not only affirms the modern Church of Rome to be too like to Paganism in the adoration of Images but condemns the praying to Angels as the Idolatry condemned by the Council of Laodicea as Dr. St. shewed from his M S. notes upon Bellarmine To these Dr. St. added in his General Preface the Testimonies of Archbishop Bancroft Bishop Montague Pet. Heylin and Mr. Thorndike which three last were the very persons T. G. did appeal to and the last of them did declare that the practice of Idolatry was such in the Roman Church that no good Christian dare trust his soul in the communion of it which is all one as to say they must be guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry R. P. But T. G. saith they only reprove some practices as Idolatrous or at least in danger to be such but Dr. St. acknowledges that they excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry although not all who live in the communion of it P. D. Doth he indeed say so or is this another piece of T. G.'s fineness His words are these And although it may be only an excess of charity in some few learned persons to excuse that Church from Idolatry although not all who live in the Communion of it and then produces the seventeen Testimonies to shew he did not differ from the sense of the Church of England or the eminent defenders of it ever since the Reformation and do you think that among his Testimonies he would produce any whom he thought to free the Church of Rome from Idolatry no certainly but I suppose that clause referred to Mr. Thorndike and some few others and as to Mr. Thorndike he afterwards produced the passage before mentioned out of some papers written by him a little before his death What saith T. G. to that R. P. Not a word more but I find he makes use of Mr. Thorndikes name on all occasions as if he favoured our side against the Church of England and Dr. St. And the man who manageth the Dialogue against him is brought in as one of Mr. Thorndikes principles I pray tell me was not he a man in his heart of our Church and only lived in the external communion of yours P. D. D. St. hath given a just character of him when he calls him a man of excellent Learning and great Piety and since so ill use is made of his name in these disputes and such dishonour done to his memory I shall but do him right to let you understand what his judgement was of the Church of Rome which he delivered in a paper to a Lady a little before his death from whom it came immediately to my Hands and is the same paper Dr. St. doth refer to 1. The truth of the Christian Religion and of the Scripture is presupposed to the Being of a Church And therefore cannot depend upon the Authority of it 2. The Church of Rome maintains the Decrees of the present Church to be Infallible which is false and yet concerns the salvation of all that believe it Therefore no man can submit to the Authority of it 3. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time did not make void the baptism of those Sects which did not baptise in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost But that Baptism is void and true baptism necessary to salvation Therefore the Church of Rome may err in matters of salvation 4. The Church of Rome may err in Schism following the wrong cause If you except only things necessary to salvation to be believed This shews that infallibility only in things necessary to salvation is not enough It is destructive to salvation to follow the wrong cause in Schism Instance The Schism with the Greek Church for appeals to Rome For there is evident Tradition to the contrary 5. The Church of Rome enjoyns Apocryphal Scriptures to be esteemed Canonical Scriptures But this injunction is contrary to Tradition and Truth and concerns the salvation of all that receive it 6. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews for Canonical Scripture as now it doth and as in truth it is Therefore the Church of Rome may err in declaring the Authority of Scripture 7. The Church of Rome doth err in teaching that attrition is turned into contrition by submitting to the power of the Keys But this errour is destructive to the salvation of all that believe it Therefore it may err in matters necessary to salvation That it is an errour Because of the condition of remission of sins which is before the being of a Church and therefore cannot depend on the Authority of the Church 8. The Church of Rome injoyneth to believe Transubstantiation and to profess that which is false For there is Scripture and Tradition for the presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist but neither Scripture nor Tradition for transubstantiation viz. for abolishing the Elements But the Church of Rome injoyns to believe it Therefore it enjoyns to believe that for which there is neither Tradition nor Scripture Witness the Fathers that own the Elements after Consecration 9. The Council of Trent enjoyneth to believe that Christ instituted a new Passeover to be sacrificed as well as represented commemorated and offered in the Eucharist de Sacrific Missae cap. 1. which is false For the Sacrifice of Christs Cross is commemorated represented and offered as ready to be slain in and by the Eucharist but not slain and therefore not sacrificed in it and by celebrating it And therefore when it is said there c. 11. quod in Missa Christus incruentè immolatur if it be meant properly it is a contradiction for that which hath blood is not sacrificed but by shedding the blood of it if figuratively it signifies no more than that which I have said that it is represented commemorated and offered