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 FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

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

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS

CAthar.

I remember at the begin∣ning of our discourse, you desir'd me to consider you vnder the quality of a Person perfectly of Mr. Thorndik's Judgment, as to the Charge of Idolatry

vpon the Church of Rome: and that what you should produce vpon that account, should be either from his own words, or what you conceiued himself must and would haue said in conformity to his Principles, And I was willing to entertain this conceit of you; but cannot perswade my self, that so learned and Judicious a Man, as Mr. Thorndike is esteemed, would haue allowed so much partiality, as you haue shown in this cause both to T. G. and the Church of Rome.

Eun.

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

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

Of the first he saith, that to the Ima∣ges of Saints there can be no Idolatry, so long as men take them for Saints, that is, Gods creatures; much lesse to the Images of our Lord, for it is the honour of our Lord and not of his Image. And although, saith he, the 2d Council of Nice acknowledges that the Image it self is ho••oured, by the honour giuen to that which it signifieth before the Image, yet it distinguisheth this honour from the honour of our Lord: and therefore teacheth not Idolatry, by teaching to honour Images, though it acknowledge that the Image it self is honoured, when it need not. Of the 2^d he affirmeth that the worship of the Host in the Papacy is not Idolatry, because those who worship the Host, do not belieue that the Ele∣ments remain, but that our Lord Christ, the only true God is present there in a particular manner. For the 3d; though he seem more Scrupulous in that than the other two, because the same things he saith, are desired of the Saints, and in the same terms, in which they are desired of God, euen in the Holy Scripture, yet he acknowledges there is a Profession of that Church extant, which contradicts

the proper sense of such prayers, and for∣ces the Addressers of them, vnless they will contradict themselues, to expound them to signify no more, than obtaining that of God, which they are desired to grant of themselues. And this he implies to be sufficient to excuse them from Ido∣latry, when he sayes, that were it not so, they could not be excused from it.

Again, if the Question be concerning the managing the Charge of Idolatry, supposing or granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church, as Dr. St. doth. Mr. Thorndik•• expressly affirmeth in his 1. Chapter, that if the Pope be Antichrist, and the Papists Idol••ters the Church of Rome is no true Church; and if it be a true Church, that which it professeth, is not Idolatry, and therevpon giues this necessary caution to those who will proceed vpon that supposition, to prouide that they contradict not them∣selues; which in his 2^d Chapter he saith they must doe, i. e. contradict themselues if they maintain it. 3^dly if the Question be of the Sense of the Church of Eng∣land, Mr. Thorndike shews from the very fact of the Refo••mation, that i•• was not the meaning of those who made the

Change, to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, because that were to sup∣pose it not to be a true Church, and the Church of England not to be the same Church with that which was: whereas the R••formation was not intended for the making a new Church, which was not before, but for the restoring a sick Church to its soundness, and a corrupted Church to it's Purity. Chapt. 1. and 3^d

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

Lastly, he asserteth the Profession of one Visible Church, to oblige all to stand to those grounds and those terms, vpon which it is to be maintained (of which certainly with him the charge of Idola∣try is none) and that he who takes the Pope for Antichrist, and the Papists for Idolaters, can neuer weigh by his own Weights, and mete by his own measures, till he hate Papists worse than

I••ws or Mahumetans; ch. 2. These things being so, I hope you will absolue me from the Suspition of hauing aduan∣ced any thing in this matter, but what Mr. Thorndike himself allows. The Reasons he brings for these Positions you may see your self at leasure in the Places I haue cited.

Cath.

You haue sufficiently acquitted your self of the conceit I began to haue of you: and Dr. St. seems to haue ac∣quitted himself also sufficiently, as to the respect due to the memory of so learned and Pious a Person (as himself acknowledges Mr. Thorndike to haue been) when he assures T. G. that if he could haue thought, what that Learned * 1.1 Man had said in this matter, to haue been agreable either to Scripture or Rea∣son, or the sense of the Primitiue, or of the present Church of England, it might haue prevented his writing, by changing his Opinion; for he saith, he was no stranger to his writings or his arguments. By which you see, he came to them with a good will to be informed before he en∣gaged in this cause and would not haue receded from his Opinion, could he haue adhered to it without violence to

his Reason.

Eun.

