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
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
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
the doctrine taught in her Councils which all those of her communion are bound to submit to If the Doctrine which the Church of England chargeth be that which is taught by some of her School Divines which he takes to be her true meaning this is also denyed at least by those very Divines who teach it to be Idolatry If by the Romish Doctrine be meant the Doctrine of Councils owned by the Church of Rome concerning worshipping and adoration of Images then herein she is vindicated from Idolatry by Eminent Divines that have been esteemed true and genuine Sons of the Church of England P. D. And doth this mighty effort come to this at last What pity it is T. G. had no better a Cause he sets this off so prettily and dazels the eyes of his beholders with the dust he raises so that those who do not narrowly look into his feats of activity would imagine him still standing when he is only endeavouring to recover a fall For 1. By Adoration of Images our Church doth not mean that which their School Divines call adoration of Images as they distinguish it from Veneration of them but it means all that Religious Worship which by the allowed Doctrine and practice of the Roman Church is given to Images And this is just the case of the Council of Francford concerning which I hear T. G. saith not one word in his last Book and I commend him for it the Western Bishops condemn adoration of Images very true saith T. G. and his Brethren but all this was a bare mistake of the Nicene Council which never approved adoration of Images but only an inferiour Worship but Dr. St. hath shewed that the Francford Council knew of this distinction well enough and notwithstanding their denying it the Western Church did not judge that the worship which they gave to Images was really adoration whether they called it so or not Just so it is with the Church of England in reference to the Church of Rome this distinguishes adoration from inferiour Worship but our Church owns no such distinction and calls that Religious worship which they give to Images adoration and supposing it were really so Dr. St. saith their own Divines yield it to be Idolatry i. e. the Church of England calls their worship of Images adoration or giving Divine Worship to a Creature but their Divines do yield this is Idolatry and therefore the Church of England doth charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry But how subtilly had T. G. altered the whole force of the argument by taking adoration not in the sense of our Church but of their School-Divines and then telling us that even those School-Divines who teach adoration of Images deny it to be Idolatry And whoever expected they should confess themselves guilty But what is this to the sense of the Church of England where doth it allow such a distinction of Divine worship into that which is superiour and inferiour or that which is proper to God and that which is not 2. By Romish Doctrine the Church of England doth not mean the doctrine of the School-divines but the Doctrine received and allowed in that Church from whence the Worship of Images is required and practised Such kind of Worship I mean as is justified and defended in common among them without their School-distinctions such worship as was required here in the Recantation of the Lollards as Dr. St. observes I do swear to God and all his Seynts upon this Holy Gospel that fro this day forward I shall worship Images with praying and offering unto them in the Worship of the Seynts that they be made after such Worship as was required here by the Constitutions of Arundel A. D. 1408. with processions genuflections thurifications deosculations oblations burnings of Lights and Pilgrimages which are called Acts of Adoration and this Constitution was a part of the Canon Law of England which all persons were then bound to observe or else might be proceeded against as Lollards And this is that which Dr. St. insists upon was the thing condemned by the Articles of our Church viz. the Worship of Images which was required and practised here in England And what reason have we to run to School-Divines for the sense of matters of daily practice as the worship of Images was before the Reformation And so I conclude if this be all T. G. in so long time hath had to say about this matter viz. above four years since Dr. St.'s General Preface was Published he hath very unreasonably charged him with dissenting from the Church of England in this Charge of Idolatry F. C. I hope you have done for this time and if you catch me again losing so much time in hearing Fending and proving about the Church of England I will give you leave to call me Fanatick If you have any thing more of this kind talk it out your selves if you please I expected to have had some comfortable talk with my old Friend about Liberty of Conscience and how many precious hours have you lost about the Church of England This will never do our business If you please my good Friend you and I will meet in private at such a place to morrow P. D. Nay Sir let me not be excluded your company since I am so accidentally faln into it and have but patience to hear us talk out these matters since we have begun them For I hear your Friends Friend T. G. hath said some things wherein your Cause is concerned F. C. I do intend for the Auction again to morrow and if I can easily get the Books I look for I will bear you company otherwise go on with your Discourse and I will come to you when I have made my Adventures It is possible I may meet with some of them to night for I hear them at Rutherford and Gillespee and our Divinity follows just after the Scotch Which was well observed by the Catalogue-maker For the Covenant bound us to reform according to the pattern of the Church of Scotland R. P. You intend then to meet here again to morrow at three of Clock to pursue our Conferences about these matters I will not fail you and so adieu The end of the first Conference THE Second Conference About the consequences of the charge of Idolatry P. D. HOw long have you been at the Auction R. P. Above an hour for I had a great desire to see how the Books were sold at them P. D. And I pray what do you observe concerning the buying of Books here R. P. I find it a pretty humoursome thing and sometimes men give greater rates for Books than they may buy them for in the Shops and yet generally Books are sold dearer here than in any part of Europe P. D. What reason can you give for that R. P. One is that the Scholars of England allow themselves greater Liberty in Learning than they do in foreign parts where commonly only one kind of
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
repentance be saved Ans. It is answered that Ignorance in point of Fact so conditioned as hath been shewed doth so excuse à toto that an Action proceeding thence though it have a material inconformity with the Law of God is yet not formally a sin But I do not so excuse the Idolatry of our Fore-fathers as if it were not in it self a sin and that without repentance damnable But yet their Ignorance being such as it was nourished by Education Custom Tradition the Tyranny of their Leaders the fashion of the Times not without shew also of Piety and Devotion and themselves withal having such slender means of better knowledge though it cannot wholly excuse them from sin without repentance damnable yet it much lesseneth and qualifieth the sinfulness of their Idolatry arguing that their continuance therein was more from other prejudices than from a wilful contempt of Gods Holy Word and Will And as for their Repentance it is as certain that as many of them as are saved did repent of their Idolatries as it is certain no Idolater nor other sinner can be saved without repentance But then there is a double difference to be observed between repentance for Ignorances and known sins the one must be particular the other general the one cannot be sincere without forsaking the other may which he inlarges upon and then concludes Some of our Fore-fathers then might not only live in Popish Idolatry but even dye in an Idolatrous Act breathing out their last with their lips at a Crucifix and an Ave Mary in their thoughts and yet have truly repented though but in the General and the croud of their unknown sins even of those very sins and have at the same instant true Faith in Jesus Christ and other Graces accompanying salvation R. P. But hath not Christ promised that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against his Church P. D. This Dr. St. hath already answered thus Against what Church The whole Christian Church whoever said they could or how doth that follow The Church of Constantinople or the Church of Jerusalem Have not the Gates of the Turk been too strong for them The Church of Rome The Gates of Hell do certainly prevail against that if it doth unchurch all other Churches that are not of its communion And why may not Idolatry prevail where Luciferian Pride and Hellish Cruelty and desperate Wickedness have long since prevailed Hath Christ made promises to secure that Church from Errour which hath been over-run with all sorts of Wickedness by the confession of her own members and friends R. P. But T. G. saith that Dr. St. ought to have assigned us some Church distinct in all Ages from all Heretical and Idolatrous Congregations which Christ hath preserved alwayes from Heresie and Idolatry P. D. Why so Unless he had first yielded that Christ had promised to preserve such a distinct Congregation of Christians which he never did But he shewed the feebleness of that kind of arguing from particulars to generals as though all the promises made to the Church must fail if the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry R. P. But I will prove that Dr. St. ought to assign such a distinct Church because he saith that a Christian by vertue of his being so is bound to joyn in some Church or Congregation of Christians therefore there must be such a Church at all times to joyn with P. D. I answer 1. Dr. St.'s answer doth