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

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

A Farther Declaration of the Sense of the Church of England concer∣ning the Charge of Idolatry, in answer to what Dr. St. urges from the Testi∣mony of Arch Bishop Whitgift, and the 39. Articles. The Lambeth Arti∣cles suppressed by Q. Eliz. And reje∣cted by K. James: The Dr. desired to reconcile the doctrine of his Irenicum, viz, that nothing is lawfull in the wor∣ship of Godbut what he hath expressly commanded; with that in his Answer to N. O. that All things are lawfull which are not forbidd••n. The true meaning of the 22^th. Article concerning the worship∣ping and Adoration of Images asserted.

CATHARINVS EVNOMIVS.

Cathar.

What you discoursed yesterday concerning the sense of

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

Eun.

I cannot easily belieue, that any

thing Material in that matter hath escaped your diligence. But if you think them so, I pray propose them.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

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

Cathar.

Why must He, Saith Dr. St. be thrown away to the Puritans? (I could quarrel the expression, but that I suppose him to speak his Adversary's mind, not his own) why must He be thrown away (saith he) to the Puritans, when all the world knows he was a great Aduersary to T. C. on the very account of the Pu∣ritan cause? But he is known also, saith T. G. to haue consented to the fra∣ming of the Lambeth Articles, and sen∣ding them to the Diuines of Cambridge. And what then? Are the Dominicans

Puritans, and no Papists? If the Church of Rome may haue liberty not to deter∣min those nice Points, why may not the Church of England? And so both par∣ties remain of it, as long as they contra∣dict no receiued Artticles among vs? But then again the Lambeth Articles were neuer intended for any more, then as Responsa Prudentum to silence dis∣putes in the Vniversity. And I beleeue none of the Puritan Party after that took Arch Bp. Whitgift to be a Patron of the Cause.

Eun.

Admitting all this to be as you say, yet I see not but Arch Bp Whitgift by this f••ct of his, brought himself at least vnder the Suspition of being Puri∣tanically inclin'd, which was all that T. G. aimed at to show, in opposition to what Dr. St. himself had asserted, that of all persons of that Age none could be less suspected to be Puritanically incli∣ned than Arch Bp. Whitgift. Now that there was ground at least of Suspi∣tion of it in this fact, (howeuer he de∣fended the Cburch of England against T. C.) appears first because Whitaker and Perk••ns, both Caluinists, saith Dr. * 1.1 Heylin and both of them Supralap∣sarians,

were the chief Promoters and sollicitors for the making those Articles, among which the 5^th carries that very stamp vpon it which Dr. St. giues for a mark of Puritanism, that there is no falling from Grace. 2^dly because the Arch Bp. himself consented to the fra∣ming of those Articles, and proposed them to the Divines of Cambridge for regulating disputations in those Points of Controuersy. And though they were not intended as Articles determin'd by the Church but as Responsa Prudentum (not so much to silence, as to regulate disputes) yet the Arch Bp. it seems thought it prudent by this proceeding to countenance the maintaining of them. 3^dly because the news of these proceedings being brought to the Queen, she was so offended, that onee she was at a point to haue them all endited of a Praemunire, had not the high esteem she had for Whitgift, whom she commonly called her Black Husband, reprieued all the rest from the danger of it. And her Of∣fence proceeded not only from their intrenchment vpon her Prerogatiue in making such a declaration without her Authority; but ftom the Information

she had how litle those Articles agreed * 1.2 with the Practice of Piety and Obedience to all Gouernment: whereupon such a strict cours was taken for the suppressing of them, that a Copy of them was not to be found in Cambridge for a long time after, though after the Queen's death they began to peep abroad again.

4^thly Because K. James was no better conceited of them, than Q. Elizabeth was; for when it was moued by Dr. Rey∣nolds, at Hamptoncourt that the nine Orthodoxall Assertions (as He pleased to call them) which were concluded on at Lambeth, might be admitted into the Confession of the Church of England, the King so much disliked the motion, that it was presently reiected without more adoe. This is the account which Dr. Heylin giues of this matter in his Cy∣prianus Angl. p. 193. 194. And I desire any indifferent Person to consider whe∣ther the Arch Bp's consenting to the framing these Articles, and sending them to Cambridge, and thereby coun∣tenancing the maintaining of them, were not sufficient to bring him at least vnder the Suspition of being Puritanically in∣clined, and consequently ground enough

for T. G. to lay this Exception against him. What esteem the Puritan Party had for him after it I know not. If they did not look vpon him as a Patron, they had reason I am sure to think him a Favourer. Fot my part I should not stick to hold that Dominican to be no true Papist, but a Patron of the cause. who should doe but the half of what Arch Bp. Whitgift did.

