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 THIRD DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

THe Second Thing Dr. S••. oug••t to haue done, to maintain his Charge of Idolatry, in the worship of Images, was to shew the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils to be Idolatrous. The doctrine of the Second Council of Nice in that Point, as stated by himself, not Idolatrous; and the Practice of bowing to the Altar, according to his Principles, flat Idol••try. An Instance of his repor∣ting, faithsully the Atthorities he al∣ledges, laid open in a passage cited by him out of Cardinal Lugo.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

EVnom.

The Second Thing I iudg'd necessary for the Dr. to haue done was after he had setled the true Notion

of Idolatry, to shew how it agreed to the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils; since t'is from them we are to take the terms of Communion with her.

Cathar:

And I wonder yet more, how you should think him defective in this, when he hath treated so largely of the doctrine both of that Wise Synod of Nice, and of that wary Council of Trent, as he calls them.

Eun:

And what is it He finds in their Decrees that he can fix the notion of Idolatry vpon, without returning it vpon himself, and the Church of England? And first for the Council of Nice. The doctrine of that Council concern••ng the Images of Christ and the Saints was no more, but that a honourary adoration be given them, like as is giuen to the Figure of the Holy Cross, to Chalices, to the Books of the Gospels and such like sa∣cred Vtensils. This was the doctrine of the Council of Nice: and how it is freed in this from the note of Idolatry by Eminent Divines of the Church of England, you haue heard before in our first Conference. What the Dr. himself saith of it in his Defence is. 1. that the

Council required true and real worship * 1.1 to be giuen to Images. 2. that it was an Inferiour worship, and not Latria. And supposing this to be as he would haue it, can any thing be clearer, than that the worship or respect which the Council required to be given to Images, was n••t the Worship due to God, and conse∣quently the Church of Rome not char∣geable with Idolatry for any thing con∣tained in that decree.

Cathar:

But still the worship, saith he, * 1.2 required is higher than meer Reverence, due to Holy places and things; which is but a different vsage and regard from other things; as the Vessels of the Church, or the Chalices are not to be vsed for common drinking. And is there no diffe∣rence think you between a Religious respect (if I may so call it) ••o sacred places and things; and all the most solemn Acts of Adoration, which were euer giuen to * 1.3 Images by the grossest and most sottish Idolaters; such as kneelings before them, prostrations, praying with their eyes fixed vpon them, as though they were speaking to them, burning Incense and lights be∣fore them?

Eun:

If Dr. St. will be so liberal as to

giue it the title of Religious respect to Holy Places and Things, t'is more than those of the Church of Rome are bound to do by the terms of Communion with her; for there is no such Expression in the Decrees of her Councils. But then again, if the degree of respect or honour to be shewed to them, be only a diffe∣rent vsage and regard from other things, as that the Vessels of the Church, or Cha∣lices are not to be vsed for common drink∣ing, what means the Church of Eng∣land by bowing before the Altar? Is not the Altar sufficiently garded by being set with in Rails, and regard sufficiently shewd to it by keeping it clean, and de∣cently couered, and not permitting it to be vsed for common eating? Why then must the Ministers bow down before it, as often as they goe in and out of the Chancel, which if the Altar had any sense would think were done to it? as I haue for certain been informed of a Countrey-fellow (something of kin as I suppose to him, who found out the brave Covie of one Partridge) who being got neer the Altar in his Ma^ties Chappel thought all the Congies had been made to him, and so as in Courtship bound 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

fell to making of legs after his Fashion to answer the great Civilities that were done him. On the other side, If the Church of England mean by this Action to shew, what the Dr. saith may be called a Religious respect, to the Altar; on the account of its being Sacred to God, why may not the Church of Rome do the same to the Images of Christ and the Saints? And if Bowing, which is an Act appropriated to God (and reckoned as such by Dr. St. himself to∣gether with consecrating, kneeling, &c. p. 861.) may be vsed for that end, why not kneeling, or prostration, or fixing of eyes in time of prayer, or burning In∣cense, or lights? What makes the discri∣mination between these Acts, if they be all appropriated to God? And if there be none made, and any of them may be vsed, is not the Church at liberty to de∣termine which or how many of them she will make vse of? However Those of the Church of Rome to purge them∣selues from Idolatry in bowing &c. be∣fore the Images of Christ and the Saints may pretend that they intend not to giue to them, the honour due to God; and those of the Church of England, that

