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 ARGVMENT.

WHat Dr. St. ought to haue done to maintain his Charge. The first thing was to haue laid down the true Notion of Idolatry in the Nature of the thing, antecedently to any Positiue Prohibition. The Notion he giues of it shown to be insufficient; and the Hea∣thens not iustly chargeable with Idolat••y by vertue of it. The Consequence he urges from the worship of Images to a like worship of all other Beings declared vseless: And a Specimen given of his rare Insight in Mystical Theology.

CATH ARINVS. EV NOMIVS.

CAthar.

You promised. Eunomius, to tell me at our next meeting,

what it was the Dr. ought to haue done, but hath not done to maintain his charge of Idolatry. And I pray let me know, what it is without suspending my longing with another Preamble like that of the unfortunate Laconian.

Eun:

I shall do my endeavour to comply with your desire both in the one and the other. Nature and Art, you know, both tell us, that the first thing to be done in a Dispute (if the disco∣very of Truth and satisfact on of the Reader be intended) is to settle the State of the Controversy vpon its right Grounds. And that nothing tends more effectually to the doing of it, than to lay down the true Notion of the matter in debate; without which though much Wit perhaps may be shown, and much Reading too, yet All to litle purpose. What therefore I think Dr. St. ought to haue done, had his businesse been to manage his Charge of Idolatry so as not to amuze, but satisfy his Reader, was in the First place to haue given us the true notion of Idolatry in the na∣ture of the thing; and then in the se∣cond place to haue shown that Notion to haue agreed to the Honour and Ve∣neration,

which the Church of Rome in her Councils declares may be given to the Images of Christ and the Saints. This had been to set the matter in it's true light; But he chose rather to dazle the eyes of the Reader with the false lights of meer External Acts, the obs∣cure practice euen of the Wiser Hea∣thens, and the clashing of School-di∣vines.

Cathar:

Euery one you know, Eu∣nomius, is at liberty, especially the Accuser, to lay and manage his Charge in the Method and way he deems best for his cause. And al though Dr. St. haue drawn in these Auxiliaries to his As∣sistance, and insist very much vpon them; yet methinks you are much mistaken when you say he hath omitted those things, which you iudge to be the only necessary ones. And for the first of them I cannot but wonder, how you could forget, that the first thing he aduances, in the uery first Page of his Defence, to make good his Charge of Idolatry, is to lay down the right Notion of it.

J begin, saith he, with the consideration of the nature of Idolatry, not only be∣cause my Adversary calls me to it in these

words, [Here the Axe is laid to the * 1.1 Root, and if euer the Dr. will speak home to the purpose, it must be vpon this Point: He must speak to the Na∣ture of the thing &c.]

But because the weight of the whole matter depends vpon it. And then hauing refuted T. Gs. no∣tion of Idolatry at large in his first Chapter he lays down the Notion of Divine worship in the Second. What could haue been done more Methodi∣cally by the best School-Divine of them all?

Euno:

This was a fair Beginning in∣deed, had he gone on to pursue it in the sense it was proposed by his Adver∣sary, but like a Preacher, that has patch'd vp a Sermon out of his note-Book, he names the Text, and then takes his leaue of it. What his Adversary call'd him to in that place, was to speak to the Notion of Idolatry in the Nature of the thing, independently of any Posi∣tive law.

For speaking there of the Reverence shown by Moses and Jo∣shua to the G••ound by putting of their shoes, he saith, If it were Idolatry in the nature of the thing to put off their shoes in Reverence to the Ground, God's

command could not make it to be otherwise, And if it were nor Idolatry in it self to do it, neither is it to giue a like honour to the Image of Christ. From whence it followeth, to the v••ter ruine of all the Dr hath ar∣gued f••om his pretended Prohibition, that as no command of God can make that to be not Idolatry, which is so in the nature of the thing: so no Prohibition (if there were any) could make that to be Idola∣try, which hath not in it the true and Real nature of Idolatry. This done he tells the Dr. Here it is the Axe is laid to the Ro••t, and if euer he will speak home to the purpose, it must be vpon this Point. He must speak to the nature of the thing.

