G. told Dr. St. the charge of Idolatry doth For by vertue of this charge he saith the Church of England remains deprived of the lawful Authority to use and exercise the Power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing Preaching and Adminstring the Sacraments which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves as derived from the Church of Rome can be no true and lawful jurisdiction but usurped and Antichristian This I assure you T. G. layes great weight upon in his late Dialogues and charges him with Ignorance and Tergiversation and other hard words about it So that I have a mind to hear what you can say in his defence about this before I touch upon the other consequences which he urgeth upon this charge of Idolatry P. D. With all my heart There are two things wherein the force of T. G.'s argument lyes 1. That which he calls his undeniable Maxim of Reason viz. That no man can give to another that which he hath not himself 2. That Idolatry lays men under the Apostles excommunication and therefore are deprived of all lawful Authority to use or exercise the Power of Orders In answer to these two things are already proved by Dr. St. 1. That the sin of the Givers doth not hinder the validity of Ordination 2. That the Christian Church hath allowed the lawful Authority of giving and exercising the Power of Orders in those who have been condemned for Idolatry Which he proves more briefly in his Preface and at large in his last Book from the case of the Arian Bishops And now let any one judge whether T. G. had any cause to Hector about this matter for so many pages together as though he had either not understood or not taken notice of the force of his Argument Concerning his undeniable Maxime of Reason he observed that it was the very argument used by the Donatists to prove the nullity of Baptism among Hereticks and that the answer given by the Church was that the Instrument was not the Giver but the First Institutor and if the Minister keep to the Institution the Grace of the Sacrament may be conveyed though he hath it not himself This Dr. St. thought very pertinent to shew that where Power and Authority are conveyed by men only as Instruments the particular default of such persons as heresie or Idolatry do not hinder the derivation of that Power or Authority to them And this he proved to be the sense of the Christian Church in the Ordinations of Hereticks It is true he did not then speak to Authority so much as to Power nor to jurisdiction as it is called by the School Divines so much as to the validity of Ordination But he proceeded upon a parity of Reason in both cases and could not imagine that any persons would suppose the Christian Church would allow a validity of Orders without lawful Authority to use and exercise those Orders For in all the Instances produced by him from the second Council of Nice wherein undeniable examples were brought of Ordinations of Hereticks allowed by the ancient Fathers and Councils even those of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon it was apparent that their Authority to use and exercise their power of Orders was allowed as well as their Ordinations For he there shews that Anatolius the President of the fourth Council was ordained by Dioscorus in the presence of Eutyches that many of the Bishops who sat in the sixth Council were ordained by Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus and Petrus who in that Council were declared Hereticks And doth T. G. in earnest think this doth not prove they had lawful Authority What becomes then of the Authority of these Councils nay of the Authority of the Church it self when Tarasius there saith as Dr. St. produceth him they had no other Ordinations for fifty years together Doth this prove either Dr. St.'s ignorance or tergiversation Is not this rather plain and convincing evidence that the Christian Church did allow not barely the validity of Ordination by Hereticks but the lawful Authority to use and exercise the Power of Orders Which he likewise proves by the Greek Ordinations allowed by the Church of Rome by which he doth not mean the validity of the bare Orders but all that Power and Authority which is consequent upon them For can any man be so sensless to think that the Church of Rome only allowed the Sacrament of Orders among the Greeks without any Authority to excommunicate or absolve What mean then these horrible clamours by TG of Dr. St.'s Ignorance intolerable mistake shameful errors tergiversation and what not because he speaks only to the validity of Ordination and not to the lawful Authority of exercising the Power of Orders Whereas the contrary appears by that very Preface about which these outcries are made by E. W. and T. G. What ingenuity is to be expected from these men who deny that which they cannot but see R. P. But T. G. gives this for a Taste not only what candour and sincerity but what skill in Church-Affairs you are to expect in the rest from Dr. St. which surely he would never have done if he had spoken to the point P. D. You may think as you please of him I only tell you the matter of fact and then do you judge where the candour and sincerity where the skill in Church affairs lies R. P. But is it not an undeniable Maxime that no man can give to another that which he hath not himself and therefore it lies open to the conscience of every man that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy much more if guilty of Idolatry it falls under the Apostles excommunication Gal. 1.8 and so remains deprived of the lawful