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 PART. (Book 3)

THE FIRST DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

THe Notion of the Heathen's Ido∣latry imposed on T. G. by Dr. St. refuted from the Places out of which it was pretended to be gathered. The Grand Question brought to tryall, viz whether the Heathen's Jupiter were according to the Fathers, the true God, or a Devil? The former asserted by Dr. St. the latter by T. G. and proved by plain and unde∣niable Testimonies of more than a whole Jury of Fathers besides Origen. The Dr's mighty Argument from the Inscription to the Vnknown God, shown to be not only Impertinent, but against himself.

CATHARINVS. EVNOMIVS.

CAth.

Welcome Eunomius; Having consulted your Note-Book, and

considered the Point a second time, Pray tell me, if you euer met with any thing more absurd than T. Gs. Notion of the Heathen's Idolatry, as Dr. St. hath exposed it, viz, that Idolatry is the * 1.1 giving the Soveraign Worship of God to a Creature, and among the Heathens, to the devil, as if the Idolat••y of the Heathens consisted only in their wor∣shipping of the divel.

Eun:

A very absurd Notion indeed, if the Meaning of it be, that the Hea∣thens had no other Object of their wor∣ship, but that Evil Spirit which we call the devil: And such an one, as evi∣dently concludes T. G. to be no better skil'd in the Church-affairs of the Hea∣th••ns, than the Dr. would make him be in those of his own Church, or of the Church of England. For S. Augustin, who I am sure understood very well the divinity of the Heathens, speaking of the many and false Gods worshipped by them, reduces them to these three Heads. 1. The Images themselues. 2. Evil Spirits. 3. Or at best some Crea∣tures, * 1.2 not the Creator; All which, saith he, they worshipped with that Worship, which is due only to the One true God.

But Pray tell me, do you think it was T. G's. meaning to make the Heathens to be Idolaters only for worshipping the devil?

Cath.

I do not see, what other mean∣ing Dr. Sts. words can haue, when having told us in general what he and T. G. were agreed in, viz, that Idolatry is the giving the honour due to God to a Creature; he subjoins as the Point in difference between them, that the Hea∣then's Idolatry according to T. G. con∣sisted in worshipping the devil. For this latter Proposition determins the more General one to that particular Object: Just as when we say, The main Point of the Reformation consists in giving the Supream Authority in Church-affairs not to the Pope, but some other and among those of the Church of England to the King, we take the meaning to be that they acknowledge the king to be under God the only supream Head of the Church.

Eun:

The Paralel is Just, and I con∣fess it made the same Impression vpon me, when I read it, and as many others as I haue discoursed with about it. But doth the Dr. cite any passages out of T.

G's. Book to shew that he advances this absurd Position?

Cath.

A great many I can assure you from which he gathers it very plainly. * 1.3

Eun:

Pray do me the kindness to let me hear them.

Cath

That you shall, but litle to T. Gs. comfort or your own, if you intend to defend him.

1. Then T. G. saith, that the Wor∣ship of Images forbidden in the Com∣mandment * 1.4 is the worshipping Images in∣stead of God: And the reason of this Law was to keep the People in their duty of giving Soveraign worship to God alone * 1.5 by restraining them f••om I••olatry.

2^ly That this Law was made particu∣larly * 1.6 to forbid Soveraign worship to be given (as T. G. saith it was given a•• that time by the Heathens) to graven I∣mages, i. e. Representations of Imagi∣nary Beings; or to any similitude i. e. the likeness of any thing, which although it had a Real Being, yet was not God.

3^ly That the Image-worship condem∣ned by S. Paul, was the wor••hipping of * 1.7 Images for Gods, or as the Images of False Gods.

4^ly That Evil Spirits or False Gods * 1.8 did reside in their Images by Magical Incartation.

5^ly That the Supream God of the Hea∣thens was not the true God, but a devil. * 1.9 Lo here the Places, from which the Dr. saith it is no hard matter to form T. Gs. notion of Idolatry viz, that it is the giving the Soveraign Worship of God to a Creature, and among the Heathens to the devil.

Eun:

And it is well the Dr. tells us so, For had I been left to my own mother∣wit * 1.10 I should haue inferred the quite con∣t••ary from these Assertions, viz, that T. G. made the Idolatry of the H••a••h••ns to consist in giving the Soveraign wor∣ship of God not only to the devil, but to someting else besides him. For

In the 1. of these Assertions, he eui∣dently supposes the Heathens to haue been Idolaters for worshipping their I∣mages instead of God.

In the 2^d the Dr. himself confesses, that T. G. asserts Soveraign worship to haue been given by th•• Heathens both to the Representations of Imaginary Beings (of which I suppose he will not make the devils to be) or to the likeness

of any thing, which although it had a Real Being, yet was not God of which kind the Heathens had good store be∣sides the devil, as the Sun, moon, stars, Sea, Earth, &c.

In the 3^d He makes S. Paul condemn the Heathens for worshipping the I∣mages themselues for Gods, (which cer∣tainly were not devils,) or as the I∣mages of False Gods.

In the 4^th He reckons indeed the de∣vils for one of the kinds of the False Gods, to whom the Heathens gaue Di∣vine worship, but not the Only. And in the last he affirms the Heathens su∣pream God Jupiter to be one of those devils. So that had I been left, as I said, to my own Mother-wit, I should haue inferred from those very Assertions of T. G. that he perfectly agreed with S. Augustin in making the Heathens to be Idolaters forgiving the worship due to God either to the Images them∣selues, or to Evil Spirits, or to some other of the Creatures, and not to re∣strain their Idolatry to the worshipping only of the devil, as Dr. St. by his Logick would make his Reader belieue. Here then you must acknowledg the Dr.

to haue prevaricated from the Design he tells us he hath, of representing ma••∣ters in d••ff••rence truly, when he imposes * 1.11 so false a Notion of the Heathen's Ido∣latry vpon his Adversary in the very Entrance of his defence; and that from passages of T. Gs. Book, which if I understand any thing, convince it to be false. But he hath conversed so much with the Poets and Painters, who re∣present Jupiter as the Father of Gods and Men, that he seems to haue learnt from them to faign his Adversary to say, what he pleases. And it may be it was for this Reason, that although at first he said, The notion which T. G. lays down may be gathered from these Asser∣tions * 1.12 of his, yet at last he tells us only, that from th••se Assertions it is no hard * 1.13 matter to form T. Gs. Notion of Idola∣try; an expression better suiting with the Inventive Faculty of a Poet, than the Rational Collection of a Logician.

Cath.

Be this as it will, the matter seems not great. I am sure, you cannot deny but that T. G. affirms the Supream * 1.14 God Jupiter, when the Heathens cal∣led the Father of Gods and Men, not to be the true God but a Devil. An As∣sertion

so wild, absurd, and foolish, as evidently betrays the litle Skill of the Advancer of it in the Writings of the Fathers.

Eun:

Yet you know he cited Ori∣gen for it.

Cath.

I know he did and then accor∣ding to the custome of that Party, tels us very judiciously, that the Dr's Fa∣ther of Gods and men was, according to the Fathers, an Arch-devil, as if * 1.15 Origen, whom his own Church esteems to haue been Heretical, were all the Fa∣thers with him.

But the Dr. I hope will teach both him and his Fellows here af∣ter to talk more sparingly of the Fa∣thers. Is it not possible, saith he, for you * 1.16 to entertain wild and absurd Opinions but vpon all occasions you must lay them at the doors of the Fathers. I haue heard of a place where the People were hard put to it to provide God-fathers for their children; At last they resolved to choose two men that were to stand as God-fathers for all the Children that were to be born in the Parish: Just such a use you make of the Fathers; They must Christen all your Brats; And how f••olish soever an Opinion be, if it comes

from you, it must presently pass under the name of the Fathers. But I shall do my endeavour to break this bad cu∣stome of yours; and since T. G. thinks mea scarce-revolted Presbyterian, I shall make the right Father stand for his own Children. And because this is very ma∣terial toward the true Vnderstanding the nature of Idolatry, I shall giue a full account of the Sense of the Fathers in this Point; and not as T. G. hath done from one single passage of a Learned (but by their own Church thought Heretical) Father, viz, Origen, pre∣sently cry out, The Fathers, The Fa∣thers. which is like a Country-Fellow, that came to a Gentleman and told him he had found out a braue Covie of Par∣stridges lying in such a Feild; The Gen∣tleman was very much pleased with the ne••s, and presently asked him how ma∣ny there were: what half a score? No. Eight? No: Six? No. Four: No. But how many then are there? Sir, saith the Country-Fellow, It is a Covie of One. I am afraid T Gs. Covie of Fathers will hardly come to One at last.

Eun:

I See now, Catharinus, there are many ways of writing besides with

a Goos-quill. The Dr. himself represents the renowned Champion of our Lady of Loretto, writing with a Beetle. And who would not think the most renowned Champion of Jupiter wrote this with a weaker, smarter Instrument? Dionysius now turn'd Pedant neuer ranted more Magisterially with Birchen scepter in his hand; nor reforming Stepmother euer used more zealous endeavours to break the former Wife's Children of their bad customes. But what if after all this T. G. and his Fellows will not stand cor∣rected but rather venture a fleaing, than cease to cry out vpon all occasions, The Fathers. The Fathers? you say the Dr. will giue such a full account of their sense in this Point (the moyety whereof, if we may belieue him, might be suffi∣cient * 1.17 to convince a Modest man) as may serve to break this bad custome of T. G. But were it not for spoiling the plea∣sant stories of the Dr's God-fathers and Partridges, I could tell you of two Te∣stimonies more cited in that very Page by T. G. in which, had Dr. St. looked * 1.18 into them, he might haue found Theo∣philus Antio••henus and S. Augustin as∣serting * 1.19 the same with Origen. But how

should he then haue come quit with T. G. for his story of the Count••y-Fellow that disputed with the Guard about the * 1.20 h••••our due to the Chair of State? No weapon so proper against a Flail, as a Flail. But since the Dr. thought not fit to take notice of those Testimonies for fear of losing his Beloved Covie of One, I shall undertake to make it appear by more than a Covie of half a score, that T. G. had reason to say as he did, that the Heathen's Jupiter was according to the Fathers not the true God, but a Devil.

Cath.

You may spare your pains, if you please: Eunomius; For I dare ven∣ture half of all I am worth vpon the Dr's credit, that you will not find two, that will stand for the Brat.

E••n.

You shall hazard nothing with me but a litle Patience

Cath.

Of that I will giue you, as much as you please.

Eun.

First then for Origen, (the only Fa••he•• cited by T. G. as Dr. St would haue it believed) noth••ng can be more express, than what he saith in the name of the Christians of his time. We are * 1.21 ready, saith he, to undergo any torments

rather than conf••ss Jupiter to be God. For we do not believe Jupiter and Sa∣baoth to be the same, nor indeed to be any God at all, but a devil who is de∣lighted with the name of Jupiter, an Ene∣my to Men and God. This is so clear a Testimony, that Dr. St. himself is forced to acknowledg it. I grant, saith he, that Origen doth say so. * 1.22

Cath.

But, he presently addes, Sup∣pose S. Paul and Origen contradict one another, I desire to know whom we are to follow: and withall tells T. G. that though Origen were a learned Father, yet he is thought by their own Church to be Heretical.

Eun:

For S. Paul I suppose you will giue me occasion to speak of him here∣after: And for Origen's being thought Her••tical, I hope your self will be sa∣tisfied it was not sor his asserting Ju∣piter to be a devil, if I shall show, that in this he speaks not his own Sense alone, but the Sense of the Fathers that went before him. Those whose writings against the Heathens are come to our hands were chiefly Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus Antiochenus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and

Minucius Felix. I shall take them in order as they lye.

First Justin Martyr giues this account * 1.23 of the Heathen's Idolatry, that wicked devils of old appearing in Counterfeit shapes conversed with women, and wro••ght such strange prodigies in the world, that men astonished with fear, and not know∣ing them to be wicked devils, took th••m for Gods, and called every one by that name, which each devil had taken to him∣self. And a litle after he saith, The I∣mages of the Heathens, did not carry the marks and form of God, but of ••hose wicked devils who had appeared. And then again, that He that was called Jupiter was one of them, he asserts in his first Apology, where he saith, that the Poets and Mythologists, not knowing that the Angels, and Doemons begotten by them had been the Authors of the Infa∣mous practices he there speaks of, attri∣buted them to God himself, (by whom he means him, whom they esteemed their chief God and called him Jupiter, as appears by what he addes) and to the sons begotten by him, and to those who are called his Brothers, Neptune and Pluto. For they called every one by that

name, which each of the Ang••ls (i. e. Evil Angels) had imposed on himself and those begotten by him. From all which it is evident, that whatever Judgment later writers make of this Opinion of Justin concerning the Angels conversing with Women, yet it was his Sense, that the Gods of the Heathens were devils, and among them Jupiter the Supream.

2. Athenagoras first shows from what the Poets and Historians relate of the * 1.24 Heathen's Gods, that there was nothing * 1.25 in them that might induce us to believe, Saturn, Jupit••r, Proserpine, and the rest * 1.26 of them to be Gods: And then from the Interpretations of the Philosophers, pre∣tending they meant by Jupiter, the Fire; * 1.27 by Juno, the Earth: by Pluto, the Ay•• &c. having convinced them not to be Gods, neither Jupiter, saith he, nor Ju∣no, nor Pluto: He concludes that those Gods, whom the Vulgar were delighted with (of which Jupiter no doubt was one) and bare the same names with the S••atues or Images, were Men, as ap∣pears out of their History. But that they were indeed Divels, who assumed to them∣selues the names of those men, may be pro∣ved, saith he, from their Actions.

3. The same is asserted by Theophilus Antiochenus, (cited by T. G. in the * 1.28 same Page with Origen) where he saith, that neither She who is called the Mother of the Gods, nor her Children, are Gods, but Idols, the wo••ks of men's hands, and most impure devils.

4 After him follows Tertullian, and tels us. W•• know the names of dead men * 1.29 to be nothing, as well as their Statues. But we are not ignorant that those who act, and are pleased, and counterfeit a divinity under those names and consecra∣t••d Statues, are wicked Spirits that is, devils. Again, We worship, saith he, one God whom yee all know by the light * 1.30 of nature. As for the rest whom yo•• think to be Gods, we know them to be devils. And that he esteemed Jupiter to be one of them, and not the true God, is mani∣fest from what he saith in his Apol••g••∣tick, where speaking of the Supplica∣tions * 1.31 made by the Heathens to Jupiter in the Capitol, he saith, they were in so doing averse both from God and Hea∣ven. And in the 23. chapter of the same Apologetick he saith. We are esteemed not to be Romans, b••t Injurious to them, because we do not worship the God of the

Romans. T••'s well, saith he, He is the God of All, whether we will or no. But among you, t'is lawful to worship any thing but the true God; as if He were not the Great God of all, whose We are All. What could be said more express to remove that abominable pretence of the Drs. that the God of the Romans was the true God.

5. In the fifth place comes Clemens Alexandrinus, and agreably to the rest * 1.32 affirms of all the Gods of the Heathens that they are the Idols of Devils; and of the most honoured among them, that they were great Devils, viz Apollo, Diana, Latona, Ceres, Proserpina, Pluto, Hercules, and Ipse Jupiter, Ju∣piter himself. This he proves from the delight they took, as they professed, in the steam and Odour of the Sacrifices; and exacting men to be offered in sacrifice, to them, of which he giue for examples, Diana, and Jupiter. So farr was He from thinking Jupiter to be the true God.

6. But none speaks more home to the purpose than Minucius Felix: for, ha∣ving * 1.33 described the several Arts and Cheats, by which these impure Spirits

lurking (as he saith) in the Consecrated Statues gained to themselues the Autho∣rity and Esteem of a Deity that was there present, He addresses himself to the Heathens in these words, All these things many of you know that the Devils confess of themselues, as often as by us Christians * 1.34 being cast out of the bodies they possess, by the tormenting efficacy of our words and the Fire of our Prayers. Even Saturn himself, and Serapis, Jupiter (mark that) and whateuer Devils you worship, * 1.35 being overcome with the torture, openly declare what they are. Nor is it to be * 1.36 conceived they lye to their own confusion especially some of your selves being pre∣sent. Believe their own Testimony then, when they confess the truth of themselves, that they are Devils. What would Dr. St. haue said to this argument, had he been one of the Standers by, and heard Jupiter and the rest confess themseves to be devils? T'is hard to imagine. unless he will grant his true God Iupiter to haue belied himself, or deny the matter of fact to be true, which yet is avowed by Tertullian also in his Apologetick cap. 23. where he presses the Heathens with the same argument. You who be∣lieved

them, saith he, when t••ey lyed, Belieue them when they speak Truth. No one lies to his own shame, but for his honour. T'is much more reasonable to belieue them conf••ssing against themselues than denying for themselues. These Con∣fessions of your own Gods haue made many Heathens become Christians. And I do not see, what the maintaining them not to be devils, when they confess it of themselues, can do, but dispose Chri∣stians to become Heathens. What think you of this C••tharinus? Here you haue a Covie of half a dozen Fathers before Origen, who affirm the same that he doth. Had not T. G. reason then to say at he did, that the Heathen's Supream God Iupiter was according to the Fathers an Arch-devil?

Cath.

But doth not Dr. St. from these very Fathers proue that he was the true God? Do the Fa••hers blow hot and cold, say, and unsay, as they please? You haue learn't I hope of T. G. to play tricks▪ Doubtless there must be One in this.

Eun:

Yes And I hope to make you see where it lies before we haue done; if you will but comply with your pro∣mise, and haue a litle more patience,

whilst I giue the Sense of the most Emi∣nent Fathers also who lived after Ori∣gen. And first,

Eusebius; who wrote his Books de Praeparatione Evangelica expressly a∣gainst * 1.37 the Heathens, and than whom no man understood their Principles better, tells them to their Faces, that they ley, when convinced by the wicked Practices of those they worshipped, they deny that they sacrificed to devils. For to them, saith he, they gave wor••hip; to them they Sacrifi∣ced men, and committed most abominable things in honour of them whom they deem∣ed and called, the most Great Gods, viz, Saturn, Iupiter, Mars, Dionysius, Iuno, Minerva, Venus, and the most Wise and Beautiful Apollo, to all whom the Heathens gaue the Titles of Dij Optimi Maximi, & Salvatores, of the most Good and most Great Gods, and Saviours: But Eusebius proves them to be most Pernicious devils, For if they be such, saith he, as take delight in the slaughter of men, (and it is plain they are delighted with it, when they cannot be satisfied but w••th human Sacrifices) they are certainly convinced to be most wick••d Spirits.—Nay farther, when by

their Oracles and Answers they required Men to be Sacrificed to them, and most horrible Impieties to be offered in their Temples, it appears invery deed that they are by nature most pernicious and wicked. Now if you ask who they were whom he chargeth with these things, consult, saith he, but their own Historians, and you will find the whole world to haue been subject to these wicked Spirits Greece, Africk, Thrace, Seythia, the most wise people of Athens, and the Great City it self, for even there also in the Dialia men were offered in Sacrifice: Moreover Rhodes, Salamina, all the Islands, Chio, Tenedus, Arcadia, Lacedemonia, Aegypt. Phaenicia, Libya, Syria, Ara∣bia, In fine every where untill the coming of our Saviour, they appeased the most pernicious devils with the slaughter both of beasts and Men, and by most detesta∣ble abominations. F••r we haue heard their own Historians ackn••wledge that these abominations were practised and conti∣nued untill the time of Adrianus, and that then all these horrible practices were un∣derstood and laid aside; that is, when the Preaching of the Gospel of Salvation had dispersed its beames through the

world. This was the Judgment of Eu∣sebius concerning the divinity of Iupi∣ter: but it may be he was an Heretick as well as Origen; And so indeed he is esteemed by S. A••hanasius, but not for proving Iupiter and the Rest to be most wicked devils in the manner he doth: for S. Athanasius himself makes use of * 1.38 the same discourse, and for the same End, when speaking of the custome of the S••ythians in offering part of the Priso∣ners taken in warr to their Gods, he saith this Tragical cruelty was no•• to be imputed only to the natural Barbarous∣n••sse of those People; but that it was the Proper Effect of the wickedness of the Idols and devils; For the Aegyptians also saith he, were wont of old to offer such kind of victimes to Iuno. The Phae∣nicians lik••wise and those of Creet make Saturn propitious by immolating their children; And the ancient R••mans also wo••••hipped Iupiter Latiarius with sacri∣ficed men. By this you see in what esteem Iupiter was for a God with S. Ahanasius; and with him agree the rest of the Fa∣thers.

S. Cyprian in his Book of the Vanity * 1.39 of Idols, makes use of the very argu∣ments

and words of M••••ucius Felix to prove them to be wiked Spirits that lurk under the consecrated Statues and * 1.40 Images. S. Chrysostome saith that the I∣dols of the Heathens are Stone, and Wood, * 1.41 and Devils. St. Hierom that unclean * 1.42 Spirits assist in all their Images. Arno∣bius * 1.43 Senior that Jupiter whom they cal∣led Op••. Max. and to whom they dedi∣cated the Capitol, was not the true Om∣nipotent God. A••nobius Junior, that all * 1.44 the Gods of he Gentils, which were pla∣ced in the Temples, were inhabited by Devils. Lactantius, that Incestuous Spi∣rits feigned many C••lestial (Gods) and * 1.45 one the King of all Jupiter, because there are many Angelical Spirits in heaven, and one Father and Lord of all, God. But they haue taken a way, saith he, the truth from the eyes of men by invol∣ving it under counter feit and lying namer. These, saith he c. 14. are the Authors of the Evils which are acted, whose Prince is the devil; whence Trismegistus cals him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Arch-Devil: and these they take to be Gods. Lastly, not to keep your patience too long stret∣ch'd, for I perceive you are uneasy, S. Augustin * 1.46 in the place cited by T. G. a

litle after Origen, replying to one of the Dr's subtiller Heathens, who pretended as He doth, that they did not worship the Image it self, but the Invisible deity which presided ouer such an Image. Ego dico, I assert, saith he, that in your Tem∣ples none but wicked Spirits are worship∣ped. And a litle below, such, saith he, were D••abolus (the Devil himself or Arch-Devil) & Daemonia ejus, his An∣gels. He arrogated divine honour to him∣self and to all the Devils, and filled the Temples of the Heathens, and perswaded simulacra Statues to be dedicated, and Sacrifices to be offered to them. In like manner in his 4^th Book of the City of God A way, saith he, with this rabble * 1.47 of Innumerable Devils. He that thinks it enough for him to be Happy, let him serve the One God, who is the Giver of Happiness. That is, according to Dr. St. J••piter, but not so according to S. Augustin, for he presently addes, Non est ipse quemnominant Jovem. It is not He wh•••• they call Iupiter. No; He puts him in among the rest when he saith, that none but wicked Spirits or Devils are worship∣ped in their Temples.

Thus for a Covie of one (which the

Dr. almost despair'd of too (I haue pre∣sented you with more than a whole Jury besides Origen, of Eminent Fathers who all assert with him, that the Hea∣then's Supream God Iupite••, that is, (as himself describes him) He that was * 1.48 worshipped in the Capitol at Rome with the title of Iupiter O. M. was not the true God but a Devil. And it were easy to adde more to them if need were; But these I hope may serve to break that bad custome in the Dr. of ranting and va∣pouring without a cause, and we shall hear no more of his pretty storys of the two God f••thers, and ridiculous Covie of one. Yet I cannot omit, for the great * 1.49 Esteem he hath for the Wiser Heathens to adde one Testimony more out of Eu∣sebius, and that is of the great Porphyrius, who confesses it to be the work of the Devils to draw the multitude by the allu∣rements of Riches, Pleasures, Power, and Vain glory from the true Opinion con∣cerning the worship of the Gods, to conferr it vpon them; and what is worst of all, to perswade not only the Vulgar, but many of the Philosophers also (as in effect they did) to believe, that the Gods thems••lves, even the Supream God of the Vniverse

were obnoxius, to the same Vices: which was, saith Eusebius, to perswade them that the first or chief Spirits among them was the Supream God. And had not the Fathers then reason to affirm, as they did, that the Heathens Supream God was an Arch-Devil, when so great a Patron of their cause, as Porphyrius, convinc'd by the Evidence of truth, was forc'd to confess it? What had become of half of all you are worth, Catharinus, had I permitted you to venture it vpon the Dr's credit?

Cath.

You haue taken a great deal of pains, Eunomius to make so many God fathers stand for this Brat. And I cannot but thank you for your kindness in not accepting my Offer. But when all is done you haue done just nothing, unless on the other side you can make it appear that the Passages cited by Dr. St. to prove the Heathen's Jupiter ••o be the true God are impertinently alledged, or their Sense mis-represented, or their words corrupted by him. Is you can do any or all of these, I must knock under the Table.

Eun:

I readily embrace the Overture. And if I fail in the performance,—

Cath.

Hold Eunomius, You shall lay no wagers neither. Nor will it be safe for you, while the Testimony of Scrip∣ture * 1.50 is so plain in this matter to any un∣byassed mind, as appears by S. Paul's saying to the Men of Athens, when he sow the Altar to the Vnknown God; Whom you ignorantly worship, Him I declare to you. Pray hear the Dr's Para∣phrase vpon this Text. Did S. Paul mean the Devil by this? Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach the Devil to * 1.51 the world? Yet he preached him, whom th••y ignorantly worshipped, i. e. the Devil, saith T, G. although S. Paul immediately saith, It was the God that made the world and all things in it. And asterward quotes one of their Poets for saying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For we are his Offspring, and it is observable that the words immediatly going before in Aratus are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; And he useth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 twice more in the Verses before Ex 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is the very word that T. G. saith doth signify an Arch-Devil, doth S. Paul then say, We are all the Devil's Offspring? and not an Ordinary one neither, but the very Arch-Devil's? Was

this his way of perswading ••he Athenians to leaue the worship of Devils, to tell them, that they were All the Devil's Offspring? No. It was farr enough f••om him, for he inferrs from that saying of Aratus, th••t they were the Offspring of G. d. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 So that if S. Paul may be credited rather than T. G. their Iupiter was so farr from being the Arch-Devil, that he was the true God, Blessed for evermore.

Eun:

A very Godly Paraphrase no doubt: but such an one as plainly con∣tradicts the meaning of S. Paul, if that Altar were not dedicated to Iupiter: as it appears most Evidently it was not, from the very Inscription: which was not Iovi Opt. Max. whom they all knew very well, and to whom they had Altars particularly dedicated; but Ignoto D••o to an Vnknown God, whom they were ignorant of. And S. Paul himself gives this for the reason, why he cals the Athenians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 more Su∣perstitiously Religious, than others, be∣cause not content with the commonly known Gods, (of whom Iupiter was cer∣tainly One,) they had erected an Altar to One, they knew not who. Could any

thing then be more cōtrary to the mean∣ing of S. Paul, than to argue from this Inscription, that S. Paul came to preach their Iupiter to the Athenians, when he expressly tells them, he came to de∣clare to them a God whom they did not know? This had been a better Argument for T. G. to prove, that this Vnknown God was the only true God according to S. Paul, and that Iupiter and the rest whom they worshipped, were False Gods or Devils. But the Dr. hath a Fa∣culty of doing greater wonders with two words (Ignoto Deo) than those of the Church of Rome with Five when he can thus easily change the Devil himself into God. Lucifer once attempted something like it, but failed in the design, and can only transform himself into an An∣gel of Light.

Cath.

I confess the Observation you make from the Inscription (Ignoto Deo) is so plain and Obvious, that I wonder so acute a man, as Dr. St. could oversee it.

Eun:

T'is the Glory of great Wits not to see that, which every one can see: but to discover that which none can see but themselues.

Cath.

But what do you say to that Obseruation of his, that S. Paul cites the words of Aratus, We are his off∣spring, when the Poet had thrice used the word Iupiter before those cited by the Apostle?