imply no more than this that a Christian is bound to joyn with other Christians in the Acts of Gods publick Worship but withal he adds immediately that he is bound to choose the communion of the purest Church which doth suppose a competition between two Churches where a person may embrace the Communion of either as the Church of England and the Church of Rome So that where there are distinct Communions the best is to be chosen 2. Supposing no Church to be so pure that a mans Conscience can be fully satisfied in all the practices of it yet he may lawfully hold Communion with that Church he is baptized in till the unlawful practices become the condition of his Communion As here in England the conditions of Communion are different as to Clergy-men and Lay-men if the latter be satisfied in what concerns them they have no reason to reject Communion themselves for what concerns others 3. Where any Church doth require Idolatrous Acts as conditions of Communion that Church is the Cause of a separation made for a distinct Communion So that there is no necessity of assigning a distinct Church in all Ages free from heresie and Idolatry since men may Communicate with a corrupt Church so they do not Communicate in their corruptions and when they come to that height to require this they make themselves the Causes of the Separation which is made on the account of Heresie or Idolatry R. P. Still that promise sticks with me that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church and are not Heresie and Idolatry the two Posts of those Gates P. D. If you turn over that promise never so much you will prove no more from it than the continuance of a Christian Church in the World with a capacity of salvation to the members of it And this we do not deny but it doth not prove that any particular Church shall be preserved in all Ages free from Heresie and Idolatry For whatever may be consistent with the salvation of the members of a Church may be consistent with the Gates of Hell not prevailing against it but Heresie and Idolatry may be consistent with the salvation of the members of a Church Because there are so many cases assigned by Divines wherein sins of Ignorance and Errour are consistent with salvation I say then that Christs Promises do prove a possibility of salvation in all Ages of the Christian Church but they do not prove the indefectibility of any distinct Church R. P. But why doth Dr. St. say the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church of Rome when himself acknowledges it to be a true Church as holding all the essential points of faith P. D. As though a man could be damned for nothing but for denying the Articles of his Creed It is in respect of Pride Cruelty and all sorts of Wickedness as well as Idolatry that he saith the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it R. P. Well! But T. G. for all that proves that all Christians are bound by vertue of their Christianity to joyn in communion with the Church of Rome P. D. Doth he so It is a great undertaking and becoming T. G. But how R. P. First There was in the world before Luther a distinct Church whose communion was necessary to salvation but this was not the Protestant for that came in after Luther therefore it was the Roman P. D. This is very subtle reasoning yet it is possible we may find out something like it
There was in the World before Julius Caesar some Civil Society in which it was necessary for a man to live for his own preservation but this was not the Roman Empire for that rose up after him therefore it was the Roman Common-wealth But doth not this imply that there was no other Civil Society in the world wherein a man could preserve himself but the Roman Common-wealth But I will put the case a little farther home after Britain was made a Province it became a Member of the Roman Empire and depended so much upon the strength and Arms of Rome that it was not able to defend it self it being sore distressed by enemies and in danger of Ruine sends to Rome for help there it is denyed and the Britains forced to look out for help elsewhere Now after T. G.'s way of reasoning the Britains must return to the Romans because once they had been members of the Roman Empire The case is alike in the Church the time was when the Western Church was united under one Head but by degrees this Head grew too heavy and laid too great a load on the members requiring very hard and unreasonable conditions from them upon this some of the members seek for relief this is denyed them they take care of their own safety and do what is necessary to preserve themselves The Head and some corrupt members conspiring denounce excommunication if they do not presently yield and submit These parts stand upon their own rights and ancient priviledges that it was not an Vnion of submission but association originally between several National Churches and therefore the Church of Rome assuming so much more to it self than did belong to it and dealing so tyrannically upon just complaints our Church had Reason to assert her own Freedom and to reform the abuses which had crept either into her doctrine or practice And that this was lawful proceeding it offered to justifie by Scripture and Reason and the Rules of the Primitive Church Now the question of Communion as it was stated between T. G. and Dr. St. comes to this whether any person being baptized in this Church ought in order to his salvation to forsake the communion of it for that of the Church of Rome And this being the true state of it I pray where lies the force of the argument Dr. St. yields communion with some Church to be necessary and what follows the communion of the Church of England is so to one baptized in it why must any such leave it for that of the Church of Rome Yes saith T. G. there was a distinct Church before Luther whose communion was necessary to salvation and what then what have we to do with Luther we are speaking of the present Church of England which was reformed by it self and not by Luther Why is it necessary to leave this Church in which persons are baptized and not in that before Luther Here lyes the main hinge of the Controversie to which T. G. ought to speak and not to run to a Church before Luther The Church of England was the Church of England before the Reformation as well as since but it hath now reformed it self being an entire body within it self having Bishops to govern it Priests and Deacons to administer Sacraments to preach the Word of God to officiate in the publick Liturgie in which all the Ancient Creeds are read and owned the question now is whether salvation cannot be had in the communion of this Church or all persons are bound to return to the Church of Rome This is the point if T. G. hath any more to say to it R. P. T. G. urgeth farther Nothing can render the communion of the Roman Church not necessary to salvation but either Heresie or Schism not Heresie because she holds all the essential articles of Christian Faith not Schism because then Dr. St. must assign some other distinct Church then at least in being from whose Vnity she departed P. D. A right Doway argument one would take T. G. for a young Missioner by it it is so exactly cut in their Form But it proceeds upon such false suppositions as these 1. That Communion with the Roman Church as such i. e. as a Body united under such a Head was necessary to salvation which we utterly deny and it can never be proved but by shewing that Christ appointed the Bishop of Rome to be Head of the Church which is an argument I do not find that now adays You are willing to enter upon being so thread-bare and baffled a Topick 2. That no Doctrines but such as are contrary to the Articles of the Creed can be any reason to hold off from the Communion of a Church but we think the requiring doubtful things for certain false for true new for old absurd for reasonable are ground enough for us not to embrace the Communion of a Church unless it may be had on better terms than these 3. That no Church can be guilty of Schism unless we can name some distinct Church from whose Vnity it separated whereas we have often proved that imposing unreasonable conditions of Communion makes the Church so imposing guilty of the Schism Surely T. G.'s stock is almost spent when he plays the same game so often over These are not such terrible arguments to be produced afresh as if they had never been heard of when there is not a Missioner that comes but hath them at his fingers end R. P. But the Roman Church was once the true Church Rom. 1. and the Christian world of all Ages believed it to be the only true Church of Christ but it cannot be proved not to be the true one by an evidence equal to that which once proved it true therefore we are bound to be of the communion of that Church P. D. O the vertue of sodden Coleworts How often are they produced without shame To be short Sir 1. We deny that the Church of which the Pope is Head was ever commended by St. Paul or in any one Age of the Christian World was owned by it to be the only true Church which is very much short of the whole Christian World of all Ages 2. Since the evidence is so notoriously faulty about proving the Roman Church to be the only true Church a small degree of evidence as to its corruptions may exceed it and consequently be sufficient to keep us from returning to its communion But what doth T. G. mean by repeating such stuff as this Which I dare say Dr. St. only passed by on account of the slightness and commonness of it they being arguments every day brought and every day answered And if he had a mind to see Dr. St.'s mind about them he might have seen it at large in his Defence of Archhishop Laud And do you think it fair for him every Book he writes to produce afresh every argument there which hath received no Answer R. P. I perceive you begin to be out