as slain And therefore all parts agreeing to this the Church of Rome requiring more is guilty of the Schism that comes by refusing it For the propitiation of the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the propitiation of Christs Cross purchased for them that are qualifi'd 10. The Council of Trent commends the Mass without the Communion cap. 6. wherein it erreth For the Communion being the restoring of the Covenant of Baptism after sin the want of it without the desire of it is to be lamented not commended as destructive of the means of salvation 11. There is neither Scripture nor Tradition for praying to Saints departed or any evidence that they hear our prayers Therefore it evidences a carnal hope that God will abate of the Covenant of our Baptism which is the condition of our salvation for their sakes 12. To pray to them for those things which only God can give as all Papists do is by the proper sense of their words downright Idolatry If they say their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God How dare any
we shall come to that in time At present I pray clear this matter if you can P. D. To what purpose is all this raking and scraping and searching and quoting of passages not at all to the point of Idolatry R. P. What! would you have a man do nothing to fill up a Book and make it carry something of the Port of an Answer especially to a thick Book of between 800 and 900 pages P. D. If this be your design go on but I will make my answers as short as I can for methinks T. G. seems to have lost that spirit and briskness he had before for then he talked like a man that had a mind to keep close to the point but now he flags and draws heavily on For he repeats what he had said before for some pages and then quotes out of Dr. St.'s other Books for several pages more and at last it comes to no more than this Dr. St. doth in some places of his Writings seem to favour the Dissenters I am quite tired with this impertinency yet I would fain see an end of these things that we might come close to the business of Idolatry which I long to be at R. P. Your stomach is too sharp set we must blunt it a little before you fall to P. D. You take the course to do it with all this impertinency but what is it you have to say R. P. To please you I will bring this charge as near to the point of Idolatry as I can the substance of it is this Dr. St. saith the Church of England doth not look on her Articles as Articles of Faith but as inferiour Truths from thence T. G. infers 1. The Church of Rome doth not err against any Articles of Faith 2. Dr. St. doth not believe the thirty nine Articles to be Articles of Faith 3. Then this charge of Idolatry is vain and groundless because Idolatry is an error against a Fundamental point of Faith P. D. Here is not one word new in all this long charge but a tedious repetition of what T. G. had said before It consists of two points 1. The charge upon Dr. St. for undermining the Church of England 2. The unreasonableness of the charge of Idolatry upon his own supposition Because T. G. seems to think there is something in this business which touched Dr. St. to the quick and therefore he declined giving any answer to the First Part of it I will undertake to do it for him Dr. St. doth indeed say that the Church of England doth not make her Articles Articles of Faith as the Church of Rome doth the Articles of Pope Pius the fourth his Creed And did ever any Divine of the Church of England say otherwise It is true the Church of Rome from her insolent pretence of Infallibility doth make all things proposed by the Church of equal necessity to Salvation because the ground of Faith is the Churches Authority in proposing things to be believed But doth the Church of England challenge any such Infallibility to her self No. She utterly disowns it in her very Articles therefore she must leave matters of Faith as she found them i. e. she receives all the Creeds into her Articles and Offices but makes no additions to them of her own and therefore Dr. St. did with great reason say that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world and of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self from whence he doth justly magnifie the moderation of this Church in comparison with the Church of Rome R. P. But T. G. saith That he hath degraded the Articles of the Church of England from being Articles of Faith into a lower Classe of inferiour Truths P. D. I perceive plainly T. G. doth not know what an Article of Faith means according to the sense of the Church of England He looks on all propositions made by the Church as necessary Articles of Faith which is the Roman sense and founded on the doctrine of Infallibility but where the Churches Infallibility is rejected Articles of Faith are such as have been thought necessary to Salvation by the consent of the Christian world which consent is seen in the Ancient Creeds And whatever doctrine is not contained therein though it be received as Truth and agreeable to the Word of God yet is not accounted an Article of Faith i. e. not immediately necessary to Salvation as a point of Faith But because of the dissentions of the Christian world in matters of Religion a particular Church may for the preservation of her own peace declare her sense as to the Truth and Falshood of some controverted points of Religion and require from all persons who are intrusted in the Offices of that Church a subscription to those Articles which doth imply that they agree with the sense of that Church about them R. P. But Dr. St. saith from Arch-bishop Bramhall