Eun:

I say, that for a Heathen Poet to apply the Attributes of the true God to Iupiter is no great great wonder; And if A••atus knew the true God, he might think fit to apply the name of Iupiter to him, as being the name of that Deity which was Supream among them, as S. Augustin saith of Varro; but it doth not * 1.52 follow, that S. Paul, because he cited him, thought their Iupiter to be the true God. This was so farr from his thoughts, that he left out the words of Aratus (though as much for his purpose) in which mention was made of Iupiter; and made use only of those, in which Iupiter was not named, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, For we are his Offspring) as being applicable in that Abstraction to the true God only, whom he had taken occasion from the Inscription, To the Vnknown God, to declare unto them. And al∣though the Relative, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (His) in Aratus referr to Iupiter, yet in S. Paul it referrs

to him of whom he had spoken before, viz the God who made Heaven and Earth, in whom we liue, and move, and haue our Being, as some of your own Poets saith he, haue also said. Fo•• we are his Offspring. And that we might not think, as Dr. St. doth, that he spake of Iupiter, he immediately repeats the words assigning them their true and pro∣per Substantive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Being therefore the Offspring of God, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of Iupiter. What means this changing of the name, if according to S. Paul, as the Dr. saith, their Ju∣p••ter was so farr from being an A••ch-D••v••l, that he was the true God, Bles∣sed for evermore? you cannot but re∣member what the same S. Paul saith 1. Cor 10. 20. that What ••he Heathens offer in Sacrifice h••y offer to Devils, and not to God. And however the Dr. will haue S. Paul and Origen to cont••adict one ano∣ther, yet I suppose he will not say, that S. Paul contradicts himself. Nor can you haue forgot, how when at Lystra, the Priest of Iupiter would haue offered * 1.53 Sacrifice to him as Mercu••y, and to Barnab is as ••oue, in whose shapes they supposed those Gods to haue appeared,

he not only forbad them to do it be∣cause they were men of like passions w••th them; but with all told them, that the end of their coming was to preach to th••m, that they might be converted from those vain things (that is, in the Phrase of H. Scripture from their False Gods) to the Living God. And now Catharinus (to return the Dr's own Figure of Rhe∣torick vpon him) pray tell me what you think: Did S. Paul mean Iupiter by this Living God? Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach Iupiter to the world? yet he taught them to convert them∣selves from those vain things (their False Gods) to the Living God, i. e. to Iupiter saith Dr. St. Was this his way to perswade the men of Lystra to leaue the worship of their Gods, to tell them that he came to teach them to worship Iupiter? No. It was farr enough from S. Paul, for by saying▪ these vain things he expressly tells them, that Mercury and Jupiter were two of those vain and f••lse Gods, and that he came to convert them from the worship of them to the Living God. So that if S. Paul may be credited, rather than Dr. St. their Iupiter was so farr from being the true God Blessed for

evermore, that he was the Arch-Devil, damned for evermore. What think you of this, Catharinus?

Cath.

Marry, I think this Rhet••rick to be a very dangerous thing, when the same Figure conveniently applied will serve to prove the Heathen's Iupiter to be the true Supream God according to Dr. St. and to be an Arch-Devil, ac∣cording to T. G.

Eun:

The thing is good in it self, but may be abused, as it is here by Dr. St. to put a Glosse vpon the words of S. Paul quite contrary to his meaning, as I haue shewed from the very Text it self, and other passages of the Apostle. And if he durst treat S. Paul himself in this man∣ner to make him stand as God-Father to this Infamous Brat, what may we not expect he will do with the Fathers?

Cath.

That is what I long to hear: What you can say to that full Account, which the Dr saith he hath given of their Sense in this matter.

Eun.

Nor shall it be long before I giue you satisfaction in that Point.

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

THE ARGVMENT.

THe greatest part of the Testimo∣nies of the Fathers produced by Dr. St. that is, All those which import no more, than either that the Heathens had a natural knowledge of one Supream God, or that it was their Sense that their Inpiter was He, shown to be Inperti∣nent to the Dispute between him and T. G. from the true State of the Question. His injurious usage of the Fathers, blam∣ing them for charging the Heathens with more than they were guilty of, or them∣selves could prove, (being indeed atacite Conf••ssion that he look'd vpon them as Opposit to him) laid open in a clee•• Ac∣count of the Heathen's Theology, and the several ways, the Fathers took to ref••te it, all of them convincing, as is made manifest both from the arguments themselues being rightly applied to their due subjects, and the success they had.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

CA••h.

T'is now, Eunomius, that I expect the performance of your p••omise, which was to shew, that the Dr's Citations out of the Fathers, to prove the Heathen's Iupiter to be the true God, are all either impertinently al∣ledged, or ••heir meaning mis-represented, or both their words and Sense corrupted by him. If you can do this, the Dr. fot ought I can see must stand for his own Child.

Eun:

This I confess is what I promised; and to perform it, it will be necessary in the first place to set down the true State of the ••uestion between the Dr. and T. G. in this Point, which I take to be this, viz, Whether the H••athen's I••pi∣ter were according to the Fathers the true God, that is, whether it were the Father's own Sense that Iupiter was the true God? That this is the true State of the Question between them, is evident from the D'rs own words; For having suffi∣ciently reproached T. G. for affirming the Heathen's Iupiter to be according

to the Fathers, not the true God, but a Devil, what he saith he will undertake to do is to break h••m and his fellows of he * 1.54 bad custome▪ they have got of passing their own foolish Opinions under the name of the Fathers, by giving a full account of the Sense of the Fathers in this Point, and not as T. G. had done from one single passage of a learned, but by their own Church thought Heretical Father. Now what he resolved to correct in T. G. at present was his pretending the Sense of Origen to be the Sense of the Fathers. And therefore in another place, I com∣mend, saith he T. G. f••r his Modesty, * 1.55 that when he had said this was the Sense of the Fathers he produces no more but good Father Origen, and with great judgment supposes, that what he said was the Com∣mon Sense of the Fathers. This appears yet farther from that Religious Assertion * 1.56 of his, that i•• S. Paul may be credited rather than T. G. the Heathen's Iupiter was so farr from being an Arch Devil, that he was the true God, Bless••d for evermore: where you see he makes it to be S. Paul's Sens••, that Iupiter was the true God, and therefore in the next page, having granted it to be Origen's Sense, * 1.57

that he was a Devil, he fupposes O∣rigen therein to contradict S. Paul. So that the Question between them as I said, is whether it were the Sense of the Fathers, that the Heathen's Iupiter, that Iupiter O. M. for example, to use the Dr's own words, that was worship∣ped in the Capitol at Rome, were the true God? * 1.58

Cathar.

This I easily grant to be the true State of the Question. But why are you so sollicitous about it?

Eun:

Because there are many other Questions, which seem to bear some affinity to this, and yet are very different from it, as 1^st. whether the Heathens did not acknowledge one Supream God? 2^ly. Whether themselues did not pretend that they understood this Supream God by Iupiter, and ac∣cordingly gaue to him the Titles due to the Supream Go? 3^dly. Whether the Fa∣thers do not acknowledge that this was pretended by the Heathens? All these Questions I say, how speciously soever connected they may seem to you, yet in truth they are very different from the point in debate between the Dr. and T. G. viz, whether it were the Father's own

Sense, that Iupiter was the Supream God? For 1. Those very Fathers who assert the knowledge of the true God to be in all men by the light of nature, con∣demn the Heathens for worshipping the Creatures instead of the Creator, and particularly for worshipping Iupiter, whom they affirmed to be a Devil, as you heard before. 2^ly Though the Hea∣thens might pretend, they understood the Supream God by Iupiter, yet this was but the Sense of the Heathens, not of the Fa∣thers. And 3^ly though the Fathers ac∣knowledge that this was pretended by the Heathens, yet they might be farr e∣nough in their own Iudgments from think∣ing Iupiter to be the Supream God. From whence it follows, that as many of the Drs. Testimonies as shall be found to carry no farther, than either to prove, that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supream God; or that they themselues owned Ju∣piter to be the Supream God; or that the Fathers related only some sayings of theirs, in which they did so; do evidently fall sho••t of the Question, which was not whether it were the Sense of the Hea∣thens, but of the Fathers themselues that Jupiter was the true God? And here lies

the Trick which I promised to let you see.

Cath.

T'is a Subtilty I confess which as yet I do not fully comprehend: and therefore desire you will explicate your self a litle more vpon each particular.

Eun:

First then I say, that all those Testimonies of the Fathers, cited by the * 1.59 Dr. which serve only to prove that the Heathens had a knowledge of one Su∣pream God, are altogether impertinent to prove it to be the Sense of the Fathers, that Iupiter was the Supream God; be∣cause those very Fathers, who affirm this of them, deny Iupiter to be the true God, and condemn the Heathens for giving the honour due to the true God, to him. And that you may fee this to be so I shall cite you some of their own words. We * 1.60 know, saith Arnobius that the knowledge of God is in all men by nature, but He is not Iupiter. Such is the force of the true Divinity, saith S Augustin, that it cannot * 1.61 be altogether hidden to a Rational Crea∣ture in possession of the use of reason: For excepting a f••w in whom nature is too too much depraved, all mākind conf••sses God to be the Author of the world. But that this was not the Roman's Iupiter he expressly affirms li. 4. de Civ. Deic. 17. 25. Non est Ipse qnem Iovem nominant. And in his

first Book de cons. Evang, he proues the Heathens did not worship the true God, * 1.62 because they did not worship the God of the Iews. That there is one Supream Go∣vernour of the world, saith Minucius Fe∣lix, * 1.63 whom we call God, I haue the con∣sent of all men: But as for Iupiter, he * 1.64 reckons him as you heard before, among the Devils. When we see, saith Lactan∣tius, the Worshippers of False Gods ••f∣tentimes * 1.65 confess the One Supream God. what pardon can they hope for their Im∣piety, in not acknowledging the worship of him who cannot possibly be altogether unknown to Mankind: When they swear, or wish, or giue thanks, they do not, saith he, name Iupiter or their many Gods, but God. Thus doth Truth by the sorce of nature break f••om their relucting hearts. Lastly, not to strain your patience too much, That God hath given such or such a Benefit, saith Tertullian, is the * 1.66 Voice of all, as also those other Common Expressions, when they appeal to him as Iudge, God seeth, and I commend it to God, God will restore. O testimony of a Soul, saith he, naturally Christian. But then remarks, that when they say these things, they lift not vp their Eyes

to the Capitol, but to Heaven, which they k••ow to be the Throne of the Living God. In like manner in his Book de Anima, Giue testimony, saith he, O soul, if thou knowest one only God from whom all things * 1.67 are: For we hear thee also saying that God hath given &c. By which Expression thou signifiest there is some such One, and that all power belongs to him; but at the same time thou deniest the rest to be Gods, whilst thou callest them by their own names, S••∣turn, Iupiter, Mars &c. For thou confessest him alone to be God, whom alone thou cal∣lest God. So that when thou sometimes cal∣lest those other Gods thou dost but borrow, or rather steal that name from another, whose properly it is. And again, at the end of the Book, In the very Temples, saith he, thou callest vpon God as Iudge, but dost not appeal to any of the present Gods, that is, who are worshipped in those Temples. O Testimony of Truth which gives Evidence for Christians in the pre∣sence of the Devils themselues! Many other passages could I cite to the same purpose out of Iustin Martyr, Athena∣goras, Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Cyprian, and others, were I minded to amuze the world with a great Book: but these may suffice to let you see how Impertinent it

was to the point in debate (viz whether it were the Sense of the Fathers, that Iupiter was the Supream God?) for Dr. St. to stuff out so many Pages with Te∣stimonies to prove that the Heathens had the knowledge of one Supream God in∣grafted in them by nature, when those very Fathers, who affirm it of them, deny Iupiter to be the Supream God, and show from the very Expressions and actions of the Heathens, that they them∣selves acknowledged another distinct from Iupiter to be the true God.

Cath.

Thus farr I think I comprehend your meaning, and must confess that had the Dr. done no more, he had done but litle to the purpose. But there are other Testimonies produced by him, which evidently prove that the Heathens by Iupiter understood and worshipped the one Supream God.

Eun:

This is the 2^d Question, which * 1.68 I said might be proposed. And to say the Truth, Dr. St. gives us a pretty full ac∣count of the Fathers in this matter. But what Fathers are they? The first (in di∣gnity at least) are the two most Reve∣rend Fathers in Iupiter▪ Father R••mulus, * 1.69 and Father Numa, whom he makes litle

Inferiour to Moses and Aaron in their care to instruct the People in the know∣ledge and worship of the One Supream God. To them he joins Father Livy, Father Varro, Father Ennius, Father * 1.70 Plautus, Father Virgll, Father Ovid, Father Tacitus and Father Pliny, who give to Iupiter the Titles of Opt. Max. and of Father of Gods and men. But then for fear these should not be strong enough to do the work he comes in with an Arrier-ban of other Fathers, who bestow vpon him the Titles of Om∣nipotent, and Chief of the Gods, viz, * 1.71 Father Balbus, Father Cicero, Fath•••• Seneca, Father Virgil, Father Soranus, Father Dio Chrysostom, and Father Dio∣nysius Halicarnassaeus. And then to put the matter out of all dispute, he comes over again with Father Plautus, because he affords us many Instances of prayers to * 1.72 the Supream God, as when the Punick Nurse, cry'd out Proh Supreme I••piter! * 1.73 though like a Sawcy Miller he ioyn the Title of Versipellis at the same time to that of Summus Iupiter for the lewd * 1.74 trick he play'd Alcumena in her Hus∣bands absence, leaving her Vtrinque gravidam & ex viro & ex S••mmo Iove.

Father Virgil also is brought in a third and a 4^th time. (No doubt because he was, as the Dr. tells us particularly obser∣ved by the ancient Criticks, to be so Nice * 1.75 and exact in all matters that concerned their Religion, as if he had been Ponti∣fex Max.) and then addes to them, to compleat the number, Father Silius, Father Persius, Father Horace, Father Valerius Maximus, and lastly the dimi∣nutive Father, Father Paterculus, for * 1.76 concluding his Book with that Reli∣gious Invocation, Iupiter Capitoline, Auctor & Stator Romani Nominis. By this you see what Fathers they are, that Dr. St. is conversant with. But what is all this (in case the Heathens did give the Titles of the true God to Jupiter and that in the midst of all his mad pranks, as Father Plautus doth, for which reason I remember I was taught * 1.77 at School to look vpon them as Prosane Blasphemers,) what is all this I say to the Question between the Dr and T. G. which was not as I suppose, whether it were the Sense of the Heathen, but of the Ch••istian Fathers, that their Iupiter was the Supream God? All these Testi∣monies therefore ought to be laid aside

also as Impertinent to the present pur∣pose.

The same I affirm also of those other Testimonies relating to the 3^d Question, * 1.78 in which the Christian Fathers are cited by Dr. St. as acknowledging that the Heathens pretended they understood by Jupiter the Supream God: For they might cite some sayings of the Heathens to that purpose, and yet be of a contra••y Judgment themselues; as if One should tell you, that Dr. St. saith he sits down w••th this contentment, that he hath defended a righteous cause, and with an honest mind, He may think otherwise himself for ought you know. Now that the Fa∣thers were of a contrary Judgment themselues in this Point is manifest, be∣cause (as you heard before) they affir∣med Jupiter to be a Divel, and proved him to be so from his actions; and reje∣cted that pretence of the Heathens as vain and Impious: and consequently all the Testimonies of this kind also, cited by the Dr. are altogether as Impertinent as the Former. These things Dr. St. was not ignorant of, and thinking to mend the matter, has made it worse. For what do you think he does? Very fairly he

takes part with the Heathens against the Fathers by endeavouring to make them appear either Impertinently obstinat•• in not believing the Heathens; or if they did believe them, so perversly I••sincere, as to make them Idolaters wh••ther they would or no, for worshipping Jupiter, and this by such kind of arguments, as according to him gaue the Advan∣tage to the Heathens: And yet this is the man that undertakes to maintain it to be the Sense of the Fathers themselues, that Jupiter was the true God.

Cath.

Here you must giue me leaue, Eunomius, to tell you, that I think you are too Severe vpon the Dr. for no man of an Ordinary Mother-wit would be∣tray his cause by such a Tacit Confes∣sio, as this is, that he look'd vpon the Fa••hers as Opposit to him.

Eun:

yet I shall prove what I haue said from his own words. For what else doth he mean, when having varnished over the most Obscene and abominable Ceremonies used by the Heathens in the worship of their Gods, with the gentle name only of Indecencies, which the Fa∣thers, saith he, charge the Practice of their Religion with, he addes with a But. * 1.79

that as they were not to be excused in other things, so we ought not to charge them with more than they were guilty of? And what that was, he tells us in the next words; I mean, saith he, when all the Poetical Fables of Jupiter, are applyed to Jupiter O. M. that was worshipped in the Ca∣pitol at Rome. You are satisfied now, I hope, Catharinus, that the Dr. makes the Fathers charge the Heathens with more than they were guilty of, which they could not do, but either they must not believe them, when they pretended Ju∣piter to be the Supream God; or if they believed them, must act against their consciences, and betray their own cause, by applying the Po••tical Fables of Ju∣piter to Jupiter O. M. who was wor∣shipped in the Capitol. Now that this was done by all the Fathers, Dr. St. very well knows. But meer shame would not permit him to lay so great a reproach vpon them all at once, and therefore he picks out two at fi••st viz, A••nobius and Lactantius, with whom he thought he might be more bold, and goes on in this manner. But some Writers, are to be ex∣cused, who having been bred vp in the Schools of Rhetoricians, and practising

that Art so long before, when they came to be Christians, they could not easily f••rbear giving a cast of their f••rmer em∣ployment, As when Arnobius, saith he, had been proving the natural Notion of one Supream God in the minds of men, he brings in the Romans answering, that if this were intended against them, it was a meer calumny, for they believed him, and called him Jupiter O. M. and built a most Magnificent Temple to him in the Capitol: which he (i. ē. Arnobius) endea∣vours to disprove, (mark that) because God is Eternal, and their Jupiter was bo••n, and had a Father and Mother and Vncles and Aunts, as other M••••tals baue. Which indeed, saith the Dr. was an Infallible Argument, that Jupiter of Cr••te could not be the Supream God, but for all that, might not the Romans call the Supream God by the name of Iupiter Opt. Max? where he evidently dis∣allows the discourse of Arnobius, and shows how it was, or might haue been avoided by the Heathens, had he been to answer for them. In the same manner he treats Lactantius, for ripping vp, (as he calls it) all the Extravagancies of the * 1.80 Poets concerning Iupiter, interposing

presently in their behalf, as though the Romans at the same time believed him to haue done all those things, and to haue been the Supream Governour of the world. And when Lactantius to enforce his argument, and confute this pretence of theirs alledges, that th••y themselues confess he same Iupiter to haue been bo••n of Saturn and Rhea, the doctor replyes vpon him, that he might haue done well to haue explained himself a litle more. And what is this I pray, but to tell us, that these F••thers cha••ged the Heathens with more than th••y were guilty of, and that not being able to make good what they charged them with, they thought to fob them off with a cast of their for∣mer employment▪

Having thus broken the Ice he now dares venture to fix the same reproach, though more covertly, on Clemens Al••∣xandrinus * 1.81 also: for having told us, how he understood the Principles of the Hea∣then Theology as well as any, and ex∣posed all their P••e••ical Fables, and Greek mysteries w••th as much advan∣tage as any Christian Writer, he gives us this very honourable account of his performance. After he hath sufficiently, * 1.82

saith he, derided the Poetical Theology and the Vulgar Idolatry, he comes to the Philosophers, who did he saith make an Idol of matter; and after reckoning vp Thales, Anaximenes, Parmenides, and others, he calls them all Atheists, because with a foolish kind of Wis••o•• they did worship Matter, and scorning to worship wood and Stones did d••ify the Mother of them: And so runs out, saith he, after his way (which in the Dr's. Rhetorick signifies he run out of the way) i••to a discourse about the Several Nat••ons, that despised Images, and worshipped the Several Parts of ••h•• Vniverse, and the Symbols of them, as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, and Macedo∣nians. And then reckons vp other Phi∣losophers that wors••ipped the Starrs, as animated Beings; Others, the Planets and the world, and the Stoicks who said, God passed through the meanest parts of Matter. By this account the Dr. gives of Clemens his performance (however he treat him with more respect than he had done A••nobius and Lactantius) yet it is evident he looks vpon his way of confuting the Heathens, as inept and fri∣volous also.

But none is represented by him to haue been so much baffled by the Hea∣thens in the Point of I••piter's divinity as S. Augustin, of whom he saith, It is * 1.83 true, that He argu••s against the Hea∣then's pretence of Iupiter's being the true Go•• from the Poetical Fables about Saturn and Iuno, but conf••sses withall, that they thought it very unreasonable for their Religion to be charged with those Fables, which themselues diso••ned. And hitherto S. Augustin goes along with his Fellows, that is, he argued just as wisely as they had done before him. But this last acknowledgment of the Hea∣thens Pretence it seems wrought a different effect in him, from what it had done in them. For whereas they were so Obstinate as to persist in rejecting and impugning this pretence of the Hea∣thens as vain and absurd, S. Augustin, according to what the Dr. addes of him, was so convinced of the evidence of it, that theref••••e at last he could not deny that they believed themselues, that by the Iove in the Capitol they understood and worshipped the Spirit that quick••ns and fills the world, of which Virgil spake in those words, Iovis omnia plena. And

had not one Wise word to answer for himself, but sit down and wonder, tha•• since they acknowledged this to be the Su∣pream, if not the o••ly Deity, the Ro∣mans did not rather content themselues with the worship of him alone, th••n run about and m••ke so many addresses to the Pe••ty and Inferiour Deities. Thus had Dr. St. been constituted Vmpire, the Victory had been given to the Hea∣thens; and S. A••gustin (at least whilst he argued against them from the Poeti∣cal Fables,) and the rest of the Fathers had been condemned as Imposto••s, for charging the Heathens w••th more than they were guilty of, or themselues could prove. This kind of procedure would haue suited much better with the design of Iulian, than of the Reformation, and it cannot be presum'd, but that that Re∣ligious Emperour, who utterly also re∣jected the Poetical Fables concerning the Gods, would haue had avery high * 1.84 esteem for such a Champ••on.

Cath.

These passages I must acknow∣ledge, argue agreat deal of kindness and tenderness in the Dr. for the poor Hea∣thens, to see them so ill treated by the Fa∣thers. And it was but Christian Gene∣rosity

in him to do them right; especially when the Papists themselues confess they do not take all the Arguments of the Fathers to be Infallible demonstra∣tions.

Eun:

But where was his Christian Generosi••y, when himself charges the poor Papists with mo•••• than they are guilty of, if their Publick Professions are to be believed; at least with what themselues deny? They must be made to take the Saints for Gods, and wor∣ship the very stock•• and Stones as such, whether they will or no. Was all his tenderness spent vpon the Heathens, and none left for his Fellow Christians? Not one kind Parenthesis for them, as well as for the Heathens, (as though there ever had been such F••ols in the world; or * 1.85 * 1.86 if at least any considerable number of them ever did so?) Kissing I see goes by Favour, and the Heathens are more beholden to him, than those of the Church of Rome, though he acknow∣ledge it to be a true Church, as holding all the Essential Points of Faith. As for what you adde of them, that they do not take all the Arguments of the Fathers to be Infallible demonstrations, I think

it very unreasonably applied to the pre∣sent case. But am very well assured, your self cannot deny this to be an I••f••llible demonstration, viz, that the Fathers, while they would not admit the pretence of the Heathens, affirming they wor∣shipped the true God under the name of Iupiter, but set themselues by such ar∣guments, as they (poor men) were able, to consute it, did not themselues believe that Iupiter was the true God, which was what Dr. St. had undertaken to prove against T. G. Or else that they were not as he describes them, M••n of * 1.87 that Exemplary Piet••, great Abilities, and Excellen•• Conduct and Magnani∣mity, as s••t ••h••m aboue the contempt and reproach o•• any but I••fidels and Apostates; when himself, as you haue seen, exposes t••em to the contempt and re∣proach of being Vnequal Matches to the Heathen Achillesses; or which is worse, down right Prevaricators. By this you see what a Full account the Dr. gives us of the Sense of the Fathers in this Point, when the greatest part of the Testimonies he brings reach no farther, than to prove that the Heathens had a natural Notion of one Supream God, or

at most that it was the Sense of the Hea∣thens, that I••piter was He (all which I haue 〈…〉〈…〉 to be Impertinent to the Point in debate) and reproaches the Fathers for endeavouring to disprove them; which is as much, in plain English, as to tell us, that it was not their Sense, that Iupiter was the true God.

Cath.

You are too rigorous, Eunomi∣us, in tying vp an Author alwaies to the strict Method of close arguing. There is a Libe••ty to be given to Writers to make use some times of Rhetorical Or∣naments and Amplifications. And such I take these passages cited by the Dr. to be, which though they come not home to the Question, and therefore are re∣jected by you as Impertinent; yet they serve to illustrate those other Testimonies, that do▪ of which the Dr. hath alledged good store out of the Fathers.

Eun:

This is what I deny; and if you think fit to produce them, I do not doubt, but to make good my promise, that is, to shew, that either the mean∣ing of the Fathers is mis-represented, or both their words and Sense corrupted by him.

Cathar.

But before you proceed to

that, which I am well assured you will never make out, I would gladly receive satisfaction from you in a Point relating to our former discourse; viz, what Iudg∣ment your self make of the Arguments produced by the Fathers to convince the Heathens of Idolatry, and particu∣larly of those from the Poetical Fables, which seem to me to be Ironical and Trivial, rather than Serious and So∣lid.

Eun:

Could I transcribe the Argu∣ments used by the Fathers vpon this Oc∣casion, I durst leaue them to speak for themselves at the Bar of your Judgment. But this would require a Volume, or ra∣ther many Volumes to do, they being well nigh Infinite. I shall therefore at present reduce so many of them as oc∣curr to my Memory to some certain Ge∣neral Heads, from whence you may take a sufficient Prospect not only of the Fathers designs, and the force of their Arguments, but vpon what account alfo it was that they charged the Hea∣thens with Idolatry. To do this with greater clearness, I must desire you to take notice, that as the Heathens had many kinds of Gods for the worship∣ping

of which they were charged with Idolatry so the Fathers had not one only sort of Adversaries to deal with, but many. And

First for the Gods, S. Augustin tells us out of Varro, and Scaevola that the * 1.88 Heathen's Theology gaue a threefold account of them, the one Fabulous, used by the Poets; the 2^d Natural, used by the Philosophers, and the 3^d Civil used by the Priests and People in their publick worship. The first they said was accomodated to the Theater, the 2^d to the Philosophers, the third to the Peo∣ple. But S. Augustin shows the first and the last viz, the Fabulous and the Civil, not to be well distinguished, because the same Gods who were exposed to Derision in the Theaters, were p••oposed as Objects of Ado••ation in the Temples, and had Sacrifices offered to them. So that in rea∣lity they had but two kinds of Gods, the Fabulous or Civil used by the Priests and People, and the Natural by the * 1.89 Philosophers. The Former of these were Originally Dead men, whom the People out of flattery or Affection had place•• in heaven, and the Images erected to their memory; but consequently Evil

Spirits, which as it were incorporated * 1.90 themselves in the Images, and as Minu∣cius Felix saith, by exhibiting themselves present in the Temples, inspiring the Vates, animating the entrails of beasts, governing the flight o•• birds, directing Lots to fall where they pleased, and the like Prodigious effects, gained to them∣selves * 1.91 the Authority and Esteem of Gods, assuming with all to themselves, as Athe∣nagoras saith, the same names with the * 1.92 Statues or Images in which they assisted. Hence the Poets took occasion sometimes to subject them to the Passions of Men, sometimes to give them the Ti∣tles due only to the true divinity; The Priests also, to make a strange mix∣ture or confusion of Poetical Fables and Religious Ceremonies in their pu∣blick worship, at once to delight and * 1.93 delude the People: And the Philo••o∣phers, to invent new Interpretations to avoid the shame of those foul Pra∣ctices, which not only the Poets, but the Historians also attributed to them, * 1.94 as Lactantius shows. And this was the Origen of that sort of Gods which * 1.95 they called Fabulous or Civil, first the favour of the People, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the

delusion of wicked Spirits.

The 2^d kind, which they called Na∣tural, had for it's Object the parts of the Vniverse, as the Sun, Moon, and Starrs, the Fire, the Ayr, the Earth &. And although it be appropriated to the * 1.96 Philosophers, yet as Dr. St. himself tells us out of Clemens Alexandrinus, there were Several Nations, that despised I∣mages, and worshipped the Several parts of the Vniverse, and the Symb••ls of them, as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, and Macedonians, (among whom the Aegyptians may be reckoned for that part of their Religion, which concerned the worship of creatures) whom the said Clemens makes to haue been the Phil••sop••er's Ma∣sters in the worship of these Inf••riour Elements, which were made to be Servi∣ceable to men; And then reckons up other Philosophers, that worshipped the Stars, as animated Beings; Others the Planets and the World, and th•• Stoicks who said, God passed through the meanest parts of Matter. If you ask from whence this kind of Idolat••y took it's rise, Vossius, as you heard before assigns it to the Ig∣norance and Inadvertency of men, in * 1.97

not distinguishing the Divine Power which is from God, from that other which is in God, and therefore from the won∣derful works which they discovered in nature, concluded Nature it self to be God, and the parts of it also to be Deities, (very agreably to what the Author of the Book of Wisdome relateth of this matter in his 13^th Chapter) though both the said Vossius and Others adde many other impulsive Causes which concur∣red to plunge the Heathens in this kind of Idolatry; among which Lactantius maketh the chief to be the Devil, who being alwaies an Enemy to Truth, takes * 1.98 pleasure in the Errours of men, and makes it his continual and only business to pour darkness vpon their minds, and blind their Vnderstandings, that they may not look vp to Heaven.

These things premised, it follows clearly that as the Theology of the Heathens (if I may so call it) was manifold, so the ways of defending their worship were divers; and consequently the Ar∣guments produced by the Fathers against them could not be all of one kind, but must needs be different proportionably to the Subjects they were to treat of.

Hence when they were to impugn those who worshipped the ••mages for Gods, they argued from the vileness and Impo∣tency of the matter, of which they were made, from the nature of the Ar∣tificer that made them, the Indignities they sustained from the vilest of crea∣tures, as Bats Flyes, Spiders &c. their having eyes, but not seing, Ears, but not hearing &c. And these Arguments I hope you will grant did conclude that for which they were brought, viz, that the Idols or Images of the Heathens were not Gods.

