not only affirms the modern Church of Rome to be too like to Paganism in the adoration of Images but condemns the praying to Angels as the Idolatry condemned by the Council of Laodicea as Dr. St. shewed from his M S. notes upon Bellarmine To these Dr. St. added in his General Preface the Testimonies of Archbishop Bancroft Bishop Montague Pet. Heylin and Mr. Thorndike which three last were the very persons T. G. did appeal to and the last of them did declare that the practice of Idolatry was such in the Roman Church that no good Christian dare trust his soul in the communion of it which is all one as to say they must be guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry R. P. But T. G. saith they only reprove some practices as Idolatrous or at least in danger to be such but Dr. St. acknowledges that they excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry although not all who live in the communion of it P. D. Doth he indeed say so or is this another piece of T. G.'s fineness His words are these And although it may be only an excess of charity in some few learned persons to excuse that Church from Idolatry although not all who live in the Communion of it and then produces the seventeen Testimonies to shew he did not differ from the sense of the Church of England or the eminent defenders of it ever since the Reformation and do you think that among his Testimonies he would produce any whom he thought to free the Church of Rome from Idolatry no certainly but I suppose that clause referred to Mr. Thorndike and some few others and as to Mr. Thorndike he afterwards produced the passage before mentioned out of some papers written by him a little before his death What saith T. G. to that R. P. Not a word more but I find he makes use of Mr. Thorndikes name on all occasions as if he favoured our side against the Church of England and Dr. St. And the man who manageth the Dialogue against him is brought in as one of Mr. Thorndikes principles I pray tell me was not he a man in his heart of our Church and only lived in the external communion of yours P. D. D. St. hath given a just character of him when he calls him a man of excellent Learning and great Piety and since so ill use is made of his name in these disputes and such dishonour done to his memory I shall but do him right to let you understand what his judgement was of the Church of Rome which he delivered in a paper to a Lady a little before his death from whom it came immediately to my Hands and is the same paper Dr. St. doth refer to 1. The truth of the Christian Religion and of the Scripture is presupposed to the Being of a Church And therefore cannot depend upon the Authority of it 2. The Church of Rome maintains the Decrees of the present Church to be Infallible which is false and yet concerns the salvation of all that believe it Therefore no man can submit to the Authority of it 3. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time did not make void the baptism of those Sects which did not baptise in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost But that Baptism is void and true baptism necessary to salvation Therefore the Church of Rome may err in matters of salvation 4. The Church of Rome may err in Schism following the wrong cause If you except only things necessary to salvation to be believed This shews that infallibility only in things necessary to salvation is not enough It is destructive to salvation to follow the wrong cause in Schism Instance The Schism with the Greek Church for appeals to Rome For there is evident Tradition to the contrary 5. The Church of Rome enjoyns Apocryphal Scriptures to be esteemed Canonical Scriptures But this injunction is contrary to Tradition and Truth and concerns the salvation of all that receive it 6. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews for Canonical Scripture as now it doth and as in truth it is Therefore the Church of Rome may err in declaring the Authority of Scripture 7. The Church of Rome doth err in teaching that attrition is turned into contrition by submitting to the power of the Keys But this errour is destructive to the salvation of all that believe it Therefore it may err in matters necessary to salvation That it is an errour Because of the condition of remission of sins which is before the being of a Church and therefore cannot depend on the Authority of the Church 8. The Church of Rome injoyneth to believe Transubstantiation and to profess that which is false For there is Scripture and Tradition for the presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist but neither Scripture nor Tradition for transubstantiation viz. for abolishing the Elements But the Church of Rome injoyns to believe it Therefore it enjoyns to believe that for which there is neither Tradition nor Scripture Witness the Fathers that own the Elements after Consecration 9. The Council of Trent enjoyneth to believe that Christ instituted a new Passeover to be sacrificed as well as represented commemorated and offered in the Eucharist de Sacrific Missae cap. 1. which is false For the Sacrifice of Christs Cross is commemorated represented and offered as ready to be slain in and by the Eucharist but not slain and therefore not sacrificed in it and by celebrating it And therefore when it is said there c. 11. quod in Missa Christus incruentè immolatur if it be meant properly it is a contradiction for that which hath blood is not sacrificed but by