This I know is returned by Dr. St. in his late defence. p. 783. in answer to T. G. who vpon occasion of a discourse of Mr. Thorndike's, about the Sense of the 2^d Commandment, dia∣metrically opposite to that which Dr. St. giues, had said, that he could not but look vpon it, as a kind of Prophetical Co••f••tation in the year 1662. of all whi••h the Dr. had produced in the yeare * 1.2 1671. (when his Treatise of Roman Idolatry came forth) for the proof of h•••• charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the matter of Images. And how full of respect the Dr's answer is to the Memory of that excellent Person, your self will iudge, if you consider what an honour it is for Mr. Thorndike, for the world to hear it proclaimed from the mouth of Dr. St; that what he hath said in this matter is in his Judg∣ment agreable neither to Scripture, nor Reason, nor the Sense of the Primitiue Church, nor of his own; and this after he had made himself no Stranger to his writings, or his Arguments. Do you not think that many will be apt to beleeue that there must be none of all

these in ••h••m, when such a Man as Dr. St. brought both wit and will to discouer them, but could not? But why did he not make it some part of his bu∣siness to answer his A••guments, if he found them so void of Sense and Rea∣son, at least those which T. G. vrged against him, and, because the Dr. left them vn-answered, said he must look vpon Mr. Thorndike's Book, as a Con∣futation of his before it was written? Does not Mr. Thorndike himself in the 1. Chapter of his Just Weights and Mea∣sures, speaking to those of Dr. St's Judgment, demand, if they can pre∣tend so much charity to him, as to haue attempted the answering of his Reasons, and the rectifying of his mistakes? Or will they, saith he, shew me who hath answered them; and so, that they need not be troubled for me? And now, when Mr. Thorndike himself so charitably, and T. G so iustly called vpon Dr. St. to answer his arguments, was it enough for him to pass all this by with a deaf ear, and hauing professed himself no stranger to the writings, and arguments of that great Man, to tell vs with an Ipse dixit, that he could find neither

Scripture nor Reason, nor the Sense of the Primitiue Church, nor of his own in what he had said in this mat••er? You may belieue as you please, but those of the Church of England haue a d••ffer••nt esteem for him, and for his writings. What if T. G. should answer Dr. St's defence in the same manner, and with the same words, would you take it for good payment? For my part I should be satisfied with neither, nor will your self be, I beleeue, for what concerns Mr. Thorndike, when you shall haue heard what T. G. alledged out of him, * 1.3 to show the crime of Schism to ly at their doors, who charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, and is left vn∣touched by Dr. St. both in his General Preface, and late Defence. That this was Mr. Thorndike's Judgment as to the charge of Idolatry in general, is euident from what I haue cited aboue out of his First chapter; and for the worship of images in particular, in his 19^th Chapter he saith, It is manifest that the Church of God is tyed no farther than there can appear danger of Idola∣try, which if it be so heightned, beyond appearance, as to involve the Church in

the crime of it (i. e. Idolatry) chargeth the schism that may come by that meanes vpon them, that so inhanse it.

Cathar.

This is a thing which I haue often heard, and allwayes with wonder; nothing appearing to me so proper to iustify the Separation of the Church of England from that of Rome, as the charging that Church with Idolatry: for (as Dr. St. himself giues the reason * 1.4 in his Preface) whereas other things are subtle and nice, tedious and obscure, this lyes plain to the conscience of euery man: If the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry, our Separation can be no Schism, either before God or man, be∣cause our Communion would be a Sin.

Eun.

This wonder of yours proceeds from a mistake (as you heard before) that those who made the change in∣tended a Separation; whereas Refor∣mat••on is indeed, and allwaies was the thing intended. And for what you alledge from Dr. St. M. Thorndike confesses, this cause (i. e. Idolatry) * 1.5 would be more then sufficient to iustify se∣paration, did it appear to be true: but then on the othe side, saith he, it charges the mischiefs of the Schism vpon those

