for the honour of another ; if it may signifie any thing else , and be so used in the Church of Rome , then you do not reserve so much as sacrifice for an appropriate sign of the absolute Worship of God. R. P. To what miserable shifts , saith T. G. are men put when they would have such trivial kind of arguing as this to pass for solid reasoning : and it must be a hard world when a man of the Doctours abilities must be forced to feign that he doth not know how the same Sacrifice may be a propitiation for sins and a thanksgiving 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 . P. D. It is a hard world indeed , when such stuff as this must pass for answering . Dr. St. never denyed that thanksgivings might be offered to God in the time of most solemn Worship for the Graces of his Saints ; nor that the circumstances of Divine worship might redound to their Honour , as the Primitive Christians offering up their devotions to God at their Sepulchres : but the question is , whether it be consistent with the appropriation of Sacrifice to the Honour of God , to offer it up for the Honour of his Creatures ; especially the Sacrifice of the Altar , i. e. the Son of God , as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead ? R. P. Why may not we say , We offer this Sacrifice to God in the honour of S. Michael , to testifie our application of it in thanksgiving for the favours and Graces bestowed on him ? P. D. I pray consider , ( 1. ) You say , that Sacrifice in your Church is appropriated to the Honour of God ; ( 2. ) That Sacrifice doth not signifie the Worship of God of it self , but by institution or consent of mankind . ( 3. ) Then the intention of Sacrifice is to signifie that Honour which is peculiar to God. Now how can it signifie the Honour due only to God , if it may signifie the honour due to his Creatures ? R. P. Is it not for the honour of a Person to praise God for him ? and Sacrificing being the offer of a present in token of gratitude , doth that diminish or add to the Act of thanksgiving ? And 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 . P. D. It is one thing to make the Graces of Saints an occasion of Thanksgiving to God , and another to offer up a Sacrifice for the honour of the Saints , as it is expressed in the Offertory . In the former case there is no question but the Honour is designed wholly to God as the Giver of those Graces , although a consequential Honour doth redound thereby to the Saints themselves ; but in the latter case the intended and designed Honour of the very Act it self is declared to be to the Saints as well as to God himself . If a Courtier gives the King solemn thanks for great kindness shewed to one of his Subjects , the honour of the Action belongs wholly to the King , although occasionally and consequentially it redound to the reputation of the Person for whom it is done : but if a Courtier on New years day should make a present to the King upon his Knees , and say , I offer this New years gift to your Majesty in honour of your Majesty and of the Groom of your Stole , or Chamberlain of your Houshold , &c. how do you think this would be taken at Court ? And yet this is just the Form of the Offertory in your Missal . We make this Oblation to thee O Holy Trinity , and for the honour of the Blessed Virgin and all Saints ; can any one say that this is not the designed and intended honour which belongs to the Act it self , and not meerly that which is occasional and consequential ? If those who offered Cakes to the B. Virgin , had said , We offer these Cakes to the honour of the Blessed Trinity and the Virgin Mary , had not this been joyning them together in the honour of those oblations ? And is it not the same case here ? Besides , you are guilty of a greater absurdity , for those might be only Eucharistical oblations , but in your Sacrifice of the Mass , you pretend to make a present you say to God ; but what is it ? nothing less than his own Son ; if your doctrine be true . And for what end ? to be a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead . And is this indeed the present you make to Almighty God in honour of his Saints ? I cannot with patience think of the absurdities which follow from hence . For how came you to make a Present to God of his own Son ? When we make a Present to any one , it is understood to be of something in our power to bestow , and which we are willing to part with , for his sake to whom we offer it . Do you indeed in this sense make a Present of the Son of God to the Father ? Have you the power of bestowing him in your hands ? And are you willing to part with your whole right and interest in him ? You are excellent Christians the mean while . Nay , no Sacrifice was truly and properly offered by any person , wherein he did not abandon his right in that which was Sacrificed . And therefore you see upon what terms , you make such a present to God by a proper Sacrifice of his Son to him . But suppose the Son of God