indifferent Rite there had been some reason for what T. G. saith But the force of what Dr. St. said lay not meerly in their having no Images in Churches in the Primitive times but in the Reasons given by the Primitive Christians against the Worship of them From whence he hath at large proved that the Primitive Christians did look on the Worship of Images as utterly unlawful by the Law of God although the Object represented did deserve Worship And this I take to be one of the most material Discourses in Dr. St.'s Book to the present Controversie and which he lays the greatest weight upon For he insists upon these several particulars 1. That they judged such a representation of God by Images to be unsuitable to his Nature for which he produceth the Testimonies of Clemens Alexandr Justin Martyr Athenagoras Origen S. Hierom S. Augustin and others 2. That they looked on the Worship of Images as repugnant to the Will of God as being contrary to the second Commandment which did oblige Christians 3. That to suppose that they looked on the worship of Images as a thing indifferent is to charge the Primitive Christians with great hypocrisie 4. That the Christian Church continued to have the same opinion about the worship of Images after the Pagan Idolatry was suppressed 5. That it was no just excuse in the sense of the Primitive Church that they worshipped a true object or gave only an inferiour worship to the Images for the sake of those represented by them 6. That Ignorance and Superstition first brought in the worship of Images which was still condemned by the best Divines of the Church 7. That the Worship of Images came to be established in the Church by very indirect means such as Treason calumnies lyes and burning and suppressing all Books against it 8. That when it was established by the second Council of Nice it was vehemently opposed by the Western Church at the Council of Francford and that this Council of Nice was never owned in the Western Church for a General Council till the Reformation began And now I pray was it possible for T. G. to overlook all these things or was it fair to pretend to answer Dr. St.'s Book wherein all these things are and yet to pass them over as if they had never been written If this be the way of making Just Discharges I am afraid T. G.'s credit cannot hold out long for this is not after the rate of five shillings in the pound and for all that I see Dr. St. may take out the Statute against him However I shall consider what he pretends to Discharge and if his payment be not good in that neither his Word will hardly be taken for any Just Discharge more I pray go on R. P. For the fifth Chapter Of the sense of the second Commandment T. G. saith if God hath there expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image as Dr. St. affirms there needed no more than to expose the Law as in a Table in Legislative Gothick as it is done by him p. 671. with the addition only of a Finger in the Margent to point to the Words for every one that runs to read them P. D. And must this pass for an Answer to Dr. St.'s Discourse about the sense of the second Commandment I am really ashamed of such trifling in a matter of so great importance I know not whether it were the Legislative Gothick or no or a Finger on the Wall but something or other about that Commandment hath so affrighted you in the Church of Rome that you dare not let it be seen in your Ordinary Books of Devotion As for the cavil about expresly I have answered it already R. P. For his last Chapter T. G. saith there needed no more than to say that the Church of England doth not allow any Worship to be given to the Altar P. D. Is it possible for T. G. to think to fob us off with such answers as these barely to tell his Adversary he might have spared this and the other Discourse R. P. But T. G. saith this is the most material thing in that Chapter P. D. Say you so Was the wise Council of Nice so immaterial a thing that it must now be quite abandoned and no kind of Discharge be so much as offered to be made for it Was there nothing material in what concerns the charge of Contradictions Paradoxes School-disputes c. And all the other Instances waved to come to this of Bowing to the Altar there must be some Mysterie in this and I think I have found it the Patronus bonae Fidei inveighs bitterly against this as worse than Egyptian Idolatry and reproaches Dr. St. upon account of his defending it and T. G. finds it much easier to reproach than to answer R. P. The truth is this Patronus bonae Fidei doth T. G. Knights service For when he hath no mind to appear himself he serves him for a Knight of the Post who runs blindfold upon any thing that may discredit the Church of England two or three such rare men would ease us of a great deal of trouble For T. G. takes between five and six pages together out of him in this place besides what he hath taken up at interest upon other occasions P. D. Is this the Just Discharge to borrow so much out of the Fanatick stock Setting then aside what is brought over of the old Account which had been reckoned for before and how very many material things are never entred which he was accountable for and how much he hath borrowed upon the Bona Fides of the Fanatick Historian all the rest will amount to a very pitiful Discharge But since no better payment can be had let us at least examine this For this Bona Fides is a kind of Republican Publick Faith which no body will trust twice not so much as for Bodkins and Thimbles F. C. Hold Sir You love alwayes to be rubbing upon old Sores have you forgot the Act of Oblivion You know we dare not speak what we think of those times now and is that fair to accuse when we dare not answer Mind your own business defend the Church of England if you can in that Idolatrous practice of bowing to the Altar I alwayes thought what it would come to when Dr. St. went about the charge of Idolatry upon the principles of the Church of England I knew he could never defend himself but upon good Orthodox Fanatick principles as you call them Now Sir you have him at an advantage joyn your force and T. G.'s with that of the Patronus bonae Fidei and if the Geese follow the Fox close you will keep him from ever stirring more P. D. I thank you for your good Will to the Cause and that is all I fear from you you only add to the number and help to preserve the Roman Capitol by
clear and distinct Thirdly that it be general But I shall shew you that this account fails in all those particulars and withall that it doth not clear the Image worship of the Roman Church 1. That it is not full because it supposes all their Idolatry as to Images to lye in taking the Images of Deified men for Gods on the account of the presence of evil Spirits in them But I find another reason alledged out of the Fathers against the Worship of Images by Dr. St. which T. G. takes no notice at all of viz. that Image Worship was very unsuitable to the Divine Nature as well as repugnant to the Will of God and although the latter reason may seem to hold only for those who received the Scriptures yet the former doth extend to all mankind For he shews from the Fathers that Zeno the Stoick Antisthenes Xenophon Numa and others condemned the Worship of Images on this account because they were a disparagement of the Divine Nature And for this he produces the Testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus Justin Martyr Athenagoras Origen Lactantius and many others Is this account true or false if false why is it not proved to be so if true why is it not allowed Is this fair or honest dealing in pretending to answer and not taking notice of the main objections or to give account of the Fathers opinions of this matter and to say not one word to all this But it is one thing to write an Answer to a Book and another to write a Book which must pass for an Answer 2. This account is not clear and distinct For it doth not express whether it were Idolatry or not to worship Images where there was no incorporation supposed of evil Spirits nor doth it shew how it could