that the Church doth not oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them and upon this T. G. triumphs over Dr. St. as undermining the Doctrine and Government of the Church of England P. D. Why not over Arch-Bishop Bramhall whose words Dr. St. cites And was he a favourer of Dissenters and an underminer of the Church of England Yet Dr. St. himself in that place owns a subscription to them as necessary and what doth subscription imply less than agreeing with the sense of the Church So that he saith more than Arch-Bishop Bramhall doth And I do not see how his words can pass but with this construction that when he saith we do not oblige any man to believe them he means as Articles of Faith of which he speaks just before But I do freely yield that the Church of England doth require assent to the truth of those propositions which are contained in the thirty nine Articles and so doth Dr. St. when he saith the Church requires subscription to them as inferiour Truths i. e. owning them to be true propositions though not as Articles of Faith but Articles of Religion as our Church calls them R. P. If they are but inferiour Truths saith T. G. was it worth the while to rend asunder the Peace of Christendom for them Is not this a very reasonable account as I. S. calls it of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion and a rare way of justifying her from the guilt of Schism P. D. T. G. mistakes the matter It was not our imposing negative points on others but the Church of Romes imposing false and absurd doctrines for necessary Articles of Faith which did break the Peace of Christendom We could have no communion with the Church of Rome unless we owned her Supremacy her Canon of Scripture her Rule of Faith or the equality of Tradition and Scripture her doctrines of Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Transubstantiation c. and we were required not
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
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.
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
in Euclid is plainer than this R. P. But I tell you we do not worship the creature but the body of Christ. P. D. I tell you again if there be a creature you do worship it for you give adoration to what is before you be it what it will if it be a creature you adore it R. P. But we say it is not a creature we worship P. D. Do not you give adoration to that which is consecrated whether it remains a creature or not after consecration At the elevation of the Host at the carrying it about at the exposing of it on the Altar you worship that which was consecrated do you not R. P. We worship that which was bread before consecration but after is no longer so but the body of Christ. P. D. But if it should remain bread after consecration what do ye adore then is it not the substance of the bread R. P. Yes but we believe it is not the bread P. D. That is not the question what you believe for they that believed God to be the soul of the world worshipped the parts of it upon a supposition which if it had been true would have justified their worship every jot as well as yours can do you and yet they were gross Idolaters for all that Nay I will say more to you there never were Idolaters in the world that did not proceed upon a false supposition and it may be not so unreasonable as yours This cannot therefore excuse you if your supposition proves false as no doubt it is that the substance of the bread doth not remain after consecration But I now ask you what your adoration is in the opinion of those persons who do firmly believe the Sacramental Elements to remain in their natural substances Is it not the giving divine worship to a creature And is not the giving divine worship to a creature Idolatry so that according to the sense of our Church the Worship of the Host must be Idolatry R. P. But what have you got by all this for we confess our selves that if the substance of bread and wine do remain after consecration we are as great Idolaters as they that worship a red cloath P. D. Upon my word you had need then to be well assured that the substance of Bread and Wine do not remain and yet I must tell you we can be certain of nothing in the world if we are not certain that the substance of bread and wine do remain after consecration For if we are certain of nothing by our senses but of the outward accidents which is all your best men do say in this case we cannot be certain of any visible substance in the world for no bodily substance can be discerned but by our senses and so all foundation of certainty by sense is destroyed Nay farther it takes away all certainty by reason for it confounds the clearest maxims of it by overthrowing all Mathematical proportions of great and small whole and parts by destroying all notions of distance and place by jumbling the notions of body and Spirit And lastly it takes away all certainty by Revelation which can never come to us but upon the supposition of the certainty of Sense and Reason R. P. O Sir I see what you would be at you would fain draw me into a dispute about transubstantiation upon principles of Reason I beg your pardon Sir This is a matter of faith and must be stoutly believed or else we are gone No more of this Sir to your business of Idolatry I pray P. D. I was only giving you some caution by the by how much you are concerned to look about you but since you are resolved to shut your eyes I return to the sense of our Church about the Idolatry of the Mass and it follows necessarily from our former discourse that since our Church believes the substance