our interest but none that understand and value our Church will endure such a pernicious discrimination among the Sons of the same Mother as though some few were fatally determined to be the Sons of our Church whatever their Works and Merits were and others absolutely cast off notwithstanding the greatest service I should not mention this but that I see T. G. insinuating all along such a distinction as this and crying up some persons on purpose as the only genuine Sons of the Church of England that he might cast reproach upon others and thereby foment animosities among Brethren But whose Children those are who do so I leave T. G. to consider R. P. Whatever T. G.'s intention was yet you cannot deny that he hath proved two parts in three to be incompetent Witnesses according to his own Measures P. D. Not deny it I never saw any thing more weakly attempted to be proved as Dr. St. hath shewed at large in his Preface Bishop White being rejected as a Puritan because condemned by that party Bishop Jewel because K. Charles said he was not infallible Bishop Bilson because of his errours about Civil Government though a stout defender of the Church of England Bishop Davenant because he was none of the Fathers Bishop Vsher because his Adversary gives an ill character of him By this you may judge what powerful exceptions T. G. made against two parts in three of the Witnesses R. P. T. G. saith That Dr. St. rather waved the exceptions by pretty facetious artifices of Wit than repelled them by a downright denial out of the affection Catharinus hopes he bears still to the Cause which had been honoured by such learned and godly Bishops as Jewel Downham Usher the two Abbots and Davenant which are recorded among the Puritans by the Patronus bonae Fidei P. D. You might as well have quoted Surius Cochlaeus for your Church as this Patronus bonae Fidei for ours For he is an Historian much of their size and credit But of him we shall have occasion to speak hereafter T. G. filling page after page out of him Let the Reader judge whether Dr. St. did not shew T. G.'s exceptions to be vain and srivolous and consequently these remain substantial and competent Witnesses And as to the cause of the Church of England which these learned and pious Prelates defended and honoured Dr. St. will rejoyce to be joyned with them though it be in suffering reproach for the sake of it R. P. Let us pass over these single Testimonies and come to the most material proofs which Dr. St. used and T. G. declares he is not yet convinced by them that the charge of Idolatry was the sense of the Church of England P. D. With all my heart The First was from the Book of Homilies not barely allowed but subscribed to as containing godly and wholsome doctrine very necessary for these times which owns this charge of Idolatry not in any doubtful or single passage but in an elaborate Discourse intended for the Teachers as well as the People To which he added that the Doctrine of the Homilies is allowed in the thirty nine Articles which were approved by the Queen confirmed by the subscription of both Houses of Convocation A. D. 1571. And therefore he desires T. G. to resolve him whether men of any common understanding would have subscribed to the Book of Homilies in this manner if they had believed the main doctrine and design of one of them had been false and pernicious If saith he any of the Bishops had at that time thought the charge of Idolatry unjust and that it had subverted the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority would they have inserted this into the Articles when it was in their power to have left it out and that the Homilies contained a wholesome and godly Doctrine which in their consciences they believed to be false and pernicious He might as well think he saith that the Council of Trent would have allowed Calvins Institutions as containing a wholesome and godly Doctrine as that men so perswaded would have allowed the Homily against the peril of Idolatry And how is it possible to understand the sense of our Church better than by such publick and authentick Acts of it which all persons who are in any place of trust in the Church must subscribe and declare their approbation of This Homily hath still continued the same the Article the very same and if so they must acknowledge this hath been and is to this day the sense of our Church And to what T. G. saith that this doth not evince every particular doctrine contained in the Homilies to be godly and wholesome because the whole Book is subscribed to as containing such doctrine he answers that there is a great deal of difference to be made between some particular passages and expressions in these Homilies and the main doctrine and design of a whole Homily and between subscribing to a whole Book as containing godly and wholsome doctrine though men be not so certain of the Truth of every passage in it and if they are convinced that any doctrine contained in it is false and pernicious Now those who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry do not only look on the charge as false but as of dangerous consequence and therefore such a subscription would be shuffling and dishonest From these things laid together in my mind Dr. St. hath not only clearly proved that the charge of Idolatry was not only owned by the composers of the Homilies but by all who have honestly subscribed to the Articles from that time to our own And I would be glad to hear what answer T. G. gives to all this R. P. He answers first by repeating what he said before and then by shewing that subscription is no good argument considering what had been done and undone in that kind