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 FIFTH DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

THe Dr's Parallel from the Pra∣ctice of the Wiser Heathens, shown to be Un-parallel vpon many accounts: and the Argument from God's Appro∣priation of certain external Acts to his Worship, a meer Sophism made vp of Equivocations, False Suppositions, and Self-contradictions, and after all to con∣clude nothing against the doctrine of the Church of Rome, or the definition of Idolatry given by T. G.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

CAthar.

However the Vulgar. Hea∣thens were such Fools, as to believe their Inf••riour deities to be truly and properly Gods, and to worship them as such; yet the Wiser of them did not so,

at least the Platonicks, of whom Aquinas according to your own Interpretation of his words confesseth that they did acknowledge one Supream God, from * 1.1 whom they said all those others, whom they called Gods, did receive their Being, and that they ascribed the name of di∣vinity to them, in the manner that Holy Angels and men in Scripture are called Gods. Nevertheless the Fathers charged them also with Idolatry for the worship they gaue to these Gods, and to their Images as Symbols and Representations of them. And vpon this Supposition it is, viz, that they were not mistaken as to the Objects of their worship, that the Dr urges T. G. to answer whether they were to blame, or no, in the manner of serving God by Images, in such a way as they describe. For if they were not to blame, the Fathers certainly were for charg∣ing them with more than they were guilty of; and if they were to blame, how come those of the Church of Rome to be ex∣cused?

Eun:

Here indeed I think you haue driven the Point to the head.

And ad∣mitting the Supposition to be as Dr. St. would haue it, me thinks T. G. gaue

a very direct Answer to the Question, when he said that they were yet to blame * 1.2 vpon a double account. 1. Because the Images being instituted by publick Au∣thority for the worship of false Gods they concurred, (as the Dr. himself ac∣knowledgeth) with the Vulgar in all the external Practices of their Idolatry, and consequently were guilty at least of the exteriour Profession of Idolatry. 2. Because though in the Schools they de∣nied them to be Gods, yet as Origen ans∣wered Celsus, (one of the Dr's wiser Heathens,) they gaue divine honour to them so farr, as that the People by their example, who were esteemed Wise and knowing men, were led into errour, and their Souls so far depressed with a False Religion that they could not en∣dure to hear any one deny them to be Gods, whom they were accustomed to worship. And this saith Origen is the crime with which we charge Celsus, and all those who confess they are no Gods.

Cathar.

A very learned Answer doubt∣less, but as Dr. St. saith hath not one wise word in it. For as he tells T. G. All * 1.3 the Question is, how this External wor∣ship

comes to be Idolatry, supposing they acknowledged one Supream God, and gave only a Relative and Inferiour wor∣ship to other Beings created by him, or to the Images of them. Wherein I pray did this Idolatry consist?

Eun:

A very learned Question indeed, but such as either hath no Sense at all in it, or it must be in the present circum∣stances, how the Philophers complyance with the Vulgar in the External prac∣tices of their Idolatry, comes to be the External Prof••ssion of Idolatry? For Internal Idolatry being excluded from their minds by the very Supposition of their acknowledging one Supream Being and giving only a Relative worship to other Beings, to ask how they come to be guilty of Internal Idolatry, will be non-Sense at best, if not a perfect Contra∣diction. T'is to the Question then in the former Sense, viz how the compliance of the Wiser Heathens with the Vulgar, comes to be an External Profession of Idolatry, that T. G. is to answer; and I think there needs no more than a litle Mother-Wit to do it. For this External worship being given to those who were believed by the Vulgar, to be truly and