be Idolatry on that supposition I do not deny that there was such an opinion among the Heathens that Spirits might possess Images and be incorporated with them but I say this was a particular opinion and not the general belief For Hermes from whom S. Augustin gives the most exact account of this hypothesis from the Asclepian Dialogue looks upon it as a Divine and peculiar art of drawing invisible Spirits into Images in such a manner as to animate them and thereby making Gods Which he saith is the most wonderful of all wonders that it should be in mens power to make Gods Not by producing the Divine Being but by so uniting it to the Image as to make that a fit object for divine worship But you of the Church of Rome pretend to do as much as this comes to with five words and somewhat more for you pretend to annihilate a substance which they did not but as to the main wonder yours is of the same nature viz. so to unite the Divinity to the species of Bread and Wine as to make them together a fit object for divine worship And therefore T. G. doth not at all clear the nature of Idolatry as to Images by such an Hypothesis which doth justifie the Worship of Images upon his own grounds For this principle being supposed that God was really incorporated in the Image it was as lawful for them to Worship that Image as for you to Worship the Host. If you say those were evil Spirits and not the true God that doth not clear the matter For we are not now disputing whether they were good or bad Spirits which were in those Images but on what account they were charged with Idolatry in the Worship of Images If it were for worshipping their Images as Gods on the account of one of their Gods being incorporated in the Image this I say is no account at all on T. G.'s principles for then such an Image was as fit an object of worship on their supposition as the adoration of the Host is on yours So that this is rather a clearing the Worship of Images from the charge of Idolatry among the Heathens than giving any account of it all the Idolatry in this case lying in the worship of Evil Spirits and not in the Worship of Images 3. This Account is not general as to the Heathens For many and those the most learned among them declared that they did not take their Images for Gods as Dr. St. proved in his First Book not barely from the Testimonies of the Heathens but from the Fathers too which passages he repeated and urged against T. G. in his Defence And among others he produced the Testimony of Eusebius speaking of the Heathens in general who saith they did not look on their Images as Gods and of him T. G. saith that no man understood the Heathens Principles better And yet after all this T. G. hopes to have it pass for a good account of the Heathens Idolatry as to Images that they took their Images for Gods 4. This Account doth not clear the practice of your Church in the Worship of Images R. P. There I am sure you are mistaken For do we take our Images for Gods And T. G. well observes that when the Fathers spake against the Worship of Images from their vileness and impotency they did not found their arguments meerly on the matter of the Images and the Art of the Artificers but upon these two conditions conjoyntly taken viz. that they were held to be Gods and yet were made of such materials whereas we do not believe our Images to be Gods nor worship them as such as the Heathens did For the Council of Trent declares that it believes no Divinity in them for which they ought to be worshipped P. D. This is the utmost which can be said in your Defence and to shew you how far this is from clearing your Worship of Images I shall consider 1. The force of the Fathers arguments 2. The difference of the Heathens opinions from yours as to the Divinity of Images And if their arguments be such as equally hold against your practises and your answers do not really differ from theirs then the parallel will hold good between your Idolatry and theirs in this particular 1. For the force of the Fathers arguments the thing to be considered is whether they held only in conjunction with believing their Images to be Gods What connexion was there between this Hypothesis and the disparagement which Images did imply to the Divine Nature For this was wholly on the account of representation and this is the great argument the Fathers insist upon The infinite distance between God and the Work of mens hands the disproportion that dull and senseless matter however Carved and Adorned doth bear to a Divine Majesty that no Image of God ought to be worshipped but what is what he is i. e. his Eternal Son the light of Nature teaching men that it was greater purity of Worship greater reverence to the Deity less danger of errour to mankind to worship God without an Image are all arguments used and pressed by the Fathers against the
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
There was in the World before Julius Caesar some Civil Society in which it was necessary for a man to live for his own preservation but this was not the Roman Empire for that rose up after him therefore it was the Roman Common-wealth But doth not this imply that there was no other Civil Society in the world wherein a man could preserve himself but the Roman Common-wealth But I will put the case a little farther home after Britain was made a Province it became a Member of the Roman Empire and depended so much upon the strength and Arms of Rome that it was not able to defend it self it being sore distressed by enemies and in danger of Ruine sends to Rome for help there it is denyed and the Britains forced to look out for help elsewhere Now after T. G.'s way of reasoning the Britains must return to the Romans because once they had been members of the Roman Empire The case is alike in the Church the time was when the Western Church was united under one Head but by degrees this Head grew too heavy and laid too great a load on the members requiring very hard and unreasonable conditions from them upon this some of the members seek for relief this is denyed them they take care of their own safety and do what is necessary to preserve themselves The Head and some corrupt members conspiring denounce excommunication if they do not presently yield and submit These parts stand upon their own rights and ancient priviledges that it was not an Vnion of submission but association originally between several National Churches and therefore the Church of Rome assuming so much more to it self than did belong to it and dealing so tyrannically upon just complaints our Church had Reason to assert her own Freedom and to reform the abuses which had crept either into her doctrine or practice And that this was lawful proceeding it offered to justifie by Scripture and Reason and the Rules of the Primitive Church Now the question of Communion as it was stated between T. G. and Dr. St. comes to this whether any person being baptized in this Church ought in order to his salvation to forsake the communion of it for that of the Church of Rome And this being the true state of it I pray where lies the force of the argument Dr. St. yields communion with some Church to be necessary and what follows the communion of the Church of England is so to one baptized in it why must any such leave it for that of the Church of Rome Yes saith T. G. there was a distinct Church before Luther whose communion was necessary to salvation and what then what have we to do with Luther we are speaking of the present Church of England which was reformed by it self and not by Luther Why is it necessary to leave this Church in which persons are baptized and not in that before Luther Here lyes the main hinge of the Controversie to which T. G. ought to speak and not to run to a Church before Luther The Church of England was the Church of England before the Reformation as well as since but it hath now reformed it self being an entire body within it self having Bishops to govern it Priests and Deacons to administer Sacraments to preach the Word of God to officiate in the publick Liturgie in which