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 FIRST DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

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

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

CAthar:

What Judgment to make of the Memorial you left me, I cannot easily determin. If the Conse∣quences contained in it be false, (as I hope they are) I cannot but wonder Dr. St. in his Defence should take so litle

notice of them? And if they be true I wonder as much, he should take so much pains to maintain the Charge; vn∣less it be to keep vp the Cry against Po∣pery, by exposing the Papists, as Ido∣laters, to the hatred of all Good Chris∣tians. Other Pretences may fail; but this will be sure to take place, as they find by the success.

Eunom:

The Bulk of a Book too, as you know, may conduce much to make the Cry the Louder. But were the ••oise a litle ouer, that men could hear one another speak, I am of Opinion there would not be many found of such aukward Intellectuals; as to belieue it to be Idolatry, to kiss or put off our hats, or kneel before an Image or Picture of Christ, with Intention by those out∣ward Acts to shew the respect we haue for his Person; which is what Dr. St. obliges himself to maintain when he asserts the making and bowing b••f••re an * 1.1 Image with respect to the worship of God to be forbidden under the notion of I••o∣latry: But doth it in such a manner, that I haue heard some Learned men say, they could look vpon his Performance in this Point, no otherwise than as an

Essay of his Wit, like that of Erasmus, when he vndertook to write a Book in Commendatien of Folly; but with this difference, that Erasmus foresaw no harm like to ensue from his Panegyrick to the world; for none wete likely to be more in loue withit for his Praises, nor to suffer more for it, than if he had said nothing. But Dr St. could not but haue a Prospect at least of much. Mis∣chief likely to f••llow to his Fellow-subjects from his Idle Charge of Idola∣try, as Mr. Thorndike call'd it a litle before his death.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

Egr••g••am sane laudem. a very ample Enco••mium no doubt as to the

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

Cathar.

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

Eun.

Yes I have, but to deal inge∣nuously with you, not with that plea∣sure and Satisfaction, you express'd, at the beginning of our discourse, to see that the Heathens could not be iustly charged with Idolatry, but the Papists must be so too. For naturally I loue not to see People represented worse than they

are; and though Dr. St. Professe he 〈…〉〈…〉, yet his Readers will iu••g•• as they find cause Besides, I euer∣more 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a great 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vpon one Subiect, as supposing much time must be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in reading many t••ings which are crowded in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the purpose: However like tho••••, w••o put them∣selu••s (as we say) into t••e S••ock▪ to comply with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, I resolved as I saw others do, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vpon it; And to tell you the truth, I had scarcely gotten ouer half a score Leaues, when I found my self in the case of the vn∣fortunate Laconian in Boccalini.

Cathar.

And what was that I pray?

Eun.

Why, this it was. The poor Man for having deliuered that in three words, which might haue been said in two, after eight month's imprisonment, was condemned to read ouer the Warr of Pisa written by Guicciardine. So horri∣bly tedious did that rabble of discourse appear to him, that after he had read ouer the first leaf with much agony, he earnestly intreated the Judges to reuerse the Sentence, and condemn him rather to row in the Gallies all his life. What other Sentiment could I haue of my

Condition, than that of this vnhappy Laconian, to see my self condemned, (for what fault of mine I know not) by that Tyrant custome, to read ouer Dr. St's endless discourses? First a hun∣dred and fourscore and three Pages, Of T. G••. notion of Idolatry. Then a hundred and threescore and four Pages, Of the Nature of divino Worship. Then a hundred and fourty Pages, Of the State of the Controuersy about the worship of Images between Christians and Hea∣thens. After that a hundred and four∣score and odd Pages, Of the State of the Controuersy about Images in the Christian Church. Then a hundred and thirteen Pages, Of the sense of the second Commandment. And lastly Fourscore and thirteen Pages more, In answer to the Instances and some other. Passages of T. G. However, I resolued (as I said) to read them over; but all the while I was doing it, I could not but think, had the Book been brought before the Iudges of Parnass••s, what punishment they would or could haue inflicted suitable to the delict, viz, for a man of Dr. Sts. parts to spend neer nine hundred Pages (if you take in the

Epistle dedicatory and the Preface) in deliuering that, which might haue been expressed sufficienthy for what concerns T. G in nine or ten lines.