properly Gods, and were by publick Au∣thority worshipped every where as such, t'is manifest I think to any man of the meanest Understanding, that whatever esteem the Wiser ones had of them, or however they directed their Intention, yet the complying with the People, (who were internally also Idolaters) in all the external Practices of their Idolatry, and that in such a manner, that they were judged to do that really, which they did but counterfeit, was at least an Exteriour Profession of Idolatry; as much as, and indeed much more than going to Church once a month here in England, and doing all other Religious Actions exteriourly as Protestants do, whatever the inward Sense of the Doer be, is an Exteriour Profession of Pro∣testantism, This is a very cleer Solution of the Question as I take it in T. G's. Principles, who makes Internal Idola∣try to depend vpon the Intention or In∣teriour acts of the Vnderstanding and Will terminating the exteriour worship vpon something, as esteemed worthy of divine honour, which in reality hath no Excellency in it to deserve it. For as the doing of this is true Internal Ido∣latry,

and External also, so the com∣plying with those who do it, in the man∣ner before expressed, will be an External Profession of Idolatry. But it were worth the while to know how the Dr. will solve the Question in his own Principles; ••or it being Idolatry according to him, to make any thing so farr the Object of Divine worship, that Men do bow down before it, it must be so either in the na∣ture of the thing▪ and then Bowing before the Altar also will be Idolatry; or by ver∣tue only of the Positive Law of God, and then the Heathens who did it to their I∣dols, were not vpon that account guilty of Idolatry, because not under the Law.

Cathar.

I shall not digress at present to answer for the Dr. But if this be all the defence you can make for T. G. in answer to this Question, viz that the People had other notions of the False Gods, than the Philosophers had, and yet these latter also were justly charged with Idolatry for complying with the People in the external acts of worship; I think you haue brought the business home enough to the Papists, and in par∣ticular to T. G. himself. For as Dr. St. hath well observed vpon this answer,

This is just the Case of the Roman * 1.4 Church: Their learned men haue com∣plained that the People worship the I∣mages as Gods among them. But doth T. G. saith he think himself guilty of ex∣ternal Profession of Idolatry in using the same external acts of worship with the People, though with another Intention? If not, why shall not the same excuse hold for Titius, which holds for Sem∣pronius?

Eun:

Were the case the same, it were but reason the same Excuse should hold or not hold for both. But here the case is so different that nothing but the Ad∣mirable Faculty which the Dr. hath of making Parallels could haue put them together. For supposing the matter of the complaint to be true, what conse∣quence is it, because the publick custome among the Heathens of worshipping Jupiter, Juno, Venus &c as Gods, made it an Exterionr Profession of Idolatry in some private men to comply with them in their practices; therefore the abuses committed by some private men in the Church of Rome, where the Publick Profession is quite contrary, make the common custome to be an Exteriour Pro∣fession

of Idolatry? A wider Consequonce surely was never seen. But with your leave, Catharinus, I shall give you a case in the Church of England, much more paralel to the Dr's. than his of the Divines of the Church of Rome to that of the Philosophers. And it is this. Some learned men of the Reformation haue complained that not only the People, but the Wiser sort make an Idol of the Altar in making it so farr the Object of Divine worship as to bow down before it. But doth Dr. St. think himself guilty of external Profession of Idolatry in using the same External act of worship with them? If not, why shall not the same excuse hold for Sempronius, that holds for Titius?

Cathar.

Methinks you haue as good a faculty in making Paralels, as the Dr.

But I pray tell me, Eunomius, what ex∣cuse can those of the Church of Rome give for themselves, which the Philofo∣phers might not haue given? Will they undertake (as Dr. St. there addes) to defend the follies of the Ignorant people? No. They do not think themselves bound to do it, but blame them for their ignorance and Superstition, and say the

Church is free, because it hath taken * 1.5 care to instruct them better. And might not the Philosophers have said the very same thing' We are not bound to answer for the madness of the rabble; we instruct them better, and our Schools are open for them to learn: But since the nature of such actions depends vpon the In∣tention of the D••ers, we declare our In∣tention to be to honour t••e Supream God in the first place, but all others whether Celestial Deities, Aerial d••mo••s, or the Souls of deified men with a worship In∣feriour to his: And according to the worship we give to the Beings repre∣sented, we give worship to the Images or Representations. And if you allow the distinctions of Divine worship into soveraign and subordinate, into ab••olute and relative, what harm is there in all that we do? Indeed, if it be unlawful to Worship God by an Image; if it be un∣lawful to give any divine worship to any creature, we are then to blame, and are justly condemned; other wise we think we stand vpon equal terms, with those who make use of the same distinctions, and only change the names of some, and the Persons of others. Thus T. G. may

see the Parallel is not so extravagant, as he would make it to be.