in the Reigns of K. Henry 8. Edw. 6. Q. Mary and Q. Elizabeth not to speak of latter times P. D. What is this but in plain terms to say the subscribers of our Articles were men of no honesty or conscience but would say or unsay subscribe one thing or another as it served their turn If this be his way of defending our Church we shall desire him to defend his own But yet this doth not reach home to the Doctors argument which proceeded not meerly on their honesty but their having common understanding For here was no force or violence offered them they had the full power to consider the Articles and to compose the Homilies and would men of common sense put in things against their own minds and make and approve and recommend Homilies which they did not believe themselves This evidently proves the composers of the Homilies and Convocation at that time did approve the doctrine of these Homilies for it was in their power not to have passed them Thus far it is plain that was the doctrine of the Church then
only to own them as true which we know to be false but as necessary to Salvation which we look on as great hinderances to it What was to be done in this case Communion could not be held on other terms than declaring false opinions to be true and dangerous Doctrines to be necessary to Salvation On such terms as these we must renounce our Christianity to declare that we believed falshoods for truths and not barely as truths but as necessary Articles of Faith Therefore what Schism there was the Church of Rome must thank her self for And when this breach happened our Church thought it necessary to express her sense of these Doctrines that they were so far from being Articles of Faith that they were false and erroneous having no foundation either in Scripture or Antiquity and required a subscription to this declaration from such as are admitted to teach and instruct others How could our Church do less than she did in this matter if she would declare her sense to the World or take care of her own security And is this making Negative Articles of Faith about which T. G. and E. W. and others have made such senseless clamours when we only declare those things they would impose upon us to be so far from being Articles of Faith that they are erroneous Doctrines and therefore are rejected by us And this I take to be a Reasonable Account of the Potestant Religion which is more than I. S. hath given to those of his own Church of his Demonstrations R. P. But since Dr. St. grants the Church of Rome to hold all the essential points of Faith how can he charge her with Idolatry since Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith I pray answer to this for this comes home to the business P. D. I am glad to see you but coming that way To this Dr. St. hath already given a full and clear answer in his late Defence 1. He saith by the Church of Romes holding all essential points of Faith no more is meant than that she owns and receives all the Ancient Creeds 2. T. G. grants that Idolatry is giving the Worship due to God to a Creature If therefore a Church holding the essential points of faith may give the Worship due to God to a Creature then there is no contradiction between saying the Church of Rome holds all the essential points of faith and yet charging it with Idolatry Because Idolatry is a practical Errour and therefore may be consistent with holding all the doctrinal points of Faith no more being necessary to it as Dr. St. proves than entertaining a false notion of Divine Worship by which means it may really give Gods worship to a Creature and yet be very Orthodox in holding that Gods Worship ought not to be given to a Creature R. P. T. G. was aware of this Answer and thus he takes it off To err he saith strictly speaking is to teach that which is opposite to Truth but if the Church of Rome teaches that the Worship she gives to Saints and Images is not a part of the Honour due to God and yet it is then she errs against the second Commandment though she judges she doth not P. D. What is this to the purpose the question is not whether Idolatry doth not imply a practical errour against the second Commandment but whether it be consistent with the doctrinal points of Faith such as are essential to the Being of a Church For of this sort of Errours all the dispute was as is plain from Dr St.'s words which gave occasion to this objection R. P. But is it not a Fundamental Errour to destroy the doctrine of the second Commandment P. D. If it be The more care had they need to have who put it out of their Books that it may not fly in their Faces But who ever reckoned the Commandments among the Articles of Faith I do not deny it to be a very dangerous practical Errour to destroy the doctrine of the second Commandment or rather to take away the whole force of the precept but I say this is none of those essential points of Faith which Dr. St. spake of and therefore this is no answer to him R. P. Therefore T. G. adds that this doth not proceed upon a general Thesis whether some Idolatrous practice may not consist with owning the general principles of Faith but upon a particular Hypothesis whether the Worship of God by an Image be not an errour against the doctrine of the second Commandment if that be to forbid men to worship him by an Image And therefore if it be a Fundamental point to believe that to be Idolatry which God hath expresly forbidden in the Law under the notion of Idolatry and that be the worshipping of him by an Image as Dr. St. asserts 't is clear that the Church of Rome in telling men it is not Idolatry errs against a Fundamental point and he cannot according to his principles