Cathar:

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

Eun.

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

Cathar.

Marry, that there are three kinds of Idolatry The one is, when the true God is worshipped by other means and wayes, than he hath prescribed, or would be worshipped. The other is when

the true God is worshiped with f••ls Gods: the third is when we worship fals Gods, and altogesher forget the worship of the true God. And although, he saith he cannot see or learn, that the Papists are in this third kind of Ido∣latry yet he condemns them as guilty of the two former: which is enough and too much for any Christians.

Euno.

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

Cathar.

I know Dr. St. saith his meaning is, when God is worshipped against his express Command: but the words to me seem not so much to con∣demn of Idolatry the giuing that wors∣hip to God, which he hath expressly forbidden; as the giving him any wor∣ship, which he hath not expres••ly com∣manded.

And this appears euident to me from the Application the Arch Bp. makes, of what he had said, to the Pa∣pists, viz, that they worhip God other wise than his will is, and otherwise than he hath prescribed i. e. by means and wayes, which he hath not commanded; and then, that they also giue to the crea∣ture that which is due to the Creator, and sin against the first Table. i. e. against his express Prohibition in the 2^d Commandment.

Eun.

This I should also take with Dr. St's. leaue to be the meaning of his words. And now I beseech you to con∣sider if this do not involue him more deeply yet in the suspition of Puritanism. For although I do not make the charg∣ing the Papists to be Idolaters to be a distinctive signe of Puritanism, yet Dr. St. himself in his answer to N. O. p. 181. doth; when he saith that those who separate from the Church of England make this their Fundamentall Principle as to worship, (wherein the difference lyes) that nothing is lawfull in the wor∣ship of God, but what he hath expressly commanded: We say all things are lawful which are not forbidden: and vpon this

single Point saith he the whole Contro∣versy of separation stands as to the Con∣stitutiō of our Church. Now if this single Point be, as Dr. St. saith, the Cri∣terium between a Protestant and a Pu∣ritan, that the former says all things are lawf••ll in the worship of God which are not forbidden; and the latter, that nothing is lawfull but what he hath ex∣pressly commanded; And Arch Bp. Whitgif•• haue carried his charge so farr, as to make it Idolatry, not only to worship God against his express command but by other means and ways than he hath commanded, it is plain that ac∣cording to Dr. St. himself, he takes part with the Puritans in that very Point, vpon which the whole Contro∣versy of the Separation stands as to them.

Cathar.

This is one of those which they call Argumenta ad hominem. And I cannot but wonder Dr. St. would lay himself open to it by varying so much from his Old Principles so firmly setled by him in his Irenicum, where page 6. he teacheth, that in those things which are therefore only Good because com∣manded, a command is necessary to make

them lawfull, as in immediate positiue Asts of worship towards God; in which nothing is lawfull any further, than it is founded vpon a Divine Command. I Speak not, saith he, of Circumstances belonging to the acts of Worship, but whateuer is looked vpon, as a part of Diuine Worship, if it be not command∣ed by God himself, it is no ways accep∣table to him, and theref••re not lawfull. And then a litle after. Although euen here we may say too, that it is not meerly the want of a D••vine Precept, which makes any part of Divine Worship vn∣commanded by God vnlawfull, but the General Prohibition, that nothing should be done in the immediate Worship of God, but what we haue a Divine Command for,

Eun.

This is a Wonder indeed; and must be attributed to those men, who as Dr. St. saith, haue a facul••y of doing greater wonders wich five words, than changing a Bishop into an Arch. Bishop: for if they are not the cause, they haue been at least the occation of this great change in him, viz that whereas before he asserted with those of your Party, that nothing is lawfull in the immediate

worship of God, but what is commanded: he affirms now with the Church of Eng∣land, that all things are lawfull which are not forbidden; vnless we may impute it to a greater light of the Spirit, which I am sure you will not. For other con∣siderations which your friend Patronus * 1.3 bonae fidei would haue thought to be the Motiues of this Change, I shall not concern my self with them.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