were to be made a true and proper Sacrifice for sins on the Altar , How comes it into your hands to offer him up to the Father , since the great Sacrifice of propitiation was not to be offered by any ordinary Priests , but by the High-Priest himself , who was to carry the Blood into the Holy of Holies , and there to make intercession for the People ? Are you the High-Priests of the Gospel to offer unto God the great Sacrifice of Atonement ? Is not the great High-Priest of our profession entred within the Vail , and is there making intercession by vertue of his Sacrifice on the Cross ? What need then of your Offering him up again for propitiation , who Offered himself once on the Cross for a full , perfect , and sufficient Sacrifice , Oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world ? We have all the reason in the World to commemorate with great thankfulness and devotion that invaluable Sacrifice of the Cross , and if you will call the Whole Eucharistical Office a commemorative Sacrifice as the Ancients did , I shall never quarrel with you about it . But how the Sacrifice of the Mass comes to be propitiatory as the Sacrifice on the Cross was , I understand not ; nor how it should be the same with the Sacrifice of the Cross , and yet of so much less value than it , the one being said by you to be infinite and the other finite ; nor how the destruction of his Sacramental and of his Natural Being should be the same thing ; nor how this Sacrifice should be propitiatory only for one sort of sins and not for another ; nor how the Son of God can be made a true and proper Sacrifice for Sin under the Species of Bread and Wine ; nor , what consumptive change that is in him , which according to your selves is necessary to make him such a Sacrifice . Is he slain again in the Mass ? If he be , I can tell who is the Judas that betrays him , and who are the Jews that Crucifie him . If not , how comes a propitiatory Sacrifice without shedding of Blood ? If the consumptive change be only in the Elements , then the Elements are Sacrificed , and not Christ. If it be only a Sacramental change , what is that to a Sacrifice of propitiation ? And suppose all the other absurdities to be removed , and that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a true , real , proper and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Son of God Body and Soul upon the Altar , yet how at last comes this to be giving God thanks for the Graces of his Saints ? I thought such a Sacrifice had been much rather for the expiation of their sins . R. P. I pray Sir forbear ; I have no longer patience to hear you talk at this rate against the Sacrifice of the Mass ; for if you destroy that , we are all undone . Methinks as T. G. saith , Dr. St.'s arguments against it , might have been expected from the pen of a Crellius . P. D. Of a Crellius ? Why so I pray ? He wrote against Christs propitiatory Sacrifice on the Cross ; and as I remember , Dr. St. hath answered his arguments ; how comes he then , of all men , to argue like Crellius ? R. P. Because his Reasons against the Sacrifice of the Mass will hold against that of the Cross. P. D. That would be strange ; but let us hear them first and then judge . R. P. Why , he looks upon it , as a monstrous absurdity for us to pretend , first to make our God with speaking five words , then to offer up God himself unto God as a Sacrifice and consequently to suppose him destroyed , and this all to testifie our submission to God. P. D. And do not you think these horrible absurdities , and such as can never enter into any mans head that is not first resolved to part with his understanding ? R. P. And do not you think these expressions highly injurious to that inestimable Sacrifice which Christ himself Offered upon the Cross ? P. D. Not at all . For , do we believe , that the Jews made an ordinary man to be the Eternal Son of God by speaking five words over him ? And that the Jews then slew him and offered up God , as a Sacrifice to God for the expiation of sins ; and all this , as an act of gratitude to God for the Graces of his Saints ? If not , what colour or pretence is there , that the laying open the absurdity of your Sacrifice of the Mass , should derogate from the Sacrifice of the Cross ? R. P. Were not the Jews scandalized at that most in the Sacrifice of the Cross , viz. the Offering of God to God ? P. D. A crucified Saviour , or a suffering Messias , was to the Jews a stumbling-block , and to the Greeks foolishness . But what do you mean by the offering up of God to God , do you think the Divinity was the Sacrifice ? or the Blood of Christ , which he being the Eternal Son of God did offer up to his Father , as a propitiation for the sins of Mankind ? R. P. Might not he be said , to offer up God himself to God as a Sacrifice ? P. D. Then you must make the Divinity the Sacrifice ; and how can that be a Sacrifice which is capable of no change ? But suppose Christ as God and man be said