of the Elements do remain and that your worship doth really fix upon that substance whatever your intentions be it is really Idolatry R. P. However this only proves it to be material Idolatry and not formal P. D. I have often heard of this distinction but I could never be satisfied with it For what is material and formal Idolatry R. P. Material Idolatry I take to be mistaken worship i. e. I do give divine worship to a false object but I do not intend to give it to a false object of Worship but to a true one P. D. Then Formal Idolatry must be giving divine worship to a false object of Worship knowing it to be a false object And where are there any such Idolaters to be found in the world Did not the Heathens believe that to be God which they worshipped And is not God a true object of worship only they mistook that to be God which was not and so were only material Idolaters Even those that worshipped their Images for Gods were only mistaken for they had a good intention only to worship God but they unhappily took their Images for Gods And I must needs say they who took the Sun Moon and Stars for Gods and worshipped them as such were very excusable in comparison of those who take a piece of bread for God or that which appears like it R. P. You are very severe methinks but do you think there is no difference among Idolaters P. D. Yes I tell you there is but not much to your comfort The grosser mens erour is the more means to convince men of it the more wilful their blindness and continuance in it the more culpable they are in their Idolatry and consequently the less excusable R. P. But may not a man innocently mistake as if in the dark a Child should ask blessing of one that is not his Father would his Father have reason to be angry with him P. D. Not for once or if it were in the dark but if he should see him every day go very formally to a joyn'd Stool in the Hall or to a Brown Loaf in the Buttery and there very solemnly down upon his knees to them and beg their blessing tell me what you think the Father would say to such a mistake Would he excuse him saying Alas poor Child he intended all this to me only he mistook the Brown Loaf or a joyn'd stool for me R. P. Forbear such comparisons for we have divine Revelation This is my Body and we believe his word against all you can say in this matter P. D. But what will you say if by the confession of many of the best and most learned of your own Divines You have not Divine Revelation for it and that those words cannot prove that the substance of Bread doth not remain after consecration which is the thing we now enquire after and if it were not to go off from our present business I would undertake to prove this evidently to you R. P. However we have the Authority of our Church for it P. D. You had as good say you are
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
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
to the point of Idolatry it self R. P. Hold a little you are still too quick I have something more yet to say to you before we come to it P. D. What is that R. P. I have a great deal to tell you out of Mr. Thorndikes Just Weights and Measures about the Charge of Idolatry and the mischievous consequences of it P. D. To what end should you repeat all that I begin to think you were not in jest when you said T. G. put in some things to fill up his Book Dr. St. had before declared the great esteem he had for Mr. Thorndikes Learning and Piety but in this particular he declared that he saw no reason to recede from the common doctrine of the Church of England on the account of Mr. Thorndikes Authority or Arguments And I have already given you such an account of his opinion with respect to the Church of Rome as I hope will take off Mr. Thorndikes Testimonies being so often alledged against us by T. G. and his Brethren If T. G. had not purposely declined the main matters in debate between Dr. St. and him he would never have stuffed out so much of his Book with things so little material to that which ought to have been the main design of it R. P. But I have somewhat more to say to you which is that you charge T. G. with declining the dispute about the sense of the second Commandment whereas he doth speak particularly to it P. D. I am glad to hear it I hope then he takes off the force of what Dr. St. had said in his late Defence about it For I assure you it was much expected from him R. P. What would you have a man do he produces at least four leaves of what he had said before and then a little after near two leaves more and within a few pages above two leaves again out of his old Book and then tells how Dr. St. spends above an hundred pages about the sense of the second Commandment whereas he neither removes the contradictions nor answers the arguments of T. G. but criticizeth upon the exceptions of T. G. to the several methods for finding out the sense of the Law but saith he what need so much pains and labour be taken if the Law be express and do not you think this enough about the second Commandment P. D. No truly Nor you neither upon any consideration For the Dr. in his Discourse upon the second Commandment 1. hath manifestly overthrown T. G.'s notion of an Idol viz. of a figment set up for Worship by such clear and convincing arguments that if T. G· had any thing to have said in defence of it he would never have let it escaped thus 2. He hath proved the sense he gives of the Commandment to be the same which the Fathers gave of it 3. He takes off T. G.'s instances of worshipping before the Ark and the Cherubims and the Testimony of S. Austin 