This is what T. G. call'd him to: and I saw very plainly there must be such a thing as. Idolatry independently of any Positive law of God; and that Dr. St. by the manner of his Procedure was engaged to speak to it: because other∣wise the Heathens (of whom he makes so much vpon all occasions) before that Law was made, and afterwards also, if not promulgated to them▪ could not haue been iustly charged with Idolatry. This therefore I carried along with me in my mind, whilst I read ouer his

discourses. But after I had tired my self with seeking for it in his first Part consisting of three hundred and forty seuen Pages, in which he pretends to con∣sider the nature of Idolatry, I found that in the sirst Chapter he imposed a fallacious Notion of the Heathens Ido∣latry vpon T. G. for himself to triumph in impugning it, viz that the particu∣lar Idolatry of the Heathens consisted in giuing Divine worship to the Diuel, as if T. G. had asserted them to be Idola∣ters vpon no other account: And in the Second he giues no other notion of it himself, but that of an External Act of worship standing vnder a supposed (but not proved) Prohibition. For al∣though he assure T. G. vpon his word, p. 269. that he meant very Real Idola∣try, yet he immediately adds that it was vpon this Reason, because it be∣longs (saith he) to God to appropriate Acts of worship to himself, and that hauing appropriated them, they become only due to him. And after a long dis∣course to the same purpose, (though nothing to the purpose) he tells vs over again p 275. for fear we should mistake him, that the meaning of it

all is no more, than to show that Ado∣ration of Images is Idolatry by vertue of that Commandment. And by the way is in such a chafe with T. G. for offe∣ring to vnderstand some words of his to imply Real Idolatry antecedently to any Prohibition, that he compares the attempt to a Thunder-Shower full of sulphur and darkness with a terrible Crack, and looks vpon Gun-powder, as a needless Invention to blow a Man vp in comparison of a Train of Conse∣quences f••om his own words, let but T. G. haue the laying of it. Nothing then can be more euident, than that the Dr. notwithstanding his fair proposal, meant not to speak to the nature of Idolatry in it't self, which his Adversary call'd him to, and vpon which the weight of the whole matter in debate depends; parti∣cularly that which concerns the Hea∣thens, as I said before; and which for the want of it must needs fall to the ground. For if by very Real Idolatry he mean no more, than that to giue any worship to God by an Image is such only vpon the account of being forbidden by a Positiue Law, viz, the 2^d Command∣ment, all the arguments, he draws from

the supposed Practice of the Heathens, as worshipping the true God by their Images (which make vp well neer one half of his Book) are blown vp with this rare Invention of his, and made of no use either to himself or his cause; because the Law not being giuen or pro∣mulgated to them, they can be no far∣ther concerned in what is forbidden by it, than as it is evil in its self antecedently to any such Positiue Prohibition.

Cathar;

But, as Dr. St. saith very well, p. 263. What notion of Idolatry could the Heathens haue, bu•• what was the same the Jews had from the Law of Moses? The notion of Idolatry was a new thing among them, who knew no harm at all in giuing Divine honour to Crea∣tures. From whence should they vnder∣stand the sinfulness and the nature of it, if not from some Law of God?

Eun:

This was kindly done of the Dr. to make this Apology for the poor Heathens, who had stood him in so much stead. But had not his kindness made him forget what S. Paul saith Rom. 2. that when the Gentiles who haue not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, these hauing not the Law