all the Ancient Creeds are read and owned the question now is whether salvation cannot be had in the communion of this Church or all persons are bound to return to the Church of Rome This is the point if T. G. hath any more to say to it R. P. T. G. urgeth farther Nothing can render the communion of the Roman Church not necessary to salvation but either Heresie or Schism not Heresie because she holds all the essential articles of Christian Faith not Schism because then Dr. St. must assign some other distinct Church then at least in being from whose Vnity she departed P. D. A right Doway argument one would take T. G. for a young Missioner by it it is so exactly cut in their Form But it proceeds upon such false suppositions as these 1. That Communion with the Roman Church as such i. e. as a Body united under such a Head was necessary to salvation which we utterly deny and it can never be proved but by shewing that Christ appointed the Bishop of Rome to be Head of the Church which is an argument I do not find that now adays You are willing to enter upon being so thread-bare and baffled a Topick 2. That no Doctrines but such as are contrary to the Articles of the Creed can be any reason to hold off from the Communion of a Church but we think the requiring doubtful things for certain false for true new for old absurd for reasonable are ground enough for us not to embrace the Communion of a Church unless it may be had on better terms than these 3. That no Church can be guilty of Schism unless we can name some distinct Church from whose Vnity it separated whereas we have often proved that imposing unreasonable conditions of Communion makes the Church so imposing guilty of the Schism Surely T. G.'s stock is almost spent when he plays the same game so often over These are not such terrible arguments to be produced afresh as if they had never been heard of when there is not a Missioner that comes but hath them at his fingers end R. P. But the Roman Church was once the true Church Rom. 1. and the Christian world of all Ages believed it to be the only true Church of Christ but it cannot be proved not to be the true one by an evidence equal to that which once proved it true therefore we are bound to be of the communion of that Church P. D. O the vertue of sodden Coleworts How often are they produced without shame To be short Sir 1. We deny that the Church of which the Pope is Head was ever commended by St. Paul or in any one Age of the Christian World was owned by it to be the only true Church which is very much short of the whole Christian World of all Ages 2. Since the evidence is so notoriously faulty about proving the Roman Church to be the only true Church a small degree of evidence as to its corruptions may exceed it and consequently be sufficient to keep us from returning to its communion But what doth T. G. mean by repeating such stuff as this Which I dare say Dr. St. only passed by on account of the slightness and commonness of it they being arguments every day brought and every day answered And if he had a mind to see Dr. St.'s mind about them he might have seen it at large in his Defence of Archhishop Laud And do you think it fair for him every Book he writes to produce afresh every argument there which hath received no Answer R. P. I perceive you begin to be out
England and in her separation from Rome p. 168 A passage in the Irenicum cleared p. 170 How far Idolatry consistent with owning the fundamental Articles of Faith p. 175 T. G.'s shuffling about the sense of the second Commandment p. 186 Third Conference About the Nature of Idolatry p. 195 AN abstract of the Design of Dr. St.'s general Discourse of the Nature of Idolatry p. 196 Of the manner of T. G.'s answering it p. 200 The postulata granted by him p. 203 Many material omissions in T. G.'s Answer p. 205 Of the Patronus Bonae Fidei and the service he doth the Papists p. 208 The disparity between bowing towards the Altar and the Worship of Images at large cleared p. 211 Of the difference between Reverence to sacred Places and Worship of Images p. 215 The arguments of the Patronus Bonae Fidei against bowing towards the Altar answered p. 222 The supposition of Transubstantiation doth not make it more reasonable p. 227 Of Idolatry in the nature of the thing p. 233 Of the Sinfulness of Idolatry antecedently to a positive Law p. 235 T. G.'s principles justifie the Worship of God in any Creature p. 242 Relative Worship condemned by the Primitive Church p. 248 As great danger in the worship of Images as of Gods Creatures p. 252 T. G.'s trifling about Meletetiques and Mystical Theology p. 255 The incongruity of Worshipping Christ by a Crucifix p. 257 Of the Nature and Kinds of Certainty p. 258 Why the certainty of Religion called Moral p. 265 Several sorts of Certainty of the Christian Faith p. 266 Of the impossibility of falshood in it p. 268 Dr. St.'s charge of Idolatry reaches to definitions of Councils and practises generally allowed p. 270 The parallel about bowing towards the Altar farther answered p. 273 His Fidelity in citations justified against T. G.'s cavils p. 276 The citation of Lugo defended p. 277 The parallel between Reverence to sacred places and things and the Worship of Images fully disproved p. 284 The Citation of Greg. Nyssen entred upon p. 286 The parallel between the Arian and Romish Idolatry defended p. 288 T. G.'s exceptions against it answered p. 293 Greg. Nyssen's Testimony cleared p. 303 The difference of the practice of Invocation of Saints in the Church of Rome from the addresses in the fourth Century shewed in several particulars p. 306 T. G.'s answer to the Council of Laodicea examined p. 314 The testimony of Arnobius rightly cited by Dr. St. p. 325 Of relative Latria being given to Images p. 327 Of inferiour Worship as distinct from Latria and neither of them shewed to clear the Church of Rome from Idolatry p. 337 Fourth Conference About the Parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry p. 349 T. G.'s notion of Heathen Idolatry p. 350 How far Jupiter's being the Supreme God relates to the main Controversie p. 351 In what sense Jupiter might be called an Unknown God p. 354 S. Augustin makes the true God to be truly worshipped by the Athenians p. 357 T. G.'s exceptions answered p. 359 The distinction between Jupiter of Greet and the supreme Jupiter p. 365 The place of Rom. 1.19 20. not answered by T. G. p. 369 Aquinas his Testimony cleared p. 371 The state of the Controversie about the Fathers p. 373 Justin Martyr no friend to T. G.'s hypothesis p. 377 Athenagoras at large cleared p. 379 A threefold Jupiter among the Fathers p. 380 Theophilus Antiochenus not to T. G.'s purpose p. 387 Tertullian vindicated p. 388 Clemens Alexandrinus p. 400 Minucius Felix p. 405 Other Testimonies rejected as impertinent p. 415 T. G.'s Accounts of Heathen Idolatry examined p. 419 First In taking their Images for Gods at large disproved p. 420 2. In worshipping many false Gods that likewise disproved p. 429 T. G.'s arguments answered p. 431 The absurd consequences of this notion of Heathen Idolatry p. 440 T. G.'s pittiful evasions as to the modern Idolaters p. 443 3. In worshipping the Creatures instead of God the Nature of that Idolatry enquired into p. 457 Worshipping the Creatures with respect to God as Soul of the world justifiable on the the same grounds with adoration of the Host. p. 461 Why it is Idolatry to give all external worship to the Creatures p. 467 A twofold hypothesis of Heathen Idolatry p. 470 The parallel as to the Church of Rome defended p. 473 Of Appropriate Acts of Divine Worship p. 478 What errour of judgement the act of Idolatry implyes p. 491 Lugo's Testimony cleared p. 495 Whether the Church hath power to discriminate Acts of Worship p. 499 How far circumstances discriminate Acts of Civil and Religious Worship p. 501 Whether the Church of Rome doth appropriate any Act of external adoration to God p. 522 That the very Sacrifice of the Mass is offered in honour of Gods Creatures and consequently is not appropriated to the honour of God p. 