4. He answers T. G.'s objections and clears the sense of the Law by all the means a Law can be well understood And is all this do you think answered by T. G.'s repeating what he had said before or blown down by a puff or two of Wit I do not know what T. G. thinks of it but I do not find any understanding man takes this for an answer but a meer put-off So that I may well say Dr. St.'s proofs are invincible when T. G. so shamefully retreats out of the Field and sculks under some hedges and thorns which he had planted before for a shelter in time of need R. P. But why did not Dr. St. answer punctually to all that T. G. said P. D. Because he did not think it material if the main things were proved R. P. Bu◠T. G. will think them unanswerable till he receive satisfaction concerning them P. D. That it may be is impossible to give a man that hath no mind to receive it but if you please let me hear the strength of what T. G. lays such weight upon that he may have no such pretence for the future and lest the third time we meet with the same Coleworts R. P. Doth not Dr. St. make express Scripture his most certain rule of Faith Doth not he on the other side deny any thing to be an Article of Faith which is not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self Then if God hath expresly forbidden the worship of himself by an Image it is an Article of Faith that he ought not to be worshipped by an Image and since Rome doth not acknowledge it it is not an Article of Faith Therefore T. G. calls upon the Dr. to speak out Is it or is it not an Article of Faith But T. G. saith he hath found out the Mysterie of the business for he can find out Mysteries I assure you as well as discover plots and catch Moles to gratifie the Non-conformists the Articles of the Church of England must pass only for inferiour truths but when the Church of Rome is to be charged with Idolatry then they are Articles of Faith so that as T. G. pleasantly saith the same proposition taken Irenically is an inferiour Truth but taken Polemically it must be an Article of Faith because expresly revealed in Scripture P. D. Is this it which T. G. thought worth repeating at large surely it was for the sake of the Clinch of Irenically and Polemically and not for any shew of difficulty in the thing For all the Mist is easily scattered by observing a very plain distinction of an Article of faith which is either taken 1. For an essential point of faith such as is antecedently necessary to the Being of a Christian Church and so the Creed is said to contain the Articles of our Faith and in this sense Dr. St. said the Church of Rome did hold all the essential points of faith which we did 2. For any doctrine plainly revealed in Scripture which is our Rule of faith And did Dr. St. ever deny that the Church of Rome opposed some things clearly revealed in Scripture nay it is the design of his Books to prove it doth And if every doctrine which can be deduced from a plain command of Scripture is to be looked on as an Article of Faith then that the Cup is to be given to those who partake of the Bread that Prayers are to be in a known Tongue will become Articles of Faith and do you think Dr. St. either Irenically or Polemically did ever yield that the Church of Rome did not oppose these If T. G. lays so much weight on such slight things as these I must tell you he is not the man I took him for and I believe it was only civility in Dr. St. to pass such things by R.P. But T.G. would know what he means by expresly forbidden only that it is clear to himself expecting that others should submit to his saying it
any wayes repugnant to the sense of the Church R. P. But T. G. saith the Terms of Communion with the Church are not the Opinions of her School-Divines but the Decrees of her Councils P. D. And what then Did Dr. St. meddle with the School-Divines any otherwise than as they explained the sense of Councils or the practice of the Church And what helps more proper to understand these than the Doctrine of your most learned Divines T. G. will have one Mr. Thorndike to speak the sense of the Church of England against the current Doctrine of the rest as Dr. St. hath proved yet he will not allow so many Divines of greatest Note and Authority to explain the sense of the Church of Rome Is this equal dealing R. P. T. G. saith That for his life he cannot understand any more the Idolatry of worshipping an Image than the Treason of bowing to a Chair of State or the Adultery of a Wives kissing her Husbands Picture and that the same subtilties may be used against these as against the other and therefore notwithstanding the disputes of School-Divines honest nature informed with Christian Principles will be security enough against the practice of Idolatry in honouring the Image of Christ for his sake P. D. What is the matter with T. G. that for his life he can understand these things no better after all the pains which hath been taken about him Hath not the difference of these cases been laid open before him Do not your own Writers confess that in some cases an Image may become an Idol by having Divine Worship given to it Is this then the same case with a Wives kissing her Husbands Picture Doth not this excuse the Gnosticks worship of the Image of Christ as well as yours If there may be Idolatry in the worship of an Image we are then to consider whether your worship be not Idolatry Especially since both parties charge each other with Idolatry those who will have it to be Latria and those who will not And I do not see what honest nature can do in this case however assisted unless it