Cathar.

You need not doubt of it at all: I readily grant them to be absolutely conclusive. But with all I must tell you that I think you haue brought your self by your defending the Image-worship of the Church of Rome, into a snare out of which you will not easily get free: viz, that you will be forced to grant the aforesaid Arguments to be alto∣gether as conclusive against the Images of that Church: for the Absurdities objected agree every Jot as well to them, as to the Images of the Heathens, as the Dr. hath very well obseru'd: They also are made of wood or stone or mettal, haue

eyes and see not, eares and hear not &c.

Eun.

But this with your leaue, Ca∣tharinus, I shall deny, viz that the Ar∣guments of the Fathers are equally con∣clusive against the Images of the Church of Rome, as against those of the Hea∣thens; and I think it no hard matter to free my self of this snare. For the Fa∣thers did not found their Arguments meerly vpon the matter of the Images, and the Art of the Artificers; but vpon these two conditions conjointly taken, viz, that they were held to be Gods, and neverthe less took their Being from wood, or stone, or some kind of mettal, and the Art of the Workman, whereas those of the Church of Rome do not belieue their Images to be Gods, not worship them as such, as the Heathens did. And therefore it was but a Slip-knot which the Dr. tied, when he suppressed the former of these conditions, viz, that the Heathens held their Images to be Gods, and applied the reproaches of the Latter to the Images of the Church of Rome, which, as you your self know very well, declares it belieues no divinity to be in them, for which they ought to be * 1.99

wo••shipped.

Cathar.

This I confess alters the case something, if here ever were such Fools in the world who worshipped their Images as Gods, or if at least any considerable * 1.100 number of the Heathens ever did so, which I perceive is no Article of Faith with Dr. St.

Eun:

Yet nothing, as you know very well, is more plain and Express in Scrip∣ture, than that they did so. And because the Dr. is ever now and then casting in Parentheses to insinuate the contrary, it will not be amiss to repeat a few of the many Texts, that occurr in it: as Levit. 19. 4. Turn ye not unto Idols, nor make to your selves Molten Gods. 2. Kings. 19. 18. They haue cast the Gods of the Na∣tions into the Fire for they were no God, but the work of mens hands, wood and stone; All the Gods of the Nations are Idols Isai. 44. 16. 17. He (i ē the Car∣penter) * 1.101 burn••th part of the wood in the Fire &c. And the residue thereof he maketh a God, even his Graven Imag••: He falleth down unto it, and worship∣peth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, deliver me, For thou art my God. The same is avowed by the Prophet Jeremy.

2. 27. They haue said, to a stock, Thou art my Father, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth▪ With them agrees the Author of the Book of Wisdom, (if you think he may be credited) when he saith ch. 14. that One preparing to sail, calleth vpon a peice of wood more r••tten than the Vessel that carrieth him; and again. c. 15. v. 15. They counted all the Idols of the Heathens to be Gods, In fine the chief argument which De∣metrius the Silver-smith. Acts. 19. 26. availed himself of to raise a tumult a∣gainst S. Paul at Ephesus, was to tell those of like occupation with him, that h•• perswaded and turned away much peo∣ple saying, that they be no Gods, which are made with hands. And can any thing be said more expressly, than it is in these places that the Heathens worshipped their Molten Images, as Gods? surely if Dr. Still's words, when he saith, It can∣not enter into his mind how God should haue declared a thing by more Express and Emphatical words, than he hath done, may be applied without temerity to any Texts of Scripture, it may be to these: And therefore if Scripture be the Rule of his Faith, and his meaning be

Express Scripture when it is to be had, I see not but it ought to be an Article of Faith with him, that the Heathens, (not an inconsiderable number of them neither, but the Generality of them) worshipped their Images as Gods. This I dare affirm, that He that sees it not plainly assirmed in these Texts of Scrip∣ture, (to which I could adde many out of the Fathers no less cleer and Express,) must haue no better eyes than the I∣mages * 1.102 themselues. But Dr. St. is none of those, for in the very place (p. 700.) where he thrusts in that kind Paren∣thesis * 1.103 (if at least any considerable num∣ber of the Heathens ever did so) speak∣ing of the Idolaters who worshipped their Images as Gods, he tells us it was vpon this account, that they supposed some Spirit to be incorporated in the I∣mage, and so to make together with it a Person fit to receive worship. And here though he cite not so much as a Covie * 1.104 of one Father, yet I shall do him that right as to acknowledge he speaks their Sense; yet cannot but question his Sin∣cerity, * 1.105 who when he knew that the Arguments of the Fathers against the Images of the Heathens, taken from

the vileness of the matter of which they were made, &c. went all vpon this Sup∣position (at length too acknowledged by himself) viz, that the Heathens held them to be Gods; could yet throw all the same reproaches vpon the Images of the Church of Rome, which he knows expressly denies any divinity to be in them, * 1.106 for himself relates the very words of the Council of Trent in which it is denied.

Cathar.

I confess I know not what can be opposed to such express Texts of Scripture. And therefore granting the Arguments of the Fathers to have been conclusive against the first sort of Idolaters who worshipped their Images as Gods, I desire you to proceed to the rest.

Eun:

But first for the same reason, you must grant them also not to be conclusive against those, who do not worship them as Gods.

Cathar.

Pray content your self,) Good Eunomius) with what I haue granted in relation to the Heathens, and proceed in your designed Discourse.

Eun:

I shall obey you The Genera∣lity of the Heathens, and their publick∣ly-authorized worship being thus beat

down by the Arguments of the Fa∣thers, some of Dr. Sts. Wiser ones came in to their ayd, and affirmed, that they did not worship the Images as Gods, but the Deities represented by them. To this the F••thers returned, that Jupiter himself and the rest of that rabble were Originally Men: that they had Fathers and Mothers, and Vnkles, and Aunts, as other mortals haue: that the Places of their Birth were known, their Se∣pulchers extant, and their Practices known to be such, as showed them to be Monsters or devils, rather than Men. And when the Heathens to remove these reproaches from their Gods, and from themselves replied, that these were the Fictions of the Poets: The Fathers proved the Pretence to be false. 1. From the common belief of the Heathens, who * 1.107 acknowledged Jupiter to be the Son of Saturn and Ops, Aesculapius to be the Son of Apollo &c. 2^ly From the nature of Poetrie, which is not to invent down-right * 1.108 lyes, but to set off things that were done, with certain Artificial Re∣presentations; * 1.109 as also from the Iaten∣t••on of the Poets, which certainly was not to defame their Gods, but to adde

lustre to their Actions by the Additional * 1.110 advantage of some counterfeit colours: By which it appears that in reality, they were not the Actions of Iupiter and the rest, which were the Fictions of the Poets, but the Titles they gaue to them as Gods, and to him as the Supream God, as Lactantius shows by many Examples. * 1.111 And here I cannot omit to give you the words of S. Athanasius vpon this sub∣ject they are so full to the purpose, Some * 1.112 of the Heathens, saith he, are wont to affirm, that the Poets ••y whē they relate any wicked actions of the Gods: but that in setting forth their Praises they do not faign, but speak truth, as when they give to Jupiter the titles of Father of the Gods, and of Supream, and Caelestial, and make him raign in heaven. This I hope is just as the Dr. would haue it; But what saith S. A••hanasiu••? That n••t only himself (a man of so much vnderstanding, as he was) but every man of common Sense will easily see this very reason principally to make against them. For Truth will again d••f••nd it self against them with th•• former demonstrations, I haue b••ought; because the Actions indeed conv••nce them to haue been men; but the Praises tran∣scend

the measure of Human Nature. But these two are contrary and inconsi∣stent with each other: For neither is it proper for Celestial Gods to doe such things, nor lawfull to Supplicate such Gods as do them. What then remains to be understood but that the Praises were false, and faigned out of Flattery, but that the Actions were truly delivered to their per∣petual shame. And this the common cu∣stome easily shows to be true: For there is hardly, any one to be found, who intend∣ing to praise others, accuses their life and manners; but rather extolls them with praises ••o hide the foulness and wickedness of their actions. 3^dly From the Relations * 1.113 of their own most Ancient and most Authentick Historians. 4^thly From the Judgment of the most learned among * 1.114 them, as Varro, Scaevola, Cicero, &c. 5^thly From the Images of their Gods and Goddesses in their Temples, particularly * 1.115 that of Juno, as sister and Wife to Jupiter * 1.116 and of Jupiter himself with an Eagle at his feet carrying Ganimede vpon his back. Lastly from the Plays which were instituted for their worship, in which those very debaucheries were represen∣ted * 1.117 in honour of them. These I take to

cleer and solid Convictions, that Jupi∣ter and the rest whom they commonly worshipped were not Gods, but Men and the most wicked of Men. And therefore.

The Philosophers to ward off the blow, took another way, which was to turn the Gods with their Images, and the Stories related of them to Natural and Mystieal Interpretations, as that by Jupiter they meant the Fire, by Juno * 1.118 the Ayr, by Neptune the Sea, &c. But here also the Fathers show••d evidently * 1.119 from the very Interpretations which themselves gaue, that they did not serve Creator, but the Creatures, viz, the Fire, Ay••, water, &c. And when others, who thought themselves yet more lear∣ned and Wise pretended that they did not worship either the Images, or the Creatures which they said were signified by them, but the I••visible Deities which resided in the one, and presided over the Other, the Father▪ evinced those supposed Deities to be no other than Wicked Spirits or devils, from their exacting Sacrifice to be offered to * 1.120 them which was due only to God, and commanding Obscene Plays to be repre∣sented

in their honour. And for Jupiter in particular they proved him not to be the true God, (as Dr. St. would haue him thought to be) 1. From the Testi∣mony of Nature forcing the very Hea∣thens * 1.121 in the midst of their Idolatries in all their dangers or necessities to recu•••• to God, not to Jupiter. 2. From the Al••ars they erected and Sacrifices they * 1.122 offered to the Vnknown God in time of Earth-quakes &c. the manner whereof is related by Agellius. 3. From the C••n∣tradictions they run themselves into, who made him to be the Supream God, as when Virgil (who, as you heard be∣fore, was so Nice and exact in all mat∣ters th••t concerned their R••ligion, as if h•• had been po••t fex Max.) gives him the Title of Fath••r Almigh••y, and at the same time makes im to be the Aether, and to haue a Wif•• also.

Tanc P••te•• Omnipot••us faecundis im∣bribus Aether Conjugis in gremium latae descendit.

And Plau••us in like manner in the same verse makes him to be the Supream God, and an A••ulterer when speaking of Alcumena he saith.

Vtrinque g••avida & ex viro & ex Summo Jove.

—Et hic nunc intus hic cum illa cubat.

4. From the filthy and abominable A∣ctions he not only permitted, but exacted * 1.123 to be represented in his honour. And lastly from the Confession of Jupiter him∣self, that he was a devil, as you heard before out of Minucius Felix and Ter∣tullian. And I take his own Testimony in this matter to out-weigh all those of the Poets and Orators cited by Dr. St.

As for those who seriously and so∣berly asserted one Supream Being, Crea∣tor and Governour of the world, Invi∣sible, unbegotten, Omnipotent &c. but called him by the name of Jupiter, the F••thers 1^st Proved by the aboue said and other Arguments, that it as not He who was worshipped in the Capi∣tol, as you haue heard; and then con∣demned them not only as absurd in so * 1.124 doing, but as contum l••o••s and ••ap••ous for applying to the true G••d the name of ••o abominable a Wretch, whether man or lev••l Lastly they justly charged even Plato himself and the rest of them, at least with external Idolatry for con∣curring with the Vulgarin the worship * 1.125 of many Gods. And the matter of fact

is confessed by Vossius. * 1.126

And now, Catharinus, I hope by this time you see, that which way soever the Heathens turned themselves they were unanswerably confuted by the Fathers; And the very Sequel makes it manifest, viz, the Subversion of all the Severall kinds of Idolatry, and the Conversion of the world to Christianity, which certainly had never followed had the Fathers been such unequal Matches to the Wiser Heathens, and their argu∣ments even those from the Poetical Fa∣bles to weak and frivolous as Dr St. would haue them thought to haue been, that he might estab••ish Jupiter Capito∣linus in the throne of the Supream God. For, as S. Augustin saith, if those rela∣tions were true, they prove him to haue * 1.127 been a most wicked man; and if they were False, and only faigned by the Poets, they prove him to be a devil, who exat∣ted and took delight to haue such abo∣minable practices ascribed to him and represented in his honour.

Cath.

I cannot but thank you for this Short, yet cleer Account you haue given me of the Heathens Theology, and the Several ways which the Fathers took to

refute it. Had you deduced the whole matter at large, cited the Passages of the Fathers, and dilated vpon them with your own Animadversions, I think you might haue out done the Dr. him∣self in being Voluminus. Yet whilst you studied brevity, me thinks there is one Principal part of it omitted by you; And that is Varro's Opinion who believed the same God to be worshipped by the Jews and the Romans, as S. Augustin con∣fesseth, but under another name, and with * 1.128 this difference, that the Romans wor∣shipped him by an Image, but the Jews would admit of no Image in his Worship.

Eun:

You haue done well to mind me of this, because he was, (as the same S. Augustin calleth him) the most Acute and learned of all the Romans. And if such a man erred, much more may we think the Vulgar did. Now that what he asserted was not true, S. Au∣gustin shows by Arguments which can∣not be answered. 1. Because the Romans, who received the Gods of other Nations * 1.129 whom they had conquered, would never admitinto their Religion the worship of the God of the Jews. 2. Because the God * 1.130 of the Jews forbad any other Gods to be

worshipped besides him; but Iupiter for∣bad not even Saturn himself, and that, af∣ter he had driuen him out of his king∣dome, to beworshipped as a God, though he stood in competition with him for the Title of Supream; as being thought by others to be the God of the Jews, * 1.131 and that Deity, into whom the Philoso∣phers resolved their Interpretations. 3. Because, had the Romans believed Ju∣piter * 1.132 to be the same with the God of the J••ws, they would not haue treated him so contumeliously at Rome, as to make a Simulacre to him. Perhaps you will check at the new-fashioned word Simulacre, but you must know, first that it comes from France where it is in use, among Authors of great note. 2. That the fashion of it is the same with that of Spectre, used by Dr. St. p. 682. and 3. That the word Simulachrum seems to be used here by S. Augustin in the common acception of the Heathens, that is, for such an Image as by Dedication was believed by them to haue some di∣vinity incorporated in it, for which it ought to be worshipped, and the ma∣king such an one to Jupiter, had the Ro∣mans believed him to be the same with

the God of the Jews is what as S. Augustin saith, would haue been a contumely to him. 4. Because Varro, who, had he been free from the preju∣dice * 1.133 of custome which involved him also in the worship of many Gods, would haue asserted the Worship of one only God, and that without a Simulacre, yet himself believed and taught this God to be no other than the Soul of the world, whereas the true God, as S. Augustin replyes vpon him; was not the Soul of the world, (if there were any such thing) but the Maker and * 1.134 Creator of it. And then lamenting as it were that so great a man should come so neer the Truth, and miss it, he expresses that favourable Opi∣nion of him, that had he been ad∣vertised of the Mutability of a S••ul, together with the Impious and Irre∣ligions Consequences, which followed * 1.135 from his Assertion, and could haue born vp against the Tyranny of an old Errour, he would in all likelyhood much rather haue believed that In∣commutable Being, which created the Soul it self, to be the true God. And with these and the like Arguments he

triumphed over that great Dictator of the Romans in all kind of learn∣ing.

Cathar.

These Arguments indeed seem to me convincing. But I am yet to seek, whether these and the rest also produced by the Fathers may not be looked vpon by Dr. St. as casts of their former employment, when he so carnestly maintains Jupiter Capitolinus to be the true God; and I doubt whe∣ther they would haue had the same success, had he been then alive to ma∣nage the Cause.

Eun:

You may think as you please of the Dr's wit and abilities in this Point. But thus much I think is evident to any man of Common Sense, that if the Fathers did not most grossly con∣tradict themselves, or were not (to use the Dr's Phrase) such a pack of * 1.136 Hypocrites and Impostors, as to im∣pugn in others what they believed themselves, the Passages alledged by him out of them, to show it to haue been their Sense, that Jupiter who was worshipped in the Capitol was the true God, must be mis-represented, or cor∣rupted by him.

Cathar.

That if you please shall be tried at our next meeting.

Eun:

Pray pick out the choicest and most convincing Testimonies you can. For you know, as the Dr. himself hath told us, that this Point is very material toward the true understanding the na∣ture * 1.137 of Idolatry.

Cathar.

You need not recommend that to my care, I shall give you enow to make a full consent of the Fathers.

THE THIRD DIALOGVE.

THE ARGVMENT.

THe Particular Testimonies of Mi∣nucius Felix, Clemens Alexandri∣nus, S. Augustin, and T••rtullian, ci∣ted by Dr. St. to prove it to haue been their Sense, that the Heathen's Jupiter was the true God, brought to the Test; And the design of the said Fathers shown to be either mis-represented, or both their Words and Sense corrupted by him.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

EVn:

Good morrow, Catharinus: I see you are breaking your Fast this morning with the Dr. Haue you met with the Places you desired.

Cath.

I haue, though with more dif∣ficulty, than I imagined, they were so

intermingled with those other passages, which as you observed, proved no more, than either that the H••athens acknow∣ledged one Supream God: or that it was the Sense of the Heathens, that their Jupiter was He. Yet I haue met with some, and those of great Authority, which prove it so clearly to haue been the Sense of the Fathers also, that Jupiter was the Supream God, that I think it cannot be denied.

Eun:

And was it not artificially done of the Dr. to in-lay his Testimonies in such a manner, that the unwary Reader, hearing the Supream God spoken of in some of them, and Jupiter in others, might think the Fathers acknowledg∣ed Jupiter to be the Supream God. But this is what I deny. And doubt not be∣fore we part to make you see, either that the meaning of the Fathers is mis-represented, or both their words and Sense corrupted by him. You may pro∣duce them if you please.

Cath.

Well then Eunomius, what can be more clear than the Testimony of Mi∣nucius * 1.138 Felix? when he saith (and as Dr. St. observes) wisely in this case. They who make Iove the chief God,

are only deceived in the name, b••t agree in the Power. Surely he was farr enough from thinking their Iupiter Father of Gods and Men (which he applauds the Poets for saying) to haue been the Arch-Devil

Eun:

This indeed comes something more home to the purpose, if it be true what the Dr. saith. But what if he haue corrupted both the Sense and words of Minucius, to make him speak as he would haue him? To make this out, there will need no more, than to acquaint you with the design of Mi∣nucius in that place, and to set down his words exact••y as they are in the Oxford Edition 1631. His design was there to convince the Heathens, that * 1.139 the world was governed by one only God▪ not many. To do this he makes use of the Examples of Monarchical Government among men, of one king among the Bees, and one Leader a∣mongst the heards of Irrational Crea∣tures: from whence he inferrs, that much more ought we to acknowledge one Supream and undivided Power in Heaven. This he confirms again from the Practice of the Heathens them∣selves,

who were wont to lift vp their hands to heaven, and say, God is Great, and God is true. And then addes for their further Conviction, the words (as they should haue been) cited by the Dr. viz, Those also who will haue Iupiter to be the Prince or Chief, are dece••v••d in the name, but agree as to the Vnity of Power: I hear the Poets also ext••lling One Father of Gods and Men. By which it is plain, that him∣self intended nothing lesse than to assert Iupiter to be the one Supream God; but that he argued only ad hominem (as we say) from what the wiser Heathens pretended they thought of Iupiter, that they ought to acknowledge, but One Supream God, Maker and Governour of the world. As for his own thoughts concerning Iupiter, you haue heard before what they were, p. 89. where he expressly affirms Saturn, Serapis, and Iupiter himself to be Devils; and proves them to be so from their own Confes∣sions. So farr was He from thinking the Heathen's Iupiter to be the Su∣pream God, as Dr. St. would make his Reader believe; which he could not otherwise do, than by corrupting the

very Text. For the words in Minucius are these. Et qui Iovem Principem vo∣lunt, f••lluntur in nomine, sed de una potestate consentiunt, that is, Those also who will haue Iupiter to be the Prince o•• Chief, are deceived in the name, b••t agree as to the Vnity of Power, i. ē. that there is one Supream God by whom the world is governed: and not as they are translated by the Doctor. They who make Iove the Chief God, are only de∣ceived in the name, but agree in the Power. Where if you compare the En∣glish with rhe Latin, you will find, that first he translates the word Volunt (by which Minucius intimates what the Heathens would haue, but he would not grant,) by the term mak••, as if Minucius assented to it. Then he coggs the word ONLY into the Text, They are only saith he deceived in the name, as if the name did not carry the Person along with it in his Judgment who makes Iupiter to be a Devil: And lastly leaues out the word VNA, s••il potestate, which plainly shew'd the design and Sense of Minucius to be, that although they were deceived in their pretence of assigning Iupiter to

be the Supream God; yet by what they affirmed of him, viz, that He was the Prince or Chief, and the Poets setting forth one Father of Gods and Men, they were sufficiently convinced, that they ought to acknowledge but one Supream and un-divided Power, not many, by Which the world was made and go∣verned; which was the Point that Mi∣nucius was proving in that place. Here then you see, Catharinus, that the Dr. hath not only mis-represented the mean∣ing of Minucius, but corrupted the very Text, by put••ing in and leaving out what he thought might make for his advantage. Neither doth he applaud the Poets for their magnifying Iupiter as the Father of Gods and men, but cites them against the Heathen's Opinion of Plurality of Gods, as acknowledging o••e Father of All. The Dr. observes that what Minucius said was wisely said; and so it was, because he convinced the Heathens, by the Testimony of those who were esteemed the wisest amongst them: But whether it were Wisely or Honestly done of him thus to corrupt the words and Sense of Minucius, I leaue to your Judgment; But am very

sure, that this is not the way to break T. G. of his bad custome.

Cath.

But the following Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, who al∣lows * 1.140 and applauds the Heathens for giving to Iupiter the Title of the Su∣pream God, both in his Admonition and Misce lanies, may I hope serve to do it. For having shown that Thales conf••ssed God's Omnipotency and Omnisciency, that Epicharmus attributed Omnipo∣tency to him, and Homer the Creation of the world, which he described in the Shield of Achilles, he makes this Ob∣servation, (as if it w••re purposely in∣tended saith he for T. G.) He that is called both in Verse and Prose Iupiter carries our apprehension to God, (not to the Arch-Devil as T. G. saitb.) And then cites the Testimonies of Euphorion and Aeschilus about Iupiter, which for T. G's better information he sets doWn both in Greek and English, viz, Iupiter is Aether and Earth and Hea∣ven and all things, and if there be any thing aboue all, Iupiter is it: Which Clemens is so farr from thinking an improper speech, that he saith it was spoken with a great deal of decency and

Gravity concerning God. And now I pray tell me, Eunomius, if Dr. St. had not a great deal of reason to subjoyn as he doth; By this it appears that those who boast so much of the Fathers are not over-conversant with them; but Fa∣ther Bellarmin, and Father Coccius serve them for a whole Jury of them. And then commends T. G. for his mo∣desty, that when he had said, this was the Sense of the Fathers, he produced no more but good Father Origen; and is so kind-hearted to him, that though I believe, saith the Dr. he hath heard how he hath been condemned for an He∣retick, yet he with great judgment sup∣poses that what he said was the Common Sense of the Fathers. What say you to this Eunomius.

Eun:

That we haue here a Second Part to the same tune, or another Fit of ranting like that of the two God fa∣thers, and Covie of one, But what hath Clemens done either in his Admonition or Miscellanies to put the Dr. into it? He saith indeed that what the Poets say about Jupiter's being all things, was spoken with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God, and that

He who is called both in Verse and Prose Iupiter, doth under the glorious Titles Attributed to him of Omnipotent, Omniscient &c. carry our Apprehen∣sion to God; but doth it follow from hence, that it was the Sense of Cle∣mens himself that Iupiter who was worshipped in the Temples, was that true God? Cannot I say, it was spoken with a great deal of decency and Gravity by Dr. St. of himself, that his design, as he saith, is to represent the matters in difference truly, to report faithfully, * 1.141 and to argue closely, and that these things spoken of him carry my Appre∣hension to an Ingenuous and Sincere Writer of Controversy, but it must be my sense, that Dr. St. of whom they are said, must be the Man? This was the case of Clemens. His design in his Admonition was (and the Dr. could not be ignorant of it, for he cites the words) to shew that there is a certain * 1.142 Divine Influence distilled vpon all men, especially on those who apply themselves to learning, by vertue of which they are forced to confess One God, incorruptible and unbegotten, who abides for ever aboue the highest Heavens. And in the Fifth

Book of his Miscellanies he falls vpon the same Subject again, viz, that there is a Natural knowledge of one Omni∣potent God among all considering men. For proof whereof he cites many pas∣sages of the Philosophers and Poets, and some of them applying to him under the name of Iupiter, those things which truely and only belong to the One Su∣pream God: From whence he draws this Conclusion at the End of the Book, that the East and West, the North and South haue one and the same inbred no∣tion of the Government of one Supream Disposer of things. But farr more the Inquisitive Philosophers of Greece, who attribute a Wise Providence to him who is Invisible, and the only most Power∣ful, and most Skilful Contriver of things. By which it appears, that when Cle∣mens said, that He who is called Iupiter both in Verse and Prose carries our Ap∣prehension to God, and that what Aes∣chilus said of Iupiter's being all things was spoken with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God; his mean∣ing was not to assert Iupiter to be that Supream Being; but from the Epithets and Titles of Omniscient, Omnipotent

&c. (Which their own Philosophers and Poets attributed to Iupiter, or to God under his name,) to convince them, that there was but one only Supream Being, Maker and Governour of the World. For, whether they did Wisely or no in calling him Iupiter, yet the things they said of him, did evidently oblige them to acknowledge such a Being to be the Contriver and disposer of all things; not that Clemens himself asserted them to belong to the Iupiter, who was worshipped by them: As (to make use of the former Paralel) when Dr. St. ascribes to himself, Fidelity, Exactness, Closeness in arguing &c. whether he do wisely or no in doing so (of which by this time you may have some cause to doubt) yet most certainly it follows from his applying them to himself that he acknowledges them to be the true and laudable Qualities of a Cont••••∣vertist; not that I who cite him saying so of himself, acknowledge them to be found in him: For I think I haue evinc'd the contrary by many Arguments al∣ready, and foresee if you hold on in your design, I shall haue occasion to do it farther. As for the Judgment

which Clemens himself made of the Heathen's Iupiter, you heard before, how he affirms not only the lesser Gods * 1.143 to be Devils, but the more Honourable among them, viz, Apollo, Diana, Latona, Ceres, Proserpina, Pluto, Her∣cules, and (as though ••t were purpo∣sely intended for Dr. St.) ipse Iupiter even Iupiter himself, to be Magni Doe∣mones, Great Devils, and not that He was the true God, Blessed for evermore, as Dr. St. saith. Here perhaps the Dr. will say, that Clemens runs out after his way; because he runs not the same way * 1.144 with him. But by what hath been said it appears, that they who boast so much of giving a full account of the Fathers, are not over∣conversant with them, un∣less the meaning be that they are too bold with them, in making them speak quite contrary to their meaning as the Dr. doth here with Clemens. Are there any more, whom you think fit to produce?

Cathar.

I know not what to say to these things, unless I should take the pains my self to examin the Books, which I think I shall not do.

Eun:

And so did Dr. St. too; other∣wise

he would never haue given us such a full account of them, as he hath. But pray tell me, Are there any more, whom you think fit to produce?

Cath.

Yes: The Great S. Augustin, * 1.145 in his 4^th Book of the City of God. cap. 9. where, as Dr. St. saith, he confesses that the Romans believed him whom they worshipped in the Capitol to be the King of the Gods as well as Men: And to re∣present that, they placed a Scepter in his hand, and built his Temple vpon a high Hill; and that it is he of whom Virgil saith, Jovisomnia plena; and the same in Varro's Opinion that was worshipped by some without an Image, by whom the same S. Au∣gustin saith, he meant the Iews. Can you deny these to be the words of S. Augustin? And if not, can any thing be more plain?

Eun:

What to do? To prove it to be the Sense of S. Augustin, that Jupiter whom the Romans worshipped in the Capitol, was the true God? This Ideny. They prove indeed that the Heathens endeavoured to save themselves from the shame of worshipping a Devil by these pretended Arguments; But what is that to the Que∣stion, which is not what was the Sense of the Heathens, but of the Fathers?

Cath.

You are very precise I see in keeping to the State of the Question.

Eun.