526 Dr. St. doth not differ from the Divines of the Church of England about the Sacrifice of the Mass. p. 540 How far the Sacrifice of the Mass may be said to be the Act of the People p. 542 ERRATA PAge 108. Line 11. dele not p. 161. l. 21. dele not p. 215. l. 7. r. savouring p. 232. l. 13. r. declares p. 234. l. 4. r. as so Sacred p. 246. l. 15. for no r. do p. 261. l. 4. for not so r. so p. 308. l. 17. for Fallo r. Fullo p. 319. l. 1. for Idolatry r. Idolaters p. 334. l. 7. for I not r. I do not p. 511. l. 5 6. for matters r. matter First Conference Concerning the sense of the Church of England about the Idolatry of the Church of Rome Rom. P. YOU are well met at this Auction of Books I have been present at many of them beyond Sea but I never was at one in England before How go the prices of Books here Fan. Ch. Very dear methinks by the Books I have bought but I find they are so catched up by our Brethren that if we will have them we must pay dear for them R. P. May I know what they are Sir F. C. Only some few choice pieces which I have picked out of this great Catalogue such as Nepthali or the Groanings of the Church of Scotland Cooks Monarchy no Creature of Gods making but the things I most value are the Pamphlets such as Sermons before the Long Parliament in several volumes And a rare Collection of Authors about Liberty of Conscience R. P. Are there so many Books to be had about Liberty of Conscience F. C. Yes a great many have written for and against it R. P. Who are they who have written for it F. C. To tell you the truth some of the same who wrote against it heretofore but they are now more enlightned as those who wrote against Separation when time was are now the greatest advocates for it For there are some providential Truths which vary according to circumstances Do not we see the Papists who were
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
are we not like to meet with very hopeful Demonstrations in the scientifical way from him But I have one argument yet more to prove there was no such change as to this matter in Archbishop Lauds time which is from the Convocation A. D. 1640. wherein no one questions the influence and direction of Archbishop Laud and the concurrence of those of his Party as T. G. calls them and yet in that very Book of Pet. Heylins he might have seen that Canon wherein they acknowledge the Idolatry of the Mass and T. G. could not pretend any ignorance of this for Dr. St. had quoted this very Canon to this purpose to shew that this was the sense of Archbishops Bishops and Clergy in Convocation so lately and so long after the first heats of the Reformation But what answer doth T. G. give to this which is so material a Testimony and so destructive to all he saith upon this matter R. P. I do not remember he takes notice of it but if you please I will look for I have his Book about me P. D. Not take notice of it It is impossible What! doth he pretend to answer and pass by the plainest and strongest arguments as if they had never been brought This is a very satisfactory way of answering and becoming the ingenuity of T. G. but I pray Sir look again I am afraid you wrong him I suppose you never read Dr. St.'s Books but only the Answers to them and then I do not wonder you applaud the Answers if they leave out the hardest arguments R. P. You have a little startled me with this omission I have turned over all the Leaves which relate to this matter very carefully and I cannot find one word about it surely it was an involuntary omission P. D. How could that be involuntary when it was produced and urged with great force to shew that this was no Puritanical charge no heat at the beginning of the Reformation no private opinion of particular persons but the sense of our whole Church representative even in A. D. 1640. R. P. I confess I know not what to say more for him but that it was an omission P.D. No Sir that is not all for there is a fault of commission too for he doth not only leave out this but he advances an hypothesis which he might easily see the falshood of from this single testimony viz. that the charge of Idolatry was only a heat of the beginning of the Reformation which was disowned in the time of K. Charles and Archbishop Laud when at the same time he could not but see the plainest evidence to the contrary by the Convocation of A. D. 1640. Is your cause to be supported only by such tricks as these R. P. You are too like Dr. St. whom T. G. charges with being too Tragical upon such slight occasions and flinging and laying about him unreasonably for a thing of nothing as when T. G. mistook Robert Abbot for George P. D. Call you this a thing of nothing methinks it is rather making nothing of a very substantial thing As to the other mistake I suppose we shall hear of it ere long I pray let us proceed in order R. P. Dr. St.'s third Argument is from the Rubrick at the end of the Communion the words are these Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the communicants should receive the same kneeling F.C. Hold there I pray what receive the Communion kneeling Give me leave to come in now for I perceive you are hard pressed and we ought to give friendly assistance to one another against these Church of England-men and therefore I will prove them guilty of Idolatry in receiving the Sacrament kneeling P. D. This will be a digression but I alwayes owe so much service to the Church of England as to be ready to defend it from so unjust a charge therefore to your business F. C. Mr. Case in his Sermon before the Long Parliament at a General Fast on such a day saith thus P. D. I pray Sir speak to the point I am not now at leisure to hear Mr. Cases Sermon repeated F. C. I hope you will not interrupt me P. D. Not when you speak to the business Do you understand what Idolatry is F. C. That is a question to be asked indeed as though I did not know what the cup of fornication means that is Idolatry and to bow at the name of Jesus and to bow to the Altar that is Idolatry do you think I do not know what Idolatry is Methinks you should have more reverence for a man of my years than to ask me such a sawcy Question have I preached this thirty years and more in the Army and in private Congregations and live to be asked such a question by you Sir I knew what Idolatry was before you were born P. D. Then I hope you can tell me now I am of Age to understand it F. C. Why have I not told you already P. D. I pray sir let us talk calmly and understand one another which we shall never do unless we agree what is Idolatry I pray give me the definition of it F. C. The definition When I was a young man as you are I had as many definitions in my head as any Body but we that are upon constant duties of another nature cannot trouble our Heads with Definitions or such idle notions But alas we grow old and such things are soon forgotten I remember in my younger dayes I read Bucanus Polanus and Amesius nay there was not a good Systeme of Orthodox Divinity to be had but I read it and noted it but I lost my notes in the time of the Wars and could never recover them P. D. This is a little off from our business I hope you are better at application of the point than at explication of it What is it in the Church of England you do charge with Idolatry F. C. Kneeling at the Sacrament P. D. For what reason F. C. Stay a little I thought I had my arguments at my Fingers ends but see how strangely good things slip out of our memories But now I remember I have some short notes about me which I took out of Mr. Gillespie's Idolatry of the English Popish Ceremonies and let me tell you he was a mighty man in his dayes against the Church of England and this Book of his did great execution upon the Bishops in Scotland I can remember how much it affected the Brethren in England and how we compared him to one of Davids Worthies that killed the Giants of the Philistins P. D. Sir at this rate of talking it will be night before you come to the Question methinks you seem to have nothing to say against us of the Church of England F. C. I nothing to say against you who ever heard me without having something to say against you I tell you Sir I look upon your Church