Eun:

Here it is we haue another of the Dr's Figures of Rhetorick, but ground∣ed vpon as many false suppositions almost as there are words: as 1^st that the Follies of the People of the Church of Rome are equall to those of the Hea∣thens, that is, that they believe the Saints to be truly and properly Gods, chāging only the names of some, and the Persons of others, and give worship to their Images as such. 2^ly That they are proposed as such by the Profession of that Church, and their Images publickly Instituted to be worshipped on that account. 3^ly That the Philosophers took as much care to instruct the People better, by their Pu∣blick Prof••ssions, Catechisms, and Ser∣mons, as the Divines of the Church of Rome do. 4^thly That those of the Church of Rome give the same external acts of worship to the Saints, which the Hea∣thens did to their Inf••riour deities, as ordaining Priests, offering Sacrifices, and performing other Religious Rites, which by the publick custome of that time, and the common consent of man∣kind, were understood to be due only to

true divinity. 5^thly That the Philosophers used the distinctions of Soverain and Subordinate, Absolute and Relative worship in the same Acts, and with the same determination of circumstances, as to the Exteriour Profession of Ido∣latry, which those of the Church of Rome do. 6^thly That the sole Intention of the Doers is according to T. G. sufficient to free them from it. 7^thly That it is un∣lawful to worship the true God by any Image. 8^thly That it is unlawful to give any divine worship, (though equivocally so called because given for his sake) to any creature. When the Dr. hath proved all these Suppositions, and they must all be proved to make the Parallel hold, it will be time for him to tell us, that the Philosophers stood vpon equal terms with those of the Church of Rome, as to the Exteriour Profession of Idolat••y, which is the Point we are now vpon; till then he must give me leaue to think the Parallel is altogether as extravagant as T. G▪ would make it.

Cathar.

The concern I see you haue to free the Papists from the note of Ido∣latry makes you seek and catch at every petty circumstance, though never so

remote and Invisible, which may seem to make a difference between them and the Heathens. But when all is done, you will never be able to save them. For if there be some peculiar external acts of worship appropriated to God, the giving of them to any creature, as the Papists do to Saints and Images, will be not only an exteriour Profession of Idolatry, but very Real Idolatry. For as Dr. S. saith very well, It belongs to God * 1.6 to appropriate acts of worship to himself, and having appropriated them they become due only to him: And therefore they who do those Acts to any besides him∣self do give to the creature the worship due to God alone, which is the very de∣finition of real Idolatry T. G. contends for.

Eun:

I cannot deny, but that I have as great a concern to see any Christians charged with more than they are guilty of, by Dr. St. or any other; as himself hath for the Fathers doing it, as he sup∣poses, to the Heathens: for as I told you before, I loue not to see People repre∣sented worse than they are. And besides I see, that whenever the matter is brought to a tryal, those of the Church of

England will be forced to make use also of the distinctions of Soveraign and Subordinate, Absolute, and Relative worship to salve the Reverence or Re∣ligious respect as I may call it, they shew to Holy Places and things, and parti∣cularly that of bowing to the Altar, for the Relation they haue to God; and the Philosophers will stand as much vpon equall terms with them, as with those of the Church of Rome; of which I haue giuen you a sufficient Specimen in the agreement as to this matter I shewed there was between the Dr. himself and Card. Lugo. * 1.7

But now for this mighty Argument of God's appropriation of external acts to his worship, although I haue already * 1.8 shown the ruine it throws vpon the other Argument he draws from the Practice of the Heathens, or rather how it serves for an Apology to free them from the note of Idolatry; yet because I see you think the Dr. hath done won∣ders in it against those of the Church of Rome, I shall let you see tha•• the only thing to be wonderd at in it, are the many Equivocations, false Suppositions, and self-cōtradictions contained in it And

to proceed with greater clearness, pray tell me what it is you understand by Gods appropriating Acts of worship to himself; for more or less may be requi∣red, and so the term be Equivocal.