maintain his charge of Idolatry without a contradiction P. D. This is then the thing to be tryed and therefore we must judge of it by what Dr. St. said to which this is supposed to be a Contradiction Did he ever say that the Church of Rome did not erre against the doctrine of the second commandment Nay he hath invincibly proved it hath I say invincibly since T. G. gives it up in these Dialogues spending so many pages upon the repetition of his old arguments and passing over all that elaborate discourse of Dr. St. about the sense of the second Commandment on which the hinge of the Controversie depends If then Dr. St. doth charge them with a very dangerous and pernicious errour in respect of this Commandment that could not be the Fundamental errour he cleared the Church of Rome from when he said she held all essential points of Faith mark that and he explained himself purposely to prevent such a mistake to mean such doctrinal points of Faith as are essential to the constitution of a Church and the true Form of Baptism now the question is whether it be a contradiction for a man to say that the Church of Rome doth hold all these essential points of faith and yet is guilty of Idolatry And how after all hath T. G. proved it It is a fundamental point saith he to believe that to be Idolatry which God hath forbidden as Idolatry and so it is to believe that to be Perjury and Theft and Adultery which God hath forbidden under their notion But will any man say the true notion of Adultery is a doctrinal point of Faith Although therefore it be granted that the Church of Rome do err fundamentally against the second Commandment yet that doth not prove Dr. St. guilty of a contradiction because he spake not of practical errours but of the Doctrinal and essential points of Faith And now I hope we have done with all these preliminaries and may come
to reason Therefore I pray let us set aside all rude and unbecoming reflections and calmly consider how T. G. proves that the Charge of Idolatry is not agreeable to the sense of the Church of England R. P. Hold Sir You are a little too nimble T. G. saith his Intention was only to shew that Dr. St. had not sufficiently proved it to be the sense of the Church of England from the Testimony he then produced whatsoever he might or could do from other Acts or Authours of that Church And he elsewhere saith that T. G. did not dispute ex professo whether it were the sense of the Church of England that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry or no nor whether Dr. St. dissented from the sense of his Church but what he undertook to shew was no more than that two parts of the Authours there cited by the Dr. were Puritans or Puritanically inclined by the confession of other Divines of the Church of England and therefore according to Dr. St 's own measures if they were good their Testimonies ought to be looked on as incompetent to prove what he asserted and for the other six that what they charged with Idolatry was not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome but some things which they conceived to be great abuses in the practice of it And this he saith is the true state of that Controversie P.D. If it be so I cry T.G. mercy For I thought he designed to prove this charge of Idolatry not to be agreeable to the sense of the Church of England But you say T. G. now denies it and if I were as Dr. St. I would thank him for it For would any man say this that thought it could ever be proved to be against the sense of the Church of England And what could have been more material to his purpose than this if it could have been done Well fare T. G.'s ingenuity for once that finding it impossible to be done he now denies that he ever attempted the doing it But the first question in a fray is how fell they out we shall better judge of T. G.'s design by the occasion of it Dr. St. affirmed that in the charge of Idolatry he did not contradict the sense of the Church of England Did he or did he not If he did not Dr. St. was in the right if he did why did not T. G. shew it But after this yielding up the main point in effect it is easie to prove that T. G. did design to shew as well as he could that the charge of Idolatry was against the sense of the Church of England but finding it would not do he now disowns it For 1. Doth not T. G. appeal to the Articles of the Church of England for the most authentick declaration of her sense and because the Church of Rome is not there charged with Idolatry doth he not hence dispute ex professo that it was against her sense To what purpose was that ingenious Criticism of being rather repugnant to the word of God which he interprets as though the composers of our Articles had done their endeavour to find a command against the Worship of Images but could not What do you think of this argument what did T. G. intend to prove by it Is it not as clear as the Sun that it was to shew that the charge of Idolatry was against the sense of the Church of England Why then is T. G. ashamed now of it and denies he had any such design There must be some more than ordinary cause of a mans denying what he once so openly avowed to do Nay in these very Dialogues after repeating his former words T. G. saith Thus clearly hath T. G. evinced the sense of the Church of England in this matter Say you so and yet never designed to dispute ex professo whether it were the sense of the Church of England or not Who is it I pray hath the knack of saying and unsaying of affirming and denying the very same thing in a few leaves or did T. G. never intend any such thing but the Church of England of her own accord knowing T. G.'s good affections