that proceed vpon it, before it be as euident as the mischief, are, which they run into vpon it. So that, should the Church of England declare that the Change, which we call Reformation is grounded vpon this supposition, I must then acknowledg saith he, that we are Schismaticks. For the cause not appear∣ing to me (as hitherto it hath not, and I think will neuer be made to appear to me) the Separation, and the Mischiefs of it must be imputed to them that make the change. And therefore we (of the Church of England) in plain terms make our selues Schismaticks, by ground∣ing our Reformation vpon this Pretence. This was returned by T. G. in his Pre∣face, to Dr St. with this reflexion, that this Judgment of Mr. Thorndike, abetted by diuers of the most learned, and most Judicious Persons of the Church of England, will stand as a convincing Preiudice against him, and his charge, till he can make it as euident that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry, as the mischiefs are that haue ensued vpon it. And I can imagin no probable reason, why he should not haue endeavour'd at least, either in his General Preface, or

in his Defence, to haue removed this Preiudice, but that he was so farr of Mr. Thorndike's mind in the matter, as to think it a task impossible to be per∣formed. Otherwise surely he would not haue sate downe quietly with the Im∣putation of so horrible a Sin, as Mr. Thorndike characters that of Schisin to be in the sight of God in his next Chap∣ter, euen greater than that of Heresy * 1.6 or Aposta••y. For an Heretick or an Apostate, saith he, in the sight of God destroys only 〈◊〉〈◊〉 own soul. But he that causeth division in the Church, either peremptorily destroys, or probably hinders the Salvation of all who are parties to it. So the Authors of Schisin must answer for all the souls that perish by it. Add to this, the infinite Bloud. shed, the barba∣rous Violences, the vncharitable slan∣d••rs, the horrid perjuries, the vn∣christian practices, the Antichristian doctrines, the hatred of our Fellow chri∣stians worse than Iews and Ma∣humetans, the reviling the first and grea∣test of Patriarchs, (at least in Order and Dignity,) as the Man of sin; and rai∣ling at that Church, which the Dr. him∣self acknowledges to be a true Church,

and to hold all the Essentials of Faith, as the Mistress of Idolatry, and the Whore of Babylon: besides the other mischi••f. and Miseries, which this division hath brought forth, part of which saith Dr. St. himself, if our ex∣perience doth not tell vs of, yet our cons∣ciences * 1.7 may. Adde I say these things, which lye open to the eyes of men, to the hainousness of Schism in the sight of God, which, as Dr. Hammond tells us out of the Fathers, is as great if not greater than Sacriledg, Parricide or Ido∣latry, not iustifyable by any pretence * 1.8 whatsoeuer, nor expiable even by Mar∣tyrdome it self, and you will see what reason there was, why Dr. St. should haue endeavourd at least the answering Mr. Thorndike's argument, least he might be thought by his silence to stand convicted of the consequence of it, (that is, the guilt of Schism) in his own Judg∣ment.

Cathar.

These are terrible Bug∣bears indeed to frighten vs from the Charge of Idolatry. But still our Plea is the same in order to the Church of England, With that of the Church of England to that of Rome; and whe∣ther

the charge be of Idolatry, as we will haue it, or only of Abuses and Su∣perstitions as Mr. Thorndike calls them, the case of both is alike as to the Church of Rome: for both doe grant, that not those who separate, but those who cause the separation by imposing and requiring things vnlawful, as conditions of Communion, are Schismaticks before God; Only this aduantage they haue, who charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, that it lyes open to the Consci∣ence of euery man, if that Church be guilty of it, our separation can be no Schism either before God or man, be∣cause our Communion would be a sin, whereas other Pleas are subtle and Nice, tedious and obscure, as Dr St. saith.

Eun.

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

Cathar.

And haue you proued the things which the Church of England requireth, to be lawful; and the Abuses and Superstitions of the Church of Rome as Mr. Thornd. calls them, to be as eui∣dently

such, as the Mischiefs are which haue followed frō the imposing of them? The contest at the best stands yet sub Ju∣dice as to both, and for what concerns the Church of Rome, those that Gouern that See (whom Mr. Thorndike esteems the * 1.9 wisest people vpon earth) and all those, whom their wisdome carries along, deny what they require as terms of Communion with them, to be either abuses or Su∣perstitions. And so T. G'^s. Argument, which you mentioned before, if it be good for any thing will haue equall force against the charge of Superstition, as of Idolatry, viz, that till the Accu∣sation be made Good, and iudged so by some more competent Judge, than your selues, you stand arraigned of the Crime of Schism also for breaking Communion with the Church of Rome.

Eun.

Forthat, we appeal, saith Dr. St. to the doctrine and Practice of the truly Catholick Church, in the matters * 1.10 of difference between us and the Church of Rome.