Cathar.

What I understand by it, and what I suppose Dr. St. means, as appears to me from his own words, is 1. God's * 1.9 appointing certain external acts to be used in his worship, 2. his tying us to perform them to him, and 3. restraining us from doing them to any other; For by his ap∣pointment and command they become due to him; and by his Prohibition to give them to any other they become due only to him.

Eun:

This is a very cleer description so far as it goes, but still methinks there is something wanting to make the Argu∣ment conclusive, against those of the Church of Rome, and that is, that God hath so tied these acts to his own wor∣ship, that in all cases, and vpon all ac∣counts imaginable they become incommu∣nicable to any other, and this so fastned to them, that it cannot be separated from them. For if in some cases, or vpon some accounts they may be communicable to others besides God, Sempronius may

come in for his Share, as well as Titius, and if the Appropriation may be sepa∣rated, the Romanists may and will pre∣tend it is.

Cathar.

I do not remember that this is any where expressed by the Dr. but I suppose it is sufficiently implied in the three forementioned conditions, for I do not see how the argument can con∣clude without it.

Eun:

But here then, Catharinus, either you are mistaken, or the Dr. con∣tradicts himself, when he affirms, that * 1.10 although the outward acts be the same (for example of bowing or kneeling &c) yet the external circumstances which do accompany mens acts, are those which do so circumscribe and limit them, that from thence they become either Civil or Reli∣gious. For if they may be communicable to o••hers besides God, as limited with such and such Circumstances, they are not ab∣solutely appropriated to God in all cases and vpon all accounts imaginable; and so the Argument does not conclude, but leaves the Romanists at liberty to plead as much for the lawfulness of bowing to Images, from the Circumstances or vpon the Account, with which they do it, as

the Dr. thinks himself to be for the law∣fulness of bowing to the Altar. Hitherto then we are to seek what it is the Dr. means by God's appropriating acts of worship to himself, farther than as he saith, it is his tying us by his Command to perform them to himself, and restrain∣ing us from doing them to any other. But it may be some farther light may be gathered from the Acts themselves. Pray what are they?

Cathar.

The Dr. reckons six, viz, Sacrifice, Religious Adoration, Solemn Invocation, Erecting Temples and Al∣tars, Burning of Incense, and making Vows.

Eun:

He might haue added more if he had pleas'd as Swearing by the name of God, Instituting of Festival days, and the like: But do you not think he hath reckoned too many already. What think you, Catharinus, hath God tied us by his command to offer Sacrifice, or burn Incense, or make Vows to him? I do not believe you will grant he hath, nor the Dr. neither. What kind of proceeding then is it in him to argue the Romanists guilty of Idolatry vpon the Account of giving acts appropriated to God to others

besides him, when himself, if put to it, will deny that God hath commanded them to be done at all to him?

Cathar.

But the Papists acknowledge them to be due to God, and all external acts of worship due to God, being for∣bidden to be given to creatures, t'is an Argument, as you call it ad hominem a∣gainst them.

Eun:

But the same Papists, as you call them, do not give to creatures those acts which they hold absolutely due to God, nor any other, as they are due to God, that is, as they are signs of the in∣ward submission of our minds to him, but as they are not appropriated to God, that is, as they are signs of an Inferiour respect and Veneration, and so the Ar∣gument is not ad hominem to them, unless you can prove that God hath commanded them to be given to himself and for∣bidden them to be given to any other in all cases and vpon all accounts what∣soever, and then that they give them so appropriated to any creature.

Cathar.

This I think is sufficiently plain in the Law of Moses, and of Christ also: because, as the Dr. hath well observed, Asts appropriated to the wor∣ship * 1.11

of God by his own appointment, must continue so, till himself hath otherwise declared, and Christ hath no where made it lawfull to give any acts that were before appropriate to the worship of God, to any creature.