to her stept into the Court and declared her sense Have we not the best natured Church in the world that is so kind to her enemies and expresseth her sense to be on their side whether they will or not Our Church then is like the Countrey mans River which comes without calling alas what need T. G. dispute ex professo what her sense is she offers her own Testimony and desires to be heard in the dispute whether T. G. will or not Let any man judge by these words what T. G.'s design was then whatever he thinks fit to own now 2. He shews that if it had been the sense of the Church of England in the Articles that the Church of Rome were guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of Images Adoration of the Host or Invocation of Saints all those who denyed it would have incurred excommunication ipso facto as appears by the Canons What was T. G.'s design in this if it were not to prove the charge of Idolatry to be against the sense of the Church of England Is this only to shew the Witnesses Dr. St. produced to be incompetent What a benefit it is for a man to forget what he hath no mind to remember And then to deny as stoutly as if the thing had never been done 3. Is it not T. G. who in terms asserts that Dr. St. betrayed his Church in advancing such a medium as contradicts the sense of that Church mark that It is true he adds if it be to be taken from the sentiments of those who are esteemed her true and genuine Sons Was it T. G.'s design then not to dispute what was the sense of the Church of England nor whether Dr. St. dissented from it I will not meddle with that whether T. G. be a competent judge who are the true and genuine Sons of the Church of England No doubt in his opinion those who come nearest the Church of Rome are such and advance such speculations as lay the charge of Schism at her own door But true Sons are no more for laying division to the charge of their Mother than the true Mother was for dividing the Son Those are certainly the most genuine Sons of our Church who own her doctrine defend her principles conform to her Rules and are most ready to maintain her Cause against all her enemies And among these there is no difference and there ought to be no distinction But if any frame a Church of their own Heads without any regard to the Articles Homilies and current doctrine of our Church and yet will call that the Church of England and themselves the only genuine Sons of it I do not question T. G. and your Brethren would be glad to have them thought so to lessen our number and impair
and why should we suppose any subscribers to take them in any other sense than the Church did then mean them Nay Dr. St. challenged him to produce any one Divine of our Church who through the long reign of Q. Elizabeth did so much as once question the truth of this charge Doth T. G. upon so long consideration of this matter name any R. P. Not any that I find P. D. But that will be best seen by considering Dr. St.'s second Argument of the sense of the Church of England in this matter viz. from the current Doctrine of the Church ever since the Reformation the injunctions of Edw. 6. of Cranmer of Q. Elizabeth the Form of Thanksgiving A. D. 1594. R. P. To this T. G. answers that this was a heat in the beginning of the Reformation but after the Crown was settled upon K. James whose title was unquestionable both at Rome at home I suppose he means and abroad the dangerous consequences of the charge of Idolatry began to be more calmly and maturely considered and were so throughly weighed in the time of K. Charles I. that as Heylin saith Bishop Laud hindred the Reprinting the Books containing Calvinian Doctrines Which evidently shews saith he that that party never looked upon the expressions of Idolatry contained in those injunctions as the dogmatical sense of the Church of England P. D. A very likely story that our Church should vary in its doctrine because K. James his title to the Crown was unquestionable It seems before the Church of Rome was guilty of Idolatry because Q. Elizabeths title was not owned by the Pope What a fine insinuation is couched under all this viz. that our Church depended wholly on the Queens pleasure and fitted her doctrines to serve her Turn and when that was over the Tide turned and that was pernicious doctrine now which was wholesome before and wholesome now which was pernicious before and yet there were the same Articles the same Homilies the same subscriptions which were before R. P. But he quotes a Doctour of your own Church for what he saith P. Heylin and delivers it in his Words P. D. P. Heylin speaks not one word in that place of the charge of Idolatry although T. G. seems to represent it so but of those who reviled the Church of Rome it self and all the Divine Offices Ceremonies and performances of it Which it is plain he there speaks of the Genevian party for but just before he mentions the Geneva Bible and the dangerous positions contained in the Annotations printed with it Now these persons whom he there speaks of looked upon the Church of Rome as a meer Synagogue of Satan and no true Church and all the Offices and Ceremonies of it to be so defiled that no use could be made of them and on that account they rejected our Liturgie and Ceremonies as taken from the Church of Rome Although therefore saith he Q. Elizabeth might suffer such things to be printed in her time yet B. Laud would not allow the Reprinting of them because Q. Elizabeth might out of State policy suffer the violent transports of irregular zeal by reason of her personal quarrels with the Pope yet now those reasons being over B. Laud would not suffer them to come abroad