Cathar.

Very well: But then, you are bound I hope, as well as Dr. St. either to acknowledge the Roman to be that Church, and consequently to stand

to her Judgement: or to assign some other Church distinct from the Roman, which Christ hath preserved free from those doctrines and Practices, which you call Abuses and Superstitions, unless you will be your own Judges. Which way you will take, I shall leaue to your conside∣ration.

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

Eun.

This is a pretty kind of plausi∣ble come off, but will not serve the turn,

I know the word [sufficiently] confident∣ly uttered can do wonders. The Oracles of General Councils are nothing to it, especially if added to a Text of Scri∣pture though neuer so much wrested. But I am too well acquainted with it, to be imposed on by it. Nothing will be sufficient here, but what makes the Ido∣latry of the Church of Rome, as Evi∣dent as the mischiefs are, which haue ensued vpon the Separation; and your self I belieue will grant the first Proof from the practice of the Heathens not to be of that nature, when you shall haue considered, how expressly the Scri∣pture taxes the Heathens of Polytheism and for worshipping their Idols as Gods; and the Obscurity and Contra∣diction there is found in the manner of their worship even as it was explicated by the most learned of their Philosophers. I know very well that Dr St. in his defence strains all the Nerves of his wit, and the Texts, of many of those Fa∣thers he cites to proue the Heathens supream God Jupiter, to be the Supream Being, Creator and Governour of the worl••▪ by that means to dragg the wors∣hip of the Heathens in to a Paral••l

with that of the Church of Rome: but I neuer yet met with any man that be∣lieued it was or is what he would haue it to be; and I haue that esteem for the deuotion of the Feminine Sex that did they belieue it, they would never be so Prophani, as to give the sacred name of Jupiter to their Dogs: But however that be (which we may haue occasion to Examin hereafter) t'is plain the Ar∣gument can signify nothing to the pur∣pose. For if the Heathens gaue not the same worship to their Images and In∣feriour Deities which the Church of Rome doth to her Images and Saints, the Paralell is lost: And if they gaue the same which the Church of Rome allows, the manner of the Worship which he there insists vpon (howeuer they might be mistaken in the things or Persons) is excused from Idolatry by many Emin••nt diuines of the Church of England, as you heard before, and will neuer be proued by Dr. St. to be so. All then that such an Extrinsic Topick can do, is that it may serue to amuze the Ignorant but can neuer Satisfy a Judicious Reader.

As for the 2^d that God in the second

Commandment hath expressly prohibi∣ted the giuing any worship to himself by an Image, let vs first hear the Excep∣tions which T G. layes against it, in * 1.11 the 3^d Chapter of his Catholiks no Ido∣laters, of which Dr St. takes not the least notice neither in his Defence.

What we are to consider in the first * 1.12 place here, saith T. G. is what it is that Dr. St. will undertake to prove: and it is this; that God in the 2^d Command∣ment hath expressly prohibited the gi∣ving any worship to himself by an Ima∣ge. This is what vpon Second thoughts (for the term expressly was not in his first Answer) he undertakes to prove: And I cannot but wonder, saith he, to see it drop now from his Pen, who on the other side asserts Scripture (doubt∣lesse Express Scripture) to be his most certain Rule of Faith, and on the other side denies, (as hath been shewed aboue) any thing to be an Article of Faith which is not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self. What may the meaning of this be? If it be express∣ly revealed in Scripture that God is not to be worshipped by an Image, it is an Article of Faith, If it be not acknow∣ledged

to be such by Rome it self, it is no Article of Faith but (as he calls it) an Inferiour Truth or Pious Opinion, yet such as neither himself, nor any man else according to his Principles ought to belieue there is a Iot of Truth in it. Here vpon he calls vpon the Dr. to speak out. Is it, or is it not an Article of Faith? If it be an Article of Faith, t'is false what he asserts so stiffly in his Rational Account p. 54. that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, but what are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self. If it be not an Article of Faith, t'is false what he affirms so positiuely here, that God hath expressly prohibited it in the 2^d Com∣mandment. And which side soeuer he takes, tis manifest he contradicts himself. Here was Prouocation enough for Dr. St. to cleer himself. But T. G. pro∣ceeds.