Eun:

As for the Law of Moses, not to enter into dispute about Particular acts (as that of Bowing, which is an ex∣ternal Act of Adoration and yet was done by the Jews to the Ark) I answer in general that not any thing of that Law being obligatory to any besides the Jews, precisely as commanded by that Law, but as it was contained in the Law of nature, and the force of that Law being taken away by the Promulgation of the Gospel, t'is evident it can oblige Chri∣stians no otherwise than in vertue of the Law of nature, unless some express com∣mand or Prohibition of Christ intervene: And therefore whatever is not obliging, by the Law of nature, or some such ex∣press declaration of the will of Christ, is left at liberty for the Church to use conformably to the Light of Nature, and the design of Christs doctrine. For as Dr. St. now vpon second thoughts * 1.12 saith, In the worship of God, all things

are lawful that are not forbidden. As for what you urge, that Christ hath no where made it lawful to give any acts that were before appropriate to the worship of God, to any Creature, it is but a Nega∣tive Argument from Authority, and of no force, especially in the present case, where a Positive declaration is neces∣sary.

Cathar.

And such a one I shall give you: For as the Dr. saith, Christ hath * 1.13 not only nowhere given the least Intima∣tion, that any Acts which before were peculiar to God, may now be given to any else besides him; but instead of this he lays down the same Fundamental Precept of worship which was in the Law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only ••halt thou serve: And he explains it more clearly to avoid all ambiguity in it, by expressing that restrictive particle only which was implyed before.

Eun:

But what is this, but to thrust the sword into his own Bowels? For if the Argument be good, he must confess himself obliged to offer Sacrifice, and burn Incense, and make Vows to God, which I believe he will not do. For this, as now managed by the Dr. is a Point

that concerns not only those of the Church of Rome, but all Christians, if th•• Precept be to be understood as a Re∣establishment of those Acts, in the new Law, which he saith, were before pe∣culiar to God in the old, and Christians will be as much tied by vertue of this Precept to give them to God, as not to give them to any other. But if the fore mentioned particular Acts of Sacrifice burning Incense, &c be not re-established by this Precept, what Consequence is it, that they are forbidden to be given to any other besides God, because they were appropriate to him in the Law of Moses, the force of which Law is now taken away by the Preaching of the Gospel? Surely none at all, unless he will acknowledge those very acts to be due to God by the Law of nature also, or vpon some other account than that of the Law of Moses.

By what hath been said, you see what a Mass of Equivocations, False sup∣positions and self-Contradictions are here jumbled together by the Dr. not un like the Ingredients of the Poets Chaos, non bene junctarū discordia seminarerum, to make vp a peice of plausible So∣phistry

to surprize such as are carried away with the sound of words, and are not able or willing to penetrate into the sense and meaning of them. But that which is most of all to be admired, is that admitting the Argument to be good, it proves nothing against those of the Church of Rome, who neither give any act abso••utely appropriated to God to any else besides him; nor any other in the manner it is appropriated to him. For the Appropriation they had or may be sup∣posed to have had by the law of Moses being taken off by the Abrogation of that law, and no n••w one produced by the Dr. in the law of Christ, as hath been shown, those of the Church of Rome cannot be convinced of Idolatry for those they use towards Saints and Images by vertue of any Appropriation from any positive law of God. The Argument then you see such it is, whether good or bad concerns not those of the Church of Rome.

Cathar

But I hope it concerns TG, for supposing the fore-mentioned Acts to be due to God, the givi••g all or any of them to any besides himself will be to give to the crea••u••e the worship due to God alone, which is the very definition

real Idolatry T. G. contends for.