again But that this expression cannot be understood of the charge of Idolatry I prove by these arguments 1. Pet. Heylin himself preaching before K. Charles I. and Archbishop Laud did in plain terms charge the Worship of Images with most gross Idolatry as appears by the words cited at large in Dr. St.'s general preface What saith T. G. to this R. P. I do not find a particular answer to this but I suppose he reckons him with those six of whom he saith that they do not charge the Church of Rome it self but the opinions of School Divines and abuses in practice P. D. That cannot be for Pet. Heylin goes farther saying that they who observe the manner of their Worship of Images with what Pilgrimages Processions Offerings with what affections prayers and humble bendings of the body they have been and are Worshipped in the Church of Rome might very easily conceive that she was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism R. P. He saith they might conceive so but he doth not say they might justly conceive so P. D. This is very subtle and like T. G. himself But I pray observe P. Heylin when he gives an account of the Worship of Images saith when the Doctrine which first began in the Schools came to its growth what fruits could it bear but most gross Idolatry greater than which was never known among the Gentiles Mark that for your satisfaction What fruit could the doctrine bear and that after it came out of the Schools to its growth And when he saith they might conceive that Rome was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism the meaning is Those that saw their Worship of Images in modern Rome and compared it with what was done in old Rome would see no difference the Idolatry was so gross in both that if there were nothing else to make a distinction a man might easily conceive Rome was relapsed into her ancient Paganism R. P. But what other argument have you to prove that P. Heylin could not speak this of the charge of Idolatry P. D. Because in his Introduction he owns the doctrine of the Homilies as to this point of Idolatry and that the compilers of the Homilies were the more earnest in this point of removing or excluding Images the better to wean the people from the sin of Idolatry in which they had been trained up from their very infancy And after he adds the people of this last Age being sufficiently instructed in the unlawfulness of worshipping such painted Images they may be lawfully used in Churches without fear of Idolatry What can this signifie if he did not take the Worship of Images to be Idolatry and therefore he could not look upon this as a heat in the beginning of the Reformation and which was quite spent in the time of B. Laud since not only P. Heylin but the Arch-Bishop himself saith that the Modern Church of Rome is too like Paganism in the Worship of Images and driven to scarce intelligible subtilties in her servants writings that defend it and this without any care had of millions of souls unable to understand her subtilties or shun her practice And in his defence against the charge of the Commons he said that he had written against the adoration and superstitious use of Images as fully as any man whatsoever What think you now Sir was this a heat in the beginning of the Reformation and when men in Archbishop Lauds time more duly weighed the consequences of this charge they grew both cooler and wiser what evidence doth T. G. produce for this When the very person he produces for it is so far from it that he saith the contrary and
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
his own Author Dr. Heylin hath told him whom he means by Puritans viz. the Nonconformists for speaking of Dr. Buckeridge Bishop Lauds Tutor he saith that he opposed the Papists on one hand and on the other the Puritans or Non-conformists These are very pittiful shifts to overthrow Bishop Abbots Testimony when Dr. Heylin himself saith of him he was so moderate a Calvinian that he incurred the high displeasure of the Supralapsarians who had till then carried all before them But what saith T. G. to those whom he yields not to have been Puritanically inclined and yet charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry R. P. He saith they do not impugn the doctrine it self of the Church of Rome or the practice conformable to that doctrine but such things as they conceived to be great Abuses in the practice of it P. D. That will be best tryed by particulars the First of these is no less a Person than K. James who calls the Worship of Images damnable Idolatry and Dr. St. shews that K. James takes off their distinctions and evasions and saith Let them therefore that maintain this Doctrine answer it to Christ at the latter day when he shall accuse them of Idolatry And then I doubt if he will be paid with such Sophistical Distinctions Is all this saith D. St. nothing but to charge them with such practices which they detest Doth he not mention their doctrine and their distinctions Did not K. James understand what he said and what they did What saith T. G. to this R. P. Not a word that I can find P. D. Let us then see what he doth take notice of R. P. A very notable thing I assure you He saith they only found fault with some abuses committed in our Church and did not think men by vertue of the terms of her communion forced either to hypocrisie or Idolatry as Dr. St. doth so that it is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome if truly stated out of the decrees of her Councils or practice agreeable to that doctrine which these Divines impeach as Idolatrous but the opinions of some School-Divines or Abuses they conceived to be committed in the