Perhaps his meaning is, saith he, that what at one time is but an Inferiour Truth, must at another time be an Arti∣cle of Faith, according as it may serue to the different ends and purposes he hath designed to himself. And here, if I mis∣take not, saith T. G. lies the Knack, or

(if you will giue it so venerable a name) the Mystery of the business. When the Hedge of the Church of England (viz, Suscription to her 39. Articles) must be broken down for the Good Brethren the Non-Conformists (pray pardon me, if I repeat his words) to enter in and ravage without scruple her Rights and Reuenues, so many of the said Articles, as are not owned by Rome it self, must pass for a company of Inferiour Truths, or Pious Opinions, not, to be assented to, but not to be opposed for Unitie's sake. But when the Church of Rome is to be charged with Idolatry (the Pre∣tence, saith Mr. Thorndike, with which Ignorant Preachers driue their factions) then they are no more Infe∣riour Truths, but Articles of Faith ex∣pressly reuealed in Holy Scripture. Now would an Impartial Reader (to use Dr. Taylor's expression vpon another occasion) say vpon his Conscience, that this was not kindly done, to make vse of the Authority of the Church of Rome, to vnhallow so many of the 39. Articles, as are not owned by her, and cast them down into the class of Inferiour Truths, to stich vp the Rent

made by the Non-Conformists from the Church of England: And then to consecrate them again so easily by ver∣tue of that one Definitiue word [express∣ly] into diuine Reuelations, against the Church of Rome, to make the Breach of the Church of England from her, yet wider. But what cannot an Ireni∣cal complyance with one Party; and a Polemical Animosity, or (as Mr. Thorndike calls it Faction) against another doe? when the same Proposi∣tion, as it respects the former shall be ranked only amongst Inferiour Truths, which none are obliged to assent to; and as it may serue to oppugn the lat∣ter, shal be raised to an Article of Faith, which all are bound to belieue. Here then saith he, lyes the Mystery, that the same Proposition, viz that God is not to be worshiped by an Image, taken Irenically and in its Pacifick temper, is but an Inferiour Truth, because not owned to be an Article of Faith by the Church of Rome: but taken Pole∣mically, and in its warlike Humour, it must be an Article of Faith, because expressly (as Dr. St. saith) revealed in scripture. Thus T. G.

Ca••har.

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

Eun.

I see you are no Friend to School-distinctions; (though Dr. St. himself as you know is sometimes fain to make vse of them) and much lesse to the way of making men contradict themselues. But then it is necessary, especially for Controvertists to prouide they do not do it. T'is necessary as Mr. Thorndike sayes, that they vnderstand themselues, whether they admit the con∣sequence

of their own supposition, or not: which I think Dr. St. did not consider, when he advanced this Proposition, that God in the 2^d Commandment hath expressly prohibited the giuing any wor∣ship to himself by an Image. For (as T. G. discourses vpon it) It were well he * 1.13 would tell vs first, what he vnderstands by the term [Expressly.]

For if he call * 1.14 that (for example) an express Text, which of it self is absolutely cleer and manifest, and therefore as St. Austin saith, Non eget Interpre••e, needs no Interpreter, Mr. Thorndike (and those other learned men of the Church of England who see no better than He) haue reason to lament the loss of their Eye-sight. But if he mean no more, but that it is cleer and manifest to himself, they may hope they see as well as their Neighbours, though they see the quite contrary; vnless they will suffer them∣selues to be wrought vpon by his stout asserting it to be cleer and manifest as the Travellers were by Polus, (in Eras∣mus his Exorcismus) when pretending that he saw a huge Dragon with fiery horns in the sky, by auouching it strong∣ly, and pointing expressly to the Place,

he forced them (out of shame not to see so conspicuous a thing) to confess, that they saw it also. Now that it is not absolutely cleer and manifest of it self, the pains and ways he takes to find it out sufficiently evince, And whether it be cleer and manifest euen to himself, we haue cause to doubt; because the Proposition in debate, viz, That God hath prohibited the giving any wor∣ship to himself by an Image, not being acknowledged by the Church of Rome for an Article of Faith, the Church of England, according to himself, obliges no man to assent to it, but only not to oppose it; and yet on the other side Euery man is bound to assent to that, which he sees to be clear and manifest. Such frequent self-contradictions, saith T. G. are the natural consequences of a discourse not grounded vpon Truth.

Cathar.