of patience P. D. Not I assure you when I meet with any thing that deserves it R. P. Here comes our Fanatick Friend to refresh you a little What is the matter man why so sad have you met with an ill bargain at the Auction F. C. No no. I got a Book last night hath taken me up till this time and truly I have read something in it which fits much upon my Spirit R. P. What is it if we may ask you F. C. It is no comfort either to you or me R. P. If I be concerned I pray let me know F. C. You know last night we heard them at Rutherford and Gillespee I came in time enough for Gillespee's Miscellany Questions a rare Book I promise you And by a particular favour I carried it home with me and looking upon the Contents I found the Seasonable Case viz. About Associations and Confederacies with Idolaters Infidels or Hereticks and he proves them to be so absolutely unlawful from Scripture and many sound Orthodox Divines that for my part he hath fully convinced and setled me and I thought it my duty to come and to tell you so R. P. Well we will let alone that discourse at present we are at our old trade again and I was just coming to a seasonable question for you viz. Whether you have not as much reason to separate from the Church of England as the Church of England had from the Church of Rome F. C. Who doubts of that P. D. I do Sir nay more I absolutely deny it F. C. What matter is it what you say or deny You will do either for a good preferment Have not you assented and consented to all that is in the Book of Common Prayer and what will you stick at after P. D. Consider Sir what it is to judge rash judgement I wonder men that pretend to Conscience and seem so nice and scrupulous in some things can allow thmselves in the practice of so dangerous a sin If you have a mind to debate this point before us without clamour and impertinency I am for you F. C. You would fain draw me in to dispute again would you No such matter there is your man he will manage our Cause for us against you of the Church of England I warrant you R. P. I am provided for it For T. G. desires of Dr. St. for the sake of the Presbyterians Anabaptists and other separated Congregations to know why the believing all the ancient Creeds and leading a good life may not be sufficient to Salvation unless one be of the Communion of the Church of England P. D. A very doughty question As though we were like you and immediately damned all persons who are not of the Communion of our Church We say their separation from us is very unjust and unreasonable and that there is no colour for making their case equal with ours as to the separation from the Church of Rome R. P. I will tell you of a man who makes the case parallel it is one Dr. St. in his Irenicum and T. G. produces many pages out of him to that purpose P. D. To save you the trouble of repeating them I have read them over and do think these Answers may serve for his vindication 1. That in that very place he makes separation from a Church retaining purity of Doctrine on the account of some corrupt practices to be unlawful and afterwards in case men be unsatisfied as to some conditions of communion he denies it to be lawful to erect New Churches because a meer requiring conformity in some suspected rites doth not make a Church otherwise sound to be no true Church or such a Church from which it is lawful to make a total separation which is then done when men enter into a new and distinct Society for worship under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church Rules different from those of the Church they separate from And now let your Fanatick Friend judge whether this man even in the dayes of writing his Irenicum did justifie the practices of the separated Congregations which he speaks expressely against F. C. No truly We are all now for separated Congregations and know better what we have to do than our Fore-Fathers did Alas what comfort is there in bare Nonconformity For our people would not endure us if we did not proceed to separation He that speaks against separation ruins us and our Cause P. D. So far then we have cleared Dr. St. from patronizing the Cause of the separated Congregations 2. He saith that as to things left undetermined by the Law of God in the Judgement of the Primitive and Reformed Churches and in matters of Order Decency and Government every one notwithstanding what his private judgement may be of them is bound to submit to the determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Can any thing be said plainer for Conformity than this is by the Author of the Irenicum R. P. But how then come in those words produced by T. G. P. D. I will tell you he supposes that some scrupulous and conscientious men after all endeavours used to satisfie themselves may remain unsatisfied as to the Lawfulness of some imposed Rites but dare not proceed to positive separation from the Church but are willing to comply in all other things save in those Rites which they still scruple and concerning these he puts the Question whether such bare-nonconformity do involve such men in the guilt of Schism And this I confess he resolves negatively and so brings in that long passage T. G. produces out of him I now appeal to your self whether T. G. hath dealt fairly with Dr. St. in two things 1. In not distinguishing the case of separation from that of bare nonconformity only in some suspected Rites and in producing these words to justifie the separated Congregations 2. In taking his judgement in this matter rather from his Irenicum written so long since than from his late Writings wherein he hath purposely considered the Difference of the Case of those who separate from the Church of England and of our separation from the Church of Rome R. P. But hath he done this indeed and did T. G. know it P. D. Yes very well For it is in that very Book the Preface whereof T. G. pretends to answer in these Dialogues and he doth not speak of it by the by but discourseth largely about it Is this fair dealing But the Irenicum served better for his purpose as he thought and yet he hath foully misrepresented that too R. P. But yet Dr. St. must not think to escape so for he hath searched another Book of his called his Rational Account and there he finds a passage he thinks in favour to Dissenters from the Church of England and which undermines the Church of England P. D. Therefore the Church of Rome is not guilty of Idolatry R. P. Have a little patience
England and in her separation from Rome p. 168 A passage in the Irenicum cleared p. 170 How far Idolatry consistent with owning the fundamental Articles of Faith p. 175 T. G.'s shuffling about the sense of the second Commandment p. 186 Third Conference About the Nature of Idolatry p. 195 AN abstract of the Design of Dr. St.'s general Discourse of the Nature of Idolatry p. 196 Of the manner of T. G.'s answering it p. 200 The postulata granted by him p. 203 Many material omissions in T. G.'s Answer p. 205 Of the Patronus Bonae Fidei and the service he doth the Papists p. 208 The disparity between bowing towards the Altar and the Worship of Images at large cleared p. 211 Of the difference between Reverence to sacred Places and Worship of Images p. 215 The arguments of the Patronus Bonae Fidei against bowing towards the Altar answered p. 222 The supposition of Transubstantiation doth not make it more reasonable p. 227 Of Idolatry in the nature of the thing p. 233 Of the Sinfulness of Idolatry antecedently to a positive Law p. 235 T. G.'s principles justifie the Worship of God in any Creature p. 242 Relative Worship condemned by the Primitive Church p. 248 As great danger in the worship of Images as of Gods Creatures p. 252 T. G.'s trifling about Meletetiques and Mystical Theology p. 255 The incongruity of Worshipping Christ by a Crucifix p. 257 Of the Nature and Kinds of Certainty p. 258 Why the certainty of Religion called Moral p. 265 Several sorts of Certainty of the Christian Faith p. 266 Of the impossibility of falshood in it p. 268 Dr. St.'s charge of Idolatry reaches to definitions of Councils and practises generally allowed p. 270 The parallel about bowing towards the Altar farther answered p. 273 His Fidelity in citations justified against T. G.'s cavils p. 276 The citation of Lugo defended p. 277 The parallel between Reverence to sacred places and things and the Worship of Images fully disproved p. 284 The Citation of Greg. Nyssen entred upon p. 286 The parallel between the Arian and Romish Idolatry defended p. 288 T. G.'s exceptions against it answered p. 293 Greg. Nyssen's Testimony cleared p. 303 The difference of the practice of Invocation of Saints in the Church of Rome from the addresses in the fourth Century shewed in several particulars p. 306 T. G.'s answer to the Council of Laodicea examined p. 314 The testimony of Arnobius rightly cited by Dr. St. p. 325 Of relative Latria being given to Images p. 327 Of inferiour Worship as distinct from Latria and neither of them shewed to clear the Church of Rome from Idolatry p. 337 Fourth Conference About the Parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry p. 349 T. G.'s notion of Heathen Idolatry p. 350 How far Jupiter's being the Supreme God relates to the main Controversie p. 351 In what sense Jupiter might be called an Unknown God p. 354 S. Augustin makes the true God to be truly worshipped by the Athenians p. 357 T. G.'s exceptions answered p. 359 The distinction between Jupiter of Greet and the supreme Jupiter p. 365 The place of Rom. 1.19 20. not answered by T. G. p. 369 Aquinas his Testimony cleared p. 371 The state of the Controversie about the Fathers p. 373 Justin Martyr no friend to T. G.'s hypothesis p. 377 Athenagoras at large cleared p. 379 A threefold Jupiter among the Fathers p. 380 Theophilus Antiochenus not to T. G.'s purpose p. 387 Tertullian vindicated p. 388 Clemens Alexandrinus p. 400 Minucius Felix p. 405 Other Testimonies rejected as impertinent p. 415 T. G.'s Accounts of Heathen Idolatry examined p. 419 First In taking their Images for Gods at large disproved p. 420 2. In worshipping many false Gods that likewise disproved p. 429 T. G.'s arguments answered p. 431 The absurd consequences of this notion of Heathen Idolatry p. 440 T. G.'s pittiful evasions as to the modern Idolaters p. 443 3. In worshipping the Creatures instead of God the Nature of that Idolatry enquired into p. 457 Worshipping the Creatures with respect to God as Soul of the world justifiable on the the same grounds with adoration