practice of it And for this he instanceth in the decree of the Council of Nice about the Worship of Images P. D. Who doth not know T. G. to be a man of art and to understand the way of fencing in the Schools as well as another Was it not skilfully done in this place to run to the point of Images when we had been so lately upon the Idolatry in adoration of the Host as it is declared in our Rubrick For the Constitution of the Church of Rome is plain to all persons about adoration of the Host at the elevation of it and carrying it about but in the matter of Images they endeavour to palliate and disguise their allowed practices as much as may be I answer therefore on behalf of Dr. St. 1. That when he speaks of what men are obliged to do by vertue of Communion with the Church of Rome he speaks of the things strictly required by the Rules of that Church and since our Church declares the Mass Idolatrous he doth not in the least recede from the sense of our Church in the disjunction he useth either of hypocrisie or Idolatry and I have some reason to believe that was the thing he aimed at chiefly when he spoke of the terms of Communion because he had often heard of some persons who live in the communion of that Church who being not obliged to make the same professions which Ecclesiastical persons are do content themselves with doing the same external Acts which others do but with a very different intention who look upon transubstantiation and many other doctrines as foolish and ridiculous and yet think they may joyn with those who do believe them in all external acts of worship rather than break the peace of the Church they live in such persons would say they never worshipped the Host and therefore excuse themselves from Idolatry but Dr. St. saith they cannot then excuse themselves from hypocrisie because they seem to give the same Worship which the other doth 2. As to the Idolatry committed in the Worship of Images we shall consider that in its proper place but yet by vertue of communion with the Church of Rome all persons are 1. bound to declare the worship of Images lawful as it is practised in that Church 2. To worship Images upon occasion oâ—fered as in processions c. 3. To Worship the Cross as it represents Christ with that worship which is proper to his person That which concerns us now is to give an account of the judgement of these Persons how far they suppose the Church of Rome to be guilty of the Idolatry committed in it As to K. James we have seen already how far T. G. is from answering his testimony the next is Is. Casaubon and he saith the Church of England did affirm the practises of the Church of Rome to be joyned with great impiety So that he speaks the sense of our Church and not barely his own and surely when he wrote by K. James his direction and order and had so great intimacy with Bishop Andrews and other learned men of our Church he would declare nothing to be her sense which was contrary to it And as to his own private opinion I could tell T. G. somewhat more viz. that when he was violently set upon by all the Wit and Industry of Card. Perron and disobliged by some persons of his own Communion at Paris he set himself seriously to consider the terms of Communion in that Church and whether he might with a safe conscience embrace it and I have seen in his own hand-writing the reasons which hindred him from it and the first of them was the Fear of Idolatry which he saw practised in the worship of Images and Saints Which is as full a proof as may be that he did not think any person could embrace the communion of that Church without Hypocrisie or Idolatry as to the Worship of Images and Saints The third is Bishop Andrews who not only charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry but he saith that in their Breviaries Hours and Rosaries they pray directly absolutely and finally to Saints and not meerly to the Saints to pray to God for them but give what they pray for themselves To this T. G. saith they profess they do no such thing as though we were enquiring what they professed and not what Bishop Andrews charged them with If Idolatry according to Bishop Andrews be required in the Authorized Offices of Devotion in their Church how can the members of it be excused either from hyocrisie or Idolatry The fourth is Dr. Field who chargeth the Invocation of Saints with such superstition and Idolatry as cannot be excused The fifth Dr. Jackson who saith the Papists give divine honour to Images The sixth Archbishop Laud who
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
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
Had T. G. the confidence to quote St. Augustin again for this when Dr. St. purposely answered this very Testimony in his Book which T. G. pretends here to answer and proves evidently from him that no worship was then given to the Saints and to all this T. G. returns nothing but however he brings the same Testimony again as whole and as sound and as much to the purpose as ever Gregory Nazianzen is quoted at peradventure for I remember nothing in the Orat. de Nat. Christ. to that purpose although I lately read it over St. Hierom speaks only of reverencing the Sepulchres of the Martyrs but all the weight lies upon Gregory Nyssen and what I pray saith this single Witness to the business R.P. More than you will be willing to hear or able to answer For in his Oration upon St. Theodore that great and holy Martyr which even Rivetus himself that capricious Fanatick in Criticism doth not question to be his genuine work he commends the peoples devotion to the Martyrs he describes the magnificent structure of the Temple the pieces of