And it is but necessary, when if a Father chance, (though but by way of an Objection, as these words of S. Au∣gustin are) to cite the Testimony of a Poet or Philosopher, wherein they either prophanely ascribed to Jupiter the Attri∣butes of the true God, or fondly and ab∣surdly applied to the true God the name of Jupiter, presently it must be believed that the Fathers acknowledged Iupiter that was worshipped in the Capitol, to be the true God. But S. Augustin was so farr from thinking him so, that he looks upon it as no other than a Pretence of the Heathens to save themselues from confusion, as manifestly appears. 1^st From the word Volunt (for we haue that un∣lucky word here too, Ipsum, (se. Iovem) Deorum omnium dearumque Regem esse volunt:) which as I said before signifies what they would haue, but S. Augustin would not grant, viz, their Iupiter to be the King of the Gods as well as Men, as the Dr. reads it. Hence in the 17^th chapter of the same Book, he saith, Iovem Deorum Regem pro sua Opinione confingunt, that they faign Iupiter in their

own Opinion, (not his) to be the King of the Gods: and in the 25^th chapter he shows that themselves believed Happi∣ness not to be given by Iupiter, but by some God whom they did not know. And if he proved the very pretence in them to be false, surely he was farr enough himself from thinking the thing to be true, viz that their Jupiter was the true God. 2. From the words immediately foregoing those cited by the Dr. For there he derides the Heathens, (and it was his way too) for ascribing the greatness and conti••uance of the Roman Empire to Ju∣piter: Nimirum ergo Jovis hoc opus est. This then, without any peradventure saith he, is the Work of Jove, for they will haue him to be the King of all the Gods and Goddesses, and then 3. Having in the same Ironical way proposed the Arguments, made use of that time by the Heathens to support their pretence (and now brought in anew by the Dr. to sup∣port the same) viz, that they put a Scepterin his hand, and built his Tem∣ple upon a high hill &c. he sets himself to confute them as absurd and foolish. And first he shews the Opinion of Var∣ro, (who believed Iupiter to be the

same with the God of the, Iews, to be con∣tradicted by the practice of the Romans; If it be so, saith he, why is He so ill trea∣ted * 1.146 at Rome, as to make or dedicate a Simulacre to him? Then in the very next chapter He proves at large that which way soeuer they take Iupiter, either as * 1.147 the Son of Saturn, and the Brother and Husband of Iuno, according to the Poets and Historians; or so as to under∣stand by Iupiter the Fire, and by Iuno the Ayr according to the Philosophers, non est ille de quo dictum est, Iovis om∣nia plena, It is not He of whom it is said, All things are fill'd with Iove, if Iuno also fill some part, and therefore Virgil must contradict himself, when he said not as a Poet, but as a Philoso∣pher, as S Augustin notes.

Tunc Pater Omnipotens foecundis im∣bribus Aether Conjugis in gremium laete descendit.

After this he proceeds for divers chapters together to refute the Several Interpre∣tations, which the Learneder Heathens had devised to make their Pretence ap∣pear plausible, as that all the Gods were but one and the same Iupiter; that God is * 1.148 the Soul of the world, that those whom they * 1.149 * 1.150

called Gods, were but Divine Gifts &c. And although the Dr. may sleight these arguments of S. Augustin also as casts of his former employment, (for I believe he hath heard of him that he was a Rhetorician before his Conversion, as well as T. G. of Origen that he was thought to be Heretical,) yet they evi∣dently evince at least, that it was not his own Sense, that the Heathen's Iupiter was the true God. And if what I haue said here, and before, be not sufficient * 1.151 to convince you of it, hear what he saith in the 17^th chapter of the same Book * 1.152 where he argues against Iupiter's being the Supream God from their making Victory a Goddess. Will they say, saith he, that Iupiter sends the Goddess Vi∣ctoria, and she in Obedience to the King of Gods takes part with them to whom she is sent, this saith he, is truly said, not of that Iupiter, whom in their Opinion they faign to be the King of the Gods, but of Him who is the true King of Ages. As for their Iupiter you heard befor•• what his Verdict was, where he said, * 1.153 that none but wicked Spirits, or Devils, were worshipped in their Temples; not so much as King Iupiter himself excep∣ted.

And now, pray tell me Catharinus if the Dr. had not great reason to vaunt, that he had given a full and clear Evi∣dence * 1.154 of the consent of all the Fathers in this matter, and that not taken from any single or incoherent passages, but from the Series and Design of their discourses, when he imposes vpon us for the Sense of S. Augustin, what S. Augustin pro∣poses as an Objection of the Heathens and sets himself to confute with all the wit and learning he had. And your self as yet haue not been able, nor I am con∣fident, ever will be able to pick out of all the Testimonies of the Christian Fa∣thers alledged by him, so much as a Covie of one, who asserts it as his own Sense, that the Heathen's Iupiter was the true God?

Cath.

Here you bring the matter in∣deed to a Pinch. But giue me leaue to tell you, that for all your confidence you may be, and are mistaken. For there is one yet behind whose Authority may stand for many.

Eun:

Who is that I pray?

Cath.

No lesse a man than Tertul∣lian.

Eun:

Tertullian? Though I believe

the Dr. hath heard how he also hath been condemn'd for an Heretick, as well as Origen; yet if you can show, that he acknowledged Iupiter that was worship∣ped in the Capitol to be the true God, I shall resign my Iudgmens so farr, as to suppose that what he said was the Common Sense of the Fathers.

Cath.

And if I do not manifestly prove it out of him from the Testimonies al∣ledged by the Dr. I shall willingly, for what I am concerned in it. yeild up the Cause.

Eun:

Let us then bring the matter to an Issue, and hear what it is, that Ter∣tullian saith.

Cath.

First, as Dr. St. observes, He appeals to the Consciences of men for the * 1.155 clearest Evidence of one true and Su∣pream God. For in the midst of all their Idolatries, saith he, they are apt vpon any great occasion to lift vp their hands and Eyes to heaven, where the Only True, and Good God is. Then he men∣tions * 1.156 their common Phrases, God gives, and God sees, and I commond you to God, and God will ••estore: All which do shew the Natural Testimony of Conscience as to the Vnity and Supream Excellency of

God. And in his Book ad Scapulam, (Pray mark it well) God, saith he, * 1.157 shewed himself to be the Powerful God, by what he did vpon their Supplications to him under the name of Jove. Now although the two first passages prove no more, but that the Heathens had a Notion of one Supream Being ingraf∣ted in their minds by nature, (which you will not allow to come home to the Question) Yet this last clearly evinces that Jupiter, whom they wor∣shipped in the Capitol, was this one Supream Being, both from the Testi∣mony of Tertullian, and of God him∣self, by the Miracle he did vpon their Supplications (i. ē. the Supplications of the Heathens) made to him under the name of Jove.

Eun:

A Miracle! Here you haue brought the matter to a brave Issue indeed. But did Tertullian then in good earnest say that God did a Mira∣cle to shew himself the Powerful God vpon the Supplications the Heath••ns made to him under the name of Jove? Dr. St. you know is not over fond of proving doctrines by Miracles, and I cannot but wonder he should now make

use of one to establish a doctrine so con∣trary to that of the Holy Scriptures both Old and New. For what I read there is, that All the Gods of the Heathens * 1.158 are Devils, as the Septuagint translate it, that they sacrificed their sons and daughters to Devils; and again, (as if * 1.159 it were purposely intended for Dr. St.) They Sacrificed to Devils, and not to God. What the Heathens offer in Sa∣crifice, they offer to Devils, and not to God. Methinks it might haue sufficed to haue laid this Infamous Brat of Ju∣piter's being the true God Blessed for evermore, at S. Paul's door, and not to father it vpon God himself. Such bad customes as these are to be broken, least they grow vp into open Blasphemy; and I shall endeavour to make the right Fa∣ther stand for his own child. But first are you sure Catharinus, that it was vpon the Supplications of the Heathens that the Dr. avouches Tertullian to say, that God did this Miracle?

Cath.

Yes▪ for he makes this Preface before the Testimony of Tertullian, that he will now look into the Sense of Writers of the Latine Church against the Heathens Idolaters; and accordingly it

is of them that he speaks in the two for∣mer passages, and the particle their (viz Supplications) evidently relates to them. Besides, when was it ever heard that Christians made their Supplications un∣der the name of Jove? Origen, as th•• Dr. notes, saith that by reason of the abundance of filthy and obscene Fables, * 1.160 which went of their Jupiter, the Chri∣stians would by no means endure to haue the true God called by his name. And S. Paul, as your self observed, though he cited a place out of Aratus, where he had mentioned Jupiter twice before, yet would not himself make use of the name. Nor do I believe that Dr. St. himself will ever think fit to put into his Letany, or to conclude any of his Works with that Invocation of Pater∣culus, Jupiter Capitoline, Auctor & Stator Romani nominis. There is a deco∣rum to be observed in the use and appli∣cation of words by reason of the change they are subject to from time and other Circumstances; as it would be absurd at present to make use of the Old Trans∣lation of those words of the Apostle, Paulus Servus Jesu Christi, Paul the Knave of Jesus Christ.

Eun:

Very well. It was then vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to God under the name of Jove, that Dr. St. avouches Tertullian to say, that he did the Miracle. But what will you say, Catharinus, if Tertullian expressly af∣firm, that it was done vpon the Suppli∣cations of the Christians made to God, but that the Heathens after it was done, would haue ascribed it to Jove?

Cath.

Marry then will I never trust Testimony of Father more for Dr. St's sake.

Eun:

You mean I suppose cited by him; and you haue reason to do so from the experience you haue had in ••ther Instances, but in none more f••lly, not more foully than in this, where he hath corrupted the words and Sense of Ter∣tullian, in so subtil, and yet palpable a manner, as is not easy to be found in any other. Haue you the works of Ter∣tullian?

Cath.

Yes, here they are, the Place cited by the Dr. is Lib. ad Scapulam. cap. 4. Pray turn to it.

Eun:

Lo, here it is. And the words are these. Marcus quoque Aurelius in Ger∣manica expeditione, Christianorum mi∣litum

Orationibus ad Deum factis, im∣bres ins••i illa impetravit. Quando non geniculationibus & Jejunation••bus nostris etiam siccitates sunt depulsae? Tunc & Populus adclamans Deo Deorum & qui solus Potens, in Iovi's nomine Deo nostro testimonium reddidit, that is to say if I haue not forgot my Grammar, that Marcus Aurelius in the German Expe∣dition, when his Army was ready to perish for want of water, obtained rain by the Supplications of the CHRI∣STIAN SOVLDIERS made to God. And indeed saith he when were not such Kind of calamities removed by the Prayers and Fasting of us Christians? Then the People also with their Accla∣mations to the God of Gods, and who alone is Powerful, gaue Testimony to our God under the name of Iove. These are the words; and the design of Tertul∣lian if I mistake not, in this passage was to convince Scapula, that he ought not to persecute the Christians, by whose Prayers so miraculous a•• Benefit had been obtained of God; and the more, because the very Heathens them∣selves, though according to their cu∣stome, they made their acclamations to

Iove, yet under that name by the Titles they gaue him of God of Gods, and a∣lone most Powerful, they gaue Testimony to the God of the Christians, who had wrought the Miracle. Now what does Dr. St? He jumbles together the Suppli∣cations of the Christian Souldiers, and the Acclamations of the Heathens, the God of the Christians and Iupiter, and makes the Sense to be, that God shew'd himself to be the Powerful God by what he did vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Iove. And can any thing be more contradictory to the words and Sense of Tertullian than this is? Tertullian saith expressly that what God did, was vpon the Sup∣plications * 1.161 of the Christians made to him. Dr. St. makes him say, it was vpon the Supplications of the Heathens. Ter∣tullian saith that the Heathens by the Acclamations they made to the God of Gods as they called Iove, gaue Testi∣mony to the God of the Christians under that name. Dr. St. makes him say, that God wrought the Miracle vpon their Supplications to him under the name of Iove.

Cath.

The First part of this is plainer

than I could wish it for Dr. St's. credit. For I see the words in Tertullian are, Orationibus CHRISTIANORVM ad Deum factis, by the Prayers of the Christians made to God, not of the Hea∣thens. But I do not so well understand the latter. For when Tertullian saith they gaue Testimony to our God under the name of Iove, what can his meaning be, but that they intended to honour him under that name, to whom they had before ad∣dressed their Supplications?

Eun:

No such matter I can assure you, Catharinus: but what the Heathens meant was to rob the God of the Chri∣stians of the honour, and transferr it to their Iove by giving to him the Title of God of Gods &c. but in so doing, they gave Testimony to our God that he alone was the most Powerful, who had done this Miracle vpon the Supplications of the Christians; This is what Tertullian meant to tell us not that the Heathens, had addressed their Supplications to the true God under the name of Iove. And that you may see this was his Sense, pray hear what he saith in the 40^th chap. of his Apologetick against the Heathens, where he describes both the

manner of their Supplications, and to whom they made them, and reproaches them with their bad custome of ascribing to their false God Iupiter, what the Christians had obtained of the only true God by their Prayers When there is fear, saith he, of a bad year through too much drouth, you (speaking to the Priests of the Heathens) wallowing in luxe and wantonness, offer sacrifices for rain to Iupiter, command the People to go barefoot, and seeking Heaven in the Capitol, expect the Clouds to showr down from the Roof, averse in so doing both from G••d and Heaven. But we (Chri∣stians) in the mean time depriving our selves of all sustenance, and even dry'd vp with fasting. and rowling our selves in Sack-cloth and Ashes, strike Heaven with Envy, and move God himself with compassion. Et cum misericordiam extor∣ferimus, Jupiter honoratur. And when we haue by these means extorted mercy, Iupiter must haue the honour. Where you see he evidently distinguishes the God of the Christians from their Iove to whom they intended the honour. And that it was so in this very passage we are vpon, is acknowledged by Dr. St. himself, * 1.162

when speaking of it in another place, he saith, that by those words of Ter∣tullian, [Then the whole Army made this Exclamation, Deo Deorum] it is evident, saith he, they intended this ho∣nour to their own Iove: And now I hope Catharinus, you are satisfied of the Sense of Tertullian, that he makes both the Acclamations, and Supplications of the Heathens to haue been directed not to the true God under the name of Iove, but to that Deity whom they belieued to reside in the Capitol, as distinct from him. But what will the Dr. do to save himself from the shame of so notorious a Falsification of the words and Sense of Tertullian, as to make him ascribe that to the Supplications of the Hea∣thens made to Iove, which Tertullian expressly saith was obtained by the Sup∣plications of the Christians made to God?

Cath.

I doubt not but he will find a elew to bring himself out of this Laby∣rinth, though I confess I am lost in it my self.

Eun:

Will he cite Iulius Capitolinus and Dio? The former of which attri∣butes the miracle to the Prayers of M.

Aurelius himself; the latter to a parti∣cular Providence of God, yet mention∣ing withall a report that it was done by the Magical Operation of one Ar∣nuphis. These indeed are two of his Faihers, but will not serve his turn, so well as Father Bellarmin, and Father Coccius do T. Gs. For Eusebius tells us, that this miraculous Event was deli∣vered * 1.163 to Posterity, both by the Hea∣then and Christian Writers, but with this difference, that the Heathens as being averse from Faith, relate it in such a manner, as it doth not evidently appear, that it was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians; But the Christian Writers, as being Lovers of Truth recount the matter plainly, but truly as it was done; viz vpon the Sup∣plications of the Christian Souldiers, and then cites Apollinarius and Ter∣tullian for it. So that if the Christian Fathers may be credited rather than the Heathen, this miraculous deliverance was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians.

But now, (as I remember he saith of * 1.164 T. G. (I haue reason to consider the temper of the Person I haue to deal with.

Who knows but the Testimony of one Heathen Father, (especially such a one as he describes M. Aurelius to be) may weigh more with him, than the * 1.165 Testimonies of t••enty Christian, whom he can send to school again, when he pleases, to learn to explain themselves better, as he doth the Christian Cicero Lactantius p. 43. Let us then hear how M. Aurelius himself relates the matter in his Letters to the Senate.

And thus it was, that being in great distress for want of water, he sent for those who are called Christians in his Army, and intreated their help. And when they had cast themselves vpon the earth, they not only prayed for me, saith he, but also for the whole Army, that some Redress might be given to the Hunger and Thirst, with which we were pressed, for it was five days, that we had not taken so much as a litle water, because none was to be had, we being then in the midst of Germany shut in with Mountains on every side. But as soon as they had cast themselves vpon the earth, and made their Sup∣plications to that God, whom I was ignorant of (it seems then it was not

Iove,) presently there fell vpon us from heaven a very cool and refreshing shower, but vpon our Enemies Hail in the likeness of Fire, and Flashes of Lightning. And that God who cannot be resisted nor overcome presently heard their Prayers and Supplications. Where∣fore, saith he, let us from hence∣forward permit them to be Christians, least by their Prayers they obtain like Arms against us. And then commands that no man presume to inform against * 1.166 them vpon the account of their being Christians, under the penalty of being burnt alive.

This is what M. Aurelius himself related to the Senate. And what * 1.167 will the Dr. say to the Testimony of so Eminent a Father? Will he criticize as his custome is in like cases, vpon the Mountains, and the five days want of water, and the Hail in the likeness of Fire, to make the story seem Improbable, and the letters to haue been forged by the Christians? That will not do his work; for Dio another of his Fathers confesses that M. Aurelius did write of this miraculous deliverance to the Se∣nate, though he omit to set down the words of the letter, out of the like good

will, we may suppose, to the Chri∣stians, as he had before omitted to de∣clare that it was obtained by their Pray∣ers, although he went not so farr (as the Dr. does) as to affirm it was done vpon the Supplications of the Heathens. But Tertullian in his Apologetick against the Heathens affirms expressly, that the * 1.168 Letters of M. Aurelius were extant in his time, in which he ascribes his deli∣verance to the Prayers of the Christians, who, as it happened, served in that Ex∣pedition. And in this he is approved by Eusebiu•• in his Chronicon. Now I appeal to your self, Catharinus, if you can imagin, that so grave a man as Tertul∣lian, who evermore made the Sincerity of the Christians one main Article of his Apology, would tell a lye in so no∣torious a matter of Fact, and of which there were some yet alive who might convince him; or insolently dare, vpon an uncertain report of letters written by M. Aurelius attribute that Victory to the Prayers of the Cbristians, which had been obtained by his own prayers, were it true what Father Julius Capito∣linus relates, or vpon the Supplications of the Heathens, as Dr. St. will haue it.

This is the Summe of what Baronius hath delivered at large concerning this * 1.169 matter, with so great Evidence, that which way soeuet the Dr. turn himself, he must needs find himself like M. Aurelius, shut in with Mountains, and stand in need of the Prayers of good Christians to God to help him out; unless he think the Supplications of the Hea∣thens to Jove, may be as available for him, as he makes them to haue been for Aurelius. And indeed whoever con∣siders, how prodigal he is both of his pains and credit to Apologize for them, must needs see the great obligation they haue to give him the Assistance of their Prayers.

But I haue not yet done with the Dr. vpon this Point. Scapula to whom Ter∣tullian wrote that Book was President of Carthage, a man that threatned utter destruction to the Christians, un∣less they would renounce Christ, and offer Sacrifice to the Gods. To appease his fury Tertullian writes this Book, wherein he first exposes the Innocent life of the Christians, and then the * 1.170 Punishments, which had fallen vpon many of those, who had persecuted them,

and the great Blessings and Benesits, which others had received, who had treated them with clemency, and amongst the rest the miraculous Victory given to M. Aurelius in the German expedition, the passage cited by Dr. St. This being the Scope of Tertullian in that Book, I would gladly know if any man of Com∣mon Sense can conceive him to haue been so Sensless, as to think to per∣swade Scapula not to compell the Chri∣stians against their Conscience to burn Incense to Jove, by telling him that God had shown himself to be the Power∣full God by what he did in the aforesaid Expedition vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Jove. This surely had been the ready way not to allay, but to enslame the Fury of the Persecuter, to see a People so obstinate that whereas they acknowledged the miraculous effect of Prayers made to God under the name of Jove they would not burn Incense nor sacrifice to him under the same name. Nor can I see how the Primitive Christians were excusable in their sufferings, any otherwise than as Weak Brethren who wanted good in∣formation, when as Origen saith, they

were ready to undergo any torments ra∣ther than to confess Jupiter to be God. Was this then an Apology for so Wise a man as Tertullian to make? No; But it is such an One, as Dr St. it seems would haue thought fit to make had he been in those Circumstances. Otherwise he would never haue taken so much pains to fix it vpon Tertullian, though he could not do it but by corrupting his words as you haue seen, and affirming what He saith was done by the Prayers of the Christians to God, to haue been done vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Jove. So foul a Passage as this was never fet∣ch'd from the Store-houses of Father Bellarmin, or Father Coccius, but of a much more Primitive Father, than either of them; of whom the Prophet Esay cites a saying [I will be like to the most High] which afterwards serv'd for an Original for the Poets and Orators to write by, when they gaue to Jupiter the Title of Pater Omnipotens & Su∣premus.

Cath.

Hold there, Good Eunomius. You know very well Humanum est labi. Every slip. is not a kick with the

Cloven-foot. The Wisest man may be over-seen in the Sense of an Author, through hast or inadvertence, or heat of disputation: And this is the utmost which I think you ought or can impute to Dr. St. in this case.

Eun:

In this I confess you speak like a Good Christian. And I should be ready to close with you in the same Judg∣ment, were I not well assured, that Dr. St. knew the contrary of what he affir∣med, to be the Truth. What if I shew you his own words some pages before in which he affirms expressly, that what was done at that time, was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians to God, and that the Heathens intended to rob him of the honour, and give it to their own Jove, and that this was the Sense of Tertullian in the very place cited now by him in favour of the Hea∣thens?

Cath.

This will seem to me as strange, as the Hail which fell in the likeness of Fire.

Eun:

Pray take his Book; It lies there before you, and read what he saith of this matter. Pag. 47.—Pray read it out.

Cath.

When the miraculous Victory was obtained by M. Antoninus over the * 1.171 Marcomanni by the Prayers of the Chri∣stians, (as Tertullian and Apollinaris say vpon good grounds, although the Heathen Historians attribute it to the vertue of Antoninus, or to some Magi∣cians with him) the whole Army made this Exclamation, saith Tertullian, Deo Deorum & qui solus Potens, whereby they did saith he, in Jovis nomine Deo * 1.172 nostro Testimoninm reddere: by which it is evident they intended this honour to their own Jove; for in the whole Army only the Legio Fulminatrix are suppo∣sed to haue been Christians; And besides this vpon Antoninus his Column at Rome, Baronius tells us there is still to be seen the Essigies of Iupiter Pluvius, destroy∣ing men and horses with Thunder and Lightning.

Eun:

Behold here a very fair Con∣fession, and Conviction too from Dr. St's. own mouth. For 1^st it is here confessed by him, that the Victory was miracu∣lous. 2^ly That it was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians made to God.

3. That this is so affirmed by Tertullian in the very place alledged by him.

4. That he acknowledges it was so affir∣med by him upon good grounds, which were chiefly the letters of M. Aurelius to the Senate. 5. That he judged the Grounds vpon which he spake to be Good, notwithstanding that the Hea∣then Historians attributed it to the ver∣tue of Antoninus, or to some Magi∣cians with him, as you heard before out of Julius Capitolinus and Dio. 6. That the whole Army by their Exclamation Deo Deorum & quisolus Potens, inten∣ded to give the honour to their own Jove; and confirms it farther himself from the Effigies of Jupiter Pluvius still to be seen vpon Antoninus his Column at Rome. And now after so clear a Confes∣sion of all these things, what could move so subtil a ••it as Dr. St. to make Ter∣tullian say, that God shewed himself to be the Powerful God by what he did vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Jove? Had he first said this, and afterwards told us, that the Victory was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians, as he confesseth Ter∣tullian saith vpon good grounds it was, I might haue thought he had corrected himself vpon a Second Consideration of

the Grounds, vpon which Tertullian saith it. But having first acknowledged them to be good (notwithstanding the Pretensions of the Heathen Historians) after this I say in spight of those grounds, to make Tertullian say, that God gave the Victory vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Love, is an argument to me not so much that Dr. St. was grown very sl••epy when he wro••e this, or that be wrote it in a dreā, * 1.173 (as he saith of T. G.) as that he wilfully shut his eyes, when he was broad awake. And therefore I hope, Catharinus, you will not forget. 1^st What you stipulated with me, when we entred vpon the Exa∣mination of this Place, viz, never more to trust Testimony of Father cited by Dr. St. For were not the Instances so many, and so pregnant, as hath been shewed, of his f••ul Play in this Kind; yet th••s alone is so notorious, that it may suffice in the Judgment of all Impartial men to implead him guilty of having forf••••ted all R••ght of ever hereafter being believed in any Testimonies he alledges. 2^dly That vpon the whole you will con∣fess, that after all his vapouring of the fall Account he would give us of the Sense

of the Fathers in this Point, and after the brave Covie of Partridges he tells us he had found, he hath not produced so much as a poor Covie of one Christian Father, who asserts it to be his Sense, that the Heathen's Iupiter (or as he calls him, their own Iove) was the true God; but all the Testimonies he brings out of them are either impertinent to the Que∣stion, or their design mis-represented, or the very Text it self corrupted, as hath been shewed. And so with your leave I bid you once more Farewel.

Cath.

For the present I am content. But I cannot let you go so for good and all. You must promise to let me see you again.

Eun:

And again if you please. Now I haue pass'd my time, a day or two or three more or less will break no squares. I will attend you.

THE FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

CAtharinus waves the Question of Jupiter's being the true God: and inforces the Parallel from the Heathen's acknowledgment of one Supream Being, to which Dr. St. contends, that they ref••rred the worship of their Inferiour Deities. Another notable Instance of his unfaithful reporting a passage of Tho∣mas Aquinas; and the Generality of the Heathens shown by most evident Argu∣ments to haue believed and worshipped a multitude of Gods properly so called and esteemed by them. What kind of Notion the Vulgar Heathens had of the Divi∣nity explained, and the Parallel between their worship, and that of the Church of Rome shown to be unjust, and rejected as such by Eminent Divines of the Church of England.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

EVn:

I perceive by the desire you ex∣press'd of seeing me again, there is something still behind, which you haue a mind to propose. I shall bewilling to hear it, but hope you will not trouble your self or me any more with the Dr's Fa∣thers; I dare assure you, it will not be at all for his Credit.

Cathar.

T'is a Transport which Great Wits are too often subject to out of a desire of Glory, to advance a Paradox, and endeavour to make it plausible by Artifices of Rhetorick and gain credit to it by unexpected Explications of Ancient Authors, especially when they haue a fair Occasion of catching an Adversary nodding, if not fast a sleep. as Dr. St. pre∣sum'd he had done T. G. when he as∣serted the Heathen's Supream God Iu∣piter, to be according to the Fathers an Arch-devil, and produced none for it but Father Origen.

Eun:

Wits then you see as well as Souldiers must haue care how they go a catching of Tartars, as I think Dr. St.

hath done, whilst he endeavoured to set Iupiter in the Throne of God. But what is it, that you haue to propose?

Cathar.

Perhaps I may be mistaken in the Conjecture I haue made; but whatever it were that engaged the Dr. in that Controversy, I do not see but he might haue wav'd it without any pre∣judice to his main Argument against T. G. For whether the Heathen's Iupiter were the Supream God or no, it is cer∣tain from the Testimonies of the Fathers, that the Heathens acknowledged a Su∣pream Being, Maker and Governour of the world. And if they worshipped their Inferiour deities, but as his Ministers, and their Images, but as Symbols or Representations of Him and Them, and yet were charged by the Fathers with Idolatry for so doing, t••is evident that T. G. will never be able to excuse himself, and those of the Church of Rome from Idolatry, by pretending they referr the worship they giue to Saints and Images to God, but He must vpon the same Principle excuse the Heathens also. This I take to be the Summe and Force of the Dr's discourse, and I think it will prove a Tartar to T. G.

Eun:

A Tartarian Argument indeed, or such an one as a Tartar, were he as subtil a Disputant as Dr. St. would bring to defend himself from becoming a Christian. But where the force of it lies I cannot see. For if we consider the Whole, it can be no Just Ground to charge either the Heathens in that Supposition, or the Romanists, with Idolatry, till it be proved to be Idolatry to give an In∣feriour degree of Worship or Veneration to any thing for the relation it hath to the only true God. Here it was, he should haue laid the Axe to the root, but it was impossible for him to make it enter, either in respect of the Hea∣thens in the aforesaid Supposition, or of those of the Church of Rome.

1. Not in respect of the Heathens. For from whence should he show it? Not from the light of nature; for that teach∣es us, that although no Irrational and Inanimate Beings be capable of that real Excellency, as to deserve any ho∣nour from us for it's own sake, much less divine, yet even such things may haue a Relation to matters of so high a nature, as to deserve a different usage an I regard from other things, yea a Re∣verence,

and if I may so call it, with the Dr. a Reli••ious Respect. Nor from the Law of Moses, at least for all those Heathens who lived before it was given, and consequently could not be judged by it. Nor yet for the rest, because the Apostle declares them also not to be un∣der the Law, any farther than the light of Nature manifested to them, that what they did was Good or Evil in its self, Of which kind the Dr. supposeth the know∣ledge of Idolatry as to the Heathens ro be none, when he saith, From whence should they kn••w the sinfulness of it, but from the Law of God?