of the Host. p. 461 Why it is Idolatry to give all external worship to the Creatures p. 467 A twofold hypothesis of Heathen Idolatry p. 470 The parallel as to the Church of Rome defended p. 473 Of Appropriate Acts of Divine Worship p. 478 What errour of judgement the act of Idolatry implyes p. 491 Lugo's Testimony cleared p. 495 Whether the Church hath power to discriminate Acts of Worship p. 499 How far circumstances discriminate Acts of Civil and Religious Worship p. 501 Whether the Church of Rome doth appropriate any Act of external adoration to God p. 522 That the very Sacrifice of the Mass is offered in honour of Gods Creatures and consequently is not appropriated to the honour of God p. 526 Dr. St. doth not differ from the Divines of the Church of England about the Sacrifice of the Mass. p. 540 How far the Sacrifice of the Mass may be said to be the Act of the People p. 542 ERRATA PAge 108. Line 11. dele not p. 161. l. 21. dele not p. 215. l. 7. r. savouring p. 232. l. 13. r. declares p. 234. l. 4. r. as so Sacred p. 246. l. 15. for no r. do p. 261. l. 4. for not so r. so p. 308. l. 17. for Fallo r. Fullo p. 319. l. 1. for Idolatry r. Idolaters p. 334. l. 7. for I not r. I do not p. 511. l. 5 6. for matters r. matter First Conference Concerning the sense of the Church of England about the Idolatry of the Church of Rome Rom. P. YOU are well met at this Auction of Books I have been present at many of them beyond Sea but I never was at one in England before How go the prices of Books here Fan. Ch. Very dear methinks by the Books I have bought but I find they are so catched up by our Brethren that if we will have them we must pay dear for them R. P. May I know what they are Sir F. C. Only some few choice pieces which I have picked out of this great Catalogue such as Nepthali or the Groanings of the Church of Scotland Cooks Monarchy no Creature of Gods making but the things I most value are the Pamphlets such as Sermons before the Long Parliament in several volumes And a rare Collection of Authors about Liberty of Conscience R. P. Are there so many Books to be had about Liberty of Conscience F. C. Yes a great many have written for and against it R. P. Who are they who have written for it F. C. To tell you the truth some of the same who wrote against it heretofore but they are now more enlightned as those who wrote against Separation when time was are now the greatest advocates for it For there are some providential Truths which vary according to circumstances Do not we see the Papists who were
thought the greatest enemies to toleration in the world now plead most vehemently for it and are even angry with us for not acting sufficiently in this cause against the Church of England But because I take you for a friend by your enquiring after these Books I must tell you it is yet a disputable point among us how far we may joyn with Antichrist to promote the interest of Christ And some insist on that place to prove the unlawfulness of it Be ye not unequally yoked others again prove it lawful because it is said Yet not altogether with the Fornicators of this world or with Idolaters whence they observe that they may joyn with them in some things or for some ends but not altogether i. e. they must not joyn with them in their Idolatries but they may against the Church of England R. P. This is too publick a place to talk of these matters in but may we not withdraw into the next room for I have a great mind to set you right in this main point of present concernment And if the Papists should be found not to be Idolaters a great part of your difficulty is gone Do you think it is not fit for you to be better informed in this matter when a thing of so great consequence depends upon it as your deliverance from the persecution of the Church of England which you know we have all sighed and groaned for a long time It is in vain for any of you to expect favour from thence as long as she is able to stand For if the Bishops were never so much inclined to it how could they possibly give ease to you without destroying themselves And since the dissenting parties are so different among themselves in their light and attainments it is impossible to please any one party without displeasing all the rest Comprehension is a meer snare and temptation to the Brethren being a design to prefer some and to leave the rest in the lurch Let us all joyn our strengths together to pull down this Church of England and then though there be a King in Israel every one may do what seemeth good in his own eyes F. C. I doubt you are not well seen in Scripture for the Text is In those dayes there was no King in Israel and every one did what seemed good in his own eyes whence you may observe a special hint by the by that Toleration agrees best with a Common-wealth But this to your self and you might justly wonder at this freedom with you but that I remember you many years ago when you and I preached up the Fifth Monarchy together in the Army Those were glorious dayes Ah the Liberty we then enjoyed Did we then think the good old Cause would ever have ended thus Well! It is good to be silent in bad times But methinks you and I however may retire and talk over old stories and refresh our memories with former out-goings together For here is little at present for us to do R. P. Whereabouts are they now in the Catalogue F. C. Among the Fathers those Old-Testament Divines What lights have we seen since their dayes We need not trouble our selves about them But I observe the Church of England men buy them up at any rate What prices do they give for a Justin Martyr or Epiphanius or Philo who they say was a meer Jew How must they starve their people with the Divinity of these men How much of the good Divinity of the late times might they have for the money We cannot but pity their blindness But I see we cannot be here so private as we wished for yonder sits a Divine of the Church of England who I suppose is the person who bought so many Fathers at the last Auction as though he had a mind to write against the Papists R. P. Sit you by a while and we will talk of our matters another time I have been much abroad since you and I were first acquainted and have lately brought over a new Book from Paris You shall see how I will handle him and if you put in upon occasion you shall find by this experiment what success our united forces would have against the Church of England F. C. Do you begin and you shall see how I will second you when occasion offers it self R. P. Sir I perceive the Divines of the Church of England do buy up the Fathers very much at Auctions I wonder that any who read the Fathers can be for the Church of England Pr. Div. And I do more wonder at you for saying so For therefore we are for the Church of England because we read both Scripture and Fathers R. P. To what purpose is all this charge and pains if there be an infallible Church P. D. Therefore to good purpose because there is no one Church infallible R. P. Is there not a Catholick Church P. D. Do you think I have forgotten my Creed R. P. Which is that Catholick Church P. D. Which of all the parts is the whole Is that your wise question Do not you know the Christian Church hath been broken into different Communions ever since the four General Councils and continues so to this day What do you mean by the Catholick Church R. P. I mean the Church of Rome P. D. Then you ask me which is the Church of Rome but what need you ask that since you know it already R. P. But the Roman Church is the Catholick Church P. D. You may as well say London is England or England the World And why may not we call England the World because the rest of the world is divided from it as you the Roman Church the Catholick Church because the other Churches are separated in Communion from it R. P. I mean the Roman Church is the Head and Fountain of Catholick Doctrine and other Churches are pure and sound as they do agree with it P. D. Your proposition is not so self-evident that the bare knowing your meaning must make me assent I pray first prove what you say before I yield R.P. Was not the Church of Rome once a sound and Catholick Church P. D. What then so was the Church of Jerusalem of Antioch and Alexandria and so were the seven Churches of Asia Were all these Heads and Fountains too R. P. But S. Paul speaks of the Church of Rome P. D. He doth so but not much to her comfort for he supposes she may be broken off through unbelief as well as any other Church R. P. Doth not S. Paul say that the Roman faith was spoken of throughout the World P. D. What then I beseech you doth it follow that faith must alwayes continue the same any more than that the Church of Philadelphia must at this day be what it was when S. John wrote those great commendations of it These are such slender proofs that you had as good come to downright begging the Cause as pretend to maintain it after such a manner