Sculpture in it and especially the picture of the Martyr then coming to the Shrine he shews the esteem they had for his Relicks and if they were admitted to touch his body they embrace it as if they beheld it yet alive and weeping over it as if he were whole before them they solicit his supplication and intercession beseeching him as a Champion of God and invocating him as one that could obtain blessings when he would for them And then he dilates himself upon the Acts of the Martyr and the great benefits they received by him and at the end of his Oration addresses himself to him in these words We stand in need of many benefits do thou intercede and deprecate with our common King and Lord for thy Country Do thou as a Souldier fight in our defence And in case there be need of greater intercession call an Assembly of thy Brother Martyrs let the prayers of many just persons expiate the sins of multitudes of Offenders Admonish Peter excite Paul and John also the beloved Disciple to be solicitors for the Churches they have founded that Idolatry may not lift up its head that Heresies may not overgrow the Vineyard c. But by the Power of thine and thy fellows intercession O admirable man and eminent among Martyrs the Christian Church may be a plentiful Field of Harvest c. If Dr. St. had been present at this Oration saith T. G. how may we think would his zeal have urged him to have cried out Idolatry flat Idolatry very real Idolatry meer Heathenish Idolatry P. D. I am not of your mind in this for I suppose he would have considered the allowances to be made for an eloquent person in a Panegyrical Oration when things are amplified heightned improved with all the most moving figures and strains of Rhetorick to excite the Auditors admiration and affection to the party commended And he must be a great stranger to the Schools of Eloquence that will form doctrines and devotions from Apostrophe's and Prosopopeia's I do not think Dr. St. would have charged Cicero a jot the more for Idolatry for his praying to the Hills and Woods of Alba Vos Albani tumuli atque luci oro atque obtestor What! flat Idolatry Heathenish Idolatry praying to Hills and Woods No such matter For so Rhetoricians will tell T. G. what great scope Orators may take in the representation of persons and the things done by them and how mightily those figures both adorn the Oration and move the Auditors But withal that these are figures it is very easie to exceed in and it requires great judgement to manage them with a due decorum If it were needful for T. G. I could produce the Testimonies of both Greek and Latine Rhetoricians to this purpose All the question is whether Gregory Nyssen spake like an Orator in these expressions for which we must consider the character of the Person and the Occasion of speaking As to Gregory Nyssen Gregory Nazianzen severely rebukes him in a whole Epistle for affecting more the Glory of an Orator than of a Christian and this after he was a Priest and devoted to the service of Christ in so much that many Christians were very much offended at him And what wonder is it to find such a person on such an occasion as making a Panegyrical Oration on a Martyr laying on all his colours opening his perfuming pots and using more the figures of an Orator than the exactness of a Divine Nay it was become so general a Custom among their Eloquent men to exceed in their Panegyrical Orations that I find Theodoret quoted for saying No rule of Doctrine is to be taken from them And it is agreed by your Divines as well as our own that the Fathers in their popular Orations do make use of such bold figures as are not to be made a foundation for doctrines to be taken from them Therefore this Apostrophe to Theodorus by Gregory Nyssen is no argument to prove invocation of Saints there being a great difference between flowers of Rhetorick and Forms of Devotion R. P. But he commends the devotion of the people to the Martyrs and calls it a pure worship P. D. That he might well do as the solemnities of the Martyrs were observed out of honour to God and the Christian Religion For then the Christians met at the Tombs of the Martyrs to perform the publick worship of God there and afterwards erected Churches upon their memories so that the place the time the occasion of meeting was for the honour of the Martyrs but the worship was given to God alone R. P. Doth not Gregory Nyssen take notice of the peoples soliciting his supplication and intercession with God for them as their Champion c. P. D. I grant he doth so but observe his words he saith the people when they touch any part of his body which was very rarely granted they embraced it as if it had been living and wept over it and then he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As if he had been whole and appeared before them which last word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T. G. very conveniently left out which I leave to the reader to judge of as a Testimony of T. G.'s sincerity at the very same time he charges Dr. St. for the same fault they solicit his intercession beseeching him as the Champion of God and calling upon him as one that received gifts when he pleased I do not think this Superstition of the People was to be excused which began most early to appear in the parts of Cappadocia and Pontus and the reason of it is not hard to give from the turning the Heathen Festivals into Christian Solemnities to the Martyrs of which Gregory Nyssen speaks in the Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus but however this was not any solemn invocation of him as a part of Religious
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.