2 Nor in respect of those of the Church of Rome. 1 Because the Law of Moses no where forbids to give an Inferiour degree of Reverence and respect to other things for the Relation they bear to God. 2. Because in case it had, the Law is evinced in that part to be a Positive Pre∣cept only, by God'••, dispensing with the Iews to give it to the Ark, with relation to him; and so not to oblige Christians. 3. Because those of the Church of En∣gland, and all others who give an In∣f••riou•• respect and Veneration to Sacred Things and Places for the relation they

haue to God, must be Idolaters on the same account, and therefore Eminent divines (as I show'd before) of the * 1.174 Church of England free the Church of Rome from Idolatry in that respect. This then was first to haue been done by the Dr. to make those of the Church of Rome Idolaters by paralleling them with the Heathens in the aforesaid Sup∣position viz, he ought to haue shown it to be Idolatry in the nature of the thing independently of any Positive Prohibi∣tion, (in case there were any such, which is denied) to give an Inf••riour degree of respect or Veneration to other things be∣sides God for the relation they haue to him But this he neither hath done, nor ever will be able to do, and consequently this mighty Argument, which the Dr. spent so much time and pains to build vp and adorn with the choicest Paint••ng and Sculpture his Wit and Ar•• could de∣vise, falls to the Ground for want of a Foundation to bear it up.

Cathar.

Yet still me thinks the Argu∣ment holds good against T. G. unless he will set as litle by the Fathers, as you make Dr. St. to do. For if they acknow∣ledged one Supream Being, and referred

all their worship both of Inferiour 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Images to him, and were notwith∣standing charged by the Fathers with Idolatry for so doing, those of the Church of Rome must fall under the same charge.

Eun:

To this I thought I had given you a sufficient Answer in the Account * 1.175 I gaue you of the Heathen's Theology, and the Arguments made use of by the Fathers to impugn it; from all which it appears, that it was not their design to charge them with Idolatry for giving an inferiour degree of worship to things re∣lating to God, but for worshipping the Creatures, not the Creator, (mark that, * 1.176 though they could not but have a na∣tural and inbred knowledge of him) with that worship which is due only to the One true God, as S. Augustin expressly layes the charge. But because I see you are not yet fully satisfied in this Point (so hard it is to shake off a prejudicate Opinion) I shall desire you as you are a Lover of Truth to answer me ingenuously but to this one Question, which I take to be very material toward•• the true Vnder∣standing the nature of Idolatry, viz, Whether you do not think, that the

Heathens, at least the Generality of them (Those I mean who followed the Religion of the State, and squated both their belief and worship according to the Rules of it, for of the Wiser one we may haue occasion to speak afterwards) did not acknowledge and worship more Gods than One?

Cath••r.

To this I shall give you a very cleer and direct Answer, in the words of One, against whom T. G. himself will not except. I mean Thomas Aquinas, in the Book he purposely wrote against the Gentiles, li. 1. c. 4. Where as Dr. St. * 1.177 hath well observ'd he confesses, that most of the Gentiles did acknowledge One Su∣pream God, f••om whom they said all those others whom they called Gods did receive their being; and that they ascribed the name of divinity to all Immortal substan∣ces, chiefly by reason of their Wisdome, Happiness and Government. Which cu∣stome of speaking, saith he, is likewise found in Scripture, where either the Holy Angels or men, and Judges are called Gods, I haue said, yee are Gods, and many other places. By which you see, that if those of the Church of Rome will give any credit to their own great Dr.

Aquinas, in his Book so highly applau∣ded * 1.178 by Possevin and others for the best account of the Christian Religion in oppo∣sition to Heathenism, they must confess also that although the Heathens gave the name of Gods, to others besides the Supream God, yet they did not belieue them to be properly Gods, but Analo∣gically only and by participation.

Eun:

What I expected, Catharinus, was your own Judgment in the case, and not of Thomas Aquinas; and I was in hope you would haue troubled us no more with the Dr's citations. But by what I now experience in you, I see I had done well to haue kept you in the good humour you were in of laying wagers, though you had staked but a Guiney at a time.

Cathar.

I suppose you would haue got∣ten but litle by the bargain at present, had you done so. For the Book is so frequent among all those of the Church of Rome who pretend to learning, that I cannot believe the Dr. would hazard his credit so apparently, as either to cor∣rupt the Text, or cite the passage in such a manner, as to mis-represent the design of the Author.

Eun:

This is indeed what ought to haue weighed with him. But haue you * 1.179 seen the Place your self? for you pro∣mised me from the former discoveries I had made of his Insincerity, in this kind, never to trust Testimony more cited by Dr. St.

Cathar.

I confess I haue not.

Eun:

Give me leaue then to tell you what it was, that Aquinas was treating of in that place, and your self shall be Iudge, whether ••he Dr. haue dealt fairly by him or his Readers in representing him in the manner he doth. The Title of the Chapter cited by the Dr. is, Quod Deus sit unus, that th••re is but One God. * 1.180 This Aquinas proves by many Excellent reasons, to which he shows the Testi∣monies of H. Scripture to be agreable. And among other reasons he gives this for one; because if there be two Gods, the name of God must be attributed to both, either Aequivocally, or Vnivo∣cally. If equivocally, saith he, it is be∣side he present Intention (mark that) for nothing hinders, but that any thing may be called equivocally by any name, if the use and custome, of the Speakers admit it. But if it be said of both Vni∣vocally,

the reason for which it is said, must be the same in both, which he shows there to be Impossible. Having thus declared his Intention to be to prove that there is but one God properly so called, and established it by the plainest demonstrations, as a most certain Truth, the Corollary he inferrs from these Pre∣misses is, that by vertue of this Truth * 1.181 the Gentiles who acknowledged a multi∣tude of Gods, were convinced to be in an Errour, although, saith he, (and then follow the words cited by the Dr) plures eorum, many of them did acknowledge one Supream God, from whom they said all those Others, whom they called Gods, did receive their being; ascribing the name of Divinity to all Immortal Substances, and that chiefly by reason of their Wis∣dome, Happiness, and Government, which eustome of speaking, he saith, is likewise found in Scripture.

This is the Summe of Aquinas his discourse in that Chapter: And what can be more plain, than that his meaning was to tell us, that although the Phi∣losophers,

particularly the Platonick•• (whom he means by his quamvis plures eorum) did aknowledge one Supream God, from whom they said all those others, whom they called Gods, did receive their being, and therein agreed with the like custome of speaking found in Scripture; yet the Generality of the Heathens did acknowledge a multitude of Gods properly so called: and conse∣quently that this was the Errour which he had convinced them of, by showing that it is impossible there should be more than One God properly so called. This I say is plain both from the declaration he makes, that to speak of Gods equi∣vocally so called was beside his purpose, and from his opposing the Opinion of the Philosophers to that of the Genera∣lity of the Heathens, as an Exception from the General Opinion they had of them. And now I pray Catharinus be Judge your self whether it were fairly done of the Dr. to suppress the General Proposition, viz, [The Heathens erred in acknowledging a multitude of Gods] and the word Quamvis, although, which made the Exception, and then translate the words Plures eorum, by the most of

th•• Gentiles, as if Aquinas had spoken of the Generality of them, when he spake only of the Philosophers, who though they were many, or if you will, a great many, which is the most can be made of the word Plures in that place, yet they were farr from being the most of the Gentiles, as Dr. St. according to his excellent faculty in translating ren∣ders it. Is it not plain that here he mis-represents, to say no more, the meaning and design of Aquinas? And yet vpon such perverted Testimonies as these it is, that he builds his Chimerical Assertion, that the Generality of the Heathens were charged with Idolatry by the Fathers for giving an Inferiour degree of worship and Veneration to others besides the one only true God, for the relation they bare to him; when it is evident from the very Testim••ny he cites, that they were charged with Idolatry for acknowledg∣ing and worshipping more Gods than One, properly so called. I could here give you as good an account of the Ad∣mirable work he makes for 15 Pages together with the Testimony of Athe∣nagoras, from whose discourse he pre∣tends chiefly to inferr the Heathen's Re∣lative

worship, as 1. how he omits some of * 1.182 the expressions of that Author which evidently show that they did not referr their worship to the true God. 2. How he employs all the litle arts of Sophistry and Rhetorick to debauch his Sense in others; and lastly how after all finding the whole Series and Design of that Father point blank opposit to what he would haue it, he sormes the very As∣sertions of Athenagoras into Objections under the name of T. G. and sets him∣self to confute him as a down right Adversary: But as I said before I hope we haue done with the Dr's Testimonies; and you will tell me now wha•• you think your self of the Question, Whether the Heathens did believe and worship more Gods properly so esteemed by them, or not?

Cathar.

I see it is troublesome for an Author to fall into the hands of such Readers, as haue both Curiosity and Patience to examine his Citations, and therefore shall trouble you no more vpon that account. But for the Question you propose; I had rather hear what you will say of it, than produce my own thoughts, which I confess are somewhat

perplexed by what you haue already discoursed.

Eun:

Well then, since you put me to answer my own Question, I shall not trouble you with long discourses, but only offer to your consideration these few following Observations, which I hope will be sufficient to satisfy you, that the Generality of the Heathens did be∣lieve them whom they publickly wors∣hipped to be truly and properly Gods, and not in name only.

The First is, that the whole Christian world till Dr. St. did ever condemn the Heathens as guilty of Polytheism; which they could not justly haue done, had the Heathens believed one only true God, and the rest to be only called so: For vpon the same account both the Iews and Christians might be accused of Po∣lytheism for giving the name of Gods to Angels and Men; yea even God him∣self, for it was he that said, I haue said ye are Gods.

2. That the Heathens accused the Chri∣stians of Atheism, because they denied * 1.183 them to be Gods who were publickly worshipped.

3. That they persecuted the Christians

to death, and the Christians willingly suffered death, for maintaining there was but one only true God, who deser∣ved Divine Honour to be given to him.

4. That they erected Temples, insti∣tuted Priests, and appointed Sacrifices to be offered to them, which if not by the Law of nature, yet by the common consent of mankind were the Exte••••our Signs of the acknowledgment of true divinity; and therevpon is so often urged by the Fathers against them, as who affirmed them to deserve those ho∣nours.

5. That the Fathers bring infinite ar∣guments to prove that those whom the Heathens called Gods, were not really and truly Gods, which had been a su∣perfluous labour, if the Heathens had not believed, as well as called them Gods.

6. That those who made use of these arguments against them, had many of them been Heathens themselves, as Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Lactantius, and Arnobius, who without doubt under∣stood very well what themselves were taught and had practised while they

were Heathens, and cannot in reason be supposed to haue charged them with more in this matter than they were guilty of, only that they might haue occasion to give some casts of their former employ∣ment.

7. That the Divels, as S. Augustin saith, by prodigious but fallacious signs and * 1.184 predictions, perswaded maximae parti, which I think may be truly translated, the most of the Heathens, that they were Gods, and although the Platonists knew them, not to be so, from their vitious practices, yet they durst not pronounce them neither, to be altogether unworthy of divine honour, for fear saith S. Augustin, of offending the People by whom they saw them served with so many Rites and Temples.

8. That the Wisest of the Heathens, as Varro, Scaevola, Seneca and Cicero, not only concurred with the Vulgar in the external practice of worshipping many Gods, (as the Platonicks also did) but look'd upon it as a Point of prudence or State-Policy, to keep the People in * 1.185 Ignorance, and not let them know, they were no Gods whom they worshipped. The first part is evident from what S.

Augustin saith of Varro, that knowing * 1.186 the Vanity and falsi••y of the Gods who were publickly worshipped, yet for fear of offending the people he worshipped them himself, and maintained that they ought to be worshipped; and therefore re∣proaches him for suffering himself to be overborn wi••h the custome and Laws of the City; as he doth Seneca also for that saying of his, Omnem istam ignobilem * 1.187 Deorum turbam, All this ignoble multi∣tude of Gods, which long Superstition hath for a long time heaped together, we will so worship, as remembring the worship of them to belong more to cu∣stome, than Truth. And whereas Philo∣sophy had in a manner set him at liberty to deride the Errours of the Vulgar, yet because he was an ••llustrious Senator of the Roman People, over-awed by the Laws of the City and the customes of men, he worshipped what he repre∣hended; practic'd, what he reproved, and adored, what he blamed, and this, not as Actor vpon the Theatre, but as a devote in the Temple, so much more culpably, saith S. Augustin, for that he performed, those actions against the inward Sense of his mind, in such a manner that ••he Peo∣ple

judged him to doe them with a real intention. The 2^d part also is no less ma∣nifest * 1.188 from what the same S. Augustin saith of Scaevola, that he affirmed some things would be hurtful for the people to be informed of, as that Hercules; Aescu∣lapius &c. were not Gods; and of Varro, that it was expedient the People should be deceived in Religion. And vpon this ac∣count * 1.189 it is, that Lactantius declaimes in this wise against Cicero. To what pur∣pose is it, saith he, to preach in this sort to the Vulgar, and Illiterate. People, when we see Learned and Wise men, who understood the Vanity of these Religions, to persist nevertheless, by I know not what perversness, in worshipping the very things they condemn? Cicero understood these things to be false which men adored, and yet after he had advanced many things, which were of force to overthrow the Common Religions, he saith that those things were not to be discoursed to the Vulgar, least such kind of disputations should extinguish the publick received Religions, or worship of many Gods. Nothing the•• I think can be more plain, than that the Generality of the Heathens did not only give the name of Gods, ac∣cording

to the custome found in H. Scripture, but did really and truly be∣lieve them to be Gods, whom they worshipped, and that it was the State-Religion of that time to believe and wor∣ship them as such. Yet least any doubt should yet remain in you from the con∣fusion, which the Dr every where makes between the Vulgar and the Wiser Hea∣thens, I shall adde one Observation more, which I am sure ought and will weigh more with you than all the rest. And it is this.

9. That God himself forbids the J••ws to haue any other Gods besides him, and yet was so farr from forbidding the name of Gods to be given to Angels and Men, that himself by the mouth of David pronounceth of the Rulers, I haue said, * 1.190 yee are Gods, and accordingly Moses forbids to revile the Gods, or curse the Ruler of the People. By which it appears that the meaning of the Commandment was not to forbid them to give the nam•• of Gods to others besides himself, but to esteem them to be truly and properly Gods, as the Heathens did.

Cathar.

These Observation. I confess are so clear and home, that I think

what you inferr from them cannot be denied or doubted by any man of Com∣mon Sense. And so I freely grant that the Vulgar Heathens did truly and really * 1.191 esteem them to be Gods, whom they wor∣shipped. But I see not yet the reason, why you were so earnest with me to speak to this Question.

Eun:

Pardon me there, Good Catha∣rinus; What was it made you so back∣ward to speak to it, but that you saw, that to answer this Question would be to answer the Argument you proposed, in which you supposed the Heathens to re∣ferr all their worship, both of their In∣feriour Deities and Images to the true God, and vpon that account to haue been charged by the Fathers with Idolatry, that so you might make the Parallel compleat between the worship of the Heathens, and that of the Church of Rome? For if the Generality of the Hea∣thens did truly and properly esteem those to be Gods, whom they worshipped, as hath been shewed, tis evident that they did not referr the worship they gaue to them to the true God, but worshipped each of them as an absolute Deity. And this being the Fundamental Principle of

the State-Religion at that time, was that with which the Fathers primarily charged the Heathens, and that in such terms as evidently exclude from their thoughts the Dr's Chimerical Imagina∣tion of Relative worship; as when S. A∣thanasius * 1.192 charges them, for turning away from the true God, and giving all the ho∣nour of the Divinity to the creatures; S. Augustin for giving divine honour crea∣turae, * 1.193 non Creatori, to the creature, not to the Creator, and praetermisso vel prae∣terito Deo, passing by God, and making Gods of the Elements, in like manner as if one should take the Ship in which he * 1.194 is carried, for the Pilot that governs it, as Athenagoras expresses it. And the same is confessed by Vossius in his first Pre∣face, where he acknowledges that the Heathens did relicto Deo in naturae Ve∣neratione consistere, forsaking God stay in the worship of the creatures. By all which it appears, that the Paralel be∣tween the worship of the Heathens, and that of the Church of Rome, like a House built of Cards, when one of the Suppo••ters is drawn away, falls down in great confusion. And this is confessed also by Eminent Doctors of the Church

of England; as 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Hāmond, who makes the Heathen Idolatry to haue been the * 1.195 worshipping of the many false Gods first, and then of the Images of them; and then addes, that those of the Church of Rome are not said or thought to be guilty of the former, He might haue added, nor vpon the same account of the latter neither, for if they do not worship many false Gods, they do not worship the Images of them. And Arch Bp. Whitgift, (whom Dr. St. will by no means suffer to be thrown away to the Puritans,) when he makes his third kind of Idola∣try to be, the worshipping false Gods ei∣ther in heart, mind, or in external crea∣tures * 1.196 living or dead, and altogether forget¦ting the worship of the true God; inge∣nuously confesseth, that for all that he can see or learn, the Papists are not in this third kind of Idolatry.

Cathar.

And I can be contented to hope at least with these Learned men, that taking Idolatry in this Sense the Paralel doth not hold with the Papists: but yet not so as to free them from the guilt of Idolatry vpon another account, if it be true what T. G. saith, that it is the giving the Soveraign worship of God to a crea∣ture;

For though the Heathens gaue divine worship to their Inferiour deities, yet they gaue Soveraign worship only to the Supream God, and the Mat••rs sacrificed their lives on this Principle, * 1.197 that divine worship (and not meerly So∣veraign worship) is to be given to none but the Supream God. So that either the Heathens must be excused from Idola∣try in what they did, and the Primitive Martyrs not be deemed so wise as they might haue been; Or the Papists, at least those who give Latria to the Crosse and the Images of Christ, must be in∣volved in the same crime.

Eun:

I cannot easily think that the Dr. intended to be serious when he put in that subtil Parenthesis (not meerly Soveraign worship) and yet because it is a string he often harps vpon, I must not passe it by as a Trifle, though in reality it be no other, as to the present dispute, whe∣ther we consider it with respect to T. G. or to the Heathens. And first for T. G. * 1.198 the Dr. having been so charitable to him as to suppose him to believe the Supream Being Maker and Governour of the world to be the true God, it seems plain to me that he meant the same by Sove∣raign,

and by divine worship. Nor do I see what ground Dr. St. had to fancy he made any distinction between them, when he confesseth the definition of Idolatry according to T. G. to be, the giving the worship due only to God to a * 1.199 creature, more than he has to make him distinguish between God, and the Supream Being, which in this case is just none at all. For if God and the Su∣pream Being be adequately the same with him (and I never heard he made more Gods than On••) t'is manifest that by the worship due to the Supream Being (that is, Soveraign worship) he meant no other than the worship due to God alone, i. ē. divine worship. By this it appears that the distinction had no ground in any thing that T. G. said: It was the Dr's Proper Invention; and so if he please, * 1.200 let it be writ vpon his Monument, that he may not be unprovided of an Ins∣cription, as well as T. G. Hic jacet Au∣thor hujus distinct••onis.

Cathar.

But if T. G. intended no di∣stinct on by these terms, why does he call it Sov••raign worship?

E••n:

Not to distinguish it from the worship due only to the one true God,

but with intention to haue avoided, if possible, the Equivocation the Dr. had brought vpon the word, divine, by his applying it to that Relative and Inf••riour kind of worship, which some of the School men call latria and assert to be due to the Cross and the Images of Ch••ist. And I should haue thought he might haue expected to haue found the Dr. favourable here, after so serious a Profes∣sion that he loves not to wrangle abo••t words; but I see that rocks sometimes lye under the smoothest waters: and a man through too much care may fall vpon Scylla, whilst he endeavours to avoid Charybdis.

2. As for the Heathens, they may in∣deed be conceived to mean by divine worship, not only the worship due to their Supream God Jupiter, but the ho∣nour due to any thing, which according to their Erroneous Fancy they believed to haue true divinity in it, of which sort they had good store, whom they belie∣ved to be truly and properly Gods, as I shewed before. But what was this to the Christian Martyrs? who were not to regulate their actions by the Errours of the Heathens, but by the truth of

Christianity, which as it believes, that true divinity belongs to none but to the only one Supream Being so it teaches that true divine honour is to be given to none but him. And therefore vpon the same account, that they were bound to Sacrifice their lives on this Principle, that there were no more true Gods but one; they were bound also to do it vpon that other that true divine worship is to be given to none but the Supream God: But then again, what is this to those of the Church of Rome, who do not believe either the Saints or Images to be Gods, or to haue any divinity in them; but give an Inferiour respect or Veneration only to the former for the Sanctity they haue received from the only true God, and to the latter for the relation they beat to their Prototypes, viz the same true God, or his Servants?

Cathar.

I must confesse I was afraid there was something like that we call Scholastick Fooling in this distinction as applied to T. G. when I first read it. But still there remains a Scruple with me, concerning the Heathens, and I should be glad you could remove it; how, if they acknowledged one Supream Being.

Maker and Governour of the world, they could think any others to be truly and properly Gods besides him? For this seems to me so palpable and gross a Con∣tradiction, that nothing that hath the use of reason could fall into it.

Eun:

For the Heathens contradicting themselves, I think we need not be much concerned, when we see some Christians can so easily run into it. But by this Scru∣ple of yours, Catharinus, I perceive you imagin the Generality of them to haue had as cleer and distinct a Notion of the one Supreā Being, maker and Governour of the world, as the Wise Philosophers had, if not as we Christians haue now adayes. And this indeed is what Dr. St. hath laboured to instill into the minds of his Readers, by representing what the Philosophers said of God, and the wisest too among them, as if it had been the constant belief of the Vulgar, or as if they had as thoroughly believed the first Article of the Creed, I believe in one God Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things Visible and Invisible, as Christians do. That this was his Practice, to dress vp the Paralel he intended to make be∣tween

their worship, and that of the Church of Rome, is manifest frō the very Testimonies he cites to prove that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supream Being; as you haue seen already in that of Thomas Aquinas, who speaks not there of the most of the Gentiles, as the Dr translates it, but of the wisest of the Phi∣losophers. And the like is to be observed in the Testimonies he cites out of Justin Martyr. Def. p. 25. Athenagoras p. 60. Clemens Alexandrinus p. 76. Origen. p. 81. S. Augustin p. 97. For what these Fathers alledge out of the Philosophers and P••ets concerning the V••n••ty of God &c. to prove against the common Reli∣gion that more Gods than one were not to be believed and worshipped, the Dr. very artificially insinuates into his Rea∣der, as the N••tion of the Heathens in ge∣neral, as if they had as cleer and distinct a knowledge of the one Supream Being, as the Wisest of the Ph••losophers. And had this been so, supposing the Wisest to haue had a right notion of the one only t••ue God, it is a hard matter indeed to conceive, how this Judgment remain∣ing entire in them, they could fall into so manifest a Contradiction, as the believ∣ing

many Gods properly so called: or how Idola••ry, (as the Dr. himself ob∣serves Def. p. 63.) for that part of it which lies in the inward esteem of our minds, could consist with such an Ac∣knowledgment of one Supream Being.

But whether this were possible or no, 1^st it is nothing to the Question we are now vpon, for whether it be or be not, the matter of Fact is certain, as I shewed before, that the Genera••ity of the H••a∣thens did believe and worship many God properly so esteemed by them, and were vpon this account charged with Idolatry by the Fathers, which is suffi∣cient to show the disparity between their belief and practice, and that of the Church of Rome, as you heard but even now confessed by divines of the Church of England.

2. It concerns not the case of the Vul∣gar Heathens, for the notion they had of the divinity, was not cleer and distinct like that of the Philoso••hers, who there∣fore denied ••hose whom the People wor∣shipped to be Gods; but rude, confuse and imperfect, 1 1.201 like that of men, who see a thing at a distance, but know not what it is, or ² like that of blind men who

feel something of the Sun's Influence, but see not the body of light, 3 1.202 a know∣ledge not setled and cultivated by sober and serious Reflexion, but constrained by the force of nature, like the Natu∣ral Testimony of Conscience which the * 1.203 most Atheistical and debauch••d sinners fee at times, even against their Wills; 4 1.204 not a cleer light but a faint glimmer∣ing▪ In fine, 5 1.205 not a c••rtain and steady knowledge of him who is the true God, but a General Notion of a divine Power, hanging as it were in the ayr like an In∣d••viduum Vagum, and so differently ap∣p••ied by each one to the God, or Gods he worshipped.

This is the Account which the Fa∣thers give of the Notion, which the Vulgar Heathens had of the divinity, * 1.206 with whom Vossius also agrees, affirming

the knowledge they had ••f God, to be * 1.207 confused and undetermined, and that in part they received him, but in part re∣jected him, so that even when they knew God, they knew him not to be Go••. And it cannot be doubted but so dim and imper∣f••ct a N••tion as this was, would easily be laid aside o•• f••rgotten, where Fancy, Pas∣sion and Intere••t gave Laws to R••ason, though vpon occasions it would show it self in their words and actions, against their wills. And what Errours would not such Masters lead them into, especially under the direction of so cunni••g a So∣phister, as the Old Serpent? One of the first Propositions he made to our first Pa∣rents, was that they should be lik•• Gods, inspiring into their minds an affectation of divinity. And they being delighted and pl••ased with it, as S. Augustin saith, what was the consequence like to be in * 1.208 their Posterity, but that they should be seduced to believe more Gods than One.

That this was their belief de facto is undeniable, and supposing what hath been said of the confused notion they had of God, that they knew him but in part, and that so rudely, that the A∣postle of the Gertiles oftentimes affirm∣eth,

that they did not know him, and * 1.209 the Inscription to the Vnknown God, will stand as an E••ernal Memorial of it, it is no hard matter I think to con∣ceive, how they might fall into the Er∣voneous Belief of many Gods. For as men who never had seen that body of light which we call the Sun, beholding only the beams he sends before him at his r••sing could not but inferr from thence, there was a Light which enlight∣ned the world, but would be to seek whether it were one or many, or rather apt to believe from what they expe∣rienced in sublunary Lights, that one Ta∣per alone was not sufficient for the whole Vniverse, So though the Heathens be∣fore the rising of the Sun of Justice, could not but see by the beams he sent before him in the Creation, that there was a Superiour Power which governed the world, yet being led wholly by Sense, and judging of Heavenly things by what they saw pass in Humane, they might be at a loss to know whether this divine Power resided in one or many; or if one were Chief, whether there were not others, who had the right and power of Absolute Lords and Governours over

such and such things, or such and such parts of the Vniverse; And not being able to comprehend, how so vast a Ma∣chin as Heaven and Earth with the va∣riety of creatures in them, could be go∣verned by One, they inclined rather to assign him Partners in the Government of it, some of whom, (as Godwin ob∣serveth in his Roman Antiquities) they * 1.210 fancied to haue possession of Heaven by their own Right, and these they called Dij majorum Gentium o•• Select Gods; and others, no otherwise than by right of donation, as the Semidei or Indi∣getes.

Cathar.

You haue given us here Eu∣nomius a pleasant kind of Hypothesis, not unlike those invented by the Philosophers to explicate the alterations which appear in the Vniverse, some of them placing the cause of them in the motion of the Hea∣vens, others of the Earth and others of both. But how doth it appear that this was the Conceit which the Heathens made?

Eun:

If a Second cause, not cleerly and distinctly known haue given occasion to the Wise Philosophers to frame such strange (and some of them such odd) hy∣pot••eses

to explain the common Phae∣nomena of the world, how can it be expected, but that the Vulgar Hea∣thens, must haue raised much stran∣ger concerning the Government of it, vpon so dim and confuse a know∣ledge as they had of the divinity. As for the Hypothesis it's self, of the Divine Power residing in many, it appears to haue been theirs from the defences they made for themselves, when the Fathers pressed them with the absurdities they run into by asserting more Gods, than One; For as Lactantius saith, some of them said, * 1.211 that their many G••ds were such, (or as much) is Christians would haue the one to be: And others that they presided so over several things and parts of the Vniverse, that there was but one Rector Eximius, Supream Ruler. And therefore speaking afterwards of the division of kingdomes between Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, * 1.212 and having compared the share which sell to Neptune to that of M. Antonius to whom the Senate had given the com∣mand of all the Sea Coast, he showe'th how the Poets (to whom the People as Varro saith, were apt to give credit) by giving the name of Heaven to the East∣ern

Part which belong'd to Jupiter, and of Hell to the Western, which was the Portion of Pluto, and by other Fic∣tions they added, raised it from a terrene power to a divine in the Apprehension of the Vulgar; which was the more con∣firmed in them by the many prodigious, but fallacious signs, as S. Augustin saith, which Evil Spirits wrought in their names, and their exacting sacrifice, which by the common consent of man∣kind was held only due to divinity, to be offered to them. Hence the Question be∣tween the Heathens and the Fathers, was not whether the One Supream God used the Ministery of Angels to execute his commands, for in this, Lactantius saith, that the Christians were ready to agree * 1.213 with them as to the thing, though they denied those whom the Heathens wor∣shipped to be those Angels or Ministers; but whether their many Gods were not the same which Christians would haue their One to be; or as Minucius Felix states the Question to his Friend Caecilius * 1.214 whether the Heavenly Empire were go∣verned by the (undivided) power and Authority of one or by the A••bitrement of many; by which he understands, and

he understood the Heathens to do the like, not a Ministerial Power, such as * 1.215 is given to the Angels, but a sharing of the One true and divine Empire, by a di∣vision of the whole Power among many? And that which made them fall into this Errour, was as I said before, that they could not comprehend, how the Vni∣verse could be governed by one, but look'd vpon it as the most extravagant and Sensless Position in the world, as ap∣pears by the Objection made by Caecilius, What monstrous things, saith he, do the * 1.216 Christians faign of that their One God, when they make him busily pry into the manners, the actions, the words, and even the Secret thoughts of all men, as one that runs up and down, and is every where pre∣sent. They will haue him to be unquiet, importune, and curious even to Impudence: For they make him present to all that is done, and to insinuate himself into all corners, whereas he can neither sufficient∣ly provide for Each particular, being in∣cumbred with all: nor haue sufficient care of all, being intent vpon particulars: Here you see the Fundamental Errour of the Heathens and that which made them multiply the number of their Gods with∣out

number, assigning the care of each * 1.217 thing to the proper office of some Deity, as to the Goddess S••getia the care of the corn to Flora of the Flowers, to Rusina, of the Hills, to Vallonia, of the Vallies, and so of the rest, which Varro affirmeth to haue exceeded thirty thousand. And * 1.218 the same Varro thought he had done a singular peice of service to the Romans, in not only giving them a Catalogue of the Gods they ought to worship, but in teaching them also, what was the parti∣cular Power and Vertue of each Deity in order to the Parts of the Vniverse. For by this, saith he, we may know, what God we ought to invocate for each thing, and not do, as Comedians are wont, when they jest, aske water of Bacchus, and wine of the Nymphs. A great be∣nefit doubtless, saith S. Augustin deri∣ding after his way the fopperies of this great man; but withall adding, that he had deserved thanks indeed, had he showed what was Truth, and taught the One true God, from whom all good things are, to be worshipped by Men.