Eun:

To this Janswer, that supposing (not granting) the fore mentioned ex∣ternal acts to be now due to God by this law, the giving them to any besides him∣self will be to give to the creature the worship due to God, if it be done with an intention to give them to a creature as esteemed worthy of divine honour; I grant it is the very definition of real Ido∣latry which T. G. contends for. If with∣out such an intention I deny it: For as it will not be Real Religious worship, but fictitious to give them to God himself, if it be not done out of a true esteem of his supream excellencie as worthy of it, So to give them to any else besides him without an intention to do it out of afalse esteem of the object's worthiness, will not be real Idolatry in the nature of the thing but Fictitious, though from the Appro∣priation they have by the law of God, (Supposing such a law to be in force) or other circumstances, it may and ought in reason to be interpreted to be real Idolatrous worship, as an Hy∣pocritical act of worship may and ought from the circumstances to be esteemed truely and realy Religious till the cōtrary

be made evident. And the reason of this is, because Idolatry is a sin directly oppo∣site to Religion, as a False worship to a true one, not as Hypocrisy which coun∣terfeits to worship the true God, (and the Dr himself if you remember distin∣guishes it from Idolatry, though how agreably to his Principles I know not:) nor as worshipping the true God after an unlawfull manner, for no man I think will condemn the I ews at present of Ido∣latry for worshipping the true God with the Rites and ceremonies of the Law of Moses: but (to use the words of an emi∣nent diuine of the Church of England Dr. Taylor) as a sorsaking the true God * 1.14 and giving divine worship to a creature, or to an Idol, which saith he, is that kind of superstition, which by divines is called the superstition of an undue object. And thereupon acquits those of the Church of Rome from the guilt of Idolatry in the worship they giue to the Host, in case they should be mistaken in their belief of the Bread being changed in to the Body of Christ: because ••h••object of their Adoration (that saith he, which is represented to them in their minds and thoughts and purposes in the B. Sacra∣ment)

is the only true and Eternal God hypostatically joined with his Holy Humanity. Hence though the Divines make Idolatry, as I said to be directly opposed to Religion, yet they say that con∣comitantly it is opposed to Faith, or sup∣poses an Errour in Faith. For as Card. Tolet hath well observed, as there is not * 1.15 the true worship (which is Religion) un∣less Faith be supposed in the understanding by which we acknowledge the Excellency of the object (God) to which we submit our selves: So also there is not the false worship which is Idolatry, unless there be a precedent errour in the understanding by which we iudge that to deserve divine honour which doth not. And this is so ma∣nifest * 1.16 that the Dr. himself confesseth it was well observed by the Cardinal, that although Idolatry do suppose an Errour in the mind, yet that Errour lies in judg∣ing that to deserve divine horour which doth not: and grants it may be consistent with the belief of the supream Excellency of God. By which I see (to use his own words) that after all he is a good natured * 1.17 man too, and although he will shew a thou∣sand tricks, rather than be thought to haue it forced from him, yet let him alone, and

be will give as much as a man would desire. For what could T. G. wish for more than he here grants? 1. that the Errou•• which Idolatry supposes, lies in iudging that to deserve Divine honour, which doth not. And 2. that it may be con∣sistent wi••h the belief of one supream God. For the former destroys the chimerical notion of Idolatry he contends for, [viz of an Image••s being made so farr the object of divine worship that men do bow down before it, in case God have forbidden it by his law] For now it is not Real with him, unless it be done out of an erroneous judgmēt as to a thing that deserves divine honour. And the latter quite ouer∣throws the Parallels he draws from the practice of the Heathens, because it being now granted by him, that the Er∣roneous beleif of a creatures deserving divine honour when it doth not, may be consistent with the belief of one supream God, if the vulgar Heathens did believe those whom they worshipped to deserve divine honour, (as most certainly they did) their case is manifestly different from those of the Church of Rome, who do no such thing. And if Idolatry suppose such an erroneous belief in the mind, the