The faith of Rome was not more spoken of in the Apostles dayes than its errours and corruptions have been since R. P. These are general words name me one of those errours and corruptions P. D. For this time I will name the publick and allowed Worship of your Church which after all your shifts and evasions I cannot excuse from Idolatry R. P. How is that Idolatry God forbid I did not expect this charge from a Divine of the Church of England I was prepared to receive it from my old Fanatick acquaintance here he would have thundered me with the Texts of Antichrist and the Whore of Babylon and have quoted half the Book of the Revelations against me before this time if we had not espyed you in the Room But I perceive though your Artillery may be different your charge is the same I pray tell me how long is it since you of the Church of England have maintained this charge For I have been often told that only one late Defender of your Church hath advanced two new charges against the Church of Rome viz. Fanaticism and Idolatry and that the true Sons of the Church of England disown them both P. D. Whoever told you so hath deceived you but it is not the only thing they have deceived you in I never yet saw so much as a tolerable Answer to the Charge of Fanaticism And for that of Idolatry the Authour you mean hath proved beyond contradiction that it hath been managed against the Church of Rome by the greatest and most learned Defenders of the Church of England and the most genuine sons of it ever since the Reformation R.P. But have not you seen what T. G. hath said to all that and how he hath shewed that his Witnesses were incompetent P. D. I have both seen and considered all that T. G. hath said and compared it with Dr. Stillingfleets Reply in the General Preface to his Answers And I must declare to you that if the sense of a Church may be known by the concurrent sense of her most eminent Divines or by her most Authentick Acts as by the Book of Homilies Forms of Prayer and Thanksgivings Rubricks Injunctions the Judgement of Convocation even that of MDCXL Dr. St. hath made it evident that the charge of Idolatry is agreeable to the sense of the Church of England R. P. You thought T. G. would have quitted this Post upon Dr. St's second charge but you are mistaken in him for I have brought over a Book of Dialogues from Paris wherein T. G. undertakes again to prove this to be only the Charge of Fanaticks and not of the Church of England nor of the Genuine Sons of it F. C. It is true we whom you call Fanaticks do charge the Church of Rome or rather the Synagogue of Antichrist with Idolatry for Is it not said And they Worshipped the Beast But you must know for your comfort that we do likewise charge the Church of England with it For what are all their bowings and kneelings and crossings but vain imaginations and the Worship of them is as bad as the Worship of Images And do not they make an Idol of the Common Prayer P. D. This is not fair Gentlemen but one at once I beseech you As to your charge of the Church of England I shall be ready to answer it when you can agree to bring it in I now desire to know what evidence T. G. brings to prove the Charge of Idolatry not to be agreeable to the sense of the Church of England Hath he brought other Homilies other Injunctions other Rubricks other Convocations or at least other Divines generally received and owned for the Genuine Sons of this Church who have from time to time freed the Church of Rome from Idolatry and looked upon the charge not only as unjust but pernicious and destructive to the Being of a Church Nay can he produce any one Divine of the Church of England before the Convocation MDCXL that ever said any such thing or did wholly acquit the Church of Rome from this charge If not let him not think we have a new Church made after another model and upon new principles or that those can be esteemed the genuine Sons of it who contradict the sense of the Church ever since the Reformation If there be any such among us they ought first to be proved to be true Sons of our Church before their testimony be allowed which if I be not mistaken will be much harder than to prove the Charge of Idolatry to be agreeable to the sense of it But what method doth T. G. take in this matter R.P. T. G. like a wary man disputes in Masquerade For he doth not think fit to appear in his own Person but he brings in a Conformist and a Non-conformist arguing the point And the Conformist speaks T. G.'s sense in acquitting the Church of Rome and the Non-conformist vindicates Dr. St. and makes a pitiful defence of him P.D. It was very wittily done And the Scene was well enough laid if the plot were only to represent Dr. St. as a secret enemy to the Church of England as I suppose it was But to what purpose are all those personal reflections and some repeated over and over with so much appearance of rancour and ill will as doth not become a man of any common ingenuity Can the Catholick Cause be maintained by no other Arts than these Methinks T. G. might have let the little Whifflers in Controversie such as the Authour of the Address to the Parliament and of that precious Pamphlet called Jupiter Dr. St's supreme God c. to have made a noise at they know not what crying out upon him as an enemy to the Church of England because he defends her cause to their great vexation and as a friend to Pagan Idolatry because he hath laid open the folly of yours These are such weak assaults as expose your cause to the contempt of all wise men who expect reason should be answered with reason and not with calumnies and reproaches which in my apprehension Dr. St. ought to rejoyce in as the marks of victory for while they have any other ammunition left no enemies will betake themselves to dirt and stones When I read through the First Part of T. G.'s Dialogues and observed how industriously he set himself to bespatter his Adversary and raked all the Kennels he could for that purpose especially that of the Patronus bonae Fidei c. I could not but think of an animal which being closely pursued and in great danger gets himself into the most convenient place for mire and dirt and there so layes about him with his Heels that no one dares to come near him It was certainly with some such design that T. G. hath at last taken sanctuary in a bog hoping his Adversary will never pursue him thither But notwithstanding this project of his we will try whether in spite of his heels we cannot bring him
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
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
are we not like to meet with very hopeful Demonstrations in the scientifical way from him But I have one argument yet more to prove there was no such change as to this matter in Archbishop Lauds time which is from the Convocation A. D. 1640. wherein no one questions the influence and direction of Archbishop Laud and the concurrence of those of his Party as T. G. calls them and yet in that very Book of Pet. Heylins he might have seen that Canon wherein they acknowledge the Idolatry of the Mass and T. G. could not pretend any ignorance of this for Dr. St. had quoted this very Canon to this purpose to shew that this was the sense of Archbishops Bishops and Clergy in Convocation so lately and so long after the first heats of the Reformation But what answer doth T. G. give to this which is so material a Testimony and so destructive to all he saith upon this matter R. P. I do not remember he takes notice of it but if you please I will look for I have his Book about me P. D. Not take notice of it It is impossible What! doth he pretend to answer and pass by the plainest and strongest arguments as if they had never been brought This is a very satisfactory way of answering and becoming the ingenuity of T. G. but I pray Sir look again I am afraid you wrong him I suppose you never read Dr. St.'s Books but only the Answers to them and then I do not wonder you applaud the Answers if they leave out the hardest arguments R. P. You have a little startled me with this omission I have turned over all the Leaves which relate to this matter very carefully and I cannot find one word about it surely it was an involuntary omission P. D. How could that be involuntary when it was produced and urged with great force to shew that this was no Puritanical charge no heat at the beginning of the Reformation no private opinion of particular persons but the sense of our whole Church representative even in A. D. 1640. R. P. I confess I know not what to say more for him but that it was an omission P.D. No Sir that is not all for there is a fault of commission too for he doth not only leave out this but he advances an hypothesis which he might easily see the falshood of from this single testimony viz. that the charge of Idolatry was only a heat of the beginning of the Reformation which was disowned in the time of K. Charles and Archbishop Laud when at the same time he could not but see the plainest evidence to the contrary by the Convocation of A. D. 1640. Is your cause to be supported only by such tricks as these R. P. You are too like Dr. St. whom T. G. charges with being too Tragical upon such slight occasions and flinging and laying about him unreasonably for a thing of nothing as when T. G. mistook Robert Abbot for George P. D. Call you this a thing of nothing methinks it is rather making nothing of a very substantial thing As to the other mistake I suppose we shall hear of it ere long I pray let us proceed in order R. P. Dr. St.'s third Argument is from the Rubrick at the end of the Communion the words are these Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the communicants should receive the same kneeling F.C. Hold there I pray what receive the Communion kneeling Give me leave to come in now for I perceive you are hard pressed and we ought to give friendly assistance to one another against these Church of England-men and therefore I will prove them guilty of Idolatry in receiving the Sacrament kneeling P. D. This will be a digression but I alwayes owe so much service to the Church of England as to be ready to defend it from so unjust a charge therefore to your business F. C. Mr. Case in his Sermon before the Long Parliament at a General Fast on such a day saith thus P. D. I pray Sir speak to the point I am not now at leisure to hear Mr. Cases Sermon repeated F. C. I hope you will not interrupt me P. D. Not when you speak to the business Do you understand what Idolatry is F. C. That is a question to be asked indeed as though I did not know what the cup of fornication means that is Idolatry and to bow at the name of Jesus and to bow to the Altar that is Idolatry do you think I do not know what Idolatry is Methinks you should have more reverence for a man of my years than to ask me such a sawcy Question have I preached this thirty years and more in the Army and in private Congregations and live to be asked such a question by you Sir I knew what Idolatry was before you were born P. D. Then I hope you can tell me now I am of Age to understand it F. C. Why have I not told you already P. D. I pray sir let us talk calmly and understand one another which we shall never do unless we agree what is Idolatry I pray give me the definition of it F. C. The definition When I was a young man as you are I had as many definitions in my head as any Body but we that are upon constant duties of another nature cannot trouble our Heads with Definitions or such idle notions But alas we grow old and such things are soon forgotten I remember in my younger dayes I read Bucanus Polanus and Amesius nay there was not a good Systeme of Orthodox Divinity to be had but I read it and noted it but I lost my notes in the time of the Wars and could never recover them P. D. This is a little off from our business I hope you are better at application of the point than at explication of it What is it in the Church of England you do charge with Idolatry F. C. Kneeling at the Sacrament P. D. For what reason F. C. Stay a little I thought I had my arguments at my Fingers ends but see how strangely good things slip out of our memories But now I remember I have some short notes about me which I took out of Mr. Gillespie's Idolatry of the English Popish Ceremonies and let me tell you he was a mighty man in his dayes against the Church of England and this Book of his did great execution upon the Bishops in Scotland I can remember how much it affected the Brethren in England and how we compared him to one of Davids Worthies that killed the Giants of the Philistins P. D. Sir at this rate of talking it will be night before you come to the Question methinks you seem to have nothing to say against us of the Church of England F. C. I nothing to say against you who ever heard me without having something to say against you I tell you Sir I look upon your Church