Cathar.

You are carefull I see to avoid the rock which T. G. run vpon, when citing the Testimony only of good fa∣ther

Origen, he cry'd out the Fathers, the Fathers. But admitting all this to be so, as you haue said, I do not see yet how the Heathens were chargeable with Idolatry in T. Gs. Principles, 1. because they gaue but divine worship to their In∣feriour Deities, and Soveraign alone to Jupiter, 2 because however they imagin∣ed the divine Power to be divided among many, yet without doubt what they referred their worship to, was that which they had in their minds when they pro∣nounced the word God, how rudely soeuer conceived by them.

Eun:

Much good may the Spoils of such a wrack do the Dr. I know none will envy them. But for what you object, to the first I answer, that by what name soeuer you call the worship the Heathens gaue to their Inferiour Deities, yet pro∣fessing, as they did, that they worshipped them as Sharers with Jupiter in the Di∣vine power and Authority and vpon that account believed them to be t••uly and prop••rly Gods, in whose power it was to bestow those benefits vpon them, which they desired, they were justly charged with Idolatry by the Fathers for so doing. For this being a Perfection pe∣culiar

to God, that he is the Sole Author of every good Gift, the giving worship to any other besides him, as a Sharer with him in it though but in this or that particular, will be Idolatry: And in this consideration, (were there no other) they might be justly charged with it by the Fathers. But the case is farr dif∣ferent with those of the Church of Rome, who believe and profess every good and perfect Gift to descend from the Father of Lights, whom they acknowledge to be the only true God; and address them∣selves to the Angels and Saints, as his Ministers and Servants, not to obtain of them the benefits they desire, but of God alone by their Intercession through his only Son and our only Redeemer Jesus * 1.219 Christ, as the Council of Trent hath declared.

As for what you add of the Heathens referring their worship to what they had in their minds, when they pronounced the word God, how rudely soever con∣ceived by them: I answer that as the Ma∣nichees, * 1.220 So the Heathens also though they pro∣nounced the word God, yet fixing the notion they had of him, vpon Jupiter, as the Dr. saith they generally did, (at least the Greeks and Romans) or vpon the Sun as the Persians, or vpon the Soul of the world as the Stoicks, or vpon any other created person or thing, they were in like manner guilty of Idolatry: And the reason of both is, because what the Manichees and Heathens had in their minds and Intentions to worship was not Him, who was the true God; but in reality a man, or a devil, or some other creature, to whom they applied the notion, and whom they erroneously, and without reason, believed to be him. And here the case also is quite different with those of the Church of Rome: For they neither believe the Saints to be Gods nor any divinity to be in Images, nor Bread in the Eucharist to be Christ, but believe the Saints to be but his Servants, the Images but Representations, and the Bread not to be at all, but to be changed into the Body of Christ: so that the Ob∣ject of their worship, that is, what they haue in their minds and purposes to give divine worship to, being no other than

the one only true God they can never be justly charged with Idolatry, as T. G. hath f••lly and cleerly shown, Cath. no Idol. p. 327. &c. As for the Hea∣thens, if at any time they worshipped God under the general notion of a Power Superiour to the Universe, or as Maker and Governour of the world, without placing it vpon any creature, to make that the Object of their wor∣ship, as it is likely they did not, when they used those expressions, God sees,, and I commend it to God, and God will restore, and the like: for t••e•• as Ter∣tullian * 1.221 saith, they lifted vp their Eyes to Heaven, and not to the Capitol, and so calls it the Testimony of a Soul naturally Christian, I do not find they were charged with Idolat••y by the Fathers in this precise consideration, Nor do I see any reason why they should, if they joyned nothing to that notion which was destructive of it. And thus much I hope may suffice to re∣moue the prejudice you had taken against those of the Church of Rome, from the imaginary Parallel of their worship with that of the Vulgar Hea∣thens. I know you haue a mind to be

doing also with the Philosophers, but I shall begg you will let them alone till to morrow.

The End of the Fourth Dialogue.

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 * 1.222 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 * 1.223 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 * 1.224 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 * 1.225 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 * 1.226 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 * 1.227 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. * 1.228

But now for this mighty Argument of God's appropriation of external acts to his worship, although I haue already * 1.229 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 * 1.230 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 * 1.231 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 * 1.232

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 * 1.233 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 * 1.234 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 * 1.235 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 * 1.236 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 * 1.237 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 * 1.238 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.

THE SIXTH DIALOGVE

THE ARGUMENT.

THe Church of Rome not justly char∣geable either for not reserving any External Act of Re••igious worship pro∣per to God, or for giving a••y appropria∣te to God, to Creatures. The Dr. un happy again in his citing of Card. Lugo; and his arguments from the Text. Matth. 3. 10. and the term, Religious worship, solved by his own distin••tions. No succou•• tō his cause from the determination of Circumstances, as ass••gned by him. Mr. Dai••lés doctrine, that signs instituted by men to signify any thing, though of Re∣ligion, are to be interpreted by the pu∣blik Practice of those who use them, a very Just Discharge to the Dr's unjust Charge of Idolatry, in the particular In∣stances, of Invocation, Erecting Temples burning Incense, &c▪ as tbey are practi∣ced in the Ch. of Rome: and T, Gs. An∣swer to the Dr's old Scruple, why Sacri∣sice may not be used to the Saints, in like māner os other External acts are, shown to have been pertinent and satisfac∣tory. A Friendly Advice to him out of St. Augustin.

EVNOMIVS. CATHARINVS,

EVn.

It was agreed between us as I re∣member, at our last parting, that al∣though those of the Church of Rome could not be convicted of Idolatry, yet if they could be proved guilty of damna∣ble sin in the manner of their worship, it would be sufficient to make all those who have a care of their Salvation to ab∣hor the Communion of that Church. But how this can be made out I am yet to seek. For particular Abuses that may happen, they are not the subject of our presēt debate; but speaking of the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Coun∣cils, and the practice conformable to that doctrine, I do not remember that Mr. Thorndike any where chargeth it with ••in, if rightly understood and put in prac∣tice accordingly. If you have met with any thing in the Dr. which you think evinces it, I pray let me hear it.

Cathar.

Enough I think and more than enough; For a man may sin against the vertue of Religion two manner of wayes; either by not giving to God the

worship due to him, or by giving the wor∣ship due only to him to creatures. And I take those of the Church of Rome to be guilty in both. For 1. as Dr. St. saith, * 1.239 although in the general they confess that there ought to be some peculiar acts of Di∣vine worship, as most agreable to Gods incommunicable Excellencie: yet when they deliver their minds freely, they re∣serve * 1.240 no one act of External Adoration as proper to God, and to be performed by all Christians, as Cardinal Lugo, he saith, expressly affirmeth, whom he the rather mentions, because of his great Au∣thority and Eminency, and writing since the rest. 2. They give all the external acts of Adoration to Saints and Images which they do to God, where as the doing of this is absolutely forbidden by Christ * 1.241 himself, when he said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt * 1.242 thou serve; which was certainly under∣stood of an External act of worship, for the devil had said to him Fall down and worship me: A place so Evident that it blinds the Papists with the light of it.

Eun:

Here Catharinus, to be sure not to miss, you have loaded your Gun with a double charge. But still I see no Execu∣tion

done, the former only cutting the ayr, and the latter losing its force against the hard wall. To make this clear, I shall lay down these three Postu∣lata's, and I call them so because I think the Dr. himself will not deny them.

The First is, that the Law of nature * 1.243 teaching, that man ought to use some External acts to testify his submission to God, there ought in reason to be some peculiar external Acts appropriated to the worship of God, as most agreable to his incommunicable Excellencie.

The 2. That the Appropriation which any such External acts had only by the * 1.244 Law of Moses, being taken away by the ceasing of that Law, they are left to their own nature, unless appropriated a new by the Law of Christ, or some lawful Authority under him.

The 3. That the Church having Power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, where nothing doth appear contrary in the * 1.245 Law of Christ, it belongs to her also to declare the Vse and Signification of them: and if after this any Scrupulous Conscience boggle at the doing of them, The Advantage is on the Churches side, ••nd her Authority ought to overrule the

practice of those who are her members.

These things supposed cleer and un∣deniable, as being either expressly asser∣ted, or implied by the Dr. in the Places cited in the margent, J answer to the dou∣ble charge you have made: that the Word Adoration, as the Dr. himself hath ob∣served, (and by this at present as well as * 1.246 some other distinctiōs he afterward gives the world may see he knew very well how to answer his own Arguments though he thought fit to leave the Ap∣plication of them to others:) The word Adoration, I say, may according to him, be taken either for all the External Acts of Religious worship, as John 4. 20. Acts 8. 27. (as it is usually taken by Controver∣tists in the matter of Idolatry, which may be committed in them all.) Or it may be taken more strictly, (as it is in the disputes of the Schools) for that Act of Religious worship which is performed by the motion of the body, as bowing, kneel∣ing, Prostration, and the like. If it be ta∣ken the first way it is certain, that those of the Church of Rome haue one ex∣ternal Act at least of Religious worship proper to God, viz the Sacrifice (as they call it) of the Masse, or the Oblation of

the Body and Bloud of Christ our Lord in the Eucharist, which they deny may be given to any creature, and whereas the Dr. cites Cardinal Lugo, asserting that there is no one external act of Adora∣tion * 1.247 which is proper to Latria, or the wor∣ship peculiar to God, the Jesuits will say that he evidently abuses both his Autho∣rity and his Eminency. For the Cardinal doth not say this, as denying Sacrifice to be an external act of worship proper to God, (which is what the Dr. insinuates by his unfaithfull relation of his words) but because he thinks it not properly an act of Adoration as taken in it's stric∣ter sense, but of another kind distinct from it, yet so that he acknowledges it to be truly and properly an act of Reli∣gious worship, and such an one to use his own express words, qui non potest offerri nisi soli Deo, as may not be offered but to God alone. So unhappy is the Dr in his citations to say no worse at present: and I can not but wonder to see you after so much Experience to build any thing vpon them. But who is there, that will take the pains to compare them? The Romanists then haue one external Act of Religious worship viz Sacrifice which

they acknowledge so proper to God, that it may not be offered but to h••m a∣lone, And I see no reason, why the Solemn Prayers they make, at the time of offe∣ring the Sacrifice, to God as the Su∣pream and only Author of our being, and given of every good and Perfect Gift, (many of which are inserted in to the Liturgy of the Church of England, and are esteemed the Principal Part of the Religious worship she gives to God,) may not by the Institution and Ʋse of them in that Church to God alone, be reckoned for another. And so the Church of Rome hath one external act of Religious wor∣ship appropriated to G••d, if the Eucha∣ristical Sacrifice be truly and properly such, as they say it is, more than I believe you will allow the Church of England to have.

But then, if Adoration be taken in the stricter scnse for those acts of Religious worship which are performed meerly by, the motion of the body: they may be understood either all of them to be abso∣lutely so appropriated to G••d, that it is not lawful vpon any account to give any of them to any other, and then the Qua∣kers will be the only Christians in the

world not chargeable with sin for doing them especially when there is no necessity at all of doing them to any other; as * 1.248 Dr. St. agreably to the Genius of that people objects to T. G. vpon a like oc∣casion. Or only some of them and not other••, as kneeling and prostrating but not bowing: And then the Dr. must tell us▪ what makes the discrimination be∣tween the one and the other. Or they may be understood, as qualified with such a determination of circumstancet, as makes them to be signs and tokens of the worship proper only to God: and then those of the Church of Rome deny they give any such to any but to God: and think they are as much at liberty to use them toward Images or Saints, whē they are understood by the Churche's declaration, as expressions of an inferiour worship, as the Church of England is to use bowing to the Altar; and why kneeling or prostrating may not be so circum∣stanc'd as well as bowing, I do not under∣stand. As for the words of Christ▪ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, which you say are so evident that they blind the Papists with their light, I grant they were un∣derstood

not only o•• an In••ernal but an External act also: but the Occasion was such as the Dr himself tells us, as required * 1.249 no respect of any other kind: And who is so blind as not to see, that the Prohibi∣tion of the Law fell vpon it as deter∣min'd to be a sign of Religious worship by the circumstances in which it was re∣quired. And consequently where there is no such a determination of Circumstan∣ces, the Law is not concerned.

Cathar.

I like not these d••stinctions of yours Eun••mius, nor indeed any distinc∣tions at all, where God interposes in the * 1.250 case: for I see if we admit any, we shall be driven at last to submit to the Judg∣ment of the Church, rather than of any private man: and this will spoile all. Hath not God forbidden any Religious worship to be given to any besides him when he commands that all Religious worship without distinction be given to himself, as it is plain he hath by that Law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. And where the Law doth not distinguish what pre∣sumption is it in us to do it?

Eun:

This is another excellent Prin∣ciple of the Drs to uphold the Quakers in

their absurd fancy of denying to give any External honour to a creature. And although he call this a Venemous insi∣nuation in T. G. yet it follows clearly * 1.251 from the general Principle vpon which he goes for if the Law commandeth all worship to be given to God alone without distinction, what presumption will they say is it in us to distinguish between Civil and Religious where the Law doth not? But what matters it whose cause we vphold, if we can but throw down that of the Church of Rome? And yet I do not so much wonder at this in the Dr. as to see him presume to distinguish where the Law doth not, even in Religious worship, when God himself, as he saith, hath commanded that all Religious wor∣ship without distinctiō be givē to himself. For it is he that tells us, that worship may be said to be Religious two wayes. 1^st. as it is required by the Rule of Reli∣gion and so the worship given to Magis∣trates is * 1.252 Religious. 2. In its nature and cir∣cumstances, as it consists of those acts which God hath appropriated to his wor∣ship, or is attended with those circum∣stances which make it a Religious perform¦ance, and thus it is not to be given to

Princes or any creatures, but only to God himself. So that here we have two sorts of Religious worship, the one properly, the other improperly so called. In like manner he aknowledges that the Reve∣rence given to Holy Places and Things may be called a Religious Respect upon * 1.253 account of the Relation they have to God. Again the honour, saith he, we haue for the Saints may be called Religious ho∣nour, because it is vpon the account of those we may call Religious Excellencies, as they are distinguished from meer natu∣ral Endowments and Civil Accomplish∣ments. And now if the divines of the Church of Rome when they call the Res∣pect they give to Saints and Images Re∣ligious, declare they do it not, but vpon some of the fore mentioned accounts given by the Dr. viz either as those Ex∣ternal Acts are required by the Rule of Religion, or for such Excellencies as he grants we may call Religious, or for the Relation the things to which they are gi∣ven have to God, which is the very rea∣son himself gives, why that may be called Religious respect, which is given to the Altar, I would gladly know why the same distinction may not be allowed to

Sempronius, which is to Titius.

Cathar.

The reason I conceive is be∣cause nothing will serve the Papists for their Saints and Images but Religious worship, and although the Dr. do grant. that the Reverence given to Holy Pla∣ces and Things may be called a Reli∣gious Respect, and the Honour we give to the Saints a Religious Honour; yet he will not admit of Religious worship to any but to God alone, because that in∣cludes submission as to a Superiour. And accordingly where he calls that a Reli¦gious Respect, which was given by Ne∣buchadnezzar to Daniel Dan. 2 46. he * 1.254 saith it was done out of an Opinion of great sanctity without superiority. So also he * 1.255 grants that the meer External Act of Adoration in bowing or kneeling may be given both on the account of Excellencie and superiority, as some of the Patriarchs he saith bowed to Angels, as a token of honour of their Excellencies, and not out of Religious worship: and men may bow and kneel to their Soveraign Princes on the account of Civil worship: and Chil∣dren to their Parents in token of their subjection to them, as well as Creatures to their Creator in their solemn Acts of

de••otion, but, he saith, that in all these cases, the different signification of these Acts is to be gathered f••om the Circum∣stances of them.

Eun:

Here Catharinus you have hea∣ped many things, or rather words toge∣ther. Among the rest you say, the Dr. will not admit any worship to be called Religious, but what is due to God alone. And I dare undertake the Church of Rome will never refuse him Communion for it. For where I pray, do you find, that that Church hath declared Religious worship to be due to Saints and Images? There is no such Expression in any of the Decrees of her Councils obliging those of her Communion so much as to call it so: nor any mention at all made of it in them. And if some of the Schoolmen use that term, it is (as they declare them selves) vpon some of the former accounts acknowledged by the Dr. himself to be sufficient to give the denomination of Religious, as of Relation to God or the Saints when done to Images, or of some Supernatural Excellencie, when gi∣ven to Saints. But I do not see why ac∣cording to his own Principles there may not be a Religious worship due vpon some

account to a creature, as well as a Religious Rspect, or a Religious Honour. For, may there not be a middle kind of Superiority, as well as Excellencie? Such I take the Authority of Bishops to be, whom the H. Ghost, as the Apo∣stle saith, hath placed to govern the Church; not Divine, because that is in∣communicable to any creature, nor meerly Civil or Natural because not founded vpon any such Accounts, but of a middle rank or nature between both. And if the honour giuen for Such an Excellencie, may be called Religious honour, why may not the worship due to such a superiori••y be called Religious wor∣ship? The Dr. indeed tel••s us, that when Nebuchadnezzar fell vpon his face and worshipped Daniel? he did it out of an Opinion of great Sanctity without superio∣rity: But it is but his saying, and the Inten∣tiō of the giver being secret, I wōder how the Dr. could know so precisely how farr it went: and the more, because the Pro∣stration there given was an act of Ado∣ration; for the Text saith not that he honoured, but that he worshipped Da∣niel, and then addes withall, that he commanded that they should offer an

Oblation and sweet Odours (or In∣conse) to him, which by the consent of mankind at that time were understood to be aknowledgments of superiority. But to let that pass, Put case, that God had constituted Daniel the God of Ne∣buchadnezzar as he did Moses the God of Pharaoh, in that cass I suppose the act of Prostration might haue been given vpon the account of his Superiority, as well as Sanctity, and so would haue been an Act of Religious worship, as gi∣ven vpon account of Superiority, which was neither divine nor Civil; as well as of Religious Respect, because given vpon account of such an Excellencie.

Again, the Dr. granting (as he doth,) that the meer External Act of Adora∣tion in bowing or kneeling may be given both on the account of honour and wor∣ship i. e. vpon the account of Excellen∣cie, as when some of the Patriarchs bowed to Angels, and of superiority, as when men bow and kneel to their sove∣raing Princes, and Children to their Pa∣rents, and that in all these cases the dif∣ferent signification of these acts is to be gathered from the Circumstances of them, I would gladly know, why an act Account

of Religious worship given vpon the Account of such a superiority as I haue described, may not be discerned, not to be properly Religious, as well as an act of Religious Respect upon the account of a like Excellencie? But how comes the Dr. after all the great bustle he makes about God's appropriating external acts of worship to himself, to put the Tryal of his cause at last upon the determina∣tion of Circumstances? I confess he must needs see it would come to this at length, all Appropriation by vertue of the law of Moses being taken away, and no express declaration of the Will of Christ produced by him, appropriating them anew. But then again he could not be ignorant how hazardous is must be for him to venture upon it: For if the External acts of worship given to Crea∣tures in the Church of Rome chance to prove accōpanied with such Circūstances by which they may and generally are understood ••ot to be Acts of divine wor∣ship, but of an inferiour Veneration, I do not see but that they are to be ac∣quitted not only of Idolatry, but of sin in doing them, according to the Dr's

own Principles.

Cathar.

Here you touch upon a Point, wherein the Dr. comes vp close indeed with the Papists, and utterly confounds them. For as he hath well observed, the worship for example I giue to the King, * 1.256 doth not take its denomination from my Intention, but from the nature of the Act, which being Civil, the worship continues to bear that name. By which we see, saith he, that 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 Religious. And he freely * 1.257 acknowledgeth, that there is the same nature in these Acts, that there is in words of different significations, which being taken in general are of an Equivo∣cal sense; but being considered with all their particular circumstances, they haue their sense so restrained, and limi∣ted, that it is easy to discern the one from the other. That therefore, saith he, we call Religious Adoration which is perfor∣med with all the circumstances o•• Reli∣gious worship, as to time, place, occasion, and such like; as if men used prostration to any thing within the Courts of the

Temple (wherein some of the Jews thought that posture only lawful,) If it were done in the time of Sacrifice or devo∣tion: if the Occasion were such as requi∣red no respect of any other kind, as when the devil demanded of Christ to f••ll down, and worship him. In these and such like circumstances, we say, saith he, that Adoration hath the determin'd significa∣tion of Religious worship, and is an ap∣propriate sign of it by Gods own Institu∣tion. And upon this account it is, that he charges those of the Church of Rome for the Adoration they give to Saints and Images by bowing, kneeling, &c. in the Church, and in the most solemn Acts of devotion.

Eun.

This is one of those Popular dis∣courses which take much with the Vul∣gar. But how impregnable soevet it may appear to those who judge of things by the show they make, yet upon Examina∣tion it will be found as incoherent and weak as an Adversary would wish. For 1. If it be true, as the Dr. saith, that the worship takes it denomination from the nature of the Act, I confess I do not see, how it follows from thence, (though the Dr. say he doth) that the External Cir∣house

cumstances which do accompany men's acts, are those which do so circumscribe and limit them that from thence they become either Civil or Religious. Those who haue but peeped through Aristotles key-hole, (as he saith) tell us that Acts take their nature from the formal Reason or Account upon which they tend to their Objects, and that from thence they become either Civil or Religious, though they may receive another deno∣mination from the circumstances which do accompany them. But I question much whether the meer Circumstances of Time, and Place, and such like, as assigned by the Dr. be sufficient in the present case to give such a denomination▪ For

2. If these be the Circumstances, which do so restrain and limit the signifi∣cation of External Acts, that it is easy to discern one worship from another, how will he make it out, that the People did not give Religious worship to David, when in a most solemn Act of Devotion, wherein David having blessed the Lord before all the Congregation and exhorted the People to do the like, saying, Now * 1.258 Bless you the Lord God: it follows imme∣diately,

And all the Congregation bles∣sed the Lord God of their Fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king. Where we see the same act and at the same time, a time of solemn devotion, given to God and the king, and the People never charged for giving Religious worship to the king.

3. In case the first Christians being met together to pray, and St James their Bishop passing by, they should haue kissed the hemme of his garment, and desired his Benediction in the posture they were in upon their knees, (and the same is of a child at his Prayers, to his Father,) I cannot think that the Dr. himself, had he been present, would haue condemned them of damnable sin for it, or even scrupled the doing of it himself.

4. When Naaman desired to be per∣mitted by the Prophet to go with his Hea∣then Master into the house of Rimmon (of which I shall give you a farther account by and by out of Dr Hammond,) and (when the master worship'd there, and lean'd upon his hand) to bow in the house of Rimmon, the Prophet bad him Go in peace; which surely he would not haue done, had the very bowing in the

and presence of an Idol, and in the very time of worship, been Religious wor∣ship or Idolatry.

5. The External Act of bowing to the Ark among the Jews was, and to the Al∣tar in the Church of England is perfor∣med in the time and place of divine wor∣ship, and yet the Dr. denies them to be Religious worship; t'is not then from those Circumstances precisely that wor∣ship becomes Religious.

6. Lastly, if there be the same nature in these Acts, that there is in words of different signifieations; as those words being differently applied, may bear the same significations in Religious matters, which they do in others, whether they be spoken in the Church or else where; in the time of divine service, or out of it; as the word Father applied to God, or to him from whom we received our Being under God, or the word Light applied to Christ himself, or his disciples; or the words, Give; Help, &c. applied to God, or to Angels and men; and the same is of the words, Advocate, Mediator, Inter∣cessor, &c. as applied to Christ, or to Holymen: As these, I say, and the like words being thus differently applied bear the same significations in Religious mat∣ters,

which they do in others; So also the Acts of bowing, kneeling &c. being differently applied, may signify the same in the time and place of Religious wor∣ship, as being so applied they would do out of it, as you haue seen in the Exam∣ples before alledged, of the People to David, of Naaman to his Master, of the Jews to the Ark, and of Christians to the Altar in solemn Acts of devotion. And consequently, although the Circum∣stances of time and place may contribute in due occasion to show the difference of one Act from another; yet it is, as they stand under other Qualifications, which afford a sufficient Ground to judge of the nature of the Acts, whether they be Civil or Religious, and whether properly Religious, or improperly only, for some Excellency or Superiority not meerly Natural or Civil. And those are. 1. The different Objects to which they are ap∣plied, as to God, or the Saints, or the King, &c. 2. Some Publick Profession or Protestation, manifesting that they are applied to such Objects upon different accounts. 3. The eommon consent or Vse by which such Acts are generally under∣stood to be applied to such Objects, upō

such differēt Accounts. And where th••se three conditiōs cōcurr, they give sufficiēt ground to make a different iudgment of the Acts, be the Circumstances of time * 1.259 and place what they will, as Dr. Ham∣mond himself confesses in the afore-men∣tioned case of Naaman. For having ob∣served, as he doth, (and he saith it is an Ordinary Observation) that Aliens, Proselytes of other nations were not bound to that strictness of submitting to every rite and positive precept of the Law, as the Jews were, instancing particularly in that of not bowing to the king in the presence of an Idol, which

the Jews he saith, at least accounted themselves obliged not to do, and supposing it to be the Com∣mon custome and practice in Syria to pay Veneration, even Prostration to the king, he tells us, that Naaman was permitted by the Prophet to go with his Heathen Master into the house of Rimmon, and (when the Master worship'd there, and lean'd upon his hand) to bow himself in the house of Rimmon 2. kings 5. 18. upon this ground, 1. that he never wēt into the Idol-Temple, but to wait upon his Master in the Office which he had. 2^ly, that he profess't himself to all (even to that Heathen Master, and those that

werein his Court) to be a worshipper of none, but of the true God; and to that end carried two mule-loads of earth out of Palestine with him v. 17. in ho∣nour of him, whose name was great there, and to build an Altar according to th•• Prescript Ex. 20. 24 by which it was s••fficiently clear to the beholders, (as by an Interpretative Protestation) that when his Master worshipt, he only bowed and then his bowing was only Civil to his Master the king, not Religious to Rimmon or Saturn, or his Image there. And therefore to his Question, whether God would be offended with him in that matter, the Prophet answers him with a [Go in peace.] I cannot think so irre∣verently of the Prophet, as that he should make that answer Ironically to his new Convert, (any more then I can belieue N••aman's scruple belong'd only to the former part of his life (reading it in the Praeter sense:) For sure that had been guilty of the worshipping the Idol, and not only bowing in the house of Rim∣mon:) but that he meant in earnest, what alone the words import, that in thus doing, and no more, he need not fear that he should be a breaker of that law, which in this particular was not given

to him, or any, but those of that Na∣tion, or People of the Jews. Where you see that the whole Resolution of the case in the iudgment of that Eminent divine of the Church of England, depends upon the three afore-mentionned con∣ditions of the Object to which the act of bowing was applied, the common practice in Sy••ia of paying that Veneration to the king. and a Publick Pr••testation that he intended not that worship to the Idol, but to his Master, and not on the Cir∣cumstances of time and place, which in that occasion were over-ruled by those other.