to offer up at least a Divine Sacrifice ; what is all this to your Offering up the Son of God as a Sacrifice to God for the sins of the World ? R. P. Might not those , as T. G. saith , who were at the foot of the Cross , offer up the Son of God on the Cross to the Father ? P. D. This is a piece of New Divinity ; and far enough I dare say from arguing like Crellius . Who ever thought , that the Jews had the same power to offer up the Blood of Christ as a propitiatory Sacrifice , which himself had who had power over his own life ? If T. G. argues at this rate , none would imagine he hath ever considered the Nature of Christs Sacrifice , since he talks so unskilfully about these matters . R. P. But what doth Dr. St. talk of our making and destroying God in the Mass , since we believe that the same Christ who is in Heaven is whole under either species ; and his Blood to be separated from his Body not really , but Mystically only and in representation . P. D. Do you believe a true , proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass , or not ? R. P. Do not you know the Council of Trent hath expresly defined it , and anathematized all those who say the contrary ? P. D. Is there any true , proper propitiatory Sacrifice , where there is not a consumptive change of that which is Sacrificed ? And what is that which is Sacrificed in the Mass ? not the Elements , but Christ under them , you say ; If Christ be the Sacrifice he must be slain again at every Mass , as he was once on the Cross ; or you can assign no destruction , which you say is necessary to such a true and proper Sacrifice . R. P. Do not you observe T. G.'s words , that Christ is whole under either species , and his Blood separated from his Body not really , but Mystically only , and in representation ? P. D. How is that ? Whole Christ under the bread , and whole Christ under the wine ; and the blood separated from the Body not really , but mystically only , and by representation . This is admirable stuff , and true Mystical Divinity . If the body of Christ doth remain whole and entire , where is the true proper Sacrifice ? where is the change made , if not in the Body of Christ ? if that be uncapable of a change , how can it be a true and proper Sacrifice ? If the blood be not really separated from the Body , where is the mactation , which must be in a propitiatory Sacrifice ? If Christ do remain whole and entire after all the Sacrificial Acts , where I say is the true and proper Sacrifice ? T. G. had far better said , and more agreeably to Scripture , Antiquity , and Reason , that there is no real and proper sacrifice on the Altar , but only mystical and by representation . R. P. But T. G. saith , that Religion which admits no external visible Sacrifice , must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the publick worship of God. P. D. I pray remember , it is an external and visible Sacrifice which you contend for , and now tell me where it is in your Church . Doth it lye in the mimical gestures of the Priest at the Altar in imitation of Christ on the Cross ? If that be it , the necessary consumption of the Sacrifice will be no comfortable doctrine to the Priest. Doth it lye in the consecration of the Elements which are visible ? But you say , the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the change ; and we can see no visible change made in them , and therefore there is no external and visible Sacrifice . Besides , if the Sacrifice did lye in the change of the Elements after Consecration into the Body of Christ , then the Elements are the thing sacrificed and not the Body of Christ , for the destructive change is as to the elements , and not as to the Body of Christ. Or doth it lye in the swallowing down , and consumption of the species after Consecration by the Priest ? But here likewise the change is in the accidents and not in the Body of Christ , which remains whole and entire though the species be consumed ; and I think there is some difference between changing ones seat and being sacrificed . For all that the Body of Christ is pretended to be changed in , is only its being no longer under the species , but T. G. I suppose will allow it to be whole and entire still . Doth it then lye in pronouncing the words of consecration upon which the Body of Christ is under the species of Bread , and the Blood under that of Wine , and so separated from the Body ? But this can least of all be , since T. G. assures us that whole Christ is under the Bread as well as under the Wine ; and so there cannot be so much as a moment of real separation between them ; and we know how necessary for other purposes the doctrine of Concomitancy is . Tell me then where is your external and visible Sacrifice which you boast so much of ; since according to your own principles there is nothing that belongs to the essence of a sacrifice is external and visible , and consequently your own Church labours under the defect T. G. complains of . R. P. But