as the younger sister to the Whore of Babylon never a barrel the better herring only we can have liberty of Conscience with one and not with the other It is all one to me to bow to an Image and to bow to the Altar to worship Images and to kneel at the Sacrament P. D. I am in hopes you are now coming to the point I pray keep there without any farther rambling F. C. Call you this rambling You know Amesius saith even in controverted points much respect ought to be had to the experience of Gods people I tell you I have found it thus with me and you ought rather to hear me teach you than dispute with me P. D. All this shall not serve I must have your arguments since you urge me thus F. C. Why look ye now d' ye see how petulant and malapert these Divines of the Church of England are But since nothing will satisfie you but arguing I have an argument ready for you will do your business To Worship the Bread is Idolatry But to kneel at the Sacrament is to Worship the Bread Ergo. P. D. I am glad to find you come to any kind of Reasoning I deny that in kneeling at the Sacrament we do worship the Bread for our Church expresly declares the contrary in this Rubrick F. C. What do I care for your Church or her Rubricks I say you do worship the Bread and prove it too That which you kneel before and look towards when you worship you do give the worship to But you kneel before and look towards the bread when you worship Ergo. P. D. I begin to be afraid of you now for you do not only prove by this argument kneeling at the Sacrament but reading the Common Prayer to be Idolatry For if that which we kneel before and look towards when we worship must be the object of our worship it is plain we must indeed make an Idol of the Common Prayer for every time we read it we kneel before it and looks towards it when we worship F. C. Look you to that I alwayes took the Common Prayer for an Idol but I did not think I had proved it now P. D. I shall endeavour to undeceive you in this matter Since we are not pure spirits but must worship God with our bodies by kneeling and looking towards something in our Acts of Worship we must not determine that to be the object of our Worship which our bodies are bended towards or we look upon in our worship unless there be some other reason for it for then Idolatry would be necessary and unavoidable For we cannot kneel with our eyes open but we must look upon some creature which according to your way of arguing must be the object of our Worship I pray Sir without being angry give me leave to ask you whether a man kneeling in the Fields and praying with his eyes lifted up to Heaven be an Idolater or not F. C. I think not P. D. Yet he kneels towards some creature and looks upon some creature when he worships therefore you must prove by some other way that we do make the bread the Object of our Worship But this we utterly deny and say the doing it is Idolatry and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And will you make us worship it whether we will or no F. C. But you use the same postures which the Papists do and yet you charge them with Idolatry P. D. Because this is a thing many of you stumble at I will make the difference of our case and theirs plain to you In all moral Acts we are to have a great great regard to their circumstances from whence they take a different denomination He that kills a man by accident and he that kills a man out of malice do the very same thing as to the substance of the Act yet no man will say it is the same act upon a moral consideration We kneel and the Papists kneel but we declare when we kneel we intend no adoration to the Elements but the Papists cannot deny that they do give proper adoration to that which is before them which we say is bread and they say the Body of Christ under the species of bread and yet not meerly to the invisible Body of Christ but taking the species of bread as united to that Body of Christ and so directing their worship to these two together as the proper objects of divine adoration And to make this evident to you their adoration is performed at the Elevation of the Host and at the carrying it about in processions and at the exposing it on their Altars and not meerly in the participation of it Whence it is observable that the Church of Rome doth not strictly require kneeling at the participation which it would do if it looked on the kneeling at receiving as a proper Act of Adoration The Rubricks of the Mass do not that I can find require the Priest to kneel in the Act of receiving and the Pope when he celebrates receives sitting Espencaeus saith in the Church of Lions many of the People did not receive kneeling and upon complaint made about it they were by the advice of two Cardinals left to their old custome And I wonder your Brethren have not taken notice of the difference of kneeling at the elevation of the Host and in the Act of receiving it the one was required by the Constitution of Honorius and was intended for an act of adoration to the Host the other was derived from the ancient Church which although it did not alwayes use the same posture of adoration that we do yet it is sufficient for our purpose if they received the Sacrament in the same posture in which they worshipped God And this I could easily prove if this were a place or season for it F. C. Well Sir I do not love disputing I pray go on with your former Adversary R. P. Sir I thank you for the diversion you have given us if you please I will now return to the place where we left I was about to tell you the Answer T. G. gives to Dr. St.'s third Argument from the Rubrick at the end of the Communion The words are It is here declared that by kneeling no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians and the natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one About which Dr. St. charges T. G. first with Ignorance in saying it was not yet above a douzen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book whereas he might have
found it above a hundred years before in the Liturgie of Edw. 6. To which T. G. answers That the various fate of this Rubrick first in not being annexed till the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. and being cast out again in the year 1562. and then admitted again almost a hundred years after is no eviction to him that the charge of Idolatry is the dogmatical doctrine of the Church of England P. D. If this were all the declaration our Church had made of her sense and the intention of this Rubrick were only to declare this point of Idolatry there were some probability in what T. G. suggests But I have shewed already how fully our Church hath declared her sense about Romish Idolatry by other wayes and the design of this Rubrick was not to express her sense of Idolatry so much as to give satisfaction to those who scrupled the lawfulness of kneeling For which cause it was first put in and afterwards not thought necessary to be continued when persons were better satisfied about the intention of our Church But when after long disuse and violent prejudices the dissenters were grown unacquainted with the design and intention of our Church there was the same reason for inserting it again which held at first for putting it in And what now hath T. G. gained by this observation If it had been as he imagined what he had gotten in one point he had lost in another for then it would appear that there was no such heat in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths dayes if they were willing to leave out such a declaration of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome at that time when Q. Elizabeths Title was the most disputed at Rome so that from hence appears the vanity of T. G.'s former observation and how far they were from taking things into our Liturgie out of spite to the Pope nay so far were they from this that in the first year of Q. Elizabeth that petition in the Letany was left out which had been inserted by Henry 8. and continued in both Liturgies of Edw. 6. From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities Good Lord And this he might have found in the same Historian And was not the title of Head of the Church taken by her Father and Brother so qualified and explained then as might prevent any occasion of quarreling at it by the most captious persons Do these passages look like doing things on purpose to provoke and exasperate and out of pure spite to the Pope or like putting in things on purpose to heighten the differences when T. G. himself confesses they left out this Rubrick and it is evident they did leave out some of the most provoking expressions R. P. I see you cannot bear the charge of intemperate heat on the beginning of the Reformation P. D. I cannot