they intend not to exhibite any Reli∣gious worship to the Communion. Table; yet I see not how Dr. St. can purge himself or the Church of England (if it be his) from that crime, when he asserts, that any Image being made so farr the Obiect of Divine worship, that Men do bow down before it (and I suppose the same holds with him for any other crea∣ture) it doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in the 2^d Commandment.

Cathar:

But this Act of Bowing is not vsed in the Church of England, as Dr. St. * 1.4 saith, with any submission of the mind towards the Altar; as it is in the Church of Rome towards Images; And herein I conceiue he makes the main point of the difference to consist.

Eun:

This is to give a new turn to the Business. For by this it should seem, that t'is not now the doing an External act appropriated to God, to the Altar, or an Image, which makes it Idolatry, but the intention of the mind with which it is done: And so the Dr. must renounce his old notion of Idolatry, and giue us a new one. But where does he read in the Decree of the Council, that it requires

submission of mind to the Images them∣selues? What the Council requires is that the Faithful salute them, and exhibite (honorariam Adorationem) a certain worship of honour to them; and whether you will call it Salutation or Adoration, Epiphanius there declares it will be the same thing, so doth the Patriarch Ta∣rasius also (Ep. ad Imperator.) when he saith, that the Adoration here meant is no other than a saluting, or if you had rather call it so, Embracing of them. And accordingly the Anathema at the end of the Council runs thus; Si quis non salu∣taverit, if any one shall not salute in the name of our Lord and his Saints their sacred Images, &c.

Cathar:

Here I confess the Fathers of that Council showed themselues wary as well as Wise: Notwithanding it is the * 1.5 Judgment of many of the most learned and Eminent Divines of the Roman Church, that by the Decree of the Ni∣cene Council such true and real worship is to be giuen to Images, as is terminated vpon the Images themselues And amongst the rest Cardinal Lugo saith, that to the worship of Images, it is not only necessary, that the External Act be performed to

the Image, viz of kissing or bowing &c. but there must be an inward Affection too which implyes submission. For, saith he, worship, as all agree, is an Expression of submission to the thing worshipped. And it would be ridiculous to say that Peter is worshipped by that token of submission which J shew to Paul. Therefore to the worship of the Image, the outward Act must express the inward submission of the mind to it; or else we must deny the Com∣mon definition of Adoration, and make a new one. And this he afterwards proues to haue been the definition of the Se∣cond Council of Nice, who did decree that true and real worship is to be giuen to Images, as they are distinct from the Exemplar according euery thing that is required to the nature of worship.

Eun:

supposing this to be as Dr. St. represents, it is but the Ratiocination of a Divine, endeauouring to shew his Opinion conformable to the words of the Council. But what if the Dr. haue strained the words and sense of the Car∣dinal beyond, and besides, if not against his meaning? T••is none of the ••audable vertues of a Contrevertist to do so; yet being a thing so frequently in use among

them, I could not hauing the Book by me, but indulge so farr to my Curiosity, as to look into the place cited by the Dr. viz de myst, I nearn. disp. 36. sect. 3. n. 37. And first I found a strange want of exactness as to the words: for what the Cardinal there saith is this.