can make the worship of Images to be neither one nor the other I see T. G. would fain make it to be no more than bare honour of an Image for the sake of Christ but this doth not come up to the Decrees of Councils the general sense of Divines and the constant practice of your Church If ever worship was given to Images you give it by using all Acts of Adoration towards them R. P. But suppose the King had made an Order that due honour and respect should be given to the Chair of State ought not that to be observed notwithstanding the disputes which might arise about the nature of the Act P. D. To answer this we must suppose a Command from God that we must worship an Image of Christ as we do his Person but here it is just contrary The Reason of the second Command being owned by the Christian Church to hold against the worship of Images now as well as under the Law But those in the Church of Rome who do charge each other with Idolatry without supposing any such command do proceed upon the nature of the Worship which must either be Divine Worship which one party saith is Idolatry being the same which is given to God or an inferiour Religious Worship which the other party saith must be Idolatry being an expression of our submission to an inanimate thing And for my life I cannot see what answer T. G. makes to this R. P. T. G. saith the Rules of the Church are to be observed in this case as the Rules of the Court about the Chair of State P. D. What! are the Rules of the Church to be observed absolutely whether against the Law of God or not Which is as much as to say at Court that the Orders of the Green-cloth are to be observed against his Majesties pleasure But not to insist on that I say in this case the Rules of the Church help nothing for they who do follow the Rules of the Church must do one or the other of these and whichsoever they do they are charged with Idolatry And therefore Dr. St. had great reason to say Where there is no necessity of doing the thing the best way to avoid Idolatry is to give no worship to Images at all R. P. What will become of the Rules of the Church saith T. G. if men may be permitted to break them for such Capriches as these are P. D. Are you in earnest Doth T. G. call these Capriches Idolatry is accounted both by Fathers and Schoolmen a crime of the highest nature and when I am told I must commit it one way or other by your Divines if I give worship to Images is this only a Capriche R. P. Will not the same reason hold against bowing to the Altar bowing being an act of worship appropriated to God P. D. Will the same reason hold against bowing out of Reverence to Almighty God which I have told you again and again is all our Church allows in that which you call bowing to the Altar I see you are very hard put to it to bring in this single Instance upon every turn against the plain sense and declaration of our Church If this be all T. G. upon so long consideration hath to say in this matter it is not hard to judge who hath much the better Cause R. P. I pray hold from triumphing a while for there is a fresh charge behind wherein you will repent that ever you undertook to defend Dr. St. it is concerning the unjust parallel he hath made between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry P. D. I see no cause to repent hitherto And I hope I shall find as little when I come to that THE Fourth Conference About the Parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry R. P. HAVE you considered what T. G. saith concerning the parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry and doth not your heart fail you as to the defence of Dr. St. which you promised to undertake P. D. No truly The more I have considered it the less I fear it R. P. What think you of the notion of Idolatry he chargeth on T. G. viz. that it is the giving the Soveraign Worship of God to a Creature and among the Heathens to the Devil as if the Idolatry of the Heathens consisted only in worshipping the Devil whereas it appears from the words Dr. St. cites out of him that he charged the Heathens with Idolatry in worshipping their Images for Gods and the Creatures for Gods although withal they worshipped evil Spirits and T. G. contends that their Supream God was an Arch-Devil P. D. Is this such a difficulty to be set in the Front I suppose it is only to try whether I will stumble at the threshold If the Supreme God whom the Heathens worshipped was an Arch-devil as T. G.
Learning is in esteem in a place but here a man that intends a Library buys all sorts of Books and that makes your Traders in Books bring over from all parts and of all kinds and when they have them in their hands they make the buyers pay for their curiosity In Italy it is a rare thing to meet with a Greek Book in the Shops In Spain you see nothing almost besides Prayer-Books Novels and School-Divinity At Antwerp and Lions School-Divinity and Lives of the Saints are most sold. At Paris indeed there is greater variety But we observe it abroad that in the best Catholick Countreys Learning is in least esteem as in Spain and Italy And where Learning is more in vogue as in France you see how ready they are to quarrel with the Pope and to fall into Heats and Controversies about Religion And therefore to deal freely with you I am not at all pleased to see this eagerness of buying of Books among you For as long as Learning holds up we see little hopes of prevailing though we and the Fanaticks had Liberty of Conscience since upon long experience we find Ignorance and our Devotion to agree as well as Mother and Daughter P. D. I am glad of any