Authority to use and exercise the power of Orders and consequently the Authority of Governing Preaching c. This you see bids fair towards the subversion of all lawful Authority in the Church of England if the Church of Rome were guilty of Idolatry when the Schism began because excommunicated persons being deprived of all lawful Authority themselves can give none to others and if those others take any upon them it must be usurped and unlawful P. D. This is the terrible argument which T. G. produces again in Triumph as though nothing were able to stand before it and yet in my mind T. G. himself hath mightily weakened it by yielding the Validity of Ordinations made by Hereticks or Idolaters For if no man can give that which he hath not how can those give power and Authority who have none But the Power of Orders doth necessarily carry Authority along with it For it is part of the Form of Orders in the Roman Church Accipe spiritum sanctum Quorum remiseritis c. So that a power to excommunicate and absolve is given by vertue of the very Form of Orders and your Divines say the Form is not compleat without it But then I pray resolve me these Questions
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
here P. D. Yes he knew it well enough but he thought if he proved the Validity of Ordination he proved the lawfulness of Authority and Jurisdiction because the giving Orders is part of Church Authority and Authority is received in taking Orders and the Church never allowed one but it allowed the other also If you have any thing more to say about this matter I am willing to hear you but as yet I see no reason for T. G.'s clamours about such a mistake in Dr. St. for I think the mistake lay nearer home R. P. But E. W. publickly reproved Dr. St. for this mistake and yet after that he goes on to confirm his former answer with new proofs and Testimonies that Bishops ordained by Idolaters were esteemed validly ordained and doth not speak one word in answer to what was objected by T. G. viz. that the English Bishops must want lawful authority to exercise the power of Orders if their first Ordainers were Idolaters And E. W. calls it an intolerable mistake and T. G. saith he hath heard he was a main man esteemed for his Learning After repeating the words of E. W. at length T. G. very mildly adds as if he were wholly insensible of the gross and intolerable errour E. W. taxed him with he runs again into the same shameful mistake But saith T. G. Are the Power of giving Orders and lawful Authority to give them so essentially linked to each other that they cannot be separated May not a Bishop or Priest remaining so be deprived of all lawful Authority to exercise their Functions for having faln into Heresie or Idolatry And if they have none themselves can they give it to others P. D. On whose side the intolerable mistake lyes will be best seen by examining the force of what T. G. saith as to E. W. the matter is not great which lyes I suppose in this that those who do fall into Idolatry or Heresie may ordain validly for saith he from Estiâ—s no crime or censure soever can hinder the Validity of Ordination by a Bishop but he may be deprived of any lawful Authority to do it and therefore cannot convey this lawful Authority to others ordained by him From hence T. G. saith no crime can hinder the Validity of Ordination but Idolatry he saith doth ipso facto deprive Bishops of the Authority of exercising Orders or conveying jurisdiction and therefore though the Ordination of the Bishops of England may be valid yet their jurisdiction cannot be lawful and so the Foundation of their Authority is subverted by the charge of Idolatry I hope you will allow this to be the force of all that T. G. saith R. P. Yes now you have hit upon his right meaning P. D. Let us then consider more closely on which side the mistake lay which will be discerned by this whether we are to follow the Modern Schools or the Judgement of Antiquity in this matter For Dr. St. spake according to the sense and practice of Antiquity and T. G. according to the modern notions and distinctions of their Schools It is true their Schoolmen have so distinguished the power of Order and Jurisdiction that they make the one to depend upon an indelible unintelligible character which no crime can hinder having its valid effect but that jurisdiction or the right of excommunication and absolution may be suspended or taken away Since the Councils of Florence and Trent this Doctrine of the indelible Character given in Orders is not to be disputed among them and therefore they hold the character to remain wherever Orders are received in the due form but then they say this character is capable of such restraints by the Power of the Church that it remains like Aristotles first matter a dull and unactive thing till the Church give a new Form to it and this they call the Power of jurisdiction But that all this is new doctrine in the Church and a late Monkish invention will appear by these considerations 1. How long it was before this doctrine was received in the Church by the confession of their own Schoolmen Scotus and Biel and Cajetan no inconsiderable men in the Roman Church do confess that the doctrine of the Character imprinted in the soul can neither be proved from Scripture nor Fathers but only from the Authority of the Church and that not very ancient neither And Morinus takes notice that it was not so much as mentioned by P. Lombard or Hugo de Sancto Victore although they debate those very Questions which would have required their expressing it if they