3. Ponendum est, non it a ferri ad ima∣ginem solum actum externum osculi aut genuflexionis &c. ut non feratur etiam ad illam aliquis affectus internus, qui etiam potest dici affectus aliquis summissionis. That is, in the third place it is to be sup∣posed, that the sole external Act of kis∣sing or bowing &c. is not so carried to the Image, that some inward affection (ali∣quis internus affectus, mark that) is not also carried to it, which may be also cal∣led (potest dici, mark that also) some, or a certain kind (affectus aliquis) of submission. Now comes Dr. St. and tells us very roundly that Cardinal Lugo saith, that to the worship of Images, it is not only necessary, that the External Act be performed to the Image, of kissing or bowing &c. but there must be an in∣ward affection which implies submission. Where, (not to quarrel the words neces∣sary and must put into the Text,) I

noted that those qualifying or dimini∣shing expressions of aliquis and potest dici, were left out by the Dr. and the Sense by so doing rendred Absolute; This I liked so much the worse, for that he had prepared his Reader before hand to entertain this conceit of it, by telling him that Cardinal Lugo saith of the * 1.6 word cultus, that in approued Authors he finds it alwaies applied to signify Reve∣rence towards Superiours; which ioined to the otherwords, as translated by him, must needs breed an Impression in the Reader, that the inward affection the Cardinal required, was of giving sub∣mission to an Image as Superior. This excited me to look into the two fore∣going Positions, laid down by the Car∣dinal: where I found the first (which he asserts as most certain) to be, that when we worship an Image, the inward affection is not carried to the Image, after the same manner it is to the Prototype. For we worship, saith he, the Prototype absolutely, that is, for it's own proper Excellency; but the Image only with a Relative worship, cultu solum respecti∣vo, that is for the Excellency, not of the Image it self, but of the Prototype,

which kind of worship (cultus) he affirms to be farr Inferiour to that other, which is Absolute. Again we worship the Proto∣type, saith he, as that to which we owe that worship, and to which we pay it as a debt, and in order to which it is an act of Justice. But we do not worship the Image so, but as the term of that worship which we owe to another, that is, the Prototype.

His 2^d Position is, that we haue not the same inward submission towards the Image, which we haue towards the Pro∣totype. For we submit ourselues to the Pro∣totype, acknowledging it to be more excel∣lent than ourselues, and superior to us; which kind of submission we cannot pru∣dently conceiue to belong to an Image, nor indeed any at all, by which we submit our selues to it, preferring it before us. For this would be a foolish lye &c. No man therefore can say that the worship of an Image includes such an Internal submis∣sion, nor can there be in reason any Con∣troversy about it.

Hauing laid down these two Positions n. 35. 36. so directly contrary to the Im∣pression which Dr. St. had giuen his Reader by his dexterity in the Art of

reporting faithfully, (as he promised) the words and sense of the Authors cited by him, he immediately adds in the 3^d place, n. 37. the passage alledged by the Dr. viz that the sole external act of kis∣sing or bowing, is not so carried to the I∣mage, but that some inward affection also goes along with it, which he saith may be called also (aliquis affectus) some kind of affection of submission. Here vpon I was drawn yet farther to seek what k••nd of submission this was, and n. 39. I found him to mean by it an affection of submit∣ting our selues outwardly to the Image: for as much as the act of the will from which it proceeds is an affection of per∣f••rming those acts about their Images, which we are wont to exercise towards our superiors. And then declares himself far∣ther in these words. J truly yeild, saith he, in point of external honour to an I∣mage, giuing it a better and higher place, treating it honorably, and the like; but this which J do exteriourly, J do not only interiourly will, but intend also to signify that J haue an intention of per∣forming all these things, for the word Adoro, or J worship, signifies saith he, this affection of the mind towards Holy

Images; Therefore J signify some inward purpose of yeilding and submitting my self as to my outward deportment, to the Image. And this very purpose or affection is that saith he which we call Internall submission. For we intend neither to say, that we esteem it interiorly to be more perfect than our selues, or that it is superior to us, nor to haue any dominion ouer us, for which we ought to serue it. Who can say this? But only that we haue interiourly an intention of performing outwardly towards an Image for the excellency of the Prototype who is represented by it, those acts of external submission, which we are wont to perform towards those who are more excellent, and haue dominion ouer us; because all this honour is due to the Prototype also in his Image, which in reality, saith he, Sect. 4. n. 49. is no other than to say, that the Prototype in it self deserues to be treated honourably, not only in it self, but in all things which haue connexion with it, as its Image or Garment or the like. This is the Expli∣cation the Cardinal himself giues, of what he saith may be called affectus ali∣quis submissionis, some kind of affection of submission.