Dr. St. makes to discriminate civil and religious worship but the concurrence of all circumstances together If I bowed to a Friend at Church is any man so senseless to take this for Idolatry Where there is an antecedent ground for civil worship and respect which is well known and understood among men there is nothing like Idolatry although we do use the same external acts towards men which we use towards God himself As among the Israelites no man doubted that their bowing to the King was upon a quite different account from their bowing to God although they bowed to the King in a place dedicated to divine worship And where the reason of worship is so well understood to be of a quite different nature from that of religious worship that very reason makes a discrimination besides the circumstances of time and place Which I shall make appear from the case of Naaman the Syrian whose bowing in the house of Rimmon was therefore free from Idolatry because of the known custom of paying civil respect every where else to his Prince in that manner and by his publick protestatition against the Idolatrous worship there performed as T. G. shews at large from Dr. H. T. G. therefore very much mistakes Dr. St.'s meaning if he thinks he assigned the discrimination of acts of religious and civil worship barely to the circumstances of time and place without taking in the object and reason of worship R. P. But from hence it appears that bowing in the House and Presence of an Idol and in the very time of worship is not Idolatry For then Naaman could not be excused P. D. Where the worship is known to be given not to the Idol but to the Prince to whom it is acknowledged to be due elsewhere Dr. St. never supposed such an act of worship though done in an Idol-temple to be Idolatry R. P. But suppose men should ask a Bishop blessing in a Church and at Prayer-time this is not civil worship and is this Idolatry P. D. Worship may be said to be civil two wayes 1. When it is performed on a meer civil account as it is to Magistrates and Parents 2. When it is performed on the account of a spiritual relation as in the respect shewed to Bishops as spiritual Fathers The worship is of the same kind with that which is shewed to natural Parents but the relation is of another kind on which account it may be called Spiritual Respect but it is in it self an act of civil worship arising upon a moral relation which being of a different nature from that which is between Princes and Subjects and Parents and Children and being founded upon Religious Grounds may be said to be Religious or Spiritual Respect rather than Worship R. P. If the first Christians had upon their knees in time of prayer begged S. James his benediction had this been an unlawful Act of Worship P. D. If they were upon their knees in prayer to God I think it was a very unseasonable time to ask their Bishop blessing although the act in it self were lawful R. P. But is not this an act of the same kind with that of invocation of Saints in times and places of Divine Worship when we only pray to them to pray for us P. D. I say again that is not all You do for you own their Patronage Protection and Power to help you in your necessities and your Prayers must be understood according to your Doctrines But suppose you did only pray to them to pray for you yet 1. You do it with all the solemnity of Divine Worship in the publick Litanies of the Church when you are in the posture of your greatest Devotion And the Angel rebuked no less man than St. John for using the posture of Divine Adoration to him 2. In kneeling to a Bishop to pray for us we suppose nothing that encroaches upon the Divine excellencies for we are certain he hears and understands us and we desire nothing from him but what is in his power to do and is very fitting for us to request from him But when you pray to Saints you can have no possible assurance that they do or can hear what you say to them and so it is a foolish and unreasonable worship and when you do it with the same external Acts of Devotion which you use to the Divine Majesty you take away that peculiarity of Divine Worship which is due to God by reason of his incommunicable excellencies and so it is superstitious and idolatrous Worship these two wayes 1. As it supposes as great excellencies in Creatures as those did who for that reason were charged with Idolatry I do not meddle with the possibility of an intelligent being disunited from matter 's hearing at such a distance as the Saints are supposed to be from us nor whether God may not communicate such knowledge to them but that which I insist on is this I find those charged with Idolatry not only in Scripture and the Fathers but by the Church of Rome it self who professed to worship some inferiour Spirits as Mediators between God and men and such Mediators as were never imagined to be Mediators of Redemption but barely of Intercession as being believed to carry up the prayers of men and to bring down help from above Now here is no Omnisciency or Omnipotency or other incommunicable excellency attributed to these Spirits and all the addresses made to them was under the notion of Mediators to intercede for them i. e. to pray to them to pray for them and yet these were charged with flat Idolatry It were easie to make it appear from unquestionable testimonies that the Heathen Idolaters did worship inferiour spirits only as Mediators as Apuleius expresses it inter caelicolas terricolasque vectores hinc preeum inde donorum wherein he only interprets Plato's sense and that this was one of the most common and universal kinds of Idolatry and therefore I would fain know why they must be charged with Idolatry and you escape Either be just to them and vindicate the Heathen Worship or else you must condemn your own 2. T. G. confesses that by the Law of Nature there ought to be some peculiar external Acts appropriated to the worship of God as most agreeable to his incommunicable excellency now among all mankind no one external Act of Worship hath been supposed more peculiar to the Divine Nature than solemn Invocation in places and times appropriated to Divine Worship but the Invocation practised in the Roman Church hath all the solemnity and circumstances of Divine Worship and therefore it is robbing God of the peculiar Acts of his Worship which is Idolatry And he must be very dull indeed who cannot distinguish this Invocation from a casual or accidental meeting with a Bishop at Church and kissing the hem of his Garment or asking his Benediction on ones knees R. P. But where there are different objects in themselves and