born of the Virgin by a new and extravagant supposition of the Sacrament being the medium of uniting two real bodies of Christ viz. of his flesh and of his Church and therefore that must be a real body of Christ too which is so remote from justifying Paschasius his doctrine that Cellotius himself is ashamed of him This same doctrine of Rabanus and Ratramnus is expresly owned by the Saxon Homilies which deny the Sacrament to be a meer commemoration according to the opinion of Joh. Erigena but say that after consecration the bread becomes the Body of Christ after a spiritual and mystical manner and in the Saxon Code of Canons it is expresly determined not to be that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. And this I assert to be the very same doctrine which the Church of England embraced upon the Reformation as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers which although it doth declare against the natural Body of Christ being in more places than one even that Body of Christ which is in heaven yet in the Articles it declares that the body of Christ is given taken and eaten so that to the faithful receivers the Bread consecrated and broken becomes the Communion of the Body of Christ and the cup of blessing the communion of the Blood of Christ. And so in the Catechism it is said that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper i. e. that after consecration such a divine power and efficacy doth accompany the Holy Sacrament as makes the elements to become the Spiritual and mystical Body of Christ as the Church is really but mystically the Body of Christ because of his Spirit dwelling in them So the Apology of our Church saith that in the Lords Supper there is truly exhibited the Body and Blood of Christ because that is the proper food of our souls as Bread and Wine tends to the nourishment of our Bodiess And if the time would permit I could not only more largely prove this to be the sense of our Church but that it is the true and genuine sense of the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church And thus I hope I have done that which T. G. thought so impossible a thing viz. to explain this Rubrick so as not to undermine the doctrine of the real presence asserted by the Church of England nor to leave nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it R. P. I was afraid of a Paradox and it appears not without Reason for I never met with any one yet who explained the doctrine of Bertram and the Church of England after this manner and all that attempted it talked so in the clouds that transubstantiation it self did not seem more hard to understand but I remember Pet. de Marca hath proved that the Book of Bertram was the same which was written by Joh. Scotus and therefore your hypothesis is utterly overthrown P. D. I have read and considered that faint attempt of that Great Man which seemed to be designed for no other end but to make us believe that Bertrams Book was burned for heretical at the Synod of Vercelles but if any one will impartially consider the Book of Bertram and compare it with the account given of the opinion of Joh. Scotus by the Writers against Berengarius they will find De Marca's opinion without the least colour of probability R. P. But Card. Perron Mauguin Cellotius and Arnaud all say that Bertram in the First part disputes against the Stercoranists who were a sort of Hereticks who held that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist was passible corruptible and digestible and in all things just as the bread appeared to our senses and asserted that all the accidents of the Bread were founded hypostatically in the Body of Christ and not to have any proper subsistence of their own P. D. These were a notable sort of Hereticks if they could be found but it appears by the enemies of Berengarius that this opprobrious name was fixed by them on all those who asserted the substance of the Bread to remain after consecration and it would be very strange if Bertram should confute that which himself asserts for he saith the Sacramental Elements do pass into the nourishment of our Bodies But if any were lyable to this accusation it must be Paschasius if Pet. de Marca's observation of him be true that he held both substance and quantity of the Bread and Wine to be turned into the Body of Christ from whence it follows that must be the subject of all those accidents which were in the Bread before which is the very sink of Stercoranism Nay I am very much deceived if Pope Nicholas 2. in the recantation prescribed to Berengarius did not fall into the filth of it far more than Rabanus or Heribaldus for he asserts therein that the Body of Christ is truly and sensibly handled and broken by the hands of Priests and ground by the teeth of Believers But what place could be fitter for this Heresie than the Sedes Stercoraria And Guitmundus striving to help Pope Nicholas and his Council out falls into the same Heresie himself for he shews that Christs Body may be handled and chewed in the Sacrament if so it must be the subject of the Accidents of the Bread and Wine Which according to Perron and his followers is plain Stercorâ—nism R. P. But do not you fall into another Heresie viz. of Impanation P. D. A man had need look to his words when Heresies are so common and buz so about a mans ears And some think they confute a man with a vengeance if they can find out some Heresie with a hard name to fasten upon him But if you did know wherein the heresie of Impanation lay you would never charge this doctrine of our Church with it For I find two distinct wayes of Impanation and this doctrine is lyable to neither of them 1. By union of the Bread to the Body of Christ and by that to the Divinity which was the way of Joh. Parisiensis 2. By an immediate conjunction of the Divine Nature to the Bread not meerly by divine efficacy and power but by an Hypostatical Vnion which is the opinion not without ground attributed to Rupertus Tuitiensis and is lyable to this great absurdity that all that befals the Bread may be attributed to the person of Christ which Bellarmine saith it is blasphemy to imagine And then it might be said that the bread is God that the Word is made Bread and that God is both bread and wine But all which the doctrine of our Church implyes is only a real presence of Christs invisible power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men As the Bodies assumed by Angels might be called their Bodies while they assumed them or rather as the
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
proposals he makes about tempering Episcopacy they were no other than what King Charles 1. and Mr. Thorndike had made before him and doth T. G. think they designed to ruine the Church of England And as long as he declared this to be the design of his Book both at the beginning and conclusion of it suppose he were mistaken in the means he took must such a man be presently condemned as one that aimed at the ruine and destruction of the Church R. P. But T. G. saith he tendred it to consideration after Episcopacy was resetled by Law P. D. That is as true as others of his suggestions The Book was Printed while things were unsetled and was intended to remove the violent prejudices of the dissenting party against Episcopal Government and I have heard did considerable service that way at least in a Neighbour Kingdom and it happened to be reprinted afterwards with the same Title it had before But what then Do not Booksellers look on Books as their own and do what they please with them without the Authors consent or approbation Hath he ever Preached or Written any Doctrine since contrary to the sense of the Church of England Hath he made any party or faction to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church Hath he not conformed to its Rules observed its Offices obeyed his Superiours and been ready to defend its Cause against Adversaries of all sorts And can malice it self after all