shedding the blood of it if figuratively it signifies no more than that which I have said that it is represented commemorated and offered as slain And therefore all parts agreeing to this the Church of Rome requiring more is guilty of the Schism that comes by refusing it For the propitiation of the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the propitiation of Christs Cross purchased for them that are qualifi'd 10. The Council of Trent commends the Mass without the Communion cap. 6. wherein it erreth For the Communion being the restoring of the Covenant of Baptism after sin the want of it without the desire of it is to be lamented not commended as destructive of the means of salvation 11. There is neither Scripture nor Tradition for praying to Saints departed or any evidence that they hear our prayers Therefore it evidences a carnal hope that God will abate of the Covenant of our Baptism which is the condition of our salvation for their sakes 12. To pray to them for those things which only God can give as all Papists do is by the proper sense of their words downright Idolatry If they say their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God How dare any
our interest but none that understand and value our Church will endure such a pernicious discrimination among the Sons of the same Mother as though some few were fatally determined to be the Sons of our Church whatever their Works and Merits were and others absolutely cast off notwithstanding the greatest service I should not mention this but that I see T. G. insinuating all along such a distinction as this and crying up some persons on purpose as the only genuine Sons of the Church of England that he might cast reproach upon others and thereby foment animosities among Brethren But whose Children those are who do so I leave T. G. to consider R. P. Whatever T. G.'s intention was yet you cannot deny that he hath proved two parts in three to be incompetent Witnesses according to his own Measures P. D. Not deny it I never saw any thing more weakly attempted to be proved as Dr. St. hath shewed at large in his Preface Bishop White being rejected as a Puritan because condemned by that party Bishop Jewel because K. Charles said he was not infallible Bishop Bilson because of his errours about Civil Government though a stout defender of the Church of England Bishop Davenant because he was none of the Fathers Bishop Vsher because his Adversary gives an ill character of him By this you may judge what powerful exceptions T. G. made against two parts in three of the Witnesses R. P. T. G. saith That Dr. St. rather waved the exceptions by pretty facetious artifices of Wit than repelled them by a downright denial out of the affection Catharinus hopes he bears still to the Cause which had been honoured by such learned and godly Bishops as Jewel Downham Usher the two Abbots and Davenant which are recorded among the Puritans by the Patronus bonae Fidei P. D. You might as well have quoted Surius Cochlaeus for your Church as this Patronus bonae Fidei for ours For he is an Historian much of their size and credit But of him we shall have occasion to speak hereafter T. G. filling page after page out of him Let the Reader judge whether Dr. St. did not shew T. G.'s exceptions to be vain and srivolous and consequently these remain substantial and competent Witnesses And as to the cause of the Church of England which these learned and pious Prelates defended and honoured Dr. St. will rejoyce to be joyned with them though it be in suffering reproach for the sake of it R. P. Let us pass over these single Testimonies and come to the most material proofs which Dr. St. used and T. G. declares he is not yet convinced by them that the charge of Idolatry was the sense of the Church of England P. D. With all my heart The First was from the Book of Homilies not barely allowed but subscribed to as containing godly and wholsome doctrine very necessary for these times which owns this charge of Idolatry not in any doubtful or single passage but in an elaborate Discourse intended for the Teachers as well as the People To which he added that the Doctrine of the Homilies is allowed in the thirty nine Articles which were approved by the Queen confirmed by the subscription of both Houses of Convocation A. D. 1571. And therefore he desires T. G. to resolve him whether men of any common understanding would have subscribed to the Book of Homilies in this manner if they had believed the main doctrine and design of one of them had been false and pernicious If saith he any of the Bishops had at that time thought the charge of Idolatry unjust and that it had subverted the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority would they have inserted this into the Articles when it was in their power to have left it out and that the Homilies contained a wholesome and godly Doctrine which in their consciences they believed to be false and pernicious He might as well think he saith that the Council of Trent would have allowed Calvins Institutions as containing a wholesome and godly Doctrine as that men so perswaded would have allowed the Homily against the peril of Idolatry And how is it possible to understand the sense of our Church better than by such publick and authentick Acts of it which all persons who are in any place of trust in the Church must subscribe and declare their approbation of This Homily hath still continued the same the Article the very