Ca••har:

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

Eun:

Content; but then you must haue patience, whilst I giue you the rea••on: and this it is: Had Dr. St. ac∣cording to the Method vsed by the Mathematicians, but laid down these f••w Points as Postulatas, viz. 1. That Idolatry may consist with the acknow∣ledgment of one Supream Being, which is the subiect of his first Chapter. 2. That God ought to be worshipped accor∣ding to his own appointment; or that those external acts of worship, which God hath appropriated to himself, cannot, while that appropriation remains, be given to another, which is what he ayms at in his second. 3. That the Wiser Heathens pretended, they did not look vpon their Images as Gods, but as Symbols of that Being to which they gaue divine worship, which is the Scope

of his T••ird. And 4. That f••r the four first Centuries there was litle or no use of Imag••s in ••he Temples and Oratories of Christians; but that the use and Veneration of them came in afterwards by degrees, which is the subi••ct of his Fou••th. Had the Dr. I say laid these Po••••t••ons 〈…〉〈…〉 P••stulatas, he might (if I understand T. G. aright) haue saued himself the pains of writing, and his Readers the t••o••ble of reading more than two third Parts of his Book which are spent vpon them.

For as for the I That Idolatry may consist w••th the acknowledgment of one Supream Being, at least as Idolatry is taken by Dr. St. for the giving Exter∣nal Acts of worship due only to God, to a Creature, and Was sussicient as it was practis'd by his Wiser Heathens, for the Fathers to charge them with Idolatry; it is plainly acknowledged by T. G. Page 23 of his first Paper where speak∣ing of those, of whom S. Paul saith, that though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God. T. G. saith, they changed his glory into an Image made like to corruptible man, by adoring and offering sacr••fice due to God alone

to the Statues themselues, or the deities they s••pposed to dwell in them: and the same he repeats again Pag 97. and other Places of his Book.

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

The 3 also concerning the Practice of the Wiser Heathens is admitted by T. G. for the Dr. to make his best of it, when he saith p. 107. 108. that howeuer they pretended through the Images to worship the true deitie, yet they were to blame in two things. 1. Because the Ima∣ges being instituted by publick Authority for the worship of false Gods they concur∣red (as Dr. St. himself acknowledges) with the vulgar in all the External practices of their Idolatry. 2. Because, though in the schools they denied them

to be Gods neuertheless they gaue honour to them so farr, as to lead the People into errour by their Example.

And for the 4 the l••tle or no use of Images in Churches for the sirst four hundred years▪ it was not looked upon by T G. as any Prejudic•• to his cause although it had been much longer before the use and Venerat••on of them were brought in, as he sufficiently declares (p. 171.) where he answers in Mr. Thorndikes words, that fo•• the first h••e•• or four Centuries, ther•• might be Ieaiousy of Offence in hauing Images in Churches, bef••re Idolatry was quite rooted out, of which afterwards there might be no appearance. And therefore they were afterwards admitted all ouer, for it is manif••st, saith he the Church is tied no farther, than there can appear dan∣ger of Idolatry. And again, p. 173. What furniture and Ceremonies the Churches of Christians, and the pu∣blick worship of God in them may require, now all the world professes Christianity, this, saith he, the Church is at freedome to determin by the word of God expounded according to the best agreement of Chris∣tians. And whilst the Church is acknow∣ledged

to haue such a Power in de∣creeing Rites and Ceremonies (of which nature the use of Images is) as ought to ouer-rule a scrupulous Conscience, what the Dr. obiects against Mr. Thorn∣dikes reason concerning the danger of Idolatry in after times, comes not Home to the purpose; Fot t'is not his scrupulous Conscience, but the Church that must be the Iudge. What need was there then to lauish away six hundred and seuenty Pages, to proue those things which were either granted or giuen as granted by T. G.?

But then again for the 5. Chapter, Of the sense Of the seco••d Command∣m••nt, if God haue there expresly pro∣hibit••d ••he giuing any wors••ip ••o himself by an Image, as Dr. St. affirms, there needed no more than to expose the Law, as in a Table, printed in Legis latiue Gothick (as it is done by him. p. 671.) with the addition only of a Finger in the Margent to point to the words for euery one that runs to read them: the thing being so plain, that himself con∣fesses, it cannot enter into his mind, how * 1.2 God should haue forbidden it by more express and Emphatical words than he

hath done. If this be so, then certainly it was a needless and strange Extrava∣gance, to spend a hundred and thirteen Pages to speak that in less Express and Emphatical terms, (that is to say, more obscurely) what God had already spoken in a few words more cl••••rly; and in criticizing as he doth vpon the words, Idol, Image, Similitude &c. and drawing arguments 1. from t••e Terms of the law, 2. from the Reason annexed to it, and 3. from the Judg∣ment of the Lawgiuer, to find out what himself cannot conceiue how God should haue expressed it in clearer terms. For my part, I belieue, that God can express himself much clearer than Man: * 1.3 and yet I must be of T. G's. mind in this case, that had the Law been deliuered in Dr. Sts. own words (Rom: Idol p. 60. viz that any Image or similitude is for∣bidden to be made with respect to the wor∣ship of God,) they had been much more express and Emphatical to his purpose, than those in which God himself did deliuer it. For these we see require much criticizing and many arguments to make the sense be, what Dr. St. would haue it; where as those are so

plain, that euery one that reads, vn∣derstands their meaning at the first sight It was well for T. G. that God himself was pleased to write the Com∣mandment with his own finger. For had Dr. St been trusted with the penning of it, he would no doubt, (if it be true what he says) haue out-done God himself, though he had done his best.

