Conferences of Romish Priest Fanatic Chaplin and English Divine, Dialogue 4 (2 of 3)

Conferences of Romish Priest Fanatic Chaplin and English Divine · Dialogue 4 (2 of 3)

p. 416P. D.

Yes; what have you to say more about them?

R. P.

Dial. p. 296.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.

Dial. p. 320.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 p. 417(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?Dial. p. 324, 325. 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, p. 418I do not find that Dr. St. thinks him in the least baffled in this matter; but being a learned and ingenuous man, he saith,Defence, p. 94. 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 p. 419them: and had he not studied brevity, he might have outdone the Dr. himself in being Voluminous.Dial. p. 347.

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,Dial. p. 330. 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 p. 420working 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;Defence, 419. to p. 431. 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 p. 421Stoick, 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 p. 422gives 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; De Civ. Dei l. 8. c. 23.and thereby making Gods. Which, he saith,c. 24. 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 p. 423we 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. Defence, p. 466, &c.And among others he produced the Testimony of Eusebius speaking of the Heathens in general, who saith,Euseb. Praep. l. 4. c. 1. Dial. p. 293. they did not look on their Images as Gods; and of him, T. G. saith, that no man understood p. 424the 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, Dial. p. 335.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 p. 425from 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 p. 426were 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 p. 427declare 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. Minuc. p. 26.According to Minucius his account of the Image-God; Quando igitur hic nascitur? ecce funditur, fabricatur, scalpitur; nondum Deus est: ecce plumbatur, construitur, p. 428erigitur; 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, Dial. p. 336.Lev. 19.4. And the Gods of the Nations are Idols, Isa. 44.16,Hier. in Is. 44. l. 12.Isa 44 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: Dial. p. 336.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,Defence p. 541. is this, As though there ever had been such Fools in the world, to say there p. 429was no other God besides their Images: and as I remember he quotes Maimonides, p. 724.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, Dial. p. 340.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 p. 430to be very material towards the true understanding the nature of Idolatry, viz. whether you do not think that the Heathens, Dial. p. 398, 399.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: Dial. p. 340, to 343.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? Dial. p. 403, 406.and that these p. 431were 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, Dial. p. 406.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.

p. 432R. 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.

Dial. p. 407.Thirdly, They persecuted the Christians to death, and they willingly suffered it, for maintaining there was but one only true p. 433God, 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; p. 434and 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.Dial. p. 408.

P. D.

St. Augustin speaks of their dominion over mankind by reason of Idolatry; De Civil. Dei, l. 8. c. 22.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 p. 435good, 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; De Civit. Dei, l. 9. c. 23. l. 10. c. 1.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 p. 436they 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 p. 437of 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,Dial. p. 411. 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.

p. 438R. P.

Dial. p. 412.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,Dial. p. 419. how those who acknowledged one Supreme p. 439Being, 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.

p. 440And 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 p. 441them 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, Defence p. 81, to 102.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 p. 442others? 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 p. 443authority 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. p. 444But 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 **Defence p. 103.Arabians, ††p. 109.Persians, **p. 114.Brachmans (who are shewed to have no other ††p. 122, 123.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 **p. 141.Tartars and ††p. 143.West-Indians, and **p. 157.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 p. 445knows 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, Dial. p. 419, 421.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 p. 446great 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, Lact. l. 1. c. 3, 5.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 p. 447non 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. c. 5, 7.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, L. 2. c. 1.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 at que 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 p. 448about 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 p. 449could 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 p. 450the 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 p. 451suborning 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;Defence, p. 132. 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 p. 452of 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, P. 130.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. 453P. 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,Defence▪ p. 136. he directs T. G. where he might see not only the Decree but an explication of it. And after all, is not this Credible?

p. 454R. 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 p. 455by 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 p. 456being 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, Dial. p. 332, 343, 349, 413.Moon, and Stars, &c. understanding the p. 457Fire 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 p. 458did 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, Voss. de Idolol. l. 7. c. 5.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?

p. 459R. 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 p. 460there were any such thing, but the Creator and Maker of it: Dial. p. 349.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; Aqu. c. Gentes l. 3. c. 120.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 p. 461of 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, Cathol. no Idol. p. 327, &c.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; Dial. p. 432, 433.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) p. 462to 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 p. 463case; 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 p. 464we 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; Cath. no Idol. p. 328.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, p. 465knowing 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 p. 466did 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 p. 467no 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, Defence; p. 64, 65.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. 468P. 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 p. 469us; 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, Dial. p. 430.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, P. 425.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, P. 431.will be Idolatry; and in this consideration, were there p. 470no 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. Dr. St. Defence p. 457, 458.And this hypothesis S. Augustin p. 471takes particular notice of, viz. that the same God was Jupiter above, Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 4. c. 11.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 multorum que 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,Oros. l. …. c. 1. that both the Philosophers and common Heathens did believe one God the Author of all things; p. 472but 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, Cypr. op. p. 448. Ed. Goulant.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, Aug. c. Faust. l. … c. 10.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,Dial. p. 3.6, 317. 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 p. 473down 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 p. 474with 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 p. 475not 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. Defence, p. 293, &c.(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. p. 296, &c.(3.) That such prayers do not contradict any received Doctrine of the Roman Church: and he challenges T. G. to shew,p. 300. 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 p. 476with 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; Dial. p. 437.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, Dial. p. 438.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 p. 477least 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; Dial. p. 441.and of those who follow the publick profession and do the same Acts with some private men who turn them to Idolatrous worship?

p. 478P. 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; Dial. p. 444.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,Dial. p. 447. 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.

p. 479R. 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, Dial. p. 448.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, p. 480there Dr. St. saith it ought to be given to none else but God.

R. P.

Dial. p. 449.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 p. 481therefore 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. 482P. 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.

p. 483R. P.

But what are these appropriate Acts of Divine Worship? Dial. p. 450.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.