meer giving external acts of worship to a creature without such a judgment in the Wiser Heathens, could not accor∣ding to him be Real Idolatry, but Picti∣tious only and Hypocritical. And it is very observable, that when he first began this controversy he did not charge all those of the Communion of the Church of Rome absolutely with Ido∣latry, but that they must be guilty either of Hypocrisy, or Idolatry either of which, he saith are sins inconsistent with saluation; which sufficiently insinuates he thought the meer external compliance with those who were truly Idolaters, not to be real Idolatry, but Hypocrisy, though by rea∣son of the circumstances it might and ought to be presumed to be real. But then again in case the Dr. with all his subtilty could make it out to be real Ido∣latry to give external acts of divine worship to a creature or an Idol, meerly for fashion's sake, or out of fear, or some other Passion, without such an Er∣roneous judgment, it would signify just nothing to those of the Church of Rome, who neither give external worship to those who are falsly believed to be Gods, and commonly worshipped as such; nor

any Act appropriated to God by his law, either absolutely, or in the manner they are appropriated to him whilst the Ap∣propriation lasts, as hath been shewed. Finally it appears to me after all, that all that dust which the Dr. hath ra••••••d to make it seem Idolatry to giue to a crea∣ture external acts of worship appropria∣ted to God, comes at length to be a dis∣pute about words, for as much as concerns the cause of the Church of Rome; For Whether it be Idolatry or no the thing which the Dr. himself means by the word, and of which he accuses the Church of Rome, is confess't by the Romanists, themselves to be a sin inconsistent with salvation, and if the Dr. can prove them guilty of it I shall confess he hath done his own work and theirs too.

Cathar.

In this I think you haue rea∣son, for this would be sufficient to make all those who haue a care of their Salva∣tion to abhorr their Communion. And I shall endeavour at our next meeting, (which I intend shall be our last upon this account,) to make it appear from Principles laid by the Dr. that they are guilty of damnable sin at least, if not of Idolatry for giving to creatures Acts ap∣propriated

to the worship of God.

Eun:

This I confess will be to smite the Church of Rome under the fifth ribb if it can be proved. But in the mean time I hope you will remember how all the fine things which the Dr. hath said of God's appropriating external acts of worship to himself, as, that it belongs to him to do it, and having done it, they be∣come due to him; and being become due to him, must continue so till himself hath otherwise declared; and that in stead of declaring otherwise, he hath confirmed the Appropriation anew by laying down the same Fundamental Precept of wor∣ship in the newlaw &c if they be of any force at present to make it to be Idolatry, to bowdown before the Image of Christ with intention to worship him by it, they will haue the same force to conclude the practice of bowing to the Altar, to fall under the same crime. For if bowing be one of the Acts which God hath ap∣propriated to his own worship; and ha∣ving appropriated it, it becomes due on∣ly to him, They who do this Act to the Altar do give to the creature the worship due to God alone which the Dr. saith is on all sides confessed to be Idolatry: So

necessary it was for the Dr. to haue taken the ••aution which Mr. Thorndike gives to those who will be charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry. It is necessary saith he, to provide, that we contradict not our selves.

Cathar.

And therefore, I confess; were I as the Dr. I would not so much as nod with my head, to it, much less wor∣ship it with my whole Body.

Eun:

Perhaps you may scruple the having either of them done to your self; and so without farther Ceremony at pre∣sent Ibid you farewell.

The End of the Fifth Dialogue.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Supr. p. 403.
• * 1.2

  Cath∣no I∣dol. p. 108.
• * 1.3

  Def. p. 468. p. 4••••.
• * 1.4

  Def. p. 4••5.
• * 1.5

  Def. •• 456.
• * 1.6

  Def. p. 269.
• * 1.7

  See Pa∣ges 228. 229. 230.
• * 1.8

  Supra. p. 148. &
• * 1.9

  Def. p. 270.
• * 1.10

  Def. p. 192. 193.
• * 1.11

  p. 261. 262.
• * 1.12

  Supra. ••. 47.
• * 1.13

  Def. p. ••6••.
• * 1.14

  Lib of. Proph. Sect. ••, n. 26.
• * 1.15

  S••••. Cas. lib. 4. c. 14. ••. 4.
• * 1.16

  Def ••. q. 6
• * 1.17

  ••. 276.