As for the last Chapter, where Dr. St. sets himself to show the dif∣f••rence between the Instances brought by T. G. viz, the Reverence shewd to the G••ound by Moses and Joshua, the bowing at the name of Jesus, and towards the Altar, vsed by the Church of England on the one side, and the vespect and Veneration given to Images by those of the Church of Rome on the other: (the most material thing in that Chapter) I think there needed no more than to say, as he doth in two lines p 869. that the Church of England doth not allow any worship to be giuen to the Altar: meaning thereby, as I suppose, that the Church of England intends not by the ••xter∣nal Act of Bowing to she any Reve∣rence to the Altar. This you see is a

very compendious, and yet clear de∣cifion of the case; and there needed no more, to defeat the other Instances also brought by T. G. For if he speak consequently, the same must hold with him for them too. But then on the other side, you must giue me leaue to tell you, that I doe not see how this Assertion of Dr. St. agrees either with the sense of the Church of Eng∣land in the Canon he appeals to for it▪ or with what himself affirms but three leaues before. For the Canon saith no more (and I cannot but wonder why he caused it to be printed in great Characters for the world to take notice of his fair dealing) than that their In∣tent on in doing Reverence and Obei∣sance at the coming in or going out of the Church or Chancel, is no•• to ex∣hibite any Religious worship othe Com∣munion Table &c. in which they agree with Aquinas and other Divines of the Church of Rome; but no where deny they intend not to giue any worship at all to it, as the Dr. glosses it. Nor does it agree with what him∣self had affirmed but three leaues be∣fore p. 863. that there is a Reverence

left to be shewed to Sacred Places, on the account of their discrimination from o••her places, and separation for Sacred vses.

Cathar:

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

Eun:

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

Cathar.

This I confess hath stuck long in my thoughs; and to tell you the t••uth, (now that you vrge it a second time) I was never throughly satisfied either ••ith Dr. Sts. practice or defence in this Point; For though

I hope well still of his Affection to the Cause, yet it cannot be denied, but his bending complyance in this particular of bowing to the Altar, hath giuen but too much advantage to his Adversaries, and too much Offence to the Godly: whose sense I shall giue you in the words of my good Friend Patronus bonae Fi∣dei, with relation to the Dr. The dis∣course is somewhat of the longest, but I hope you will haue patience to hear it. Thus then He in his Prodromus p 76.

Quicquid Clarissimus Stillingfleet Delinitus & occoecatus &c.

How∣euer the most Renowned Stilling∣fleet wheadled and blinded with 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ (I dare say no more for fear of a Re∣buke) endeauour in his most learned and accurate work to dawb and smo••th ouer (and that but sleigh••ly neither) this kind of Adoration, with intention to vindicate it from the crime of Idola∣try, lest himself amidst the crowd of those who bow down before the Altar be deem'd guilty of a crime, which none hath thrown with more strength vpon the Ro∣manists, than He; yet I doubt not▪ saith he, to affirm, that this Bowing out vies the Idolatry both of the Egyptians and

Romanists, not only in horrible iniquity and enormitis, but in madness and folly.

Hauing laid down this for his Posi∣tion, he proceeds to proue it in this manner.

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

2.

For the Aegyptians; They, saith

he, pretended some colour for their Ido∣latry, as that an Ape, a cat, a Wolf a Ball, an Ibis, were things endowed with that Principle of life, with that ayr and participation of the divinity, by which the worsbippers were carried to God, whom alone they made the Obiect of their Adoration; denying any thing to be worshipped by them hut with re∣lation to God, as we learn from Origen against Celsus, and Augustin vpon the 96. Psalm. where this latter farther adds, that the Heathens pretended they did not worship any corporeal Representation (and that it was a meercalumny impu∣ted to them by the Christians) but the divinity, which was represented and expressed by such an Effigies. So that now Those who bow down to a logge, a Stock, and a Trunk, such as is a Woodden Table out of the use for which it is ordained, are Themselues stocks, and render themselues guilty of a farr more greiuous crime, Jam sure, of a farr more giddy-brain'd Madness, than either the Aegyptians or the Romanists. For what Dr. Stillingfleet saith, that this worship is perfo••med only in the coming in, and going out of the Temple,

takes not away the crime of Idolatry, as more or lesse changes not the kind: Nor doth it agree with Truth &c.