are a Law vnto themselues, ••ho shew the wo••k•• of the Law written in their hearts, their Conscience bearing witness, and their though••s between themselues accusing or else excusing one another? And how by vertue of this Law, which was written in their hearts, and not of the Law of Moses, the same Apostle in the Precedent Chapter declared them inexcusable for giuing divine honour to Creatures; because that which may be k••own of God, was manifest in them: for God, saith he, manifested it to them, in as much as the Invisible things of him, euen his Eternal Power and divinity are seen from the Creation of the world, being vnderstood by the things tbat are made. Here you see S. Paul plainly as∣serts a Law written in their hearts by which they might and ought to haue vnderstood the natur•• and sinfullness of Idolatry. And if their hearts were so blinded with the loue of the Creatures, as not to know any harm at all in giuing them divine honour, yet this hinders not but that there was harm in it, and that it was sinfull in its own nature an∣tecedently to the Law, as Concupiscence was, although the Apostle saith he

knew it not to be sin, but by the Law. Here then it was that the Dr. should haue laid the Axe to the Root, and added a 7^th Chapter to show wherein the de∣ordination or sinfulness of Idolatry con∣sists antecedently to any Positive Prohi∣bition; and till this be done, you must giue me leaue to say of the other six, what Virgil said of the walls of Carthage, when left vnfinished.

Pendent opera interrupta, minaeque.

Mu••orum Ingentes. Twas necessary for him to haue setled the notion of Ido∣latry in the nature of the thing; and not after a mighty Bravado, as if he meant nothing less than to do it, to divert and amuze his Reader with a tedious discour∣se of External Acts of worship, as stan∣ding vnder a Positiue Prohibition, though to the vtter ruin of the aid he proposed to his cause from the Paralel he draws from the supposed practicae of the Hea∣thens, who were not under the Law, and therefore if they were Idolaters, it must be vpon some other account abstracting from the Law. But this it is to be a Dragon at Controversy.

Cathar:

Yet when all is done, Eu∣nomius, you must giue me leaue to tell

you, that the securest way to settle the Notion of Idolatry, must be from such a Prohibition. For, abstracting from that, in comes the distinction of Abso∣lute and Relative Worship; and I do not see, but by vertue of that, if it be admitted, Men may worship the sun, the starrs, the Earth, or any other creature, with the same kind of worship that they doe an Image, and be no more guilty of Idolatry in the one than in the other. And in what will this differ from the practice of the Heathens?

Eun:

This is a thing frequently and * 1.2 mightily objected by Dr. St. and the Consequence, as the world goes, seems not much vnlike to that of the Im∣prouem••nt•• of the Speaking-Trumpet fancied by a late Virtuoso, as being made capable to carry the voice, if a league off. then eight mile about, if eight mile about, then round a whole County: If round a whole County, then why not from one Nation to another, there being no stop in Art? And so there will need saith he, but one Pa••son to preach to a whole County, from the most Eminent place in it; and Princes may convers and treat without the great charge and

trouble of Embassadors.

Cathar:

This is a Fancy you haue met with in some Idle Poet or other; but nothing suitable to the present pur∣pose, since Art may stretch Nature too farr, and render it vnserviceable to its designs. But the Consequence we speak of is admitted very seriously by some of the Roman Divines; and Vasques in particular, a man of a searching wit, not only grants but contends for it in a set disputation, wherein he proues very well from the Principles of worship al∣lowed in the Roman Church, that God may be adored in any other Beings, Ra∣tional or Irrational, as well as in an Image; provided the mind do not rest in the Creature, but be terminated vpon God.

Eun:

For the Fancy as you call it, it matters not much where I had it: T'is the Conformity we are to mind between it, and the Extension you vrge of the worship giuen to an Image, to any other creature. For what euer the consequence of this latter may be as to Speculation, yet for the Practicablenesse of it, I think, as matters now stand with mankind af∣ter the fall of Adam, it will find as great