And now I pray consider what a different face of things here is, from what they were represented by Dr. St. and how farr the Cardinal is from ac∣knowledging any submission of mind to an Image, as Superior, which is the Impression the Dr. gaue his Reader by forestalling his Judgment, with those other words of the Cardinal, viz, that he had found the word worship in ap∣proued Authors to be alwaies applied to signify Reverence towards Superiors, which may be done, by performing ex∣ternal acts of honour to them either in themselues, or in such things as haue connexion with them: and then endea∣uouring to fix it deeper by leauing out in the passage translated by him, the words Aliquis, and potest dici, vsed on purpose by the Cardinal to qualify the term submission, as applicable to an Image in the manner you haue heard. Had T. G. whom the Dr. calls a man of Tricks, play'd such a trick of leger de∣main as this, what sad complaints should we haue had of his want of Candour and Sincerity? What hearty wishes of his fair-dealing and Ingenuity? And afte•• all, what a Thundershower full of Sul∣phur,

and Nitre and darkness with a terrible Crack to his credit neuer to be repaired? What think you of this Ca∣tharinus?

Cathar:

I cannot say, that this was very fairly done, if it be as you say; And I think if men will cite Authors, they ought to do it in their own words, at least according to their own mea∣ning: Or else to what purpose is it done?

Eun:

To a great deal of purpose I can assure you. For first, it serves to breed a high conceit of the learning and knowledge of the Alledger, especially if the Citations be many and long, and out of Authors of all Nations, and all languages, and all ages, and all Reli∣gions. 2^dly It serues to captivate the as∣sent of partial Readers, and to suspend at least the Judgment of such as are Im∣partial, till they haue examined the Testimonies, which in all likelyhood will be neuer. 3^dly It serues to engage the Respondent (if he haue no more wit) to write a Volume in answer to them as bigg as a Church-Bible, or Foxe's Acts and Monuments, if any considerable part of them should chance to be like

this out of Cardinal Lugo: and so the Book to be look'd vpon as not answered, till that be done.

Cathar.

Not so neither, Eunomius, as you put the case. But if four of fiue of them be discovered to be faulty, it will serue to crack the credit, as you say, of all the rest.

Eun:

This possibly may come to be the Result after a litle time; For I durst my self undertake to shew half a score considerable faults of this nature, in that first glorious Chapter of the Drs. Defence wherein he cites so many Au∣thors both ancient and Modern, to proue the Heathens Jupiter to be the one true Supream God, and make their worship and that of the Arians paralel to that of the Church of Rome. And now because the Arians are come in my way, in whose aid the Dr. places so great confidence, I shall giue you ano∣ther instance of his sincerity in their very case, both to confirm what I haue ad∣vanced with a double witness and to let you see the vanity of the Drs. Argument from the practice of the Arians.

Cathar.

This I should be sorry to hear for the Drs. and the Cause's sake. But

for this of Cardinal Lugo though there be stretching in the case, yet I cannot belieue it was done out of design: And after all, I see very well, that he requires some inward affection of submission to an Image, which is sufficient in the pre∣sent case to make the difference wide enough between him and the Dr.

Eun:

The Cardinal saith it may be called so, in regard the External Act of bowing proceeds, as he saith, from an Intention to deferr to the Image an ex∣ternal honour not for it's self, but for the Prototype's sake; but yet in reality, he sa••th, it amounts to no more, but that the Prototype by reason of it's Excellency deserues to be treated honourably not only in its self, but in all things which haue connexion with it, as an Image or the like. And if this be the Sense of the Council, as the Cardinal endeauours to proue, however Dr. St. may quarrel with him about the words, viz, whether it may be called a certain kind of Affection of submission to the Image, or no? yet I do not see but he perfectly agrees with him in the thing: when he affirms, that al∣though * 1.7 no irrational or inanimate Being be capable of that real Excellency to