same and if so they must acknowledge this hath been and is to this day the sense of our Church And to what T. G. saith that this doth not evince every particular doctrine contained in the Homilies to be godly and wholesome because the whole Book is subscribed to as containing such doctrine he answers that there is a great deal of difference to be made between some particular passages and expressions in these Homilies and the main doctrine and design of a whole Homily and between subscribing to a whole Book as containing godly and wholsome doctrine though men be not so certain of the Truth of every passage in it and if they are convinced that any doctrine contained in it is false and pernicious Now those who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry do not only look on the charge as false but as of dangerous consequence and therefore such a subscription would be shuffling and dishonest From these things laid together in my mind Dr. St. hath not only clearly proved that the charge of Idolatry was not only owned by the composers of the Homilies but by all who have honestly subscribed to the Articles from that time to our own And I would be glad to hear what answer T. G. gives to all this R. P. He answers first by repeating what he said before and then by shewing that subscription is no good argument considering what had been done and undone in that kind in the Reigns of K. Henry 8. Edw. 6. Q. Mary and Q. Elizabeth not to speak of latter times P. D. What is this but in plain terms to say the subscribers of our Articles were men of no honesty or conscience but would say or unsay subscribe one thing or another as it served their turn If this be his way of defending our Church we shall desire him to defend his own But yet this doth not reach home to the Doctors argument which proceeded not meerly on their honesty but their having common understanding For here was no force or violence offered them they had the full power to consider the Articles and to compose the Homilies and would men of common sense put in things against their own minds and make and approve and recommend Homilies which they did not believe themselves This evidently proves the composers of the Homilies and Convocation at that time did approve the doctrine of these Homilies for it was in their power not to have passed them Thus far it is plain that was the doctrine of the Church then
resolved to believe it for the Authority of your Church can never perswade any man that is not R. P. When you are gotten to this point of transubstantiation it is hard to get you off It is the sore place of our Church and you are like Flyes in Summer alwayes busie about it I pray return to your Rubrick for you seem to have forgotten it P. D. No I have been pursuing it hitherto R. P. But what say you to T. G.'s reasons why this must be understood of a corporeal presence of Christs natural Body because you else overthrow the doctrine of a real presence which hath been accounted the doctrine of the Church of England P. D. To this I answer 1. The Rubrick saith expresly that it is against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one It doth not say against the corporeal presence of his natural Body but the truth of it from whence it follows that our Church believes the true natural body of Christ which was born of the Virgin suffered on the Cross and ascended into Heaven can be but in one place which is declared in the foregoing words And the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here i. e. in Heaven exclusively from being in the Sacrament Which are not true if the same natural Body of Christ could be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host. R. P. How then can your Divines hold a real presence of Christs Body as T. G. saith they do P. D. You had heard if you had staid till I came to my second Answer which is that notwithstanding this our Church doth hold that after Consecration the Elements do become the Body and Blood of Christ and so there is a real presence of Christs Body but not of his natural but of a mystical Body I will endeavour to make this out to you because you look strangely upon me as if I were big of some mighty paradox When Paschasius Radbertus did first broach the modern doctrine of the Roman Church about the same body of Christ being in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin in the Western Church he met with great opposition therein from the most learned Divines of that Age among the rest there lived then in the Court of Carolus Calvus a man very eminent for his Learning called Joh. Scotus or Erigena This man at the request of Carolus Calvus delivered his opinion directly contrary to Paschasius for whereas he asserted that the very same Body of Christ which was born of the B. Virgin was invisibly present under the accidents of Bread and Wine Scotus denyed that the Elements were in any real sense after consecration the Body and Blood of Christ the Sacrament being only a bare commemoration or figurative representation of the Body and Blood of Christ. So Hincmarus who lived in that Age delivers his opinion which was afterwards taken up by Berengarius as appears by Lanfrank's answer to him And Ascelinus in his Epistle to Berengarius shews that Joh. Scotus out of opposition to Paschasius set himself to prove from the Fathers that what was consecrated on the Altar was not truly and really the Body and Blood of Christ. These two opposite doctrines being