bear such an unreasonable and unjust imputation as this is and I have a particular esteem for the Wisdom Learning and Piety which was shewed in the Ecclesiastical part of our Reformation But how doth T. G. take off the charge of Idolatry in this Rubrick R. P. He saith he takes the meaning of it not to be the denying adoration to be due in regard of Christs Body being present spiritually but truly in the Sacrament but only that no adoration ought to be done to any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood as the word Corporal is taken to signifie the natural manner of a bodies being present For which he gives these reasons 1. Because those words in the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. No adoration ought to be done to any real or essential being of Christs natural flesh and blood are now changed into any corporal presence of Christ natural flesh and blood 2. Because the Protestant Divines do yield the real presence of Christs Body for which he quotes Bishop Taylor and Bishop Cosins and he desires Dr. St. so to explain these words as not to undermine the constant doctrine of the Church of England concerning the real presence and leave us nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it P. D. I am so much his Friend that at this time I will undertake this task for him First We must consider the words of the Rubrick 2. How this sense of it can be reconciled with the real presence as owned by the Church of England 1. For the meaning of the Rubrick We are to consider that the Rubrick denies adoration to be intended either unto the Sacramental bread and wine or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood And after it gives two distinct reasons for denying adoration to either of these 1. To the Sacramental bread and wine for this reason because they remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians 2. To the corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood because the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one You see here are two plainly distinct reasons given for denying adoration to the elements and to the Natural Body of Christ. The former is said to be Idolatry the latter to be absurd and unreasonable it being repugnant to the truth of Christs body to be in more places than one at one time So that the sense of the Rubrick lyes in these two propositions 1. That it is Idolatry to give adoration to the elements remaining in their natural substances 2. That it is absurd to believe Christs natural body to be present because then it must be in more places than one which is repugnant to the truth of a body These things to my apprehension are the plain and natural sense of this Rubrick R. P. But we do not give adoration to the Sacramental elements but to the Body of Christ. P. D. I do believe I can prove that you give adoration to the Sacramental Elements as they make up one entire object of adoration with the body of Christ but that is not my present business which is to shew the sense of our Church which lyes in these particulars 1. That the Sacramental Elements do remain in their natural substances after consecration 2. That to adore them so remaining is Idolatry and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians No one questions the former to be the sense of our Church the only question lyes in the later whether that be Idolatry or no It is no question that to give divine adoration to any creature is Idolatry and it is so acknowledged on all sides the only question then can be whether the substance of bread and wine be a creature or not and this is no question with any man in his wits therefore to give adoration to the substance of bread and wine is Idolatry No demonstration
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
born of the Virgin by a new and extravagant supposition of the Sacrament being the medium of uniting two real bodies of Christ viz. of his flesh and of his Church and therefore that must be a real body of Christ too which is so remote from justifying Paschasius his doctrine that Cellotius himself is ashamed of him This same doctrine of Rabanus and Ratramnus is expresly owned by the Saxon Homilies which deny the Sacrament to be a meer commemoration according to the opinion of Joh. Erigena but say that after consecration the bread becomes the Body of Christ after a spiritual and mystical manner and in the Saxon Code of Canons it is expresly determined not to be that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. And this I assert to be the very same doctrine which the Church of England embraced upon the Reformation as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers which although it doth declare against the natural Body of Christ being in more places than one even that Body of Christ which is in heaven yet in the Articles it declares that the body of Christ is given taken and eaten so that to the faithful receivers the Bread consecrated and broken becomes the Communion of the Body of Christ and the cup of blessing the communion of the Blood of Christ. And so in the Catechism it is said that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper i. e. that after consecration such a divine power and efficacy doth accompany the Holy Sacrament as makes the elements to become the Spiritual and mystical Body of Christ as the Church is really but mystically the Body of Christ because of his Spirit dwelling in them So the Apology of our Church saith that in the Lords Supper there is truly exhibited the Body and Blood of Christ because that is the proper food of our souls as Bread and Wine tends to the nourishment of our Bodiess And if the time would permit I could not only more largely prove this to be the sense of our Church but that it is the true and genuine sense of the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church And thus I hope I have done that which T. G. thought so impossible a thing viz. to explain this Rubrick so as not to undermine the doctrine of the real presence asserted by the Church of England nor to leave nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it R. P. I was afraid of a Paradox and it appears not without Reason for I never met with any one yet who explained the doctrine of Bertram and the Church of England after this manner and all that attempted it talked so in the clouds that transubstantiation it self did not seem more hard to understand but I remember Pet. de Marca hath proved that the Book of Bertram was the same which was written by Joh. Scotus and therefore your hypothesis is utterly overthrown P. D. I have read and considered that faint attempt of that Great Man which seemed to be designed for no other end but to make us believe that Bertrams Book was burned for heretical at the Synod of Vercelles but if any one will impartially consider the Book of Bertram and compare it with the account given of the opinion of Joh. Scotus by the Writers against Berengarius they will find De Marca's opinion without the least colour of probability R. P. But Card. Perron Mauguin Cellotius and Arnaud all say that Bertram in the First part disputes against the Stercoranists who were a sort of Hereticks who held that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist was passible corruptible and digestible and in all things just as the bread appeared to our senses and asserted that all the accidents of the Bread were founded hypostatically in the Body of Christ and not to have any proper subsistence of their own P. D. These were a notable sort of Hereticks if they could be found but it appears by the enemies of Berengarius that this opprobrious name was fixed by them on all those who asserted the substance of the Bread to remain after consecration and it would be very strange if Bertram should confute that which himself asserts for he saith the Sacramental Elements do pass into the nourishment of our Bodies But if any were lyable to this accusation it must be Paschasius if Pet. de Marca's observation of him be true that he held both substance and quantity of the Bread and Wine to be turned into the Body of Christ from whence it follows that must be the subject of all those accidents which were in the Bread before which is the very sink of Stercoranism Nay I am very much deceived if Pope Nicholas 2. in the recantation prescribed to Berengarius did not fall into the filth of it far more than Rabanus or Heribaldus for he asserts therein that the Body of Christ is truly and sensibly handled and broken by the hands of Priests and ground by the teeth of Believers But what place could be fitter for this Heresie than the Sedes Stercoraria And Guitmundus striving to help Pope Nicholas and his Council out falls into the same Heresie himself for he shews that Christs Body may be handled and chewed in the Sacrament if so it must be the subject of the Accidents of the Bread and Wine Which according to Perron and his followers is plain Stercorâ—nism R. P. But do not you fall into another Heresie viz. of Impanation P. D. A man had need look to his words when Heresies are so common and buz so about a mans ears And some think they confute a man with a vengeance if they can find out some Heresie with a hard name to fasten upon him But if you did know wherein the heresie of Impanation lay you would never charge this doctrine of our Church with it For I find two distinct wayes of Impanation and this doctrine is lyable to neither of them 1. By union of the Bread to the Body of Christ and by that to the Divinity which was the way of Joh. Parisiensis 2. By an immediate conjunction of the Divine Nature to the Bread not meerly by divine efficacy and power but by an Hypostatical Vnion which is the opinion not without ground attributed to Rupertus Tuitiensis and is lyable to this great absurdity that all that befals the Bread may be attributed to the person of Christ which Bellarmine saith it is blasphemy to imagine And then it might be said that the bread is God that the Word is made Bread and that God is both bread and wine But all which the doctrine of our Church implyes is only a real presence of Christs invisible power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men As the Bodies assumed by Angels might be called their Bodies while they assumed them or rather as the