deserue any honour f••om us for it's own sake (as Aquinas, saith he, determines, and he might haue said, Cardinal Lugo too) yet such things saith he, may haue a Relation to matters of so high a nature, as to deserue a different usage and regard from other things: which is I suppose what he afterwards means by the Reve∣rence he saith there is left to be shewed to * 1.8 sacred Places, and with an (if I may so call it, iust like the Cardinal) a Re∣ligious respect to sacred Places and * 1.9 Things. For if these things, vpon ac∣count of the Relation they haue to some thing of an higher nature, deserue Re∣verence and Respect from us, there must be some Intention of the mind to express it towards them, as is granted by the Dr. himself. p. 862. And if the outward Act to be giuen, be of Bowing which is a Token or Expression of submission, there must be a proportionable Affection of the mind to perform it, for example, towards the Altar. Otherwise the out∣ward Act will be false and Hypocry∣tical, and no more honour will be done to the Altar, than to another Table by kneeling before it. Whether the Dr. will think fit to call this inward Act of

the mind, affectus aliquis submissionis, as the Cardinal thinks it may be called, (potest dici) I should advise him to dis∣pute it with him, but that he pro∣fesses so sincerely, he loues not to wrangle about words. But whilst he bows towards the Altar with intention to show that Reverence and Respect, which it deserues for the Relation it hath to God, he doth in reality all that to the Altar, which the Cardinal re∣quires to be done to an Image. So that if the one be Idolatry, the other must be so too; and if either be more than other, the disadvantage is on the Dr's side, at least as to the manner of Ex∣pression; First, because the Cardinal places the desert for which this exter∣nal deference is performed towards an Image, in the Prototype; This, saith he, in reality is no more than to say, that the Prototype deserues to be treated honou∣rably, not only in it self, but in all things which haue connexion w••th it: But Dr. St. places it in the things themselues, which he saith may deserue to haue such Reverence expressed to them for the Re∣lation they haue to God. 2^dly Because the * 1.10 Cardinal makes the same Reverence in

substance, which is terminated on the Prototype to fall after an Inf••rior manner on the Image for his sake. But Dr. St. will haue the Reverence shown to sa∣cred * 1.11 Places and things, (for example to the Altar) together with the Intention to express such outward Reverence to them on the account of their being sacred to God, to be distinct from the Reverence that is due to God: which is the very thing, Vasquez charges with Idolatry, if the Reverence shewn be a token or Expression of submission, as B••wing is: so hard a thing is it for him to meddle with those sharp-edged Tools, call'd school-distinctions, without hazarding to cut some thing more than his own fin∣gers with them, I mean the very throac of his cause.

Cathar:

This I suppose was the Reason why my Friend the Patron Bonae Fidei, said of him, that he had endeauoured to da••b and smooth ouer this kind of Adoration, but levi brachio, as he ex∣presses it.

Eun:

And in that I think he had rea∣son: For he that can see the difference between bowing towards an Image as maintained by the Cardinal, and bowing

towards the Altar as defended by Dr. St. except in words, must haue his sight sharp enough to discern Invisibles: As he on the other side must haue litle or none left him, that cannot see the diffe∣rence between the practice of the Ar∣rians, towards Christ, and that of the Chur••h of Rome towards the Saints.

Cathar:

This puts me in mind of the other Instance you promised, to confirm what you had said of the Dr's misrepre∣senting the Authors he cites. And I pray what was it?

Eun:

These are some months past, since I took notice of it: But I will look it out against our next meeting. In the mean time you may ruminate vpon his kind usage of the Cardinal.

Cath.

It hath made too great an Im∣pression vpon me to be easily forgotten.

Notes

• * 1.1

  p. 575.
• * 1.2

  Def. p. 600. 601.
• * 1.3

  p. 603.
• * 1.4

  Def. p. 86. 863.
• * 1.5

  Def. p. ••9••.
• * 1.6

  Def. p. 186.
• * 1.7

  Def. p. 600. 601
• * 1.8

  p. 862.
• * 1.9

  p. 603.
• * 1.10

  Sect. 5. ••. 62.
• * 1.11

  D••s. p. 861. 862.