thus dispersed and a Schism being likely to break out upon it as appears both by Ratramnus and the Anonymous Authour published by Cellotius and extant in MS in the Cotton Library Carolus Calvus sends to Ratramnus an eminent Divine of that Age being imployed by the Gallican Church to defend the Latins against the Greeks to know his judgement in this matter He who is better known by the name of Bertram gives in his Preface an Account to his Prince of both these opinions and rejects them both as against the sense of the Fathers and Doctrine of the Church In the first part of his Book he disputes against Scotus who would allow no Mysterie and in the second against Paschasius who contended that the same Body of Christ was in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin this he saith was the state of the second Question whether that very Body of Christ which sits at the right hand of God be reâ—eived by believers in the Sacramental Mysterie And he proves the Negative at large from the Testimonies of the Fathers shewing that they did put a difference between that Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and that true but mystical body of Christ on the Altar and so from the Testimonies of S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Hierom Fulgentius from the Scriptures and from the Offices of the Church he concludes point-blank against Paschasius that it was not the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin But then against the opinion of Scotus he delivers his mind fully in answer to the first Question saying If there were nothing in the Sacrament but what appeared to the senses it was unfitly called a Mysterie and there would be no exercise for faith no change at all wrought in the Elements the Sacrament would fall short of Baptism and the Manna in the Wilderness and lastly to what purpose did Christ promise his Flesh to be the Food of his People which being not to be understood carnally and literally must have a spiritual signification so that though as to their outward appearance the Sacramental Elements are Figures yet according to the invisible Power and Efficacy they are the Body and Blood of Christ. And this he shews to have been the sense of the Fathers and Christian Church This opinion of Ratramnus Paschasius in his Epistle to Frudegardus calls the doctrine of those who deny the presence of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament but do hold an invisible power and efficacy in and with the Elements because say they there is no body but what is visible and palpable And whoever will read that Epistle of Paschasius will find the expressions he answers the very same that yet occur in the Book of Bertram Of the same opinion with Ratramnus in this matter was Rabanus Maurus the greatest Divine accounted of his Age who wrote his Epistle to Egilo against them who had lately broached that doctrine mark that that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament was the very same which was born of the B. Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose from the dead And this appears from his Epistle to Heribaldus still extant wherein he saith he declared in what sense the Sacrament was the Body of Christ. Besides the Anonymus Authour published by Cellotius the only person about that time who appeared in behalf of the doctrine of Paschasius and very inconsiderable in comparison of his Adversaries confesseth the opposition made to Paschasius by Rabanus and Ratramnus and endeavours to excuse his simplicity in asserting that the same flesh of Christ was upon the Altar which was
Is not a power to excommunicate and absolve a part of that jurisdiction which T. G. doth distinguish from the bare power of Orders R. P. Yes without doubt P. D. Is not this power given by the very Form of Orders in your Church R. P. Yes but what then P. D. Doth not the Council of Trent say the character is imprinted upon saying those words Accipe spiritum sanctum c. R. P. What would you be at P. D. Is the character of Orders given by words that signifie nothing and carry no effect along with them R. P. No certainly P. D. Then these words have their effect upon every man that hath the power of Orders R. P. And what then P. D. Then every one who hath the power of Orders hath the power to excommunicate and absolve R. P. Be it so P. D. But the power to excommunicate and absolve is a part of jurisdiction therefore a power of Orders carries a power of jurisdiction along with it and consequently valid Ordination must suppose lawful Authority to use and exercise the power of excommunication and absolution R. P. In the name of T. G. I deny that P. D. Hold a little you are denying the conclusion Consider again what you deny Do you deny this power to be given in your Orders R. P. No. P. D. Do you deny this power to be part of jurisdiction R. P. No. P. D. Then this power of jurisdiction is given wherever the Orders are valid R. P. This cannot be for T. G. complains over and over of Dr. St.'s ignorance wilful and intolerable mistake unbecoming a Writer of Controversies for not distinguishing between the validity of Ordination and the power of Jurisdiction which he would never have done if one had carried the other along with it P. D. Do not tell me what T.G. would or would not have done I tell you what he hath done and judge you now with what advantage to himself R. P. But T. G. is again up with his undeniable Maxim that none can give to