had known any thing of it 2. How many of their Schoolmen who do acknowledge the character of Priesthood yet make the power of Orders to belong to jurisdiction so Albertus Magnus and others cited by Morinus but Alex. Alensis carries this point so far that he saith that because of the indelible character of Priesthood the power can never be taken from a Priest but only the execution of it But in a Bishop there is no new character imprinted and therefore in the degrading him not only the execution but the Power of Giving Orders is taken away And Scotus saith if a Bishop be excommunicated he loseth the power of giving Orders if Episcopacy be not a distinct Order as you know many of the Schoolmen hold And Morinus grants that if Episcopacy be not a distinct Order but a larger commission the power of Bishops may be so limited by the Church as not only to hinder them from a lawful Authority but from a power of Acting so that what they do carries no validity along with it 3. How many before the dayes of the Schoolmen were of opinion that the censures of the Church did take away the power of Orders Gratian holds it most agreeable to the Doctrine of the Fathers that a Bishop degraded hath no power to give Orders although he hath to Baptize only for S. Augustines sake he thinks they may distinguish between the Power and the execution of it Gul. Parisiensis saith that Bishops deposed can confer no Order because the Church hath the same power in taking away which it hath in giving and the intention of the Church is to take away their Power If what T. G. asserts had been alwayes the sense of the Church I desire him to resolve me these Questions 1. Why Pope Lucius 3. did re-ordain those who had been ordained by Octavianus the Anti-pope 2. Why Vrban 2. declared Nezelon or Wecilo an excommunicate Bishop of Ments to have no power of giving Orders and that upon T. G.'s own Maxim That which a man hath not he cannot give to another because he was ordained by Hereticks 3. Why the Synod of Quintilinberg under Greg. 7. declared all Ordinations to be Null which were made by Excommunicated Bishops 4. Why Leo 9. in a Synod voided all Simoniacal Ordinations 5. Why Stephanus 6. re-ordained those which were ordained by Formosus 6.
Why Hincmarus re-ordained those who had been ordained by Ebbo because he had been deposed 7. Why Stephanus 4. re-ordained those who had received Orders from Pope Constantine 8. Why the Ordinations made by Photius were declared null To name no more If this had been always the sense of the Christian Church that the Power of Orders is indelible but not that of jurisdiction I desire T. G. to give an answer to those Questions which I fear will involve several Heads of his Church under that which he calls in Dr. St. an intolerable mistake Did so many Popes know no better this distinction between the Validity of Ordination and the Power of Jurisdiction I am sorry to see T. G. so magisterial and confident so insulting over Dr. St. as betraying so much ignorance as doth not become a Writer of Controversies when all the while he doth only expose his own But alas This is the current Divinity of the Modern Schools and what obliges them to look into the opinions of former Ages Yet methinks a man had need to look about him before he upbraids another with gross and intolerable errors lest at the same time he prove the guilty person and then the charge falls back far more heavily on himself 4. Those who did hold the Validity of Ordinations did it chiefly on the account of the due Form that was observed whoever the Persons were whether Hereticks or Excommunicated-persons For after all the heats and disputes which hapned in the Church about this matter the best way they found to resolve it was to observe the same course which the Church had done in the Baptism of Hereticks viz. to allow that Baptism which was administred in due form although those who administred it were Hereticks Thence Praepositivus as he is quoted by Morinus saith That a Heretick hath power to administer all the Sacraments as long as he observes the Form of the Church And not only such a one as received Episcopal Orders in the Church himself but those who do derive a succession from such as appears from Tarasius in the second Council of Nice where he saith That five Bishops of Constantinople successively were Hereticks and yet their Ordinations were allowed by the Church to the same purpose speak others who are there produced by the same learned Author Let these considerations be laid together and the result will be 1. Either Dr. St. was not guilty of an intolerable error and mistake in this matter or so many infallible Heads of the Church were guilty of the same 2. It was believed for some ages in the Roman Church that the censures of the Church did take away the Power of Orders 3. T. G.'s distinction as to the foundation of it in the indelible Character of Orders is a novel thing and acknowledged by their own Divines to have no Foundation either in Scripture or Fathers 4. The ground assigned by those who held the validity of Ordination by Hereticks will hold for the Authority of exercising the Power of Orders if not actually taken away by the Censures of the Church For every man hath the power which is given him till it be taken from him every one that receives Orders according to the Form of the Church hath a power given him to excommunicate and absolve therefore every such person doth enjoy that power till it be taken from him For as I have already shewed this is part of the Form of Orders in the Roman Church