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

O curuae in terras Animae, & coele∣stium inanes!

He goes on saying, that this Fana∣ticisin is the more gross and blockish, in that the Altar or Table it self are not so much worshipped, as the Place for it's rich Furniture in which they are set. For let them be remoued but neuer so litle from the Wall, and placed with out the Rails: Let but the Eucharistical decking be taken away, and they left naked, and transferred to some other part of the Temple, no man thinks them worthy of Adoration; no man b••ws down (vnless perchance to the East.) A madness Paralel to that of tbe Roma∣nists, who haue a Reverence and Vene∣ration for their Images, while they are set vp in high Places, and so much the more as they are more richly attired and

adorned, but being taken from thence, or laid vpon the ground or broken, no one thinks them worthy to be look'd on.

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

Lastly (not to exercise your patience too too much) he concludes with a

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

Euno••n:

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

Cathar:

He wanted neither courage nor zeal I can assure you, to haue put it to his Book; and there was much ado to perswade him not to do it. But at length he suffered himself to be pre∣vailed with, licèt aegrè, (as he saith in his Admonition to the Reader) by the importunity of a F••iend to leaue out his name, out of a true Christian Charity, as I take it, not to stirr vp the B••le of the Hierarchicks too much. Moreouer also, not to hazard the

losing so worthy a Member as Dr. Stil∣lingfleet by some free Reflections (as he calls them) vpon his complyance, he was contented, after his Book was finished, in a leaf printed apart to be inserted towards the latter end of it to set Dr. Stillingfleet's name in the middle, between G••urnall and Conant, on the one side, and Meriton and Neston on the other, and so represent them all together, as Men who vpon the change of affairs, had ioined them∣selues to the Hierarchicks, not out of hope of Lucre or a more plentifull for∣tune, but out of the dictamen of Conscience, holding fast, saith he, to that Principle, that separation is not to be made from the Publick Ministery, but for very weighty causes, yet not so, as that th•• laid aside their former more fauoura∣ble Inclinations to the Puritans.

Eun:

This by your leaue seems to me to be nothing, but plain dawhing with that vntempered Morter, of which the Prophet Ezechiel speakethin his 13^tly Cha∣pter. For what can be more inconsistent, than to make the publick Ministery Ido∣latrous, as your Friend doth, and then acknowledge, they ioin in it for Con∣science

sake? T. G. himself (the man of Intentions) acknowledges that be the Intention neuer so good, yet if the Act be forbidden, the doing it will be vnlawfull. And which way soeuer the Dr. turn him, he will find himself, if I be not deceiued in a case of much Perplexity. For if he maintain a Re∣verence to be shewed to the Altar, he puts himself in for company with the Romanists, and must either acquit them, or incurr himself the guilt of Idolatry. And if he deny any to be giuen, yet he stands condemned of Idolatry, worfe than that of the Aegyptians or Roma∣uists by your Friend the Patron, for performing the external act of worship towards the Altar; and very agreeably, to I take it, to his Principles, who asserts the External act to be forbidden, Idolatrous in the second Commandment, whereas the only external act expressly there forbidden, is that of B••wing, Thou shalt not bow down to them. But these things require a larger discus∣sion. What I intended at present, was not to engage in a particular dispute, but to let you see, (as I said at first) that what Dr. St. hath with much

labour to himself, and pain to his Readers delivered in nine hundred Pa∣ges might haue been done sufficiently (so far forth, as it relates to the Con∣test between him and T. G.) in nine or ten lines; For there needed no more, than to put down in Gothick Chara∣cter, the Four Postulat's aboue men∣tioned; The words of the Sccond Com∣mandment; and his own Excellent Gloss of the Canon of the Church of England. For the Postulata's were granted, or giuen for granted, before hand, by T. G. The words of the Command∣ment, are according to him so Express and Emphatical, that it cannot enter his mind how God should haue made them more, and therefore they needed not the Explication of man. And lastly his Gloss of the Canon, that it allows no worship to be giuen to the Altar, su∣persedes all trouble of showing any farther difference between the Cere∣mony of bowing to the Altar, and the other Instances produced by T. G. on the one side and to that of Bowing before an Image on the other.

Cathar.

By this I see, you think the Dr. might haue spared all his long

and elaborate discourses vpon these subiects, as vnnecessary, and conse∣quently his whole Book excepting nine or ten lines. This doubtlesse would haue been a great Contentment to T. G.

Eun:

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

Cathar:

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

Eun:

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

Notes

• * 1.1

  Rom. Idol. p. 60. 62.
• * 1.2

  Roman Idol. p. 59.
• * 1.3

  Catb. no Idol. p. 50.