Whether it were heat of dispu∣tation, or con••escendence to free him∣self from a troublesome Adversary, who had taxed him for hauing spok•• some∣thing in b••half of the Papists (of which * 1.4 there is some appearance in his words cited by the Dr) yet his charge as you

see, so farr forth as it makes the giuing to God any worship which he hath not commanded, to be Idolatry, is groun∣ded vpon the very Fundamental Prin∣ciple, which according to Dr. St. dis∣tinguishes the Puritan Party, from those of the Church of England; and so can be no Proof that it is the Sense of that Church. And for the 2^d part of it, viz that the Papists giue to the Creature that which is due to the Creator, we may consider the time when he liued, in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth, of which you haue heard what Dr. Heylin saith. How euer, methinks Dr. St. ought not to assert this Charge of Idolatry to be the Sense of the Church of Eng∣land, but might haue been content to haue it pass for one of those nice Points, of which, himself saith, that the Church may haue liberty not to determin, when the Church herself (as I said before) in her 39. Articles reiects the Romish doctrine concerning worshipping and Adoration of Images, not as Ido∣latry, but as a fond thing vainly inven∣ted, and grounded vpon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God. And therefore that he

exceeded the bounds, which he ought to haue observed as the Champion of the Church of England, in making it to be her Sense to charge that with Idolatry, which the Compilers of the Articles call only a fond thing vainly invented; and in positively defining that to be ex∣pressly prohibited in the 2^d Command∣ment, which they, after their best in∣quiry, pronounce Problematically only as rather repugnant to the word of God, than agreable to it.

Cathar.

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

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

But T. G. and all others of their

Divines, yeild that Adoration of Ima∣ges, which our Church chargeth them with Art. 22. (viz, not barely worship∣ping, but Adoration of Images) to be Idolatry. Therefore they must grant it to be her sense to charge them with Idolatry.

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

The Romish doctrine (mark that) concerning the worshipping and Ado∣ration * 1.5 of Images &c. is a f••nd thing, vainly inuented, and grounded vpon no warranty of scripture, but rather re∣pugnant to the word of God.

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

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

Eun.

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

Cathar.

But I haue a way to avoid all

that in the present case, by telling you, that, the Romish doctrine concerning Adoration of Images, is as if one should say, the Adoration of Images taught in the Church of Rome.

Eun.

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

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

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

Doe you not see how if the First Proposition be true, the second is false? For who euer heard that T. G. or any other of the Divines of the Church of Rome, held the doctrine taught in that C••urch, concerning the Adoration of Images to be Idolatry? And consequent∣ly

to vse a simile suitable to the Dr's Genius, the Teeth of this dragon like those▪ of that other sown by Cadmus, come vp like armed Souldiers, but fight and Destroy each other. For if T. G. and all others of their Diuines do not yeild the Adoration of Images taught in the Church of Rome to be Idolatry (as cer∣tainly they doe not) tis manifest that they do not yeild that Adoration of Images to be Idolatry, which the Church of England chargeth them with; if she charge the very doctrine of that Church.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

I say that by the words, Romish doctrine concerning Adoration of Ima∣ges, may be vnderstood, either the do∣ct••ine taught in her Schools, which being but the Opinions of Particular Persons, no man is bound to follow: or the Doctrine taught in her Councils, to which all those of her Communion are bound to submit by the terms of Com∣munion with her. And if the Doctrine which the Church of England here

chargeth, be that which is taught in the Church of Rome by some of her School-Diuines (which I take indeed to be her true meaning) this also is denyed (at least by those very Diuines who teach it,) to be Idolatry: and comes not home to the charge aduanced by Dr. St. viz that what she requires by the termes of her Communion is Idolatry. And so the first argument falls to the ground. But if you will haue the Church of England to lay her charge against the Doctrine of the Church of Rom in her Councils concerning worship∣ping and Adoration of Images; herein She is vindicated from the note of Idolatry by Eminent Divines, and such as haue alwaies been esteemed the true and Ge∣nuine Sons of the Church of England, as you heard before. And so the second goes after the first. For were this her Sense, those Divines had not escaped without some note, if not incurred the censure of excommunication for maintai∣ning the contrary. In a word, which way soeuer you vnderstand the words, Romish Doctrine concerning Adoration of Images, all that the Church of Eng∣land chargeth it with, is that it is a

fond thing, vainly inuented and rather rep••gnant to the word of God, but not that is Idolatry.

Cathar.