this fasten such a calumny upon him that he is a secret enemy to the Church of England and designs to ruine and destroy it I remember a poor Englishman in Amboyna being cruelly tormented by the Dutch and finding nothing he could say would perswade his Tormentors to release him and he said any thing that he thought would prevail with them at last he prayed God that he might tell them Probable Lies I would advise T. G. the next time he goes a Mole-catching to find out Probable Plots otherwise he will lose all the reputation of an Informer and Discoverer But I can hardly tell whether his Plot or his Proofs were the worse for as there appears no likelihood in the Plot so there is no evidence in the Proofs There being nothing pretended since the Irenicum but this charge of Idolatry and that hath been sufficiently cleared already by shewing that it doth not subvert the Authority of the Church of England R. P. Let us now if you please proceed to the other dangerous consequences of this charge as they are mustered up by T. G. One is That it overthrows the Article of the Holy Catholick Church P. D. That is something indeed what doth it take away an Article of the Creed Nay then it is time to look about us But how I pray R. P. I will tell you how If the Church hath been guilty of Idolatry 1. Then she hath required and enjoyned Idolatry for many hundreds of years parallel to the Heathens 2. Then Mahomet had more wisdom and power to carry on his design than the Son of God for his followers have been preserved from it by the grounds he laid above a thousand years 3. Then our Fore-fathers had better been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity as they were P. D. I deny every one of these consequences For our present dispute is only about the Church of Romes being guilty of Idolatry and from thence 1. it doth not follow that the whole Christian Church must require Idolatry if that doth unless T. G. had proved that all other Churches are equally involved in the same guilt which he never attempted 2. It doth not follow that Mahomet was wiser than Christ for if you compare the grounds laid for Divine Worship by Christ and Mahomet I say that Christ did shew infinitely more Wisdom in them than so vile an Impostor and it is a shame for any Christian to suggest the contrary but if T. G. speaks of Power to carry on his design then it must suppose that Mahomets Power hath preserved the Mahumetan Religion so long free from Idolatry although Christ hath not which must imply the greatness of Mahomets Power in Heaven and so it borders upon blasphemy 3. It doth not follow that our Fore-fathers had better been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity For they had incomparably greater advantages towards their salvation than either Turks or Pagans and such circumstances might accompany their practice of Idolatry as might make it not to hinder their salvation But I shall give you a full answer to this in the words of Bishop Sanderson who is another competent witness if any more were needful that Dr. St. doth not in the charge of Idolatry contradict the sense of the Church of England We have much reason to conceive good hope of the salvation of many of our Fore-fathers who led away with the common superstitions of those blind times might yet by those general truths which by the mercy of God were preserved among the foulest over-spreadings of Popery agreeable to the Word of God though clogged with an addition of many superstitions and Antichristian Inventions withal be brought to true faith in the Son of God unfeigned Repentance from dead Works and a sincere desire and endeavour of new and holy Obedience This was the Religion that brought them to Heaven even Faith and Repentance and Obedience This is the true and the Old and the Catholick Religion and this is our Religion in which we hope to find salvation and if ever any of you that miscall your selves Catholicks come to Heaven it is this Religion must carry you thither If together with this true Religion of Faith Repentance and Obedience they embraced also your additions as their blind Guides then led them prayed to our Lady kneeled to an Image crept to a Cross flocked to a Mass as you now do these were their spots and their blemishes these were their hay and stubble these were their errours and their Ignorances And I doubt not but as S. Paul for his blasphemies and persecutions so they obtained mercy for these sins because they did them ignorantly in misbelief And upon the same ground we have cause also to hope charitably of many thousand poor souls in Italy Spain and other parts of the Christian world at this day that by the same blessed means they may attain mercy and salvation in the end although in the mean time through ignorance they defile themselves with much foul Idolatry and many gross superstitions Obj. But the Ignorance which excuseth from sin is Ignorantia facti according to that hath been already declared but theirs was Ignorantia juris which excuseth not And besides as they lived in the practice of that Worship which we call Idolatry so they dyed in the same without repentance and so their case is not the same with S. Pauls who saw those sins and sorrowed for them and forsook them but how can Idolaters living and dying so without
your noise R. P. You shall not escape thus what say you to bowing to the Altar is not that as great Idolatry as worship of Images P. D. Do you not remember the answer Dr. St. hath already given to this objection R. P. I tell you I read none of his Books and know not what he hath written but as I find it in T. G. P. D. What is that R. P. Have I not told you already that the Church of England doth not allow any worship to be given to the Altar P. D. And is not that to the purpose For dare any of you say so of the Church of Rome in respect of Images R. P. But T. G. saith this is not the meaning of the Canon which Dr. St. produces for he saith the Canon only implyes that they give no Religious worship to it but they do not deny any kind of worship to be given to it and Dr. St. himself grants that there is a Reverence due to Sacred Places P. D. Now your bolt is shot I hope I may have leave to say something both in behalf of the Canon and Dr. St. 1. For the Canon I say as Dr. St. did that it denyes any worship to be given to the Altar for it makes the adoration to be immediately made to the Divine Majesty without respect to the Altar either as the Object or Means of Worship which I prove 1. From the Introduction For can any words be more express than those in the Introduction For as much as the Church is the House of God dedicated to his holy Worship not to that of the Altar and therefore ought to mind us both of the Greatness and Goodness of his Divine Majesty not of the sacredness of the Altar certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof not only inwardly in our hearts but also outwardly with our Bodies must needs be pious in it self profitable unto us and edifying unto others If the intention of the Canon had been to have given any worship to the Altar the Introduction must have related to that and not to the Divine Majesty 2. From the Recommendation we therefore think it meet and behooveful and heartily commend it to all good and well-affected People members of this Church that they be ready to tender unto the Lord not to the Altar the said due acknowledgement by doing Reverence and Obeysance both at their coming in and going out of the said Churches c. according to the most ancient Custom of the Primitive Church in Purest times and of this Church also for many years of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth 3. From the express disowning the giving any Religious worship to the Communion Table Which is not meant of an individuum vagum but of this Act of Adoration which is the Religious worship here spoken of and thereby no kind of worship is intended to the Altar but only to God And which is more plain yet by what follows that it is not done out of an opinion of the Corporal Presence of Christs Body on the Table or