symptom that we are like to hold in our Wits and I think your observation is true enough I have only one thing to add to it which is that it was not Luther or Zuinglius that contributed so much to the Reformation as Erasmus especially among us in England For Erasmus was the Man who awakened mens understandings and brought them from the Friers Divinity to a relish of general Learning he by his Wit laughed down the imperious Ignorance of the Monks and made them the scorn of Christendom and by his Learning he brought most of the Latine Fathers to light and published them with excellent Editions and useful Notes by which means men of parts set themselves to consider the ancient Church from the Writings of the Fathers themselves and not from the Canonists and School-men So that most learned and impartial men were prepared for the Doctrines of the Reformation before it brake forth For it is a foolish thing to imagine that a quarrel between two Monks at Wittemberg should make such an alteration in the state of Christendom But things had been tending that way a good while before by the gradual restoration of Learning in these Western parts The Greeks coming into Italy after the taking of Constantinople and bringing their Books with them laid the first foundation of it then some of the Princes of Italy advanced their own reputation by the encouragement they gave to it from thence it spread into Germany and there Reuchlin and his Companions joyned Hebrew with Greek from thence it came into France and England When men had by this means attained to some skill in Languages they thought it necessary to search the Old and New Testament in their Original Tongues which they had heard of but few had seen not above one Greek Testament being to be found in all Germany then Erasmus prints it with his Notes which infinitely took among all pious and learned men and as much enraged the Monks and Friers and all the fast Friends to their Dulness and Superstition When men had from reading the Scripture and Fathers formed in their minds a true notion of the Christian Religion and of the Government and practices of the ancient Church and compared that with what they saw in their own Age they wondred at the difference and were astonished to think how such an alteration should happen but then they reflected on the Barbarism of the foregoing Ages the gradual encroachments of the Bishop of Rome the suiting of Doctrines and practices to carry on a temporal Interest the complyance with the superstitious humours of people the vast numbers of Monks and Friers whose interest lay in the upholding these things and when they laid these things together they did not wonder at the degeneracy they saw in the Christian Church All the difficulty was how to recover the Church out of this state and this puzzled the wisest men among them some thought the ill humours were grown so natural to the Body that it would hazard the state of it to attempt a sudden purging them quite away and that a violent Reformation would do more mischief than good by popular tumults by Schism and Sacriledge and although such persons saw the corruptions and wished them reformed yet considering the hazard of a sudden change they thought it best for particular persons to inform the world better and so by degrees bring it about than to make any violent disturbance in the Church While these things were considered of by wiser men the Pope goes on to abuse the People with the trade of Indulgences and his Officers in Germany were so impudent in this Trade that a bold Monk at Wittenberg defies them and of a sudden lays open the Cheat and this discovery immediately spread like Wild-fire and so they went on from one thing to another till the People were enraged at being so long and so grosly abused and Tyrannized over But when Reformation begins below it is not to be expected that no disorders and heats should happen in the management of it which gave distastes to such persons as Erasmus was which made him like so ill the Wittenberg Reformation and whatever was carried on by popular Tumults Yet Rosinus saith that the Duke of Saxony before he would declare himself in favour of Luther asked Erasmus his opinion concerning him who gave him this answer that Luther touched upon two dangerous points the Monks bellies and the Popes Crown that his doctrine was true and certain but he did not approve the manner of his Writing But here in England the Reformation was begun by the consent of the King and the Bishops who yielded to the retrenchment of the Popes exorbitant power and the taking away some grosser abuses in Henry 8's time but in Edw. 6.'s time and Q. Elizabeths when it was settled on the principles it now stands there was no such regard had to Luther or Calvin as to Erasmus and Melancthon whose learning and moderation were in greater esteem here than the fiery spirits of the other From hence things were carryed with greater temper the Church settled with a succession of Bishops the Liturgie reformed according to the ancient Models some decent ceremonies retained without the sollies and superstitions which were before practised and to prevent the extravagancies of the people in the interpreting of Scripture the most excellent Paraphrase of Erasmus was translated into English and set up in Churches and to this day Erasmus is in far greater esteem among the Divines of our Church than either Luther or Calvin R. P. If this be true which you say methinks your Divines should have a care of broaching such things which do subvert the Foundation of all Ecclesiastical Authority among you as T.