This is iust what Dr. St. saith of I. W: that he makes him pile Con∣tradictions vpon Contradictions, as * 1.15 Children do cards one vpon another, and then he comes and cunningly steals away one of the Supporters, and down all the rest fall in great disorder and confusion.

Eun:

This is pleasantly enough said, and may serue to entertain drollish wit, though I understand not well what he means by his Aduersary's Stealing aw••y one of the Supporters. If this piling of contradictions be like that of Cards, me thinks it should be Dr. St's. part to steal away one of the supporters, that the Falrick may fall to the ground; for whilst both stand the Contradiction will remain. But this cannot be done with∣out renouncing one of his Principles, viz, either that he makes no Articles of Faith but what are acknowledged f••r such by Rome it self, or that it is expressly revealed in Scripture (the Rule of Faith) that God is not to be worshipped by an Image. Otherwise it is not the puff of a Iest that will blow down the building. And therefore T. G. adds, that although the Reader may think, (as I perceiue you do) he takes a delight to discover such frequent Contradictions in his Ad∣versary, yet I can assure him, saith he, t'it a much greater Grief to me, to see so subtil a wit so often intangled in them. The fault is in the Cause, (I suppose he means the charge of Idolatry) which cannot be managed without falling

into them. But as S_t Austin saith. Quis coegit eos malam causam habere; Who compelled him and his Partizans to en∣gage themselues in a bad Cause? No∣thing of Faith, if that be true, which he ells us in his Rational Account. Nothing ^tf Reason, as will be shewed in the exa∣mination of his Proofs. Now if after all this, you still persist in the same mind you were of, that the prohibition of giving any worship to God himself by an Image, is so cleerly and expressly de∣livered in tho 2^d Commandment, that if Scripture be the Rule of Faith, no∣thing can be an Rule of Faith, if that be not; let me desire you to consider farther what T. G. hath reply'd in par∣ticular, to Dr. Sts first way of finding out the Sense of the Law, viz, from the Terms in which the Law is expressod. * 1.16 Exod 20. 4. Thou shalt not make vnto thee any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing &c. Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them, nor serve them.

These are the Terms, in which the Law is expressed according to the Transla∣tion used in the Church of England: and ••here, I pray, saith T. G. is it ex∣pressed here that we may not giue any

worship to God himself by an Image? The first part touches not the worship of Images, or of God himself by them, but only the making them, and giues matter to Divines to dispute, whether it be forbidden by this Commandment to make any Image or any likeness at all; a thing in which Protestants are con∣cerned, as well as Catholicks. The second forbids indeed in express terms to bow our selues down to the Images them∣selues (as the Heathens did) but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or vn∣law••ulness of worshipping God himself by them. So that if to treat a matter expressly, be not the same in other words, as not to speak of it at all, it is manifest, that to worship God himself before or by an Image, is not expressly prohibited by this Commandment This T. G. desires his Protestant Rea∣der (he should haue said Puritan) to consider well, and not suffer Puritan) to be deluded wish the sound of words. Is it all, one, saith he to bow our selues down to the Images themselues without any Relation to God, and to worship God himself by bowing before an Ima∣ge? The difference is too palpable not

to be seen by any one who hath not the natural Conceptions of his mind cor∣rupted by an ouer eager desire to pursue at any rate so vniust and vncharitable a charge, as that of Idolatry. The Iews we know gaue worship to God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubins, and yet they did not wor∣ship them instead of God: And if Dr. St. will needs contend, that this was a par∣ticular dispensation to the Iews, that they might lawfully bow down to or before the Ark and Cherubins to give worship to God, he must acknowledg the Precept (if it were so) as to that part, viz, of not worshipping God by bowing before an Image, not to haue been Natural, for then God had dis∣pensed with them to commit Real Ido∣latry; but Ceremonial only, and so not to oblige Christians, vnless he wil en∣gage them also in the observance of all the Ceremonial part of the Law of Moses. Taking then the Terms of the Law, and that in the most favourable Translation to the Dr's Cause, tis euident that to worship God himself by an Image is not expressly prohibited in it.