The Fundamental reason of this is given by Monsieur Daillé an Eminent divine of the Reformed Church in France; and because his Authority may sway much with you, I shall give it in his own words. Signs, saith he, instituted by * 1.260 men to signify any thing, whether of na∣ture or Religion, are to be interpreted by the publick and common practice of those who use them, and not by the secret and particular Intentions of this or that Per∣son. I grant, saith he, that of themselves and of their own nature, very many of them do not signify one thing more then another; and that those which have a na∣tural

relation to the things signified, haue it not so necessarily annexed to them, that it might not have been lawfull frō the be∣ginning to have us'd them otherwise. But after that the Will of man, which is the Mistresse of such Institutions, hath addi∣cted and dedicated them to a certain si∣gnification, and Publick Vse hath con∣firm'd it, Iaverr, that afterwards to use them in anotbersense is Intolerable Im∣pertinency, and that he that so uses them, is to be accounted for a Fool and a Lyer among all Wise men &c. Thus Monsieur Daillé.

And now to come to the case of the Church of Rome; Although the R••∣manists do give those External acts of Adoration, which are performed by the motion of the body, as bowing, knee∣ling, &c. to Saints and Images, and that in the Church, and in the solemn acts of devotion: Yet these Signs being such as of their own nature are Equivocal, and so subject to the will of men, and there being extant a Publick Profession of that Church, and that confirmed by the Pu∣blick and common Practice, not only of the Roman, but of the whole Chris∣tian world before Luther, (and of the

far greater part of it still,) that when ap∣plied to Saints or Images; they are used as Tokens or Expressions of an Inferiour respect or Veneration, I see if we mete with Monsieur Daillès measures, it can be no other than Intolerable Impertinen∣cie, to restrain and limit them to another Sense, and They who will needs take them in such a restrained sense, that they may charge those who use them in the manner aboue declared, with Idolatry or other damnable Sin, will fall within the number of those who by his verdict are to be accounted for F••ols or Lyers among all Wise men; Atleast if we weigh with Mr. Thorndike's Weights, they must be guilty of a strange Vncharitable Opiniatorness in supposing them to contradict themselves.

Cathar.

I confess••, if it be true what Mr. Dail••é saith, that Signs instituted by M•••• to signify any thing, whether of Nat••re or Religion, are to be interpreted by the common and Publick Practice of th••s•• who use them, I do not see but the Papists haue as f••ir▪ (if not a fairer Plea••,) that they ought to be understood in the Sense they declare themselves▪ as the Church of England hath for bowing

to the Altar by it's declaring; that they intend not thereby to give any Religious worship to the Communion Table. For if Number and Continuance weigh any thing in this Case (as certainly they ought in such Institutions as depend upon the Will of men) I conceive the Publick Profession and Agreement both of the Eastern and Western Churches for so many ages together in performing those external acts of Adoration towards Saints and Images, will out-weigh without comparison the Declaration and agreement of the Church of England for bowing to the Altar. But then again, What colour soever you may pretend from the Will of Men, (which you say, is the Mistress of such Institutions) to smooth ouer the practice of the Pa∣pists in giving such External Acts of Adoration as are performed by the mo∣tion of the body, as bowing, kneeling, &c to Saints and Images, (they being in their own nature such as the Dr. grants may be used to God and the creatures): Yet this will not serve for those other acts of Re∣ligious worship, as Sacrifice, Building of Temples and Altars, Burning of In∣cense, Solemn Invocation, and making

of Vows, which God himself hath appro∣priated to his own worship. And who dares alter what God himself hath appointed? * 1.261

Eun.

No man surely I think will be so hardy: but then we ought to consi∣der, how and in what manner the ap∣pointment is made. Otherwise the Pro∣position [who dares alter what God hath appointed?] crudely and unlimitedly ta∣ken, as it is put by the Dr, is that very Principle, vpon which the Anabaptists ground themselves for not swearing, and the Quakers for not calling any man Master. For if God, say they, haue commanded not to swear at all, and for∣bidden his disciples to be called Ma∣sters, who dares alter what God himself hath appointed? But this by the by, to let you see what kind of Principles the Dr. makes use of to combate the Church of Rome.

As for the Objections themselves, although they haue been answered a hundred times over by those of the Church of Rome, yet because you press them anew, I answer, that the Appropriation which all or any of these acts are supposed to haue had only

by the Law of Moses, being taken away by the ceasing of that Law, as I shewed before, and no new appropria∣tion or Prohibition by any express Law of Christ produced hitherto by the Dr. they are to be reckoned in the number of those Rites and Ceremonies which the Church hath power to decree and use as she iudges expedient, and their signification is to be taken from the Pu∣blick Profession and Agreement of those that use them. No new Appropriation, I say, produced by the Dr. which I desire you to observe, because those of the Church of Rome maintain their Sacri∣fice of the Masse, to be of Christ's own Institution, and so not to be given to any Creature.

Here then it is, that we are to consi∣der in what sense it is that those of the Church of Rome give the rest of these external acts to the Saints. For the Will of men being the Mistress of such Insti∣tutions, they ought both in reason and Charity to be understood, as they de∣clare they use them: This I think cannot be denied by the Dr. himself, when to iustify the lawfullness of bowing to the Altar, he appeals to the declaration of

the Church of England, as your self but even now observed. Let us then see in what sense it is that these acts are used by those of the Church of Rome to the Saints. And

1. For the Invocation of Saints, they declare they mean no more by it, then having recourse to their ayd and assistāc•• to obtain by their Intercession Benefits of God through the merits of his only Son and our only Redeemer Jesus Christ.

2. For the building of Temples and Altars, they declare, that the structures so called, may be considered, either as Places designed for the offering of Sa∣crifice and so they ••rect none but to God alone, as they offer Sacrifice to him a∣lone, though in memo••y and honour of the Saints: Or as more Noble Monu∣ments to preserve their Reliques and Memory, and more affectuously implore their Intercession. And that they are commonly called Temples or Churches, and Altars from the relation they haue to the Sacrifice, which is offered in them to God alone, and that Solemn In∣vocation which is made to him, as the only Giver of every good and perfect Gift.

3. For the burning of Incense, the Appropriation it had by the Law of Moses being taken away, and Idoiatry extirpated, which made use of it as an act of Religious worship to Palse Gods, (both of them sufficient reasons, whilst they subsisted, for Hezekiah's breaking to peices the brazen serpent, when he saw the people offer Incense to it) and so the act left to its own nature, which the Dr. himself grants to be the same with that of the outward acts of Adora∣tion, and that T. G. was so farr in the right when he said, that burning of In∣cense * 1.262 w••t a Ceremony of the like nature with bowing, those of the Church of Rome declare that they do not use it to Saints and Images as a sign of Religious worship, but either as a Ceremony to sig∣nify the sweet odour the Prayers of the Saints are, or the like: or as a token of an Inferiour respect and Veneration.

4. Lastly for making of Vows, they declare, they do not promise any thing to the Saints, in the same sence they do to God, but what they promise to God they promise in token of Gratitudo as to the Author and Give•• of all good things; and what they promise to the Saints,

they promise only in token of Gratitude to them for their Intercession to God.

Now whateuer Cavils men of the Critical Employment may make against this manner of using either these acts or words, and how many ••••••sts soever they may give us of their Office from E••ymologies or the like, t'is ma∣nifest that the Publick Profession and common Practice of those who use them, will over-rule all. For after that th••se kind of signs are addicted to such a signification by the will of men, which is the Mistress of such Institutions, where no Appropriation is made by God, and Publick use hath confirm'd it, I confess I do not see but it must be, as Mr, Daillé saith, Impertinency or Folly to limit and restrain thē to another sense. Nor is this to alter what God hath ap∣pointed, as Dr. St. obiecteth against * 1.263 Bellarmin when he confesseth that the name of Vow is alwaies taken in scripture for a promise made to God. For what God hath appointed is not that we shal not call a Promise made to a Saint in token of Gratitude for his intercession, a Vow: but that we shall not make any such Promise to thē as the Authors or Givers

of the benefits we haue received, or ex∣pect to receive by their Intercession; nor that we shall not call a structure erected in Memory of a Saint, a Temple or Church from the Sacrifice and solemn Invocation that is offered in it to God, but that we shall not erect any such to offer Sacrifice to the Saint, or invocate him as Author of what we ask: it In like manner what God hath appointed▪ is not that we shall not perform such other acts to Saints as may serve to testify the Res∣pect and Esteem we haue for the Excle∣lencies they are endowed with (and the same is of Images for the Relation they bear to God) but that we shall not give them to any besides himself, as tokens of that inward submission of our souls which is proper to him; or as they may rational∣ly be understood to be such, which I do not conceive can ever happen in the case of the Church of Rome towards Saints and Images whilst there is extāt a Publick Prof••ssion of that Church determi∣ning and declaring them to be used to them, as tokens only of an I••f••riour Respect or Veneration, and the Practice supposed conformable to the Profession; which we must necessarily do, unless as

Mr Thorndike saith, we will suppose * 1.264 them to contradict themselves: And then the whole Question will be, whether their Adversaries words are to be taken before theirs, that is, whether their Ad∣versaries understand what they mean, better than they do themselves?

Cathar.

Here Eunomius, I think I may say to you what the Priests and El∣ders * 1.265 did to Christ, but with agreat deal more reason: By what Authority do men these things? And who gaue them this Authority? For if this be not to alter what God hath appointed, and to put it in the Power of man to change those things which God hath made peculiar to himself, I know not what is.

Eun:

And here I think I may ask you a like Question to that which Christ * 1.266 made to the man that called him Good, Why callest thou me Good? None is good, save one that is God? By what Authori∣ty do you give the name of Good to a man whom you esteem Righteous, and some times for fashion's sake too, if God haue appropriated the name of Good to himself? Again if God haue expressly for∣bidden to call any man our Father upon * 1.267 the earth, by what Authority do you

giue the name of Father to any man upon the earth? And if he have forbidden his disciples to be called Masters, by * 1.268 what Authority do you take it your self, or Dr St. give it to the Reverend Master Baxter? when you haue answered these Questions, Catharinus, you will see, and perhaps confess what hitherto you would not, that the different ap∣plying of words, (and it is the same of acts in their own nature Equivocal,) is not to alter what God hath appointed, nor to put in the Power of man to change what God hath made peculiar to himself, but to leave them to God in the Sense, in which they are appropriated to him, and apply them only in another sense to the Creatures.

Cathar.

This I confess is more than hitherto I reflected on. But still there is one thing behind which seems to defeat all that you haue said, and if you can give me a satisfactory Account of it, I shall give you no farther trouble. And it is, why the same may not be done in Sa∣crifice, that is, in other External acts of worship as bowing or kneeling, Erecting of Temples, or burning of Incense? Why may it not be made common as well

as Vows. And though it be offered only * 1.269 absolutely to God, why may it not be offered relatively to the Saints or Ima∣ges? * 1.270 In a word, I desire to know with the Dr how a sacrisice doth come to signify * 1.271 this absolute worship more than Adora∣tion?

Eun:

This is a Scruple, which hath troubled the Drs notions from the begin∣ning; and because he repeats it so often in his Defence. I perceive you think it hath not been answered. But J am of ano∣ther mind. For, if you remember, * 1.272 though T. G. tell him, that he will bet∣ter understand it, when he is become a Proselyte; yet with all he saith, that in the mean time it may suffice him to know that the Church of God hath no such cus∣tome; and that Sacrifice is used and ta∣ken by the Publick Vse and Custome of the Church for an acknowledgment of the absolute worship due to God, and not of Relative to an Image. And I do not see why he might not haue been satisfied with this A••swer.

Cathar.

I cannot but wonder to hear you say so. For as the Dr replies very home upon him: I do not ask, saith he, whether the Church of Rome haue any * 1.273

such custome (the Church of God I know hath not) but whether it may not haue that, as well as some others, and upon the same grounds of Relative worship. But if I must not understand this till I become a Proselyte, I hope I shall be alwaies con∣tented with my Ignorance. If I can be no oth••rwise informed, I am not sorry to see such Evidence of their Inability to an∣swer, who make such put-offs.

Eun.

And I cannot but wonder more, why the Dr. should call that a Put-off, which seems to me to be a very Pertinent Answer to the Question, for as much as concerns the Dispute between him and T. G. And that you may see this more cleerly, let us suppose T. G. to haue ad∣mitted, that possibly Sacrifice might be used, in like manner as other external acts are; all the Dr could in••err from thence to his purpose would be, that in such case the Church of Rome might possibly haue no external act of worship appropriated to God, if▪ she haue none but Sacrifice; but whilst she hath no such custome de facto, as offering Sacrifice to Saints and Images, but to God alone; tis manifest he cannot accuse them in that point of having no External Act of

worship proper to God, or of giving it to any besides him, which I take to be suf∣ficient to repell the Drs charge of actual Idolatry; and why T. G. was bound to any more unless men must be condem∣ned as actual Idolaters, because it is pos∣sible they may be so; or what design the Dr proposed to himself by demanding more, I do not understand.

Cathar.

The design was, as I conceive, to provoke T. G. by often casting this Question in his way to give some reason, why Sacrifice might not be ap∣plied to creatures, in like manner as o∣ther External Acts are. For whateuer reason he should give, why this may not be lawfully done in Sacrifice, would equally show the unlawfulness of doing it in the rest: And therefore the Dr so carnetly presses to know how a sacrifice doth come to signify this absolute worship more then Adoration, that is, bowing, or * 1.274 kneeling, or such like acts performed by the motion of the body?

Eun:

This was a Cunning device in∣deed, but such a one, as it seems T. G▪ was not afraid to speak to. For he tells * 1.275 the Dr 1^st that Sacrifice in general is both by the custome of the Church, and th••

consent of all mankind (as St Augustin teacheth) appropriated to signify the * 1.276 absolute worship due only to God. And 2^ly for the particular Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Christ, the nature * 1.277 and dignity thereof, he saith, requireth that it be offered to God alone. And this I take to be a very plain and positive answer, how a Sacrifice doth come to signify this absolute worship more than Adoration. But since the Dr. is not satisfied with it, I must desire you when you see him next, to tell him that a Friend of yours desires to know, why Invocation (which he will haue to be as much the Proper act of Religious worship in the Church of England, as those of the Church of Rome account Sacrifice to be) may not be applied to Creatures, as well as Supplication, which St Paul reckons among the acts * 1.278 of Relig••o••s worship due to God; and why that may not be made common, as well as Go••d, and Father and Master are, which by Christ's own command in the new Law are appropriated to himself. He cannot recurr to Nature, because he knows words do not signify naturally, but by the Will of men, and

are frequently changed by custome. If he haue recourse to the Imposition and Custome of men determining the word Invocation to signify that sort of address which is proper to God; those of the Church of Rome haue the same and in a more Vniversel manner, for a like determination of the external act of Sa∣crifice in general to signify the absolute worship of God. If to God's Institut••on, they acknowledge the same for the Sa∣crifice of the Body and Bloud of our Lord, which, they say, was instituted by Christ himself at his last supper. Lastly if he fly to distinctions, Sempron••us will think he hath as much r••ght to make use of them, as T••t••us.

Cathar.

This is another of those you call Arguments ad hominem. But still methinks you come not up to what the Dr would hau••: If Sacrifice do signify the Absolute worship of God more than Ado∣ration, is it for that of it self it doth more properly signify our inward and total * 1.279 subjection of our selves to God than the other doth? Methinks as the Dr saith, it would become T. Gs learning to i•• form us in this matter.

Eun:

well; as if T G were bound for

the Dr's pleasure to give such reas••ns, as he would haue; and not what himself thought most proper for the present dispute? Does not the Dr himself in that very place, honour them with the title of the best learned of the Roman divines, who confess that Sacrifice doth n••t natu∣rally * 1.280 or of it self, signify any worship of God, but by the Imposition of men? And do not those other Divines who main∣tain it to signify the ••orship proper to God upon the account of nature, ackno••ledge that it doth so also by the common consent of Mankind? What necessity was there then, that T. G. in a debate with an Adversary, whose Genius and Cause both lead him to multiply Controversies without end, should alledge any other reason, than that in which they all agree? Whether this consent of mankind, in using the destru∣ction of creature•• to signify the supream dominion of God ouer life and de••th, and their Subjection to him, owe it's Ori∣gine to nature, or to some Inspirat••on or command of God given to men in the beginning, or were taken up by their own Voluntary Election, and so propagated to Posterity, the Dr is at

liberty to dispute with the Schoolmen, o•• his own thoughts, as he pleases. It concerns not T. G. It was enough for him that he had the consent of mankind on his side, that Sacrifice was to be offered to none but God.

Cathar.

But do you remember what the Dr addes in that very place now cited by you? How comes the destruction of any * 1.281 Creature, saith he, under our command to signify the inward subjection of our selves to God? What pleasure can we conceive the Almighty should take in seeing us to destroy his creatures for his sak••? Our minds may be as farr from submitting to God, as these things are of themselves from signifying such a sub∣mission. Nay how comes a sacrifice to stand so much in our stead, that because we take away the life of that, ther••fore we own God as our Lord? It might rather of it selfsignify that we haue the power of life and death over Beasts, than that God hath it over us.

Eun:

I remember the passage very well; but I do not remember where T. G. said that th•• destruction of a creature doth of it self signify our subjection to God. What he saith is that this material

action may be done for several ends and Intentions; and is not the Institution of * 1.282 God, or the Imposition of men sufficient to determin it, when used as an act of worship, to signify the absolute worship due to God, but that it must be deter∣min'd of it self? Who ever heard any thing more trifling and frivolou? Is this to reason like a Master in Israel? Pray tell me, Catharinus; do you not think Moses would haue been put shrewdly to it, had Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, instead of seeking the Priest hood, quar∣rel'd at the Sacrifices, and made the same demands to him, which the Dr does to T. G.? For might they not haue said to him (and surely it would haue become Moses his learning to haue in∣formed them in this matter,) How comes the destruction of any creature under our command to signify the inward subjection of our selves to God? What pleasure can we conceive the Almighty should take in seeing us to destroy his creatures f••r his sake? Our minds may be as farr f••om submitting to God, as those things are of themselves from signifying such a sub∣mission. Nay how comes a Sacrifice to stand so much in our sto••d, that because

we take away the life of that, therefor•• we own God as our Lord? It might rather of it self signify that we haue the power of l••fe and death over Beasts, than that God hath it over us. But alas poor men, they were not acquainted with these subtilties. They took it upon the Common consent of all Mankind, that sacrifice was an External Act of worship due to God alone, and so quarrel'd not the offering it to him, as Nonsensical, but affected themselves to haue a share in the honour and Office of the Priest∣hood.

Cathar.

Be it so, if you will of the Jewish sacrifices: But, (as the Dr goes * 1.283 on) of all things in the world, it would never haue come into my mind, nor I think into any man's well in his senses, to offer up God himself unto God as a Sacri∣fice, in order to the testifying the devoting of our selves unto him; and yet this, after all their talk, comes to be that external sacrifice, wbich is the only appropriate sign of the absolute worship of God, viz, the Sacrifice of the Mass, wherein the Priest is believed, to offer up God himself under the species of Bread and Wine to the Eternal God in token of our subjection

to him. M••thinks yet it were some what more reasonable to offer up brute Crea∣tures that are under us, than God that is so infinitely aboue us, and such is the weakness of my understanding, that this seems to be rather an Argument of our Power over God, than of our subjection to him. But since the Formal Reason of a sacrifice is said to lie in the destruction of it. Good Lord! What thoughts must these men haue (if they haue any) when they th••nk it in their power, first to make their God by speaking five words, then to offer him up as a sacrifice, then to suppose him destroyed, and all this to testify their submission to God. I want words, saith he, to Express the intolerable Blasphemy and Absurdity of these things.

Eun:

This I confess, is such a passage which I could not read without horrour, as being not only trifling and Frivolous as the former, but highly Injurious to that inestimable Sac••ifice, which Christ himself offered upon the Cross. For what was it, the Jews were scandaliz'd at in it but the offering of God to God. We preach, saith St Paul, Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks * 1.284 Foolishness. And then again Ch. 2. v. 7.

We speak the Wisdome of God, which had the Princes of this world known they would not haue crucified the LORD of GLORY. And could the Dr find no Stone to throw at the Mass, but that at which the Jews stumbled, and which his Wiser Heathens derided as Foolishness? I wonder he was not afraid of that saying of the same Apostle 1. Cor. 1. 18, The preaching of the Cross is to them that perish Foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the Power of God, when he durst say, Of all things in the world it cannot enter into my mind, nor I think into any man's well in his senses to offer ••y God himself unto God as a Sacrifice? For although he talk of the making and destroying of God in the Mass, yet he knows very well, there is no such thing done or believed to be done there, but that the same Christ who is in Heauen is believed to be whole under either Species; and his Bloud to be separated from his Body not really, but Mystically only and in Representation. But these bugg words were to be thrust in to giue a colour to his Exorbitancie. The main thing he insists upon is the Intolerable Blasphemy and Absurduy, as he calls it,

of offering up God himself unto God as a Sacrifice. But Good Lord! What thoughts must he haue (if he haue any) of the Sacrifice of the Cross? Can it enter into his mind, that Christ himself (with Reverence be it spoken and trembling too) was not well in his senses, when he offered up God himself to God as a Sacrifice? Or that those who were at the foot of the Cross, might not haue offered him up to his Father, who vo∣luntarily offered himself for them, in order to the testifying the devoting them∣selves as sacrifices to (him if he should please to require it,) without losing their senses? If not, why must those be out of their senses, who offer up the same sacrifice to him, and with like de∣votion upon the Altar? This is such an Argument as might haue been expected from the Pen of a Crellius. But I will not suppose the Dr, either to deny with him that Christ was the High God, because he was so kind to T. G. as to * 1.285 suppose he would not deny the Creator and Governour of the world to be the true God; or that Christ did not offer up himself to God, when St Paul saith so * 1.286 expressly, that he gaue himself for us, as

an offering and a sacrifice to God for a s••eet smelling savour, and th••t he who is the Brig••tness of his Fathers Glory, purged * 1.287 our sins by himself: Or that he thinks it as much for the honour of God and the good of our souls to offer the bloud of brute Creatures, viz, of Bulls and of Goats, as the Bloud of Christ who offered * 1.288 himself without spot to Go••. These things I leave, yet withall I cannot omit to tell you, that I see another ground from whence this kind of transport may pro∣ceed, and at what it levels.

Cathar.

Pray let me know what it is.

Eun:

It is that he cannot with any patience endure to hear of the Sacrifice of the Altar, though he be content to bow to it. That must down, though the Sacrifice of the Cross fall with it. And this was it, which when T. G. had said, * 1.289 that that Religion (speaking only in ge∣neral) which admits no external Visible sacrifice, must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the Publick worship of God, made him so sollicitous and eager to repell the very suspition of having any such sacrifice from the Church of * 1.290 England. What External Visible sacri∣fice haue you, saith he (speaking to those

of the Church of Rome) that we haue not, besides that os God himself, whom you be∣lieve to be personally present (as if the Church of England did not) as the Object of divine worship under the species of Bread and Wine? But was this to speak like a Champion of the Church of England? How farr he dissents herein from the sentiments of the true and genuin Sons of this Church, that is (ac∣cording to his own Paraphrase in his General Preface) the most remote from all suspition of dis-affection to her, or Incli∣nation to Puritanism, may easily appear * 1.291 from what that Person of ••reat learning and Excellent Piety, Mr. Thorndike, (as the Dr himself acknowledges him to haue been), hath delivered upon this subject.

Hauing maintained, saith he, that the Elements are really changed from Ordinary Bread and Wine, into the Body and Bloud of Christ, mystically present as in a Sacrament, and that in vertue of the Consecration, not by the Faith of him that receives; I am to ad∣mit and maintain, Whatsoever appears duly consequent to this Truth; namely, that the Elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, in

as much as the Body an Bloud of Christ are con••ained in them. And then farther addes (p. 46.) that the sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily Propitiatory and Impetratory both, it cannot be denied, that the sacrament of the Eucharist in▪ as much as it is the same sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross,—is also both Propitiatory and Impetratory. The same is asserted by Dr He••••lyn in his Necessary Introduction to Cyprianus Anglicus.

Assuredly, saith he, if the Priest and * 1.292 Altar be so near, the Lamb for the Burnt-offe••••••g cannot be farr of, even the most Blessed Lamb of G••d, which takes away the sins of the world, (as the Scripture s••yles him) whose Passion we find commemorated in the sacra∣ment, called therefore the sacrament of the Altar; and for the same reason called by S. Augustin in his E••chiridion Sacri∣ficium Altaris, the Sacrifice of the Al∣tar; by the E••glish Liturgie in the Prayer next after the Participation, the Sacrifice of Praise and Thankes-giving (Sacri∣ficium laudis;) By Chrysostom, The remembrance of a Sacrifice, and by many learned Writers among our selves, a Commemotative Sacrifice.

For thus saith

Bp Andrews in his Answer to Card. * 1.293 Bellarmin, c. 8. Tollite de Missa Transsubstantiationem vestram, nec diu * 1.294 nobiscum lis erit de sacrificio.

Which the said Dr Heylyn translates in this manner, Take from the Mass your Transubstan∣tiation, and we will haue no difference with you about the sacrifice: declaring thereby how consequent he thought the admitting of a Sacrifice to be, to the belief of the Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, which he there shows to haue been the constant doctrine of the Church of En∣gland, both from her Liturgie and Ca∣techism, * 1.295 and the writings of the best learned of her divines;

among whom he cites that Profession of Bp Andrews in the name of the Church of England to Card.

Bellarmin. Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram; de modo praesentiae nil temerè definimus. We acknowledg•• a presence as true and Real as you do: but we determine nothing rashly of the manner of it. From which and the Testimonies of some other divines he saith, It seems it is agreed on both sides (that is to say, the Church of England and the Church of Rome) that the••e 〈…〉〈…〉

true and 〈…〉〈…〉 of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the disagreement being only in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 P••ae••entiae, the manner of the Presence.

This is what the true and genuin sons of the Church of E••gland teach both concerning the Rea•• Presence, and the Sacrific•• of Christ's Body and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Sacrament of the Altar, as well knowing how great a ••efect it would be for a C••urch to want the most signal Part ef the P••blick worship of God as that of ••acr••fice is 1^st They assert the Person of Christ to be as t••uly and Really present there, as those of the Ch••••ch of Rome do. 2. They assert it also to be there▪ as he Object of divine worship; for Mr Th••rndike speaking of the Ado∣ration * 1.296 of Christ in the Eucharist, saith, I do believe that it was so practised, and done in the Ancient Church, wh••ch I maintain from the beginning t•• haue been the true Church of Christ. And Bp An∣drews * 1.297 tells Cardinal Bellarmin very plainly, that the King (King James, and did not he understand wha•• he said, * 1.298 and what they of the Church of England did?) holds Christ to be truly present in the sacrament, and there also to be truly

adorabl••. Lastly they assert the Eucharist * 1.299 to be no•• only a Sacrament, but a Sa∣crifice, and t••e very Sa••e sacrifice of Christ upon the C••••ss. How comes the Dr then to contradict all these Points when he said speaking to t••ose of the Church of Rome, What exte••nal Vi∣sible sacrifice haue you th••t we haue no••, besides God himself, w••om you believe to be pe••sonally present, as the Object of divine Worship, under the species of Br••ad and Wine? Was it to show his excellent ••k••ll in the affairs and doctrine of tha•• Ch••rch he pretends to defend? No, he could not be ignorant of so evi∣dent a matter. The very names of Priest and A••tar put him daily in mind of it. What made him then tell those of the Church of Rome that the Church of Eng••and hath no such Sacri∣fice, as that of Christ personally present in the Sacram••nt, as the Object of divine * 1.300 worship? O, it was the Intolerable Blas∣phemy and Absurd••••y, as he calls it, of offering up God himself as a sacrifice to God. For of all things in the world, it could never have come into his mind, nor he thinks into any man's well in his senses (by which it seems he thinks Bp

Andrews, Dr Heylin, Mr Thorndike, and the rest to haue been craz'd at least) to offer up God himself unto God as a sacrifice in order to the testifying our devot••ng our selves to him. But if this be B••asph••my, and the Drs definition must obtain against that of the two General Councils of Nice and Ephesus. I know no way but to renounce my Creed. For I do not see, but it is alike blasphemous, to say, that God was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, as that he offered himself upon the Cross, or is off••red by us upon the Altar. And now hath not the Church of England great reason to glory in such a Champion, who under a specious pretence of impugning the Mass, fears not to traduce the most excellent part of her Religious worship (as it is understood by the best Learned of her divines) as blasphemous and absurd, and so wound both her, and the Common Christianity to the very heart, through the side•• of her Enemies?

Cathar.

Let the Dr and the Church of England agree about these things as They can. I do not see after all their sine talk of the nature and dignity of their

sacrifice of the Mass, as due only to God, but that themse••ves in their prac∣tice offer it to Creatures also. For as the * 1.301 Dr hath well observed out of their own Mass-books, they offer it in honour of the Saints: and although they pretend they do it to God in thanksgiving for the Graces he hath bestowed upon the * 1.302 Saints, yet Dr St desires to know of them, whether this be not more than giving God thanks for their vertues; when a Propitiatory sacrifice is offered up * 1.303 to God for their honour? moreover at the same time they pray, that the Saints would intercede with God for them. And What is joyning creatures together with God in the honour of sacrifice, if this be not? Again supposing that they offer it only to God, yet as Cajetan observes, * 1.304 it cannot reach to all Christians, but only belongs to the Priests to offer it. And so they reserve no one act of Exter∣nal Adoration as proper to God, and to be performed by all Christians.