what makes Dr. St. so bitter against the Sacrifice of the Altar , since the most true and genuine Sons of the Church of England do allow it ; as Mr. Thorndike , Dr. Heylin , and Bishop Andrews ? and doth not this rather look like betraying the Church of England than defending it ? P. D. I see now you are wheeling about to your first Post , and therefore it is time to give you a space of breathing . Your great business is to set us at variance among our selves , but you have hitherto failed in your attempts , and I hope will do . I do not think any two or three men , though never so learned make the Church of England ; her sense is to be seen in the Publick Acts and Offices belonging to it . And in the Articles to which T. G. sometimes appeals , your Sacrifices on the Altar are called blasphemous Figments , and dangerous Impostures . But as to these three persons I answer thus ; 1. Mr. Thorndike , as I have shewed already , declares against the true proper Sacrifice defined by the Council of Trent as an innovation and a contradiction . And that which he pleads for , is , that the Eucharist is a commemorative and representative Sacrifice , about which Dr. St. would never contend with him or any one else : and immediately after the words cited by T. G. he adds these ; It is therefore enough , that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross , as the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is represented , renewed , revived , and restored by it , and as every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth . 2. Pet. Heylins words are expresly only for a commemorative Sacrifice , as T. G. himself produces them ; and therefore I wonder what T. G. meant in citing them at large : For he quotes the English Liturgie for the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving ; and S. Chrysostom calling it the remembrance of a Sacrifice ; and many of our learned Writers , a Commemorative sacrifice . What is there in all this in the least repugnant to what Dr. St. had delivered ? R. P. But he quotes Bishop Andrews , saying , Take from the Mass your Transubstantiation , and we will have no difference with you about the sacrfiice . P. D. Bishop Andrews calls the Eucharist a commemorative sacrifice , and he saith , it was properly Eucharistical , or of the nature of peace-offerings , concerning which the Law was , that he that offered should partake of them ; and a little after follow those words you mention : to which he adds , We yield you that there is a remembrance of Christs sacrifice ; but we shall never yield that your Christ being made of Bread is there sacrificed . Which is the very thing , that T. G. is so angry with Dr. St. about . And have not you bravely proved that Dr. St. hath herein gone against the sense of the genuine Sons of the Church of England ? If you have any thing yet left which you think material I pray let us have it now , for fear lest T. G. make use of it to stuff out another Book . R. P. I think we are near the Bottom . P. D. So I imagine by the dregs which came last . R. P. There is one thing yet left for a close : which is , Dr. St. saith , supposing this sacrifice were allowed , yet this doth not prove that we reserve any external Act of worship belonging to all Christians , because this sacrifice belongs to the Priests only to offer . P. D. And what answer doth T. G. give to that ? R. P. He saith , that nothing is more notorious than that those of the Church of Rome , are bound on every Sunday and Holy Day to hear Mass. P. D. To hear Mass ! A very Christian duty no doubt , especially if they understand never a word of it , and as Diana saith , a man is not bound to hear a word that is said : But what then ? R. P. By this external Act , he saith , they testifie the uniting their intention with the Priest as the publick Officer of the Church in the Oblation of the sacrifice . P. D. I have often heard of the skill you have of directing intentions , but I never knew of this knack of uniting Intentions before . I know how necessary the Priests intention is in your Church , but what if the People should fail of uniting their intention with his , ( as they often think and talk of other things at hearing Mass ) would it not be a sacrifice without the Vnion of their Intentions ? Suppose the Priests Intention should wander , what would the Peoples uniting their intentions signifie towards the Sacrifice ? You will not say , they have any power to offer the sacrifice ; therefore the Act of sacrificing belongs only to the Priest , whether the Peoples intentions be united or not . If the People first offered that which was to be sacrificed , to the Priest , and then he sacrificed it in their name ( as among the Jews ) they might be said to have a share in the sacrifice ; but when the sacrifice is supposed to come down from Heaven upon the Priests words , and he doth not represent the People but Christ in the Act of sacrificing , What doth the Peoples uniting