a stop in nature, as the Speaking Trum∣pet; the creatures euer since Sense pre∣vailed against reason, being become like stumbling-blocks to the souls of men, and a snare to the feet of the vnwise, to allure and draw them to the worship of them. And therefore those very Divines of the Church of Rome, who admit the Con∣sequence in speculation, and do not con∣demn the Practice of it in Philosophical and Contemplatiue men, who consider the Creatures purely as the works of God, and as it were behold him present in them; do notwithstanding vtterly condemn the common and promiscuous vse of it in the Vulgar, as exposing them to manifest danger of being seduced by the tempting beauty and astonishing power of the Creatures to forget the Crea∣tor, and worship them. And that this was the case of the Heathens, at least the Ge∣nerality of them, is expresly asserted by Vossius in his first Preface, Where he * 1.3 saith that the Gentils did not distinguish the Divine Power, which is from God, from that other which is in God, and there∣fore from the wonderful things of nature, concluded nature it self to be God, and the parts of it also to be deities. And this

he affirmeth to be one of the reasons which mov'd him to lay open the admi∣rable vertue and power of the Creatures in a Treatise of Idolatry, that we may know saith he, what compelled the Gen∣tils to forsake God, and stay in the worship of Nature. This is the account which Vossius giues of the prastice of the Heathens (vt relicto Deo in naturae veneratione consisterent) and it is no other than that which the Scripture and the Fathers giue of it, as I could shew at large, if need were. As for the sup∣posed Practice of the Wiser Heathens, I haue shown the Arguments which the Dr. draws from thence to support his charge, to be insignificant and vseless, both in this and the 4^th Dialogue. * 1.4

Cathar:

This defence of yours, though brought in with a speaking-Trumpet comes at last I see to be the same in sub∣stance with that of T. G. viz, that the Creatures subsisting in them selues, and * 1.5 being eviden••ly the causes of many great Benesits to mankind, the danger is greater of terminating worship vpon them, than vpon an Image, whose formal Being con∣sisting only in representation connaturally carries our thoughts and Affections to the

Person represented by it: And the danger is so much the greater, in that the Crea∣tures, he saith, represent God rudely, remotely, darkly, and imperfectly. An excellent Paraphrase no doubt, as Dr. St. observes, on the words of the Psal∣mist. The Heavens declare the Glory of * 1.6 God, and the Firmament sheweth his handy-worke. O how much the skill of a Painter exceeds the Power of God?

Eun:

This was a nicking remark in∣deed, and not to be omitted. But then you are to consider that T. G. speaks there of the Creatures comparatively to Images, viz that though they carry in them the marks and tokens of an Infinite Wisdom, Power, and Goodness, yet they are not so apparently representative of God, that vpon the sig••t of them, our thoughts are presently and effectually carried to him, as they are vpon the sight of an Image to the Person repre∣sented by it, but that there is need of a great deal of discourse to discouer the Analogy they bear to the Creator, and the dependance they haue of him for their very Being, yet so that from the great∣ness and beau••y of the Creatures, the Ma∣ker of them may proportionably be seen▪

And this, I hope, is no incongruous Pa∣raphrase of the words of the Psalmist, The Heavens declare the Glory of God, and the Firmament sheweth his handy-work. If Dr. St. haue the eye of his vn∣derstanding so elevated and penetrating, that vpon the sight of them, his mind is as presently and effectually carried to God, as from the sight of an Image to the Prototype, I belieue he is one of the most admirable Persons in the Melete∣tiques, (as the same Author calls them) in the whole world.

Cathar,

The Meletetiques? What mean you by that? some new Science invented of late by the Vertuosi?

Eun:

I mean the Excellent Art of Re∣flexion and Meditation vpon the Crea∣tures: which as it is vsed by the Vertuosi for the benefit of Mankind, or their own Curiosity, may go for a part of na∣tural Philosophy: But applied to devo∣tion, in the manner it is by Dr. St. I take it to be that part of Mystical Theology, which so in-essences the soul with God, as to make it see great Evidences of his * 1.7 Power, and Wisdome, and Goodness in an Ant or a Fly, which may suggest ve∣nerable Apprehensions of him to the