Accipe Spiritum Sanctum Quorum remiseritis c. and the Council of Trent determines the character to be imprinted upon the use of these words therefore this power of jurisdiction is conveyed by the due Form of Orders from whence it unavoidably follows that every one who hath had the due Form of Orders hath had this Power conveyed to him and what power he hath he must enjoy till it be taken away R. P. But T. G. saith That Excommunication by the Apostles sentence doth it Gal. 1.8 P. D. This is indeed a piece of new doctrine and a fruit of T. G.'s Mother-wit and which I dare say he received neither from Schoolmen nor Fathers For it involves such mischievous consequences in it as really overthrow all Authority in the Church For by this supposition in case any Bishop falls into Heresie or Idolatry he is ipso facto excommunicated by St. Paul 's sentence and consequently hath no Authority to exercise the power of Orders and so all who derive their power from him have no lawful Authority or Jurisdiction I do wonder in all this time T. G. did no better reflect upon this assertion and the consequences of it and rather to thank Dr. St. that he took no more notice of it than upbraid him with intolerable error and mistake I will put a plain case to you to shew you the ill consequence of this assertion to the Church of Rome it self Dr. St. hath proved by undeniable evidence that the Arians were looked on and condemned as Idolaters by the Primitive Church and T. G. doth not deny it and what now if we find an Arian among the Bishops of Rome and from whom the succession is derived He must stand excommunicated by vertue of the Apostles sentence and therefore hath no Authority to give Orders and so all the Authority in the Church of Rome is lost The case I mean is that of Liberius who shewed himself as much an Arian as any of the Arian Bishops did for he subscribed their confession of Faith and joyned in communion with them St. Hierom saith more than once That he subscribed to Heresie the Pontifical Book saith he communicated with Hereticks Marcellinus and Faustinus say That he renounced the faith by his Subscription yea more than this Hilary denounced an Anathema against him and all that joyned with him and Baronius confesseth he did communicate with the Arians which is suffient to our purpose Then comes T. G. upon him with St. Paul 's sentence of excommunication and so he loseth all Authority of exercising the power of Orders and consequently that Authority which is challenged in the Church of Rome being derived from him is all lost And now judge who subverts the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority most T. G. or Dr. St. yet it falls out unhappily that Pet. Damiani mentions these very Ordinations of Liberius the Heretick so he calls him to shew how the Church did allow Ordinations made by Hereticks But this is not all for by all that I can find if this principle of T. G. be allowed no man can be sure there is any lawful Ecclesiastical Authority left in the world For who can tell what secret Idolaters or Hereticks there might be among those Bishops from whom that Authority is derived This we are sure of that the Arian Bishops possessed most of the Eastern Churches and made Ordinations there and the Western Bishops in the Council of Ariminum did certainly comply with them
as is now plain from Marcellinus and Faustinus whose Book was published by Sirmondus at Paris where Sulpitius Severus saith more than four hundred Western Bishops were present who were all excommunicated by T. G.'s principle and what now becomes of all Ecclesiastical Authority But Dr. St. hath shewed that the Christian Church was wiser than to proceed upon T. G.'s principle proving from Authentick Testimonies of Antiquity that the Arian Ordinations were allowed by the Church although the Arians were condemned for Idolaters R. P. Yes T. G. saith That Dr. St. was resolved to go on in the same track still and to prove that the Act it self of Ordination is not invalid in case of the Idolatry of the Givers which was never denied by his Adversary P. D. How is it possible to satisfie men who are resolved to cavil Doth not Dr. St. by that instance of the Arian Bishops evidently prove that the Authority of giving Orders was allowed by the Christian Church at that time and that which he calls their jurisdiction as well as the power of Orders because nothing more was required from the Arian Bishops but renouncing Arianism and subscribing the Nicene Creed and thus for all that I can see by T. G.'s principle they still remained under St. Paul's excommunication and so Ecclesiastical Authority is all gone with them R. P. But do not you think that Dr. St. had some secret design in all this really to subvert the Authority of the Church of England For T.G. lays together several notable things to that purpose to make it appear that he purposely declined defending the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Church of England I assure you it is a very politick Discourse and hath several deep fetches in it First he begins with his Irenicum and there he lays the Foundation that the Government may be changed 2. The Book was reprinted since the Bishops were reestablished by Law 3. He perswades the Bishops in that Book to reduce the form of Church Government to its primitive State and Order by restoring Presbyteries under them c. 4. When this would not do he charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry and makes this the sense of the Church of England to make her contribute to the subversion of her