their intentions signifie to the sacrifice ? I pray tell me in whose name doth the Priest pretend to the power of offering up the Body of Christ in Sacrifice on the Altar , the Peoples , or Christs ? R. P. In the name of Christ doubtless , for the People have no power to do it . P. D. If they have no power to do it , and all the Authority be supposed to be derived from Christ for doing it , what doth the uniting the Peoples intentions with the Priests signifie as to the offering up the sacrifice ? You might as well say , that the Jews under the Cross might unite their intentions to Christs in offering himself on the Cross to the Father , and so it might become their Act as well as Christ's . But in my mind your phrase of hearing and seeing Mass is much more proper ( if men were bound either to hear or see , which your Casuists say , they are not ) than this of uniting their intentions with the Priest , which is absurd and ridiculous . Doth T. G. so little consider the honour of the Priestly Office as to talk of the Peoples uniting their intentions with the Priests in the oblation of the Sacrifice ? The next step may be , that the sacrificing may depend on the Peoples Intentions as well as the Priests ; and what a case are you in then ? Aquinas and Cajetan were much wiser than T. G. in this matter , for they both declare that this sacrifice belongs only to the Priests and not to the People ; as Dr. St. told T. G. R. P. T. G. saith , he cannot find the Citation in the place quoted by him ; but he dares affirm that Cajetan was not so silly a Divine as to deny it to belong to the People to offer the sacrifice by and with the Priest. P. D. And I dare affirm Cajetan was much wiser than to say , that the offering the sacrifice did in any sense belong to the People ; and so much T. G. might have found in the place cited by the Doctour , only qu. 86. was put for q. 85. and not as Cajetans bare opinion , but as the judgement of Aquinas too . He saith indeed , that the Priests do offer the sacrifice for themselves and others ; but he was not so silly to imagine that they were to unite their intentions with the Priests in the oblation ; but that expression only shews for whose sake and not in whose name the sacrifice was offered . For there are other sacrifices , saith he , which every one may offer for himself , and those , saith Cajetan , are spiritual sacrifices of Devotion and Vertue ; but for the sacrifice of the Altar , that belongs only to the Priests and Officers of the Church . R. P. But the very Mass-Book calls it meum ac vestrum sacrificium ; and desires God to accept it for all those pro quibus tibi offerimus , vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium . P. D. I will tell you the mysterie of this business , and so put an end to this long Conference . It was the ancient custom of the Roman Church as well as others for the Communicants to make an oblation of the Bread and Wine at the Altar , of which they were afterwards to partake . This I prove from the Sacramentary of S. Gregory published by Pamelius , where it is said , while the Offertory is singing ; i. e. the Anthem then used , the oblations are made by the People and laid upon the Altar that they might be consecrated . And the Ordo Romanus declares these oblations to be the Bread and Wine : of which , it adds , that the Arch-deacon took as much and laid upon the Altar , as would serve for the people that were to communicate . These oblations continued in the Church a long time , and were inforced by Canons and Constitutions when the people began to slacken in their devotion . Upon which the Church of Rome thought fit to bring in the use of Wafers instead of common bread , and so these oblations grew into disuse , or were turned into offerings of money instead of them . Sirmondus and Card. Bona have proved beyond all dispute , that the ancient Latin Church did use common and leavened Bread in the Eucharist that was offered by the people till a thousand years after Christ. But then the doctrine of Transubstantiation coming into the Roman Church , it was no longer thought fit that the Bread which was to be turned into the Son of God should be made after a common manner , or with the unsanctified hands of the Laity , but by those who did attend upon the Altar : remembring what the good woman told Gregory I. that she wondred that the Bread which she made with her own hands should be called the Body of Jesus Christ ; which the people had more reason to do , when they came to define the manner of the presence , as they did about this time ; although it were not made an Article of Faith till afterwards . From hence the dispute began between the Greeks and Latins about unleavened bread ; and from henceforward the custom of oblations for the service of the Altar declined and is only kept up on some particular solemnities , as Canonization of Saints , Inauguration of Princes , Consecration of Bishops , Marriages and Funerals ; however the same