another what he hath not himself and this he thinks will carry him through all P. D. I tell you that very Maxim overthrows the validity of Ordinations as he applyes it For if the Validity of Orders doth suppose Authority to be conveyed and there can be no such Authority given in the case of Idolatry then the Power of Orders is taken away as well as Jurisdiction Besides Is not the Power of giving Orders a part of that lawful Authority which belongs to Bishops R. P. I do not understand you P. D. Can any man give Orders without a Power to do it R. P. No. P. D. Is not that Power a part of Episcopal Authority R. P. Yes P. D. How then can there be a power of giving Orders without Authority R. P. Now you shew your Ignorance Do not you know that there is an indelible character imprinted in the Soul by the Power of Orders which no act of the Church can hinder a Bishop from giving in the Sacrament of Orders or a Priest from receiving but jurisdiction is quite another thing that is derived from the Church or rather from the Pope who is the fountain of jurisdiction and this may be suspended or taken away P. D. I cry you mercy Sir I was not bred up in your Schools this may be currant doctrine with you but I assure you I find no footsteps of it either in Scripture or Fathers and if I be not much mis-informed some of your greatest Divines are of my mind I see all this out-cry of T. G.'s concerning Dr. St. 's Ignorance comes at last to this Mysterie of the Indelible Character imprinted in the soul by the Sacrament of Orders which makes Ordination to be valid but gives no Authority or Jurisdiction I pray make me a little better acquainted with this character for at present I can neither read nor understand it R. P. Yes yes This you would be alwayes at to make us explain our School-notions for you to fleer and to mock at them P.D. But this I perceive is very material to prevent intolerable errour and mistake and for all that you know I may come to be a Writer of Controversies and then I would not be hooted at for my Ignorance nor have the boyes point at me in the Streets and say There goes a man that doth not understand the character which in my mind would sound as ill as saying there goes one that cannot read his A. B. C. I beseech you Sir tell me what this indelible Character is for to tell you truth I have heard of it before but never met with one who could tell what it was R. P. Yes that is it you will not believe a thing unless one can tell you what it is Why it is a mark or a seal imprinted in the soul by the Sacrament of Orders that can never be blotted out and therefore Ordination is valid because if re-ordination were allowed one character would be put upon another and so the first would be blotted out Do not you understand it now P. D. I suppose altogether as well as you Is it a Physical kind of thing just like the strokes of a pen upon paper or rather as the graving of a Carver upon Stone so artificially done that it can never be taken out while it continues whole or is it only a moral relative thing depending upon divine institution and only on the account of distinction called a Character R. P. Without doubt it is an absolute thing but whether to call it a habit or a power whether it be a quality of the first or the second or the third or fourth kind that our Divines are not agreed upon and some think it is a new kind of quality nor whether it be imprinted on the essence or powers of the soul and if in the Faculties whether in the Vnderstanding or Will but it is enough for us to believe that there is really such an absolute indelible Character imprinted on the soul from whence that Sacrament can never be reiterated which doth imprint a Character as that of Orders doth P. D. I am just as wise by all this account as I was before For the only reason of the point is it must needs be so R. P. Yes the Church hath declared it in the Council of Trent and that is instead of all reasons to us P. D. But what is this to Dr. St. Must he be upbraided with ignorance errour and tergiversation because he doth not believe the indelible character on the Authority of the Council of Trent R. P. No that is not the thing but because he did not understand the difference between the Power of Order and jurisdiction P. D. Are you sure of that If I do not forget he hath this very distinction in that pestilent Book called Irenicum which T. G. hits him in the teeth with on all occasions R. P. But he did not or would not understand it
giving Doulia to Christ to be Idolatry 5. That the notion of an Idol is so far from being a meer imaginary figment or Chimera that it was attributed by the Fathers to the most excellent Being even to Christ himself when Divine Worship was given to him as a Creature These are matters of great moment if they hold good doth he pass all these by only to fall upon one single Testimony If he doth it is a shrewd sign though he cried out of Gregory Nyssen yet he was pinched somewhere else Well but what is this horrible crime about Gregory Nyssen Hath he brought him under an Index Expurgatorius Hath he falsified his words and corrupted the Text Or hath he wilfully altered his sense and meaning Hath he done it in all the quotations out of him or only in one Whatever it is let us have it R. P. It is in the citation out of his Oration de laudibus Basilii P. D. But the Dr. hath three or four more out of the same Author It seems they stand well enough Hath not the Dr. truly cited his words