in the Mystical Elements but only mark that for the advancement of Gods Majesty and to give him Alone not the Altar together with him that honour and glory which is due unto him and no otherwise Can any words be plainer than these They want only Legislative Gothick and a Finger in the Margent for T. G. to understand them 4. Archbishop Laud who certainly understood the meaning of this Canon pleads only for the worship to be given immediately to God himself God forbid saith he that we should worship any thing but God himself and he adds if there were no Table standing he would worship God when he came into his House And he calls it still Doing Reverence to Almighty God but only towards his Altar and he saith the People did understand this fully and apply the worship to God and to none but God 5. When the introducing this was made one of the Articles of his Charge by the Commons his Answer was That his bowing was only to worship God not the Altar and I hope it is no offence or treason to worship God in the Kings own Chapel or to induce others to do the like 6. I do not find any of our Divines who pleaded most for it do contend for any more than worshipping God towards the Altar and not giving any worship to the Altar the arguments they used were for determining the local circumstance of worship and not for making the Altar the object of it And the difference between these two Dr. St. hath at large cleared R. P. But cannot we say that we only worship God before an Image and do not give any Religious worship to the Image and then the case is parallel P. D. You may say so and you sometimes do to deceive ignorant people but you cannot say it truly For 1. Your Councils have determined that Religious worship is to be given to Images our Canon saith it is not to be given to the Altar therefore the case is far from being parallel And Dr. St. hath fully proved that the Nicene Council did require Religious worship to be given to Images and Anathematizes all who do it not And utterly rejects those that say they are to be had only for memory and out of some kind of Honour or Reverence for nothing but Religious worship would satisfie them And the Acts of that worship are expressed to be not only bowing but prostration kissing oblation of Incense and Lights and Dr. St. hath elsewhere shewed that all the Acts of worship which the Heathens did perform to their Images in old Rome are given to Images in modern Rome 2. Those in the Church of Rome who have only contended for the worship of God before the Image have been condemned by others as savouring of Heresie who say it is a matter of Faith in the Roman Church that Images are to be worshipped truly and properly and that the contrary opinion is dangerous rash and sovouring of Heresie which is likewise proved at large by Dr. St. R. P. But doth not Dr. St. himself allow a Reverence due to Sacred places P. D. He doth so But do you observe the difference he puts between that and Worship I will endeavour to make his distinct notion of these things plain to you First He distinguishes between Honour and Worship 1. Honour he makes to be the Esteem of Excellency Either Inward only in the mind Either Outward in acts suitable to that estimation And this Excellency may be twofold 1. Personal 2. Relative 1. Personal and that threefold 1. Civil in regard of humane Society as that of Abraham to the Children of Heth. 2. Moral on account of moral Excellencies either Natural or Acquired 3. Spiritual in regard of supernatural Graces And that may be given two wayes 1. To the Persons as present which is Religious Respect as that of Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel Dan. 2.46 Of Abraham
Had T. G. the confidence to quote St. Augustin again for this when Dr. St. purposely answered this very Testimony in his Book which T. G. pretends here to answer and proves evidently from him that no worship was then given to the Saints and to all this T. G. returns nothing but however he brings the same Testimony again as whole and as sound and as much to the purpose as ever Gregory Nazianzen is quoted at peradventure for I remember nothing in the Orat. de Nat. Christ. to that purpose although I lately read it over St. Hierom speaks only of reverencing the Sepulchres of the Martyrs but all the weight lies upon Gregory Nyssen and what I pray saith this single Witness to the business R.P. More than you will be willing to hear or able to answer For in his Oration upon St. Theodore that great and holy Martyr which even Rivetus himself that capricious Fanatick in Criticism doth not question to be his genuine work he commends the peoples devotion to the Martyrs he describes the magnificent structure of the Temple the pieces of Sculpture in it and especially the picture of the Martyr then coming to the Shrine he shews the esteem they had for his Relicks and if they were admitted to touch his body they embrace it as if they beheld it yet alive and weeping over it as if he were whole before them they solicit his supplication and intercession beseeching him as a Champion of God and invocating him as one that could obtain blessings when he would for them And then he dilates himself upon the Acts of the Martyr and the great benefits they received by him and at the end of his Oration addresses himself to him in these words We stand in need of many benefits do thou intercede and deprecate with our common King and Lord for thy Country Do thou as a Souldier fight in our defence And in case there be need of greater intercession call an Assembly of thy Brother Martyrs let the prayers of many just persons expiate the sins of multitudes of Offenders Admonish Peter excite Paul and John also the beloved Disciple to be solicitors for the Churches they have founded that Idolatry may not lift up its head that Heresies may not overgrow the Vineyard c. But by the Power of thine and thy fellows intercession O admirable man and eminent among Martyrs the Christian Church may be a plentiful Field of Harvest c. If Dr. St. had been present at this Oration saith T. G. how may we think would his zeal have urged him to have cried out Idolatry flat Idolatry very real Idolatry meer Heathenish Idolatry P. D. I am not of your mind in this for I suppose he would have considered the allowances to be made for an eloquent person in a Panegyrical Oration when things are amplified heightned improved with all the most moving figures and strains of Rhetorick to excite the Auditors admiration and affection to the party commended And he must be a great stranger to the Schools of Eloquence that will form doctrines and devotions from Apostrophe's and Prosopopeia's I do not think Dr. St. would have charged Cicero a jot the more for Idolatry for his praying to the Hills and Woods of Alba Vos Albani tumuli atque luci oro atque obtestor What! flat Idolatry Heathenish Idolatry praying to Hills and Woods No such matter For so Rhetoricians will tell T. G. what great scope Orators may take in the representation of persons and the things done by them and how mightily those figures both adorn the Oration and move the Auditors But withal that these are figures it is very easie to exceed in and it requires great judgement to manage them with a due decorum If it were needful for T. G. I could produce the Testimonies of both Greek and Latine Rhetoricians to this purpose All the question is whether Gregory Nyssen spake like an Orator in these expressions for which we must consider the character of the Person and the Occasion of speaking As to Gregory Nyssen Gregory Nazianzen severely rebukes him in a whole Epistle for affecting more the Glory of an Orator than of a Christian and this after he was a Priest and devoted to the service of Christ in so much that many Christians were very much offended at him And what wonder is it to find such a person on such an occasion as making a Panegyrical Oration on a Martyr laying on all his colours opening his perfuming pots and using more the figures of an Orator than the exactness of a Divine Nay it was become so general a Custom among their