form of words continues still in the Offices , as if the oblations of Bread and Wine were still made by the People ; and so Sirmondus and Bona both say those expressions of the Mass-Book , you mention , are to be understood of these oblations of the People , and not of the Sacrifice of Christs Body . And that these oblations were called sacrifices appears by the known passages of S. Cyprian , Locuples & dives es & Dominicum celebrare te credis , quae in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis , quae partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulit sumis ? In which he blames the rich women that came without an Oblation , which he calls a sacrifice , and did partake of that which the poor offered ; which S. Augustin calls de aliena oblatione communicare ; and therefore he bids all Communicants to make their own oblations at the Altar . But suppose these expressions were not to be understood of the oblations of the people ( as it is certain the prayers called Secretae and the first part of the Canon of the Mass are ) yet it was not fairly done of T. G. to leave out a very significant word which immediately followed , viz. laudis , qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis . If the People be allowed their share in the Eucharistical Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving , what is this to their offering up the proper propitiatory sacrifice of the Body of Christ ? I do not deny that the People had a share in the sacrifice according to the sense of Antiquity ; not only from their oblations , but because as Cassander well observes , the Ancients did call the whole Eucharistical Office , as it took in the Peoples part as well as the Priests , by the name of a sacrifice ; and so the Oblations , Prayers , Thanksgivings , Consecration , Commemoration , Distribution , Participation did all belong to the sacrifice . But since you restrain the true and proper sacrifice to the oblation of the Body of Christ to God by the Priest , Dr. St. had reason to say , that the sacrifice among you belongs to the Priests , and is not an external Act of Worship common to all . And so according to the sense you put on the Mass-Book , you leave no one Act of peculiar external worship appropriated to God which is to be performed by all Christians ; which was the thing to be proved . THE END . Books Printed for , and Sold by Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard , and at the White Hart in Westminster-Hall . A Rational account of the grounds of Protestant Religion ; being a Vindication of the Lord-Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference , &c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. Folio . Sermons preached upon several occasions , with a Discourse annexed concerning the true reasons of the Sufferings of Christ , wherein Crellius's Answer to Grotius is considered . Folio . Irenicum : A Weapon-Salve for the Churches wounds : in Quarto . Origines Sacrae : or , a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith , as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures , and matters therein contained , Quarto . A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome , and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it , in Answer to some Papers of a revolred Protestant , wherein a particular account is given of the Fanaticisms and Divisions of that Church , Octavo . An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled , A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome , and the hazard of Salvation in the communion of it , the first Part , Octovo . A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant grounds of Faith , against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church , in Answer to the Guide in Controversie , by R. H. Protestancy without Principles , and Reason and Religion ; or the certain Rule of Faith , by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church , Octavo . An Answer to Mr. Cressey's Epistle Apologetical to a person of Honour , touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet , Octavo . A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome , in Answer to a Book entituled , Catholicks no Idolaters ; all written by Edward Stillingfleet , D. D. Dean of St. Pauls , and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty . The Rule of faith ; or , an Answer to the Treatise of Mr. I. S. Entituled , Sure Footing , &c. by John Tillotson , D. D. Preacher to the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn . To which is adjoyned a Reply to Mr. I. S. his third Appendix , &c. by Edw. Stillingfleet , D. D. Dean of St. Pauls , and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty . The Antiquities of Nottinghamshire , Extracted out of Records , Original Evidences , Lieger Books , other Manuscripts , and Authentick Authorities , beautified with Maps , Prospects and Portraictures , by Robert Thoroton , Dr. of Physick , Folio . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A61627-e4250 Dial p. 13. p. 10. Cath. no Idol . p. 197. Dial. p. 62. Preface to Cath. no Idol . Dial. p. 9. Dial. p. 15. Dial. p. 17. Cypr. Anglic . p 364. 1 Ed. P. 3● . Necessary Introd to the History of B. Laud. p. 14. Conference with Fisher. p. 277. History of his Tryal . p. 472. Cypr. Angl. p. 435· Dial. p. 28. Dial. p. 19. Cypr. Angl. p. 418. Dial. p. 21. Hincmar . de praedest . c. 31. Lanfranc . de Corp. & Sang. Christ. c. 4. Guitm . de sacr . l. 1. Cajet . in Aquin. 3. p. q. 75. art . 1. & 2. & ● . Aq. 4. dist . 44. q. 2. ar . 2. Conink de sacr . qu. 75. art . 3. Maerat . de sacr . disp . 24. sect . 1. Lugo de Sacram. disp . 5. §. 1. Suarez in 3. p. disp . 48. art . 1 ▪ §. 4. Gamach . i● 3. p. qu. 76. c. 4. Ysambert . qu. 75. disp . 3. art . 8. Vasq. in 3. p. disp . 109. c. 4. art . 6. p. 28. Dial. p. 25 , 27. Cypr. Angl. p. 48.1 ed. P. 66. Dial. p. 30. to 33. Laws of the Ch. Ch. 4. p. 30. Dial. p. 42. &c. Cypr. Angl. p. 62. Cypr. Angl. p. 189. Dial. p. 46 , 47 , &c. Dial. p. ●7 ▪ Dial. p. 49. Prodr . p. 76. B. Andrews Resp. ad Apolog. Bell. p. 37. compared with Bur●●il . De●ens . Respons . ad Apolog. c. 6. q. 21. B. Sanders . Preface to his Serm. §. 15. De obligat . cons. prael . 4. §. 33. Dial. p. 51 , &c. P. 63. Dial. p. 52. P. 160. P. 162. Dial. p. 59 , 60 , 61. Dial. p. 53 , 54. P. 56. Defence p. 581. Notes for div A61627-e34720 Joh. Rosin . vit . ●●ed . sapient . Dial. p. 141 , &c. Dial. p. 132. Dial. p. 133 , 134. Pontificale Rom. de ordinat . Presbyt . Concil . Trident. Sess. 23. c. 4. Dial. p. 143. Dial. p. 151 , &c. P. 155. P. 157. Scot. in s●nt . l. 4. dist . 4. q. 9. Biel. in S●nt . q. 2. Cajet . in 3. p. q. 63. art . 1. Morin . de Ordin . part . 3. Exercit. 3. c. 1. ● . 4. Alex. Al. 4. p. q. 8. memb . 5. art . 1. §. 6. ad 2. Scot. in 4. dist . 25. q. 1. resp . ad 3. Morin . ib. exerc . 5. c. 9. n. 12 , 13. Grat. 1. q. 1. post can . 97. Gul. Pa●is . de Sacr. Ord. c. 7. Morin . de Ord. Sacr. p. 3. ex . 5. c. 1. n. 3. Conc. Trid. sess . 23. can . 4. S. Hier. de Script . Eccles . in Fortunat . in Chronico . Libel . precum , p. 4. Baron . A D. 357. n. 46. Pet. Dam. Gom. opuse , 7. c. 16. Libel . prec . p. 26. Subscribentes in illâ fide Arianorum , quam integro & libero judicio damnaverant . Advertit Sapientia vestra , Ariminensem Synodum , piissimè coeptam , sed impiissimè terminatam . Dial. p. 156 , 157. Dial. p. 161. Dial. p. 66 , 67. B. Sanderson Gen. 20.6 . n. 17. Dial. p. 68 , 69. Dial. p. 70. Dial. p. 73. Dial. p. 74. Dial. p. 78. Dial. p. 78. Dial. p. 79. Ire● . p. 117. P. 123. Iren. p. 124. Answer to several Treat . part 1. from p. 1●0 , to 1●6 . Dial. p. 87. Dial. p. 84 , &c. Defence , p. 187 , &c. Dial. p. 92. Dial. p. 94. Dial. from p. 99. to p. 113. Dial. p. 116. Dial. from p. 116. to 120. p. 121 , 122. p. 127. Defence , from p. 673. to p. 692. (*) From p. 692. to p. 698. (†) From p. 702. to p. 717. (*) From p. 717. to p. 720. (†) From p. 720. to p. 784. Dial. p. 116 , 117. Dial. p. 121. Dial. p. 125. Defence p. 465 , &c. From p. 419. to p. 431. From p. 702. to p. 717. From p. 748. to p. 783. Notes for div A61627-e57720 Dial. p. 167 , 171 , 172. Dial. p. 173. Dial. p. 174. Dial. p. 175. Dial. p. 176 , &c. * P. 419. to p. 428. † Defence , p. 428 , &c. p. 490 , &c. * P. 494 , &c. † P. 497. to p. 505. * P. 506. to p. 521. † P. 503 , &c. * P. 538. to p. 555. † P. 812. to p. 840. Dial. p. 177. Dial. p. 179. Dial. p. 182. to 187. Dial. p. 180. Speech in Star-Chamber , p. 43 , 46. Canterbury's Tryal , p. 473. Defence , p. 705 , &c. Defence , p. 577 , &c. From p. 648. to p. 699. From p. 583. to p. 599. Dial. p. 181. Prodr●m . p. 76. Dial. p. 183. Defence from p. 702 , to p. 717. Dial. p. 184. Dial. p. 193. Dial. p. 195 , &c. * Defence , p. 191. p. 210. † From p. 210. to p. 215. P. 199 , &c. Defence , p. 194 , 195 , 196 , 197. P. 113. Dial. p. 205. Defence , p. 518. Dial. p. 201. Dial. p. 202. Dial. p. 204. Defence , p. 529. Dial. p. 419. Defence , p. 698. Defence , p. 309. Defence , p. 400 , &c. Dial. p. 204. Dial. p. 206. Defence p. 806. Defence p. 805. Dial. p. 207. Dial. p. 208. Defence p. 746. Rat. Acc. p. 178 , 179. Arist. Anal. Post. l. 1. c. 11. n. 5 , 6 , 7. Metaph. l. 1. c. 12. l. 13. c. 1. Philop. in Analyt . l. 1. p. 27. * Metaph. l. 4. c. 6. Themist . in Analyt . Post. l. 1. 〈…〉 . l. 2. c. 7. n. 4. Arrian . l. 2. c. 20. Galen . de Hippocr . & Plat. decret . l. 2. Rat. Acc. p. 178 , 206. Dial. ● . 