different Act. If the same act then there is a double worship and but one Act for there is an absolute worship of the person of Christ and a relative worship of the Image and let it be relative or what it will it is a real Act of worship and so there must be two Acts and yet it is but one Act. For is the Image or Cross worshipped or not If it be worshipped there must be an act of worship terminated on it and how can there be an act of worship terminated upon it if the same act passeth from the Image to the Prototype These are unintelligible subtleties and only invented to confound mens understandings as to the true and distinct notion of Divine Worship and to blind their minds in the practice of Idolatry Farther if this be a difference only de modo loquendi as T. G. saith then the very same act may be proper and improper absolute and relative per se and per accidens For so T. G. saith that it is one Act in substance but it is absolute as terminated on the person of Christ relative as on the Cross proper in one sense improper in the other per se in the former sense per accidens in the later Which Catharinus thought to be no less than ridiculous Lastly there is nothing in the world but may be worshipped with Latria by the help of these distinctions For a Divine presence in the creatures is really a far better ground of worship than a bare fiction of the mind that the Image and the thing represented are all one But of this we have discoursed already R. P. To tell you plainly my mind I never liked this giving Latria to Images my self but it being a common doctrine in our Church we ought to say as much for it as we can but I am only for an inferiour worship to be given to them and so is T. G. if I do not much mistake his meaning P. D. Let us then consider this inferiour worship as distinct from Latria and concerning this I shall prove that it neither answers the reasons given by Councils nor the practice of the Roman Church 1. Not the reasons given by the Councils of Nice and Trent For which I desire but these two postulata 1. That Images are to have true and proper worship given to them which is expressely determined by those Councils 2. That the Reason of this Worship is nothing inherent in the Image but something represented by it Which is affirmed by those Councils From hence I argue thus To worship Christ only before an Image is not to give proper worship to the Image which the Councils require to be given Therefore either the Image is to be worshipped for it self which were Idolatry by your own confession or Christ is to be worshipped in and by the Image R. P. Christ is to be worshipped in and by the Image P. D. Then you give Christ the worship due to him or not R. P. The worship due to him P. D. But the Worship due to Christ is proper Latria therefore you must give proper Latria to Christ as worshipped in and by the Image R. P. True but we give it to the Image of Christ otherwise than to his Person for we worship him absolutely and the Image respectively and for his sake P. D. That is it which I would have that there is no worshipping an Image on the account of representation but you must fall into the doctrine of relative Latria R. P. But may not I shew respect to the Cross for Christs sake without giving the same worship to the Cross that I do to Christ P. D. That is not the question but whether you may worship Christ in and by the Cross representing his Person without giving that worship which belongs to the person of Christ For either you worship the Cross for it self which you confess to be Idolatry or you worship Christ as represented by it if you worship Christ you must give him the worship which belongs to him and that can be no other than Latria Which not only appears by the doctrine but by the practice of your Church in the worship of the Cross. Which I prove by the second particular viz. 2. Inferiour worship doth not come up to the practice of your Church because your Church in praying to the Cross speaks to it as if it were Christ himself O Crux ave spes unica c. as Aquinas observes and many other of your Divines who never own any Prosopopoeia but do say that the Cross is truly worshipped with that worship which belongs to the person of Christ on the account of representation And can you imagine so many of your most eminent Divines would have put themselves to so much difficulty in defending a Relative Latria if they could have defended the practice of your Church without it But they saw plainly the Church did own such a worship to the Cross and when occasion was offered did declare it as in the place cited out of the Pontifical by Dr. St. which it would never have done if it had not been agreeable to its sense R. P. But this is but one single passage and will you condemn a whole Church for that P. D. Not if the sense of the Church were otherwise fully expressed against it but here we have shewed that passage to be very agreeable to the reason of worship given by your Councils and to the solemn practice of your Church in adoration of the Cross and therefore that passage ought to be looked on as a more explicite declaration of the sense of the Church For let me ask you if the Church of Rome had been against Latria being given to the Cross whether in a book of such publick and constant use as the Pontifical is it should be left standing when the Book-menders are so busie in your Church that scarce an Index of a Father can escape them nor such sentences as seem to thwart their present doctrine Of which take this Instance You remember what stir T. G. made about Gregory Nyssen's oration upon Theodore now the same person disputing against the Arians saith that no created thing is to be worshipped by men this sentence Antonius in his Melissa had put down thus that we are only to worship that being which is uncreated This Book happened to come under the Spanish Index of Cardinal Quiroga do you think he would suffer it to stand as it did No I assure you Deleatur dictio solummodo saith he satis pro imperio Away with this Only Why so was it not in the Author No matter for that It is against the practice of the Church out with it More such instances might be produced but I appeal to your self whether after such care hath been taken to review the Pontifical by Clement 8. and the publishing of it with so much Authority such a passage would have been suffered to remain if it had been