own Authority 5. When T. G. told him of the consequence of this he passed it by as if he saw it not and trifled with his Adversary about the validity of Ordination 6. When E. W. endeavoured to bring him to this point he still declined it and leaves Episcopacy to shift for it self And after all these T. G. thinks he hath found out the Mole that works under ground P. D. A very great Discovery I assure you and T. G. deserves a greater reward than any common Mole-catchers do But I never liked such Politick Informers for if people are more dull and quiet than they would have them they make plots for them to keep up their reputation and interest They must have always something to whisper in Great Mens Ears and to fill their Heads with designs which were never thought of by which means they torment them with unreasonable suspicions and tyrannize over them under a pretence of kindness Just thus doth T. G. do by the Governours of our Church he would fain perswade them that there is one Dr. St. who hath undertaken to defend the Church but doth carry on a very secret and subtile design to ruine and destroy it If they say they do not believe it he seems to pity them for their incredulity and weakness and endeavours to convince them by a long train of his own inventions and if they be so easie to hearken to it and to regard his insinuations then he flatters and applauds them as the only Friends to the Church when in the meantime he really laughs at them as a sort of weak men who can be imposed upon by any man who pretends to be a Friend although even in that he doth them and the Church the greater mischief I cannot believe such kind of insinuations as these can prevail upon any one man of understanding in our Church against a person who hath at least endeavoured his utmost to defend it But since T. G. talks so politickly about these maters I will convince you by one argument of common prudence that if Dr. St. be a man of common sense much more if he be so politick and designing as T. G. represents him all these suggestions must be both false and foolish For that which all designing men aim at is their own interest and advantage Now can any man that hath common sense left in him imagine that Dr. St. can aim at any greater advantage by ruining the Church than by preserving it Are not his circumstances more considerable in the Church of England than ever he can hope they should be if it were destroyed They who would perswade others that he carries on such a secret design must suppose him to be next to an Ideot and such are not very dangerous Politicians But what is it then should make him act so much against his interest It can be nothing but folly or malice But I do not find they have taxed him of any malice to the Church of England or of any occasion for it which the Church hath given him if he were disposed to it Why then should any be so senseless themselves or suppose others to be so as to go about to possess men with an opinion of an underground plot Dr. St. is carrying on not only to blow up the Thames but the rising Fabrick of St. Pauls too i. e. to ruine and destroy himself If he be a Fool he is not to be feared if he be not he is not to be mistrusted R.P. But what say you to T. G.'s proofs Do you observe the several Mole-hills which he hath cast up and is not that a sign he works un-derground What say you to his Irenicum in the first place P. D. I will tell you freely I believe there are many things in it which if Dr. St. were to write now he would not have said For there are some things which shew his youth and want of due consideration others which he yielded too far in hopes of gaining the dissenting Parties to the Church of England but upon the whole matter I am fully satisfied the Book was written with a design to serve the Church of England and the design of it I take to be this that among us there was no necessity of entring upon nice and subtile disputes about a strict jus divinum of Episcopacy such as makes all other Forms of Government unlawful but it was sufficient for us if it were proved to be the most ancient and agreeable to Apostolical practice and most accommodate to our Laws and Civil Government and there could be no pretence against submitting to it but the demonstrating its unlawfulness which he knew was impossible to be done And for what
SEVERAL CONFERENCES Between a Romish Priest A Fanatick Chaplain AND A DIVINE OF THE Church of England Concerning the IDOLATRY OF THE CHURCH of ROME Being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. LONDON Printed by M. W. for H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard and at the White Hart in Westminster Hall 1679. Imprimatur Guil. Jane R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. Ã sac domest May 6. 