And the Euidence of this is so great,

that although Dr. St. in his late D••f••nce spend aboue a 100. Pages about the Sense of the Second Commandment, yet he neither endeavours to remove the Contradictions,, nor answer the Argu∣ments of T. G. His whole business there is to Criticize vpon the Exceptions which T. G. had made to the several Methods he proposed for the finding out, the Sense of the Law. A very pleasant diversion if you consider it well. I pro∣posed, * 1.17 saith he, several Methods for the finding out the Sense of the Law. The first whereof was from the Ge∣neral terms in which the Law was Ex∣pressed (viz the terms, Image, and Simi∣litude.) And that we might be sure to take notice of it he gives us the same Item when he comes to the Second: The second way, saith he, I proposed to find * 1.18 out the sense of the Commandment was from the Reason of it. And so when he comes to the Third. The last way, * 1.19 I proposed to find out the sense of the Law, was from the Judgment of the Law-giver in the Case of the Golden Calf. And who can chuse but wonder to see so many ways and Methods pur∣sued, so much pains and labour spent

(not to say lost) to seek out what was Express in the Text and plain to be seen without more ado? What need such beating the Hedges and Bushes to find out the Game, if it show it self fairly in the Open Feild? Hunters sometimes will pass by a Hare in the Form, and let the ••ounds loose to find her out by the Sent. But these are such as hunt more for their Pleasure and Exercise, than for the Game.

Cathar.

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

Eunom.

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

Cathar.

No fear at all of that. The very Charge of Idolatry secures it to him: For (as my good Friend, Patronus bo∣nae * 1.20 Fidei observes) The Puritans (who ground themselues upon that charge) do not so easily become Papists, as those of the Church of England who take

other ways; whose consanguinity (as he calls it) in life and discipline with the Pa∣pists carries them ouer to them upon the least impulse, as might be insta••••'d in many, whose names you may find in a litle Book called Legenda lignea: Whereas on the contrary, the l••f••, the doctrine and discipline of th•• P••ritans, as approaehing nearer to the Apostolick, make them more averse and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against the Papists, and very hardly or never to pass over to them.

Eun.

This is a notable Observation indeed, and perhaps may hold better, for the ••anaticks or the Turks, than the Puritans. But Mr. Thorndike had a different esteem of the matter, when weighing in his Ju••t Weight ch. 2. what we get 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Cha••ge of Idolatry and Antichrist, he app••als to the Judg∣ment of men of discretion, Wh••ther This be not the rea••on of that which wise men haue observed, that the passage from the one Extream to the other is more easy and frequent among us, than from the mean to the Extream. For when a No∣vice, saith he, grounded upon this Sup∣position is forced from his Ground upon Remonstrance of such Reasons (as may

be and are produced against it) how rea∣dy is He to fall into the Snare of the Missionaries. And there upon it is, that he advises them not to lead the People by the Nose; to belieue, they can proue their Supposition, when They cannot; and then expect that it be maintained by Those that own the Church of Rome for a true Church, ond therefore must con∣tradict themselues, if they maintain it. What Dr. St. should haue done was to remove the Contradictions, objected to him, and answer the Arguments of T. G. and not go a coursing for his pleasure with new ways and Methods to find out that which himself affirms to be so cleer∣ly Expressed in the Second Command∣ment, that it cannot enter into his mind, how God should haue forbidden it by more express and Emphatical words, * 1.21 than he hath done. But of this I may haue occasion to speak again here after. Let us now, if you please, adjourn till another time.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Def. p. 783.
• * 1.2

  Cath. no Idol. p. 175.
• * 1.3

  Pref. •••• Cath. no Idol.
• * 1.4

  Pref. to Rom. Id••l.
• * 1.5

  Iust. vveight. ch. 1.
• * 1.6

  Chap. 2.
• * 1.7

  Iren. p. 62.
• * 1.8

  Of Schis. ch. 1. Sect. 6. 7. 8.
• * 1.9

  Ch. 2
• * 1.10

  Ansvv. 10 N. O. ••. 180.
• * 1.11

  p. 33.
• * 1.12

  Cath. ••o Idol. p. 33.
• * 1.13

  Cath••. no. Idol. p. 36.
• * 1.14

  Li de Vnit. Eccl. c. 19.
• * 1.15

  Def. p. 785.
• * 1.16

  Gathar. no Idol. p. 38.
• * 1.17

  P. 720.
• * 1.18

  P. 73••.
• * 1.19

  P. 747.
• * 1.20

  Spec. p. 44.
• * 1.21

  Rom. Idel p. ••8.