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

Eun,

I hope I may suppose the Church of England, to be as litle in loue with wrangling about words, as Dr. St. professes himself to be▪ You haue heard Mr. Thorndike and others affirm, that the word Adoration is or may be in des∣pite of our hearts Equiuocall, that is sometimes signify one kind of honour, sometimes another, And if it be taken, not for Latria, which is due to God, but to signify an Honoura••y ••espect and Venera••ion (as they confess it is vsed in the 2^d Council of Nice) they main∣tain it is not Idolatry: which they could not haue done without a Reproof were it the Sense of the Church of Eng∣land, that it is Idolatry. As for the Compilers of the Articles, I do not take

them to be so Senseless, as not to think Idolatry repugnant to Scripture, but had they thought it to be Idolatry, thay had been Senseless indeed to reiect it only as being rather repugnant to the word of God.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

And what of this for the loue of Grammar? Would the Dr. haue the word rather to be of so vehement an affirmation▪ as to aff••ct the words that follow, and affirm it to be absolutely repugnant ••o the word of God? This were to make the Compilers no wiser Gram∣marians, than He would haue them thought to be Diuines, and to send the Church of England to School to learn her Accidence. Or would he haue it only to be a more vehement Affirma∣tion of what went before, that is, that they looked upon the worshipping of

Images, not only as grounded upon no warranty of scripture, but of the two to be rather repugnant, than agreable to the word of God? This is what was urgedby T. G. against him to shew his Confidence in peremptorily fixing vpon the Church of England a sense which she durst not own. Haue but a litle patience and I shall giue you the very words of T. G. which had the Dr. set down, this notable Criticism of his had been vtterly lost.

As for any Command, saith he, of God forbiding to honour the Images * 1.6 of Christ and his Saints, besides that I haue shown that Assertion to be in every respect groundless, yet for the satisfaction of the true Protestant Rea∣der I shall adde one Observation more upon that subject. And it is this, that the Compilers of the 39. Articles (in Which is contained the doctrine of the Church of England) sufficiently insi∣nuate they could sind no such cōmand, when they rejected the Adoration of Images, not as Idolatry (as the Dr. doth) but only as a Fond thing, vainly invented; nor as repugnant to the plain

words of Scripture (as they profess very roundly Artic. 28. though without ground, when they speak of Transub∣stantiation) but as being rather repug∣nant to the word of God: Which Qua∣lification of theirs plainly giues us to understand. That they had done their endeavours to find a Command, but could meet with none; For had they made any such discovery either in the Second Commandment, or els where in the Word of God, they would not haues pared to tell us of it, and haue cry'd it down for flat Idolatry, as the Dr. does. In the mean time, saith he, it is pleasant (I should have said Sad) to see what Veneration this Champion of the Church of England, hath either for the compilers of those Articles, or for the Articles themselues, when what they call only a Fond thing, a vain Invention; he condemns as Idolatry, most damnable Idolatry; and Magiste∣rially declares it to be expressly prohi∣bited in the second Commandment, when they after the best Inquiry they could make, pronounce only Proble∣matically, that in their Iudgment, they

thought it to be rather repugnant, than conformable to the word of God. Thus cleerly hath T. G. evinced the sense of the Church of England in this matter.

And although he had not only that re∣gard to her as to repel the odious char∣ge of Idolatry (which Dr. St. would have fixed vpon her) by shewing he had not proved what he vndertook; but that Civility also for the Dr. himself, as not to charge him with downright contra∣dicting the sense of that Church which he was engaged to defend, I think it my part to speak my mind more freely, and affirm as I may do from what I have here alledged, that t'is plain he dissents from the sense of the Church of Eng∣land: while he endeauours to make that worsh••pping and Adoration of Images which the Church of Rome tea∣cheth in her Councils, and requires sub∣mission to by the terms of Communion with her, to be I••olatry. I shall proceed, if you give leaue, in our next Confe∣rence to lay downe the dangerous and detestable consequences, vrged by T. G. as following from the charge of Idolatry and particularly that of the Subversion

of all Ecclesiasticall Authority in the Church of England; to all which Dr. St. hath either returned nothing at all, or such an answer as is worth iust no∣thing.

Cathar.

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

Notes

• * 1.1

  Cyprian. Angl. pag. 193.
• * 1.2

  Ibid. p. 132.
• * 1.3

  Prodr. p▪ 76.
• * 1.4

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. to 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Ido¦l••••.
• * 1.5

  Art. 22.
• * 1.6

  Cath. no Idol p: 197.