1679. THE PREFACE THE following Discourses contain a full and distinct Answer to the late Dialogues of T.G. wherein the Reader may perceive what an easie Victory Truth when it stands its Ground will obtain over Wit and Subtilty When the man who fell in the Olympick Games endeavoured by his Eloquence to perswade the spectators he was never down it is possible he might meet with some weak and others partial enough to believe him but the Judges could not but smile at their folly who did not discern the difference between the firmness of the ones standing and the others artificial rising the one might shew more art and dexterity but the other had more strength or some other advantage I shall leave the Reader to judge in these combats who maintains his Ground best and who seeks chiefly to avoid the dis-reputation of losing it He that keeps close to his Adversary declines no difficulty uses no reproachful language or disingenuous dealing hath certainly greater assurance of the Goodness of his Cause and more hopes to prevail than he that studies for shifts and evasions avoids the strongest arguments and flyes out into impertinent cavils and personal reflections which are great signs that the man is conscious of the badness of his Cause and despairs of success by any other means And the Author of these Discourses desires that his Adversary and himself may stand or fall according to these measures As to the manner of writing here used viz. by way of Dialogue it is that which his Adversary led him to and possibly where the decency of it is well observed it may make Controversie go down more pleasantly than otherwise it would For there appears more life and vigour in a Discourse carried on by several persons of different humours and opinions than in one continued deduction of Reason And the Author declares he intended no reflection on any sober party of men among us in the representation made of the Army-Chaplain who bears the third Part in the Conferences but only to shew the advantage the Popish Party takes from the weak and peevish exceptions which some men have made against the Church of England and how they insinuate themselves into them on the account of their prejudices against it and have made use of their indiscreet zeal to compass their own ends Which is so far from being a Romance or Fiction that besides the footsteps which may be yet traced of these transactions by the means and instruments which were imploy'd about them we find that one of the most busie â—actors of the Roman Church whâ—n he most confidently denyed the other parts of the late horrid design did not stick to avow and own this that they did hope to prevail at last by joyning their strength with the obstinate Dissenters in procuring a General Toleration which was all the Visible Design they were carrying on when these Discourses were written Since which the face of things hath been so much alter'd among us and the times appear'd so busie and dangerous that it was thought more adviseable to respite the publishing of these Controversial Discourses till mens minds were a little calmed lest the Author of them should seem guilty of the impertinent diligence of Archimedes viz. of drawing lines in the Dust when the enemy was ready to destroy us Had the Author had any occasion to have run away from the Argument under debate between him and his Adversary he did not want a fair opportunity in the present state of things to have put him in mind of something very different from an Irenicum But he desired me to acquaint the Reader that he does so perfectly abhor this impertinent and disingenuous way of writing especially about matters of Religion that he could neither be provok'd nor tempted to it no not by so great and fresh an Example as he had all along before his eyes May that Wise and Gracious God who hath hitherto defeated the cruel and malicious designs of our Churches enemies still preserve it under the shadow of his Wings and continue it a praise in the Earth THE CONTENTS First Conference Concerning the sense of the Church of England about the Idolatry of the Church of Rome THE Introduction to it page 1 An account of T. G.'s late Dialogues p. 10 Of the genuine Sons of the Church of England according to T. G. p. 11.19 Of his intention about the sense of the Church of England in this matter p. 15 Of the nature of the Testimonies produced by Dr. St. p. 20 The argument from the Homilies defended p. 22 This charge of Idolatry proved to be no heat in the beginning of the Reformation p. 26 The argument from the Rubrick for kneeling at the Communion at large considered p. 34 No colour for Idolatry in kneeling at the Eucharist p. 35 T. G.'s sense of the Rubrick examined p. 46 Of material and formal Idolatry p. 52 How far the Real presence is held by our Church p. 56 Bertram's Book not the same with that of Joh. Scotus p. 63 Of the Stercoranists p. 64 Of Impanation p. 65 Of a Corporeal Presence p. 68 Of B. Abbots being a Puritan p. 74 How far the Church of Rome is chargeable with Idolatry p. 79 Mr. Thorndike vindicated from suspicion of Popery by a M S. of his own writing here published p. 85 Arch-Bishop Whitgifts Testimony cleared p. 93 Of the distinction between parts and circumstances of Worship p. 100 How far the charge of Idolatry is agreeable to the Articles of our Church p. 103 Second Conference About the Consequences of the Charge of Idolatry p. 113 THE Introduction concerning the restauration of Learning being the true occasion of the Reformation p. 115 Of the validity of Ordination on supposition of the charge of Idolatry p. 121 Authority goes along with the power of Orders by the principles of the Roman Church p. 125 Of the indelible Character p. 129 The distinction between the power of Order and Jurisdiction examined p. 134 Of excommunication ipso facto on the charge of Idolatry p. 141 Dr. St. proved to have no design to undermine the Church of England p. 145 The design of his Irenicum cleared p. 148 How far the Being of a Church and the possibility of salvation consistent with the charge of Idolatry p. 151 A large Testimony of B. Sanderson's to that purpose p. 153 No necessity of assigning a distinct Church in all Ages p. 158 No obligation to Communion with the Roman Church p. 161 No parity of reason in separating from the Church of
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