Eloquent men to exceed in their Panegyrical Orations that I find Theodoret quoted for saying No rule of Doctrine is to be taken from them And it is agreed by your Divines as well as our own that the Fathers in their popular Orations do make use of such bold figures as are not to be made a foundation for doctrines to be taken from them Therefore this Apostrophe to Theodorus by Gregory Nyssen is no argument to prove invocation of Saints there being a great difference between flowers of Rhetorick and Forms of Devotion R. P. But he commends the devotion of the people to the Martyrs and calls it a pure worship P. D. That he might well do as the solemnities of the Martyrs were observed out of honour to God and the Christian Religion For then the Christians met at the Tombs of the Martyrs to perform the publick worship of God there and afterwards erected Churches upon their memories so that the place the time the occasion of meeting was for the honour of the Martyrs but the worship was given to God alone R. P. Doth not Gregory Nyssen take notice of the peoples soliciting his supplication and intercession with God for them as their Champion c. P. D. I grant he doth so but observe his words he saith the people when they touch any part of his body which was very rarely granted they embraced it as if it had been living and wept over it and then he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As if he had been whole and appeared before them which last word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T. G. very conveniently left out which I leave to the reader to judge of as a Testimony of T. G.'s sincerity at the very same time he charges Dr. St. for the same fault they solicit his intercession beseeching him as the Champion of God and calling upon him as one that received gifts when he pleased I do not think this Superstition of the People was to be excused which began most early to appear in the parts of Cappadocia and Pontus and the reason of it is not hard to give from the turning the Heathen Festivals into Christian Solemnities to the Martyrs of which Gregory Nyssen speaks in the Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus but however this was not any solemn invocation of him as a part of Religious
same form of words continues still in the Offices as if the oblations of Bread and Wine were still made by the People and so Sirmondus and Bona both say those expressions of the Mass-Book you mention are to be understood of these oblations of the People and not of the Sacrifice of Christs Body And that these oblations were called sacrifices appears by the known passages of S. Cyprian Locuples dives es Dominicum celebrare te credis quae in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis quae partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulit sumis In which he blames the rich women that came without an Oblation which he calls a sacrifice and did partake of that which the poor offered which S. Augustin calls de aliena oblatione communicare and therefore he bids all Communicants to make their own oblations at the Altar But suppose these expressions were not to be understood of the oblations of the people as it is certain the prayers called Secretae and the first part of the Canon of the Mass are yet it was not fairly done of T. G. to leave out a very significant word which immediately followed viz. laudis qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis If the People be allowed their share in the Eucharistical Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving what is this to their offering up the proper propitiatory sacrifice of the Body of Christ I do not deny that the People had a share in the sacrifice according to the sense of Antiquity not only from their oblations but because as Cassander well observes the Ancients did call the whole Eucharistical Office as it took in the Peoples part as well as the Priests by the name of a sacrifice and so the Oblations Prayers Thanksgivings Consecration Commemoration Distribution Participation did all belong to the sacrifice But since you restrain the true and proper sacrifice to the oblation of the Body of Christ to God by the Priest Dr. St. had reason to say that the sacrifice among you belongs to the Priests and is not an external Act of Worship common to all And so according to the sense you put on the Mass-Book you leave no one Act of peculiar external worship appropriated to God which is to be performed by all Christians which was the thing to be proved THE END Books Printed for and Sold by Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard and at the White Hart in Westminster-Hall A Rational account of the grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord-Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. Folio Sermons preached upon several occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the true reasons of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius's Answer to Grotius is considered Folio Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches wounds in Quarto Origines Sacrae or a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and matters therein contained Quarto A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it in Answer to some Papers of a revolred Protestant wherein a particular account is given of the Fanaticisms and Divisions of that Church Octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the communion of it the first Part Octovo A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church Octavo An Answer to Mr. Cressey's Epistle Apologetical to a person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in Answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters all written by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty The Rule of faith or an Answer to the Treatise of Mr. I. S. Entituled Sure Footing c. by John Tillotson D. D. Preacher to the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn To which is adjoyned a Reply to Mr. I. S. his third Appendix c. by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty The Antiquities of Nottinghamshire Extracted out of Records Original Evidences Lieger Books other Manuscripts and Authentick Authorities beautified with Maps Prospects and Portraictures by Robert Thoroton Dr. of Physick Folio FINIS Dial p. 13. p. 10. Cath. no Idol p. 197. Dial. p. 62. Preface to Cath. no Idol Dial. p. 9. Dial. p. 15. Dial. p. 17. Cypr. Anglic p 364. 1 Ed. P. 3â— Necessary Introd to the History of B. Laud. p. 14. Conference with Fisher. p. 277. History of his Tryal p. 472. Cypr. Angl. p. 435· Dial. p. 28. Dial. p. 19. Cypr. Angl. p. 418. Dial. p. 21. Hincmar de praedest c. 31. Lanfranc de Corp. Sang. Christ. c. 4. Guitm de sacr l. 1. Cajet in Aquin. 3. p. q. 75. art 1. 2. â— Aq. 4. dist 44. q. 2. ar 2. Conink de sacr qu. 75. art 3. Maerat de sacr disp 24. sect 1. Lugo de Sacram. disp 5. §. 1. Suarez in 3. p. disp 48. art 1 §. 4. Gamach iâ— 3. p. qu. 76. c. 4. Ysambert qu. 75. disp 3. art 8. Vasq. in 3. p. disp 109. c. 4. art 6. p. 28. Dial. p. 25 27. Cypr. Angl. p. 48.1 ed. P. 66. Dial. p. 30. to 33. Laws of the Ch. Ch. 4. p. 30. Dial. p. 42. c. Cypr. Angl. p. 62. Cypr. Angl. p. 189. Dial. p. 46 47 c. Dial. p. â—7 Dial. p. 49. Prodr p. 76. B. Andrews Resp. ad Apolog. Bell. p. 37. compared with Burâ—â—il Deâ—ens Respons ad Apolog. c. 6. q. 21. B. Sanders Preface to his Serm. §. 15. De obligat cons. prael 4. §. 33. Dial. p. 51 c. P. 63. Dial. p. 52. P. 160. P. 162. Dial. p. 59 60 61. Dial. p. 53 54. P. 56. Defence p. 581. Joh. Rosin vit â—â—ed sapient Dial. p. 141 c. Dial. p. 132. Dial. p. 133 134. Pontificale Rom. de ordinat Presbyt Concil Trident. Sess. 23. c. 4. Dial. p. 143. Dial. p. 151 c. P. 155. P. 157. Scot. in sâ—nt l. 4. dist 4. q. 9. Biel. in Sâ—nt q. 2. Cajet in 3. p. q. 63. art 1. Morin de Ordin part 3. Exercit. 3. c. 1. â— 4. Alex. Al. 4. p. q. 8. memb 5. art 1. §. 6. ad 2. Scot. in 4. dist 25. q. 1. resp ad 3. Morin ib. exerc 5. c. 9. n. 12 13. Grat. 1. q. 1. post can 97. Gul. Paâ—is de Sacr. Ord. c. 7. Morin de Ord. Sacr. p.