R. P. Yes T. G. saith as to the general truly enough P. D. What is the fault then R. P. That he doth not add the words that follow wherein he shews what kind of worship that was which the Arians gave to Christ viz. not only to worship and serve him but also to six hopes of salvation in a Creature and to expect judgement from it And was it not neatly done of the Doctor to wrap up all this in those short words The Devil perswaded men to return to the worship of the Creature Which is a Laconism not observed by him on other occasions but it was here done on purpose to conceal from the Reader the apparent difference between the worship of Saints in the Church of Rome and the Arians worship of Christ. P. D. I am glad it is out at last after so much straining See how much choler there is in it Indeed it might have done him much harm if he had kept it in any longer But I wonder the Laconick Gentleman doth complain of shortness Do you think the Laconian in Boccalini would have made such a noise for missing a page or two in Guicciardins War of Pisa Do you in earnest think Dr. St. should take such pains to conceal that which every one knows that the Arians fixed their hopes of Salvation on Christ and expected him to come to Judgement What wonderful discovery is this which T. G. hath made Nay Dr. St. himself takes notice of this Objection that they did give a higher degree of worship to Christ than any do to Saints and returns this Answer to it that they did only give a degree of worship proportionable to the degrees of excellency supposed to be in him far above any other creatures whatsoever But still that worship was inferiour to that which they gave to God the Father and at the highest such as the Platonists gave to their celestial Deities And although the Arians did invocate Christ and put their trust in him yet they still supposed him to be a creature and therefore believed that all the Power and Authority he had was given to him so that the worship they gave to Christ must be inferiour to that honour they gave to the Supreme God whom they believed to be Supreme Absolute and Independent R. P. T. G. takes notice of this Answer and objects two things against it First That it stands too far off from the words of Nyssen at the distance of 350 pages and so proves a very late salve for so old a wound P. D. Especially considering how poor Nyssen lay a bleeding all that while Is it not enough for us to unswer Objections unless we put them just in the page you would have them after the way of Objections and Solutions I pity the hard fate of the Laconian that hath 350 leaves to turn over longer than the War of Pisa. O for the Gallies But I hope he will consider better of it R. P. You may jest as you please at this Answer but the second is a very solid one for T. G. shews the parallel to be inconsistent both with the practice of the Arians and Doctrine of the Fathers P. D. What parallel doth he mean Dr. St. proves from hence inferiour relative worship given to a creature to be Idolatry in the sense of the Fathers Is this true or is it not R. P. You have not patience to hear T. G.'s answer out For 1. He saith The Fathers do acknowledge a worship due to the Saints and particularly Gregory Nyssen in an Oration produced by him and therefore if they had condemned the Arians of Idolatry for giving only a like worship to Christ though in a higher degree they had condemned themselves for the like crime 2. The Arians made no such Apology for themselves as the Doctor makes for them viz. that they gave Soveraign and absolute worship to God and only inferiour and relative worship to Christ. 3. Why might not the generality at least believe Christ to be of a superiour Order so as to have true Divinity in him as the Heathens did of their lesser Gods and that being assumed as a Consort in the Empire absolute Divine Honour was due to him 4. They were chargeable with Idolatry because they did avowedly give those Acts of Worship to Christ believing him to be a Creature which by the common consent and publick practice of Christians from whence exteriour signs in the duties of Religion receive their determination were understood to be due only to God incarnate Which makes their case very much different from that of the Church of Rome which gave to Saints and Images only such Acts of Worship as by the common use and practice of the Christian World before Luther were determined and understood when applied to Saints and Images to express an inferiour degree of Reverence or Worship than what is due to God himself This is the substance of T. G.'s answer P. D. I confess T. G. now offers something worthy a serious debate Which may be reduced to these two things 1. What those Acts of Worship were which the Arians were charged with Idolatry for giving to Christ supposing him a Creature 2. How far the Church of Rome is liable to the same charge for the worship she gives to Saints and Images 1. For the Acts of Worship which the Arians were charged with Idolatry in giving to Christ as a Creature The strength of T. G.'s answer lies in two things 1. That they were given absolutely to Christ as a lesser God 2. That they were such Acts which by the consent of the Church did signifie proper Divine worship 1. Let us consider whether the worship given to Christ could be absolute upon their supposition that Christ was a Creature T. G. speaks somewhat faintly in this matter at first saying only Why might it not be absolute