Eun:

To what miserable shifts are men put, when they would haue such Trivial kind of arguing as this to pass for solid Reasoning. Either the Dr was netled without cause for T. G's. telling

him upon occasion, that he would understand better what belongs to a sa∣crifice, when he was become a Proselyte, Or it must be a hard world, when a man of his abilities must be forc'd to fain that he doth not know how the same sacrifice may be a Propitiation for sins, and a Thank••giving for Benefits: espe∣cially the Sacrifice of the Altar, being the same with that of the Cross, in which all the differences of the legal sacrifices were fulfilled. I cannot conceive but that in his frequent Researches into Bellarmin he must haue met with that * 1.305 famous passage of S. Augustin, where he saith, that when the sacrifice of the * 1.306 (Altar, which he there cals the sacrifice of the Mediator,) is offered in the Church for all the faithfull departed, it is to such as were good, but not perfecty good, a sa∣crifice of Propitiation: but for the per∣fectly * 1.307 good, of Thanksgiving. And I thought T. G. had given him a very home-Example how this might be for the honour of a Person, when he de∣sired him to reflect, whether it would not be for his honour, that his whole Party should keep a solemn Day of Thanksgiving for his great performances

against the Popish Cause, although the Thanks were given to God and not to him. And indeed it was so home that he * 1.308 doth not deny it would haue been for his honour. But then to return, as he saith, the kindness of T. G'^s twitch by a forrain example fetch'd from Persia, where Prostration was appropriated to their King, as a sign of subjection to him alone, how strange, saith he, would is haue been thought among them, for a man to haue said to the King, I fall down before you in honour of the Captain of your Guards? A very notable example I can assure you. Yet there is this difference, that how strange soever it might have appeared among the Persians to hear this said to their King, (as it doth now to Countrey People to hear one say, I kiss your hands, instead of I thank you,) it seems it is not so among those of the Church of Rome to say to God. We offer this sacri∣fice to thee in the honour of St Michael, to testify their application of it in thanksgiving for the favours and Graces bestowed on him; and why th••y may not use other manners of expression, as well as of habits or gestures from those of the Persians, I do not undestand:

and as litle why they ought not to be understood, as they declare themselves to mean, the Will of men being the Mis∣tress, and Custome the Confirmer of such forms of speaking. But still the Ques∣tion is, saith the Dr, if sacrifice be appro∣priated to the sol•• honour of God, how ••he honour of Saints comes to be declared by it? But granting, as he doth, that it is for the honour of a Person to praise (or give thanks to) God for him, this I say being granted, the Question as I take it can be no other than to ask, whether the offering of a Present, (as sacrifice is) in token of Gratitude, be to diminish or adde to the Act of Thanksgiving? For if it be a greater Declaration of Thanks∣giving, it must consequently be a greater Declaration also of the honour of the Person for whom it is offered. O but at the same time that they offer the sacri∣fice in honour of the Saints, they pray that they would intercede with God for them. This is more than the Dr finds in their Mass-books, at least from the Of∣fertory, where the Priest begins to apply himself to the Action of sacrifice: for from thence forward the Prayers are all directed to God. But in case they did

so, would it therefore follow that the sacrifice is offered to the Saints because they are desired to join their Prayers with the People to obtain the blessings they ask of God? This surely is something beyond Trifling, for the Dr might as well haue said that the sacrifice is offered to the People because the Priest after the Offertory turns to them, with, Ora∣te f••at••es, and desires them to Pray that it may become acceptable to God; and if you haue nothing of more mo∣ment to propose, I think it is high time we make an End indeed.

Cathar.

But you haue forgot to speak to what I proposed in the last place; that supposing they offer it only to God, yet this, as Cajetan observes, cannot reach to all Christians, but only belongs * 1.309 to the Priests to offer it; and so they reserve no one external act of Adoration as proper to God, and to be performed by all Christians.

Eun.

You did well to call upon me, Otherwise I confess I had pass'd this over, as a thing not worthy the taking-notice of; for there is nothing more notorious than that those of the Church of Rome are bound on every sunday and

Holy-day to hear Masse (as they cal it) by that External Act to testify the uniting their Intention with the Priest as the Publick Officer of the Church in the Oblation of the Sacrifice. And what is it the Dr would haue more? Would he haue the City of London when they make a Present to the King at his Coronation in order to the testifying their subjection to him, to go every one in Persō, and deliver it with his own hands? Is it not enough that some Publick Person be deputed, as the Lord Maior, or the Recorder to do it in their names, and the King accepts it as offered by each one? If this be so in things belonging to men, how much more in those belonging to God, where as St Paul, saith: Every High-Priest taken f••om amōg men is ordained for men, * 1.310 that they may offer both Gifts and sacri∣fices for sins, and that both for himself and for the People? And if this did not hinder in the old Law, but that both Prin∣ces and People are said to haue offered those sacrifices to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, why must it in the new? I do not except against the Dr's Citation out of Cajetan, though I do not find it in the place quoted by him. But this I dare affirm, that Cajetan was

not so silly a divine as to deny it belon∣ged to the People to offer the Sacrifice by and with the Priest; but that it belōgs not to them to Consecrate it, any more than it did in the old Law to kill and lay it upon the Altar. The very Mass-Book. it self would haue informed him better, in which the Priest calls it their sacri∣fice as well as his, Meum as Vestrum sacrificium, and desires of God to accept it for all those, pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium. For whom we, saith he, offer, or who offer this sacrifice to thee. And I can imagin but two reasons, why this should not hold as well in the new Law, as the Old; The First given by Korah and his Com∣plices, when they told Moses and Aa∣ron. Yee take too much upon you, seing all * 1.311 the Congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them, where fore then lift yee up your selves abou•• the Congregation of the Lord? Which was no other that to teach the People to invade the Priesthood; Or 2^ly that there is no sacrisice offered in the new Law, and this contradicts not only the Practice of the Church of Christ in the Primitive times, but the sense also of the best

learned divines of the Church of En∣gland. But it is not in this Point alone, that the Dr doth it, but in many others, as I haue shown in the fore going Confe∣rences, which if you think fit to Com∣municate to him, I conceive you will do well at the same time to advise him as a Friend, both for his own credit, and that of the Church he pretends to defend, to take in good part the Counsel which St Augustin gives to some Endless, be∣cause wordish disputers of his time. Let * 1.312 him consider all things diligently, and if perhaps iudging impartially he perceive * 1.313 them to be such, as may rather be play'd upon and made seemingly ridiculous or blasphemous by a Satyrical or Mimical kind of Levity, than solidly confuted, let him surcease to trifle, and chuse rather to be amended and reformed by the. Wise than to be extol'd, and applauded by those who are otherwise.

Cathar.

But do you hope then, Eu∣nomius, that Dr St will ever become a true Church-of-England-Man, in the sense you understand it? that he will

retract his charge of Idolatry, and acquit at least the doctrine of the Church of Rome from the Guilt of it in the wor∣ship of Images, the Invocat••on of Saints, and Adoration of the Host? That he will ever swallow the Contradictions of Christs Personal Presence in the Sacra∣ment? nay first adore him, then offer him believing him to be God in sacri∣fice, and after all eat him? When this comes to pass, I think the Papists will haue litle or no reason to despair of his coming over and joyning with them.

Eun.

How ••estingly soever you say this, Catharinus, yet I think in good Earnest I may tell you that the very Principles he admits, if followed home, would lead him thither? For granting, as he doth, 1^st. that the Church of Rome is a true Church, and doth not erre against any Fundamental Point of Faith; 2^ly that the Gates of Hell have not pre∣vailed against the whole. Christian Church; and 3^ly that a Christian by ver∣tue of his being so is bound to join in Communion with some Church or Congre∣gation of Christians: I do not see, but he is bound either to assign some other true Church of Christ in the world before

Luther besides that of Rome, or else by vertue of his Christianity he is bound to joyn in Communion with it.

Cathar.

Yet still the Dr hath this refuge left him, why we ought not to joyn with the Roman, because if she be guilty of Idolatry, our Communion with * 1.314 her wo••ld be a sin.

Eun.

As for the Charge of Idolatry, I hope you haue been made sensible, how un-maintainable it is, both from the strange Consequences that follow from it, even to the subversion of all lawful Eccle∣siastical Authority in the Church of Eng∣land: as also from the Extravagant Ways the Dr is forced to make use of at any rate to uphold it, as Apologizing for the Heathens, asserting their Jupiter to be the true God, mis-representing and corrupting Authors, denying the Personal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and contradicting not only the true and Genuin Sons of the Church of England, but most of all himself. This therefore can be no good ground to maintain the Separation.

Cathar.

What then can, I pray?

Eun.

That's a Point which requires more time than I have at present to spend

upon it. To morrow morning I begin my Journey without fail.

Cathar.

I wish you a good one; and begg your pardon for hauing detained you so long.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Def. p. 3.
• * 1.2

  Li. 6. de civ. Dei. c. 1.
• * 1.3

  Def. p. 2. 3.
• * 1.4

  Cath. no Idol. p. 36.
• * 1.5

  p. 63.
• * 1.6

  p. 67.
• * 1.7

  p. 99.
• * 1.8

  p. 103.
• * 1.9

  p. 349.
• * 1.10

  Def. p. 3.
• * 1.11

  Pref. to Rom: Idol.
• * 1.12

  p. 2.
• * 1.13

  p. 3.
• * 1.14

  Cath. no Idol p. 3483. 49.
• * 1.15

  p. 350.
• * 1.16

  D. s. p 23. 24.
• * 1.17

  p. 785.
• * 1.18

  Cath. no Idol. p. 349.
• * 1.19

  Theoph. i. 1. ad Antol. S. Aug. in Ps. 96.
• * 1.20

  p. 186.
• * 1.21

  Li. 5. cont. less.
• * 1.22

  pag. 8.
• * 1.23

  Apol. 2.
• * 1.24

  Legat.
• * 1.25

  pro Christ.
• * 1.26

  p. 64.
• * 1.27

  p. 66.
• * 1.28

  Li. 1. ad Au••olic.
• * 1.29

  ••i. de Spect. c. 1. & Apol. c. 27.
• * 1.30

  Li. ad Scap. c. 1.
• * 1.31

  Apol. ••. 40.
• * 1.32

  ••otrept. p. 55. 16. Edit. •• ••asil.
• * 1.33

  Pag. 87. Edit. Oxon.
• * 1.34

  P. 89.
• * 1.35

  Theo∣doret. li. 3. c. 13.
• * 1.36

  S. Hie∣ron. c. Vigil. S. Aug. de civ. Dei li. 8, c. 26.
• * 1.37

  Li. 4. c. 8.
• * 1.38

  Orat. contr. Gent. c••n. med.
• * 1.39

  De Idol. van.
• * 1.40

  De Idol. van.
• * 1.41

  In 1. Cor. 8.
• * 1.42

  In A∣bac. 2.
• * 1.43

  Li. 1. adv. Gent.
• * 1.44

  In Ps. 95.
• * 1.45

  Li. 2. c. 16.
• * 1.46

  In Ps. 16.
• * 1.47

  C. 25.
• * 1.48

  Def. p. 41.
• * 1.49

  ••useb. de Praep. Evang. li. 4. c. 11.
• * 1.50

  Def. p. 6.
• * 1.51

  p. 7.
• * 1.52

  Li. 1. de cons. E∣vang. c. 22.
• * 1.53

  Acts 14.
• * 1.54

  p. 24.
• * 1.55

  p. 78.
• * 1.56

  p. 7.
• * 1.57

  p. ••.
• * 1.58

  p. 14.
• * 1.59

  1▪
• * 1.60

  Li. 1. Adv. Gent. p. 9.
• * 1.61

  Tract. 106. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.62

  c. 2••.
• * 1.63

  p. 54.
• * 1.64

  p. 89.
• * 1.65

  Li. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.66

  Apol. c. 17.
• * 1.67

  •• 5.
• * 1.68

  2.
• * 1.69

  p. 3••. 34. 39.
• * 1.70

  P. 35. 36.
• * 1.71

  P. 44.
• * 1.72

  P. 46. 49.
• * 1.73

  Poenul. Act. 5. Sc. 3.
• * 1.74

  In Am∣phitr. Prol.
• * 1.75

  p. 46.
• * 1.76

  p. 54.
• * 1.77

  Am∣phitr. in Prol. & Act. 5. Sc. 1. Summus Impera∣tor Di∣vum at∣que ho∣minum Iupiter, Is se di∣xit cum Alcume∣••a clam ••onsue∣tum cubi∣••••bus.
• * 1.78

  3.
• * 1.79

  p. 40. 41.
• * 1.80

  p. 42.
• * 1.81

  p. 74.
• * 1.82

  p. 75.
• * 1.83

  p. 94.
• * 1.84

  p. 88.
• * 1.85

  p. 541.
• * 1.86

  p. 706.
• * 1.87

  Ep. D••∣dic.
• * 1.88

  Li. 6. de civ. Dei c. & li. 4. c. 27. Euseb. li. 4. de Praep. E∣vang. in Praef.
• * 1.89

  Arnob. li. 1. Ter∣tull. A∣pol. c. 10. lact. li. 1. c. 8. S. Aug. li. 8. de civ. Dei. c. ••6. Cic.
• * 1.90

  li. 2. de nat. Deo.
• * 1.91

  Vid. S. Aug. de civ. Dei li. 8. c. 22.
• * 1.92

  p. 66.
• * 1.93

  S. Aug. li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 27. 32.
• * 1.94

  Lict. li. 1. c. 8. & 11.
• * 1.95

  S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. E∣vang. c. 23.
• * 1.96

  Def. p. 15.
• * 1.97

  De Idol. Praefat. 1.
• * 1.98

  Li. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.99

  Concil. Trent. Sess. 25.
• * 1.100

  Def. p. 541. p. 706.
• * 1.101

  Ps. 69. 5.
• * 1.102

  ••. Iren. Li. 3. c. 6. S. Cy∣pr. li. 3. ad Quir.
• * 1.103

  Arnob. li. 1. min. Fel. in Oct. S. Aug. in Ps. 41. & li. 2. q. sup. Exod q. 71. S. Cyril. li. 6. cont. Jul.
• * 1.104

  S. Aug. li. 8. de civ. Dei. c. 23. 26.
• * 1.105

  Arnob. li. 1. adv. Gent. Euseb. li. 3. de vit a Const. S. Athan. Orat. cont. Gent. S. Chrysost∣in Ge∣nethl. a∣pud Theodo∣ret. Dial. 1.
• * 1.106

  Def. p. 613.
• * 1.107

  Lact. li. 1. c. 11.
• * 1.108

  Lactan. li. 1. c. 11.
• * 1.109

  S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. E∣vang. c. 23. & S. Athanas. ••rat.
• * 1.110

  Lact. S. A∣than. contr. Gent.
• * 1.111

  Loc. Sup. Cit.
• * 1.112

  Orat. contr. Gent.
• * 1.113

  Lact. Aid. S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. Evang. c. 23.
• * 1.114

  S. Aug. li. 4 de civ. Del. c. 23.
• * 1.115

  Lact. in Loc. cit.
• * 1.116

  S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. E∣vang. c. 23. & de civ. Dei. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4. c. 30.
• * 1.117

  S. Aug. li. 4. de Civ. Dei. c. 26.
• * 1.118

  Athe∣n••g. Le∣gat. p. 66.
• * 1.119

  S. Aug. de cons. Evang. li. 1. c. 23. & li. 20. cont. Faust. c. 9. 19.
• * 1.120

  S. Aug. in Ps. 96. & 113. & li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 26. & li. 10. c. 4.
• * 1.121

  Tertull. de Te∣stim. A∣nimae.
• * 1.122

  Minuc. Fel. p 17. Agell li. 2. c. 28. apul. Voss li. 1 de I. dol. c. 2.
• * 1.123

  S. Aug. li. 2. d•• civ. c. 13. & li. 4. c. 26.
• * 1.124

  Orig. cont. Cels. li. 4. & 5. Lact. li. 1. c. 11. S. Aug. li. 4. d•• civ. Dei. c. 27.
• * 1.125

  S. Aug. li. 10. de civ. Dei. c. 3.
• * 1.126

  Li. 1. de Idol. c. 4. p. 12. 13. & li. 1. c. 41. p. 151.
• * 1.127

  Li. 2. de civ. Dei. c. 1 3. & li. 4. c. 26. 27. 28. & li. 6. c. 6.
• * 1.128

  Li 4. de civ. Dei▪ c. 9. & li. 1. de Cons. E∣vang. c. 22.
• * 1.129

  S. Aug. de Cons. Evang. li. 1. c. 17. 18.
• * 1.130

  Ibid. c. 18▪ & 22.
• * 1.131

  Ibid. c. 22. 23.
• * 1.132

  Id. li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 9.
• * 1.133

  Ibid. cap. 31.
• * 1.134

  S. Aug. de cons. Evang. li. 1. c. 23.
• * 1.135

  Li. 4. c. 12.
• * 1.136

  Def. p. 494. 495.
• * 1.137

  Def. p. 24.
• * 1.138

  Def. p. 8.
• * 1.139

  p. 51. 52. 53. 54.
• * 1.140

  Defence p. 77. 78.
• * 1.141

  Praef. to Rom, I∣dol.
• * 1.142

  Def. p. ••6.
• * 1.143

  p. 29••.
• * 1.144

  Def. p. 75.
• * 1.145

  Def. p. 44.
• * 1.146

  Li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 9.
• * 1.147

  c. 10.
• * 1.148

  c. 11.
• * 1.149

  c. 12.
• * 1.150

  c. 24.
• * 1.151

  p. 296. 297.
• * 1.152

  c. 17.
• * 1.153

  Psal. 96.
• * 1.154

  Def. •• 102.
• * 1.155

  Def. p. 62. Ter∣tull. A∣polog. c. 17.
• * 1.156

  Id. de Test. A∣nimae.
• * 1.157

  Ad Scap. c. 4.
• * 1.158

  Ps. 96. Ps. 105.
• * 1.159

  Dent. 32. 1. Co••. 10.
• * 1.160

  Def. p. 9. Orig. contr. Cels. li. 4.
• * 1.161

  Christia∣norum militum Oratio∣nibus ad Deum factis.
• * 1.162

  Def. p. 47.
• * 1.163

  Hist. Eccl. li. 5. c. 5.
• * 1.164

  Def. p. 6.
• * 1.165

  p. 11. 31. 32.
• * 1.166

  Vid. Euseb li. 5. c. 20. a∣pud Ba∣ron.
• * 1.167

  An. 176. & Res∣criptum l. apud Pamel. in Ter∣tull. Apol. c. 5.
• * 1.168

  Cap. 5.
• * 1.169

  Baron. ad An. 176.
• * 1.170

  Li. ad Scap.
• * 1.171

  Dr. St's. Def. p. 47.
• * 1.172

  li. ad Scap. c. 4.
• * 1.173

  Def. p. ••20.
• * 1.174

  Part. 1. p. 33. 34.
• * 1.175

  Part. 3. p. 330. &c
• * 1.176

  Li. 6. de Civ. Dei c. 1.
• * 1.177

  Def. p. 12.
• * 1.178

  Des. p. 18.
• * 1.179

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.180

  Tlo••. A∣quin. ••i. 1. cont. Gent. c. 42.
• * 1.181

  Hac ve∣ritate ••e∣pelluntur Gentiles Deorum multitu∣diuem confiten∣tes; quā∣vis plures eorum unum Deum Sum mum esse dice••ent, a quo omnes a∣lios, quos Deos nuncu∣pabant, creatos esse asserebant, omnibus substantiis Sempiternis Divini∣tatis nomen ascriben••es & e. Quae quidem consuetudo loquendi etiam in S. Scriptura invenitur, dum Sancti Angeli, ••ut etiam homines vel Judices Dij nominantur.
• * 1.182

  Deo prae∣termisso, Elemen∣torum m••tatio∣nes dei∣ficant; perinde ac si Na∣vigium aliquis quo ve∣ctus sit, guberna∣toris loco haberet. Athenag. p. 61. 68. Def. p. 69. 62.
• * 1.183

  Athena∣goras le∣gat. pro Christ. p. ••3.
• * 1.184

  De civ. Dei. li. ••. c. 22. & li. 10. c. 1.
• * 1.185

  S. Aug. ••bid. li. 8. c. 12.
• * 1.186

  Li. b. c. 2.
• * 1.187

  Li. b. c. 10.
• * 1.188

  Li. 4. c. 17.
• * 1.189

  Li. 2. c. ••. n. 3.
• * 1.190

  Ps. ••••. Exod. 22. 28.
• * 1.191

  S. Hi••ron ••n Dan. 2. Error. Genti∣lium om∣ne quod supra se est, Deos putant. S. Aug. li. 1. de Cons. E∣vang. c. 27. Ma∣jores & Minores Deos co∣lun•• quos Deos pu∣••••••••.
• * 1.192

  Oratcon•• Gentil.
• * 1.193

  De civ. Dei li. 6. c. 1.
• * 1.194

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Leg••••. pro C••r. p. 61.
• * 1.195

  Of Idola∣try p. 42.
• * 1.196

  Dr. St. ••n his Pr••f. to Rom. I∣dol.
• * 1.197

  Def. p. 70.
• * 1.198

  Def. p. 5.
• * 1.199

  p. 4.
• * 1.200

  •• Def. p. ••19.
• 1 1.201

  Ter∣tull. li. de spect. non pe∣nitus Deum norunt, nifi de longin∣quo, non de proxi∣mo.
• 3 1.202

  La∣ctant. li. 2. c. 1. A∣deo ipsa veritas, cogente natura, ab invitis pe••toribus erumpit. Clem. Alex. in Protr. vel inviti fatentur. Athenag. p. 15. vel inviti consentiunt.
• * 1.203

  2. S. Aug. Ep. 120. ad Honor. sicut nec ilia lux videtur, oculis praesen∣tata coe∣corum.
• 4 1.204

  Tertull. ubi supra. Deum non penitus no••unt. S. Aug. Tract. 106. in ••o. Non omni modo esse potuit hoc nomen (Deus) ignotum, non omnino ac penitus possit abscondi Lactant. li. 2. c. 1. Quem p••o••••us igno••ari ab homine fas non est.
• 5 1.205

  Tertull. li. de Test. Animae. E•• voce (s••il, Deus) & aliquem esse significas, & omnem ilii confite••is potestatem. Clem. Alex. in strom. propefinem. Potestate quidem Dominus & Deus om∣nium, cogniti••ne autem non omnium, neque enim id quod est, neque quo modo Dominus & Pater & creato••, no••unt, nisi ab ipsa veritate didicerint. vid. S. Aug. li. 1. de Cons. Evang. ••. 25.
• * 1.206

  Li. 1. de Idol. c. 2. & 4.
• * 1.207

  C••gnitus confuse & poten∣tiá, Igno∣tus di∣stinctè & actu, &c.
• * 1.208

  Li. 14. de civ. Dei c. 13.
• * 1.209

  Gal. 4. 8. 2. Thess. 4. 7.
• * 1.210

  I i. 2. Sect. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.211

  Li. 1. c. 3
• * 1.212

  ••. 11.
• * 1.213

  Id. cap. 7.
• * 1.214

  p. 51. 52.
• * 1.215

  Tu in cae∣lo sum∣mam po∣testatem dividi credas & scindi ve••i illius ac divini Imperij totam potesta∣tem?
• * 1.216

  p. 29.
• * 1.217

  S. Aug. li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. ••.
• * 1.218

  Id ibid. c. 22.
• * 1.219

  Sess. 25••
• * 1.220

  Mani∣chaei So∣lem istum oculis carneis visibilem exposi∣tum & though they professed to believe and worship Christ, yet for giving that worship to the Sun, whom they believed to be him, were charged with Idolatry:

  

  View Page 432

  publicum non tan∣••um ho∣minibus sed etiam pecoribus ad viden∣dum, Christum Domi∣num esse putave∣runt. S. Aug. Tract. 24. in Io.
• * 1.221

  O Testi∣monium animae naturali∣ter Chri∣stianae. Tertull. Apol. c. 17.
• * 1.222

  Supr. p. 403.
• * 1.223

  Cath∣no I∣dol. p. 108.
• * 1.224

  Def. p. 468. p. 4••••.
• * 1.225

  Def. p. 4••5.
• * 1.226

  Def. •• 456.
• * 1.227

  Def. p. 269.
• * 1.228

  See Pa∣ges 228. 229. 230.
• * 1.229

  Supra. p. 148. &
• * 1.230

  Def. p. 270.
• * 1.231

  Def. p. 192. 193.
• * 1.232

  p. 261. 262.
• * 1.233

  Supra. ••. 47.
• * 1.234

  Def. p. ••6••.
• * 1.235

  Lib of. Proph. Sect. ••, n. 26.
• * 1.236

  S••••. Cas. lib. 4. c. 14. ••. 4.
• * 1.237

  Def ••. q. 6
• * 1.238

  ••. 276.
• * 1.239

  Def. p. 1••9.
• * 1.240

  p. 204.
• * 1.241

  p. 1••9.
• * 1.242

  Matth. 3. 10.
• * 1.243

  See Dr. St. Def. p. 199.
• * 1.244

  Ibidem. p. 26••.
• * 1.245

  ••9. Art. Art. 20. Dr. St. Def. p. 869. and in his Ans. to N, O, p. 268.
• * 1.246

  Des. p. 223.
• * 1.247

  De Myst. Incarn. disp. 34. n. 24.
• * 1.248

  Des. p. 854▪
• * 1.249

  p. 232.
• * 1.250

  Def. p •• 250. 25
• * 1.251

  p. 31••.
• * 1.252

  p. 32••▪
• * 1.253

  Def. p. 603. p. 287. 251.
• * 1.254

  p. 132.
• * 1.255

  p. 193.
• * 1.256

  Des. p. 192.
• * 1.257

  ••. 232.
• * 1.258

  ••. Chron. ••9. 10.
• * 1.259

  Of Idol. •• 29. 30.
• * 1.260

  Apol. c. 14. p. 118.
• * 1.261

  Def. p. 261.
• * 1.262

  Def. p. 242.
• * 1.263

  Des. p. 259.
• * 1.264

  Just Veights ch. 16.
• * 1.265

  Matth. 21. 23.
• * 1.266

  Luke 18 19.
• * 1.267

  Matt 9. 23. 9.
• * 1.268

  v. 10••
• * 1.269

  Def. p. 259.
• * 1.270

  p. 857.
• * 1.271

  p. 230.
• * 1.272

  Cath. no. Idol. p. 132.
• * 1.273

  Def. p. ••57.
• * 1.274

  Des. p. 230.
• * 1.275

  Cath. no. Idol. p. 319.
• * 1.276

  De Civ. Dei. lib. 10. c. 4.
• * 1.277

  p. 1••8.
• * 1.278

  Phil. 4. 6.
• * 1.279

  Def. p. 226.
• * 1.280

  Def. p. 226.
• * 1.281

  Des. p. 226.
• * 1.282

  Cath. n•• Idol. p. 182.
• * 1.283

  p. 227.
• * 1.284

  1. Cor. 1. 23.
• * 1.285

  Def. p. 5.
• * 1.286

  Ephes. 5. 5. 2.
• * 1.287

  Hebr. 1. 3.
• * 1.288

  Hebr. ••. 14.
• * 1.289

  Cath. n••. Idol. p. 391.
• * 1.290

  Des. p. 22••.
• * 1.291

  Mr Thorn∣dike Epil l. 3. c. 5. p. 44.
• * 1.292

  Dr. H••ylyn. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 duct. ••: 24.
• * 1.293

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 An∣drevvs.
• * 1.294

  Resp. ad Apol, Bell.
• * 1.295

  n. 25. 26
• * 1.296

  Epil. P. ••. p. ••51
• * 1.297

  Resp. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 8.
• * 1.298

  Rex Christum in Eu∣charistia vere prae¦sentem▪
• * 1.299

  verè & adoran∣dum statuit.
• * 1.300

  Def. p. 282.
• * 1.301

  Def. p. 218.
• * 1.302

  p. 219.
• * 1.303

  p. 220▪
• * 1.304

  Def. p. 205▪
• * 1.305

  lib. 2. de Pu••g. c. 18.
• * 1.306

  Enchirid c. 110.
• * 1.307

  Cath. no. Idol. p. 394.
• * 1.308

  p. 221.
• * 1.309

  In 2. 2. q. 86. art. 4.
• * 1.310

  Heb. 5. 1. 3.
• * 1.311

  Num. 16 3.
• * 1.312

  Lib. 5. de Civ. Dei c. ul••.
• * 1.313

  Consi∣derent omnia diligen∣ter, & si forte si∣ne stu∣dio par∣tium ju∣dicantes talia esse perspe∣xerint, quae po∣tiùs exagitari, quam convelli possint. quasi Satyrica vel Mi∣mica levitate, cohibeant suas nugas, & potius à prudentibus emendari, quàm laudari ab imprudentibus eligant.
• * 1.314

  See Dialog. 3. 4. 5. of the First Part.