209. P. 210. Origines Sacrae l. 2. & 3. Dial. p. 213. * Defence from p. 5●5 . to 605. * Defence , from p. 556. to p. 575. † Defence , from p. 606. to p. 639. * Defence , from p. 639. to p. 699. Dial. p. 214. Dial. p. 215 , &c. Dial. from p. 218. to p. 227. Defence , p. 599. P. 575. Dial. p. 228. Defence , p. 600 , 601. Dial. p. 229 , 230 , 231. Defence , p. 603. Dial. p. p. 226. Dial. p. 234. Dial. p. 234 , &c. Defence , p. 519. Dial. p. 247. Dial. p. 248 , &c. Dial. p. 250. Dial. p. 249 , 251. Defence , p. 165 , 175 , 178. P. 166. P. 163. P. 171. P. 178. P. 180. Defence , p. 336. Dial. p. 238. Dial. p. 242. Greg. Naz. Ep. 43. Theod. Dial. 3. Greg. Nyss. in vit . Greg. p. 574. Niceph. Callist . l. 15. c. 28. Defence p. 340 , to 347. Defence , p. 293. to 305. Cassand . Ep. 19. Op. p. 1109. Greg. Nyssen Orat. in Theod. p. 585. Defence , p. 293. Dial. p. 256. Dial. p. 238. D. Forbes Consid. modest . & pacif . p. 293. P. 297. Concil . Laodic . c. 35. Theod. in Col. 2.18 . T. G. Cathol . no Idol . p. 384. Defence , p. 175. to p. 180. Bell. de bonis oper . in particul . l. 1. c. 1. Greg. Nyssen orat . 1. de orat . orat . 2. de orat . Dom. Tract . 2. de inscript . Psalm c. 3. Ambros. de obit . Theod. Chrysost. in 1 Cor. Hom. 1. in Coloss. 3. Hom. 9. Aug. Confess● . l. 1. c. ● . Clem. ●●rom . l. 7. Tirtul . Apol . c. 30. Orig. l. 8. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 10. Defence , p. 165. Dial. p. 252. 〈◊〉 l. 6. p. 208. Dial. p. 257. Defence , p. 614. Dial. p. 214. Defence , p. 616. to p. 620. p. 637. Defence , p. 323. Def. p. 640. Dial. p. 263. Dial. p. 264. Dial. p. 265. Dial. p. 266. Dial. p. 267. Notes for div A61627-e108550 Dial. p. 276. Dial. p. 371. Dial. p. 301. Syn. Chron. p. 333. Aug. c. Cre●● . l. 1. c. 28 , 29. Dial. p. ●03 . P. 302. P. 304. Defence , p. 518. P. 304 , 305. Defence , 44 , &c. Pausan. in Arcad. Euseb. Chron. p. 28. Isid. Orig. l. 8. Aug. de Civ . Dei l. 18. c. 10. Lact. l. 1. c. 11. Aug. de Civ . Dei l. 18. c. 3 , 5 ▪ Rom. 1.19 . Defence ▪ p. 11 , 47. Defence from p. 11. to p. 23. Dial. from p. 399. to p. 405. c. Gentes l. 1. c. 43. Dial. p. 310. p. 312 , &c. p. 316 , &c. p. 318. Def. p. 5. Defence p. 25. Defence p. 60 , &c. Dial. p. 3●8 . Dial. p. 287. Defence p. 29. Def. p. 288. Athenag . leg . pro Christian. p. 5 , 6. Dial. p. 312 , 313 , 314. Legat. p. 26. Athen. p. 16. P. 34. Athen. p. 22. Cath. no Idol . p. 349 , 350. Dial. p. 290. Tertul. de spect . c. 10. Ad S●ap . c. 2. De spect . c. 2. Apol. c. 40. Apolog. c. 24. Dial. p. 290. Apolog. c. 16. Dial p. 371 , &c. Defence p. 47. Dial. p. 284. Defence p. 92. Dial. p. 290. Defence p. 75. P. 77. Dial. p. 360. Dial. p. 361. Dial. p. 3●9 , &c. Dial. p. 291. Dial. p. 354. Dial. p. 293 , &c. Dial. p. 296. Dial. p. 320. Dial. p. 324 , 325. Defence , p. 94. Dial. p. 347. Dial. p. 330. Defence , 419. to p. 431. De Civ . Dei l. 8. c. 23. c. 24. Defence , p. 466 , &c. Euseb. Praep. l. 4. c. 1. Dial. p. 293. Dial. p. 335. Minuc . p. 26. Dial. p. 336. Hier. in Is. 44. l. 12. Dial. p. 336. Defence p. 541. p. 724. Dial. p. 340. Dial. p. 398 , 399. Dial. p. 340 , to 343. Dial. p. 403 , 406. Dial. p. 406. Dial. p. 407. Dial. p. 408. De Civil . Dei , l. 8. c. 22. De Civit. Dei , l. 9. c. 23. l. 10. c. 1. Dial. p. 411. Dial. p. 412. Dial. p. 419. Defence p. 81 , to 102. * Defence p. 103. † p. 109. * p. 114. † p. 122 , 123. * p. 141. † p. 143. * p. 157. Dial. p. 419 , 421. Lact. l. 1. c. 3 , 5. c. 5 , 7. L. 2. c. 1. Defence , p. 132. P. 130. Defence ▪ p. 136. Dial. p. 332 , 343 , 349 , 413. Voss. de Idolol . l. 7. c. 5. Dial. p. 349. Aqu. c. Gentes l. 3. c. 120. Cathol . no Idol . p. 327 , &c. Dial. p. 432 , 433. Cath. no Idol . p. 328. Defence ; p. 64 , 65. Dial. p. 430. P. 425. P. 431. Dr. St. Defence p. 457 , 458. Aug. de Civit. Dei , l. 4. c. 11. Oros. l. ● . c. 1. Cypr. op . p. 448. Ed. Goulant . Aug. c. Faust. l. 〈◊〉 c. 10. Dial. p. 3.6 , 317. Defence , p. 293 , &c. p. 296 , &c. p. 300. Dial. p. 437. Dial. p. 438. Dial. p. 441. Dial. p. 444. Dial. p. 447. Dial. p. 448. Dial. p. 449. Dial. p. 450. Mat. 4.10 . Dial. p. 452. Dial. p. 454. Dial. p. 455. Dial. p. 456. Dial. p. 467. Dial. p. 457. Dial. p. 461. Dial. p. 458. Dial. p. 459. Dial. p. 459. Dial. p. 465. Defence , p. 204 , &c. Dial. p. 469. Dial. p. 217. Dial. p. 468. Dial. p. 467. Defence , p. 194 , to 199. Dial. p. 470. Defence , p. 192. Dial. p. 471. Dial. p. 472. Dial. p. 473. Dial. p. 474. Dial. p. 479. Dial. p. 479. Dial. p. 481. P. 482. Dial. p. 486 , &c. Dial. p. 484. Dial. p. 483. Dial. p. 467. Dial. p. 485 , &c. P. 490. Dial. p. 486 , &c. Dial. p. 488. Dial. p. 492. Dial. p , 493. Dial. p , 494 , &c. P. 497. Dial. p. 493. Dial. p. 498. Dial. p. 500 , 502. Defence , p. 225. Dial. p. 508. Dial. p. 501. Defence , p. 204. p. 226. Defence , p. 220 , 222. Dial. p. 519. Dial. p. 521. Dial. p. 522. Dial. p. 511. Dial. p. 509. Dial. p. 511. Dial. p. 510. Sess. 22. c. 1.2 . can . 1.3 . Dial. p. 512. Dial. p. 513 , &c. Articl . 31. P. 87 , 88. Laws of the Church . p. 40. Heylins Introd . n. 24. Ad Bell. Apol. Resp. p. 184. Dial. p. 523. Dian. Sum. p. 446. Dial. p. 524. Defence , p. 205. Dial. p. 525. Cajet . 2.2 . qu. 85. art . 4. Liturg. Lat. ●0 . 2 . p. 178. Cassandr . Liturg. c. 27. Concil . Matis . c. 50. Capit. Car. M. l. 6. c. 162. Sirmond . de Azym . c. 2. Bona de r●bus Liturg. l. 2. c. 8. §. 8. Joh. Diac. in vit . Greg. c. 41. Sirm. de Azy . c. 1. Bona de reb . Liturg. l. 1. c. 23. §. 3. Cypr. de Opere & Eleemosyn . Aug. Serm. 215. de temp . Cassand . consult . de Sacrif . Corp. & Sang. Christi .