mind; when it can see nothing in any Ar∣tificial Image (though of God Incarnate dying for our sakes vpon the Cross) worthy admiration, but the skill of the Painter or Artificer; nor any thing that can warm or inflame ones devotion com∣parably to the Sun. Petrus Viretus must doubtless haue been well advanc'd in this Science, when, as the Lutherans report of him he wrote, that Cbrist Cru∣cified was represented b••tter by a Cow than * 1.8 by any Image either painted or graven. And Beza yet more, when he profess'd that from his heart he detested the Image of Christ crucified: as being an Image * 1.9 of the Cruelty of the Iews towards him, and therefore could not endure it. What a p••escinding faculty was this, to see in a C••ucifix the Cruelty of the Iews to detest it, and not see the loue of a dying God to admire it? But euery one has not made so great a progress in this kind of Meletetiques, as these men, or as the Dr himself has done. And yet I can∣not but wonder how He comes to be so Excellent in it, while he affirms the Creatures can giue no greater than Mo∣ral * 1.10 certainty of the Being of God himself, which seems to me to be no such great

Incentive to Devotion, if according to him it admit a possibility of being other∣wise.

Cathar:

yet I am sure He lays down * 1.11 this for one of his Principles, that what. ever God reveals to man is infallibly true, and may be certainly known to be his Will. And again that all supernatural Revelation must suppose (not only the moral certainty, but) the Tru••h of Na∣tural Religion: for unless We be saith he, antecedently certain that there is a God, it is impossible to be certain that God hath revealed his Will to us.

Eun:

I know very well the Dr. can say and unsay without retracting with as much Art and Ease as any man I ever read. But if you ask him, whether the Creatures afford any such Evidence of the Existence of a deity, as can inf••lli∣bly convince it to be absolutely true and so impossible to be false! He will tell you, The nature of the thing will not beare it; and consequently for any thing He or any one according to him, can certainly know from the Creatures, possibly there may be no such thing as a God. A much rarer Paraphrase no doubt than T. Gs. was on the same words of

the Psalmist, The Heavens declare the G••o••y of God, and the Firmament shew∣eth hi•• handy-work. And of those other words also of S. Paul, The Invisible things of God, even his Eternal Power and Divinity, are clearly seen, being vnderstood by the things that are made. O how much a resolute perswasion that there is a God, notwithstanding a known Possibility of Falshood, exceeds the Cer∣tainty of a Demonstration, to raise and warm one's devot••on towards him! T'was for this I suppose that Dr. St. represents the Heathens (who neither had nor could haue according to him any Infal∣lible certainty of the Being of God) so piously wary not to let their worship stay in the Creatures, but to transfort it to God; and Christians who profess to haue such certainty of his Being from the works of the Creation, so inconsi∣derately apt to terminate their worship vpon an Image. If this admirable way of inflaming Affections be well improu'd, who knows but Ignorance at length may come indeed to be the Mother of devo∣tion. But to return from whence you haue made me digress, if I haue not for∣gotten it.

Cathar:

I shall giue you time to call vpon yout me mory till to morrow. For I must now go to another meeting.

Eun:

But I pray do not you in the mean time forget that whilst the Dr. giues us no other Notion of Idolatry than that of External Acts of worship standing under a positive Prohibition, he cannot make the Heathens to be Ido∣laters, at least before the Law was giuen; and so ruins the great support of his cause from their practice. And if 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were Idolaters without the Law, as S. Paul saith they were, he hath failed to giue us the true and proper N••tion of Idola∣try; which was the first thing I said was necessary for him to haue done. The se∣cond now comes to my mind, but I shall reserve it for to morrow.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Catho. no Idol. p. 203.
• * 1.2

  Roman Idol. p. ••29.
• * 1.3

  Voss. d•• Idol. Praef. 1.
• * 1.4

  Part. 1. p 114. 115.
• * 1.5

  Cath. no Idol. p. 93.
• * 1.6

  Def. p. 805.
• * 1.7

  Rom. Idol. p. 69.
• * 1.8

  In Collo. Mompel∣gart.
• * 1.9

  Ibid.
• * 1.10

  Rat. Acc. p. 178. 286. &c.
• * 1.11

  Rom. Idol. p. 560.