upwards and downwards forwards and backwards it may be hot in one place and cold in another it may be alive in one place and dead in another and which is the highest contradiction one would think by force of this principle a man may be damned in one place and saved in another And no less a man than Ysambertus hath defended the possibility of this upon this principle for saith he a man as in one place may be killed in a mortal sin and so be damned whereas in another place he may have contrition and absolution and so be saved But Vasquez asks an untoward Question suppose such a man be reduced to one place whether shall he be saved or damned for he cannot then be both and there is no more reason he should be put out of the state of Grace by the state of sin than out of the state of sin by the state of Grace Such horrible contradictions do men run into rather than let go an absurd hypothesis and Suarez confesseth that a Sacramental Presence is liable to the same contradictions because that supposeth a capacity for Acts of the Mind under it 4. I say that asserting a Body to be present naturally in one place and spiritually and indivisibly in more doth involve more contradictions in it than to be present in several places after a natural manner For the very manner of a bodies being present indivisibly carries contradictions along with it peculiar to it self For whereever there is a body there must be quantity and whereever there is quantity there must be divisibility how then can a divisible body be indivisibly present If they say it is after the manner of a Spirit that doth by no means salve the contradiction for how can a body be after the manner of a Spirit and if it can how can the notion of Body and Spirit be differenced from each other If actual extension may be separated from a Body why not quantity it self why may not divisibility be separated from a line and two and two not make actually four supposing that they retain their intrinsick aptitude to do it What becomes of the differences of greater and less since that which is greater may be contained under the less and so the very same thing will be greater or less greater and not greater than it self What notion can we have of distance since here a Body is supposed to have all its organical parts head breast legs and feet and yet no local distance between Head and Feet R. P. I see it is a dangerous thing to give you but a hint about transubstantiation if you but once take the scent you run on so fast that it is a very hard matter to take you off I did not think this Rubrick could have held us thus long but I see you were resolved to have two or three throws at transubstantiation in passing though I warned you before about it P. D. No Sir It was T. G.'s fixing such an absurd sense upon our Church as though she made it Idolatry to Worship Christs Body as present after a corporeal manner and not after another which made me insist so long upon this R. P. What saith my Fanatick Acquaintance to all this What! sleeping F. C. Only a Nod or two I hearkened a while but I found you were about hard and unsavoury notions truly it was to me no awakening discourse R. P. Come come we will keep you waking we are now come to the Puritan Cause F. C. Ay Ay there is some life in that R. P. What think you was Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury a Puritan or not F. C. What! a Bishop a Puritan a good one I warrant you a Puritan in Lawn sleeves a Puritan with Cross and Surplice You know well what belongs to a Puritan do you not I tell you there never was a true Puritan but abhorred these things with all his heart What do you tell me of a Bishop of Salisbury for a Puritan I say again if he had been so he would have taken his Lawn sleeves and thrown them into the Fire P. D. But I pray Sir how comes in this discourse about Bishop Abbot R. P. I will tell you Among other Divines produced by Dr. St. to prove the charge of Idolatry maintained against the Church of Rome in K. James his time one was Bishop Abbot in his answer to Bishop T. G. takes this to be Archbishop Abbot and excepts against him as an abettor of the Puritan party and tells from Dr. Heylin that on that account it was thought necessary to suspend him from his Metropolitical Visitation Dr. St. makes sport with his Suspending a Bishop of Salisbury from Metropolitical jurisdiction and tells what strange things those of the Church of Rome can do with five words and upbraids T. G. with Ignorance of our Church and in truth is too Tragical upon such a slight occasion Now T. G. proves that it was only a mistake of the person and not of his quality although Dr. St. saith that he was never till now suspected for a Puritan P. D. Are you sure of that R. P. Yes T. G. saith so more than once P. D. However it is good to be sure These are Dr. St.'s words The two first he excepts against are the two Archbishops Whitgift and Abbot as Puritanically inclined but as it unhappily falls out one of them was never mentioned by me and the other never till now suspected for a Puritan I pray advise T. G. to read a little more carefully before he confutes Is it not plain that he means Archbishop Abbot was never mentioned by him and Archbishop Whitgift was never till now suspected for a Puritan It could be no want of understanding in T. G. to make him thus misconstrue his words R. P. But he proves he was Puritanically inclined and takes off his Testimony P. D. How doth he prove that R. P. From Dr. Heylin whose Histories serve us to many a good purpose for he saith he was a Calvinian though a moderate one that he was an enemy to Bishop Laud in the Vniversity that he commends Mr. Perkins and wrote his last Book of Grace and Perseverance of the Saints P. D. Very wonderful proofs As though many of the stiffest Defenders of our Church against the Puritan party had not been inclining to Calvinism as it is called in the point of Predestination especially in that moderate way wherein R. Abbot asserted it As though it were not possible for men to be zealous for our Liturgie and Ceremonies if they held the doctrine of Election and Perseverance But we do not want those of the Highest Order of our Church at this day who are eminent for Learning and Piety and Zeal for the Church who would take it very ill from T. G. upon the account of those opinions to be thought enemies to the Church of England as no doubt the Puritans were But T. G. runs on with this perpetual mistake when
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
Christian trust his soul with that Church which teaches that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not the Figure 13. There is neither Scripture nor Tradition for worshipping the Cross the Images and Reliques of Saints Therefore it evidences the same carnal hope that God will abate of his Gospel for such bribes Which is the Will-worship of Masses Pilgrimages and Indulgences to that purpose 14. Neither Scripture nor Tradition is there for the removing any soul out of Purgatory unto the Beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement Therefore the same carnal hope is seen in the Will-worship of Masses Indulgences Pilgrimages and the like for that purpose and that destructive to the salvation of all that believe that the guilt of their sins is taken away by submitting to the Keys before they be contrite and the temporal penalty remaining in Purgatory paid by these Will-worships 15. Both Scripture and Tradition condemn the deposing of Princes and acquitting their subjects of their Allegiance and enjoyning them to take Arms for them whom the Pope substitutes And this doctrine is not only false but in my opinion properly Heresie yet practised by so many Popes The Church may be divided that salvation may be had on both sides Instances The Schisms of the Popes The Schism of Acacius The Schism between the Greeks and the Latins I hold the Schism for the Reformation to be of this kind But I do not allow Salvation to any that shall change having these reasons before him though I allow the Reformation not to be perfect in some points of less moment as prayer for the dead and others Remember alwayes that the Popish Church of England can never be Canonically governed being immediately under the Pope 16. There is both Scripture and Tradition for the Scriptures and Service in a known Tongue and for the Eucharist in both Kinds How then can any Christian trust his soul with that Church which hath the Conscience to bar him of such helps provided by God These are all his own words without addition or alteration And what think you now of Mr. Thorndike was this man a secret Friend to the Church of Rome do you think who saith so plainly that a man cannot embrace the Communion of that Church without hazard of his salvation R. P. I did little think by the Use T. G. on all occasions makes of him that he had been a man of such principles But I think T. G. had as good have let him alone as have given occasion for producing such Testimonies of the thoughts which a man of his Learning and Fame had concerning the Church of Rome However you see he holds the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and can you reconcile this to what you asserted to be the Doctrine of the Church of England P. D. Yes very well If you compare what he saith here with what he declares more at large in his Book wherein you may read these remarkable words to this purpose If it can any way be shewed that the Church did ever pray that the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements under the accidents of them then I am content that this be accounted henceforth the Sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist But if the Church only pray that the Spirit of God coming down upon the Elements may make them the Body and Blood of Christ so that they which receive them may be filled with the Grace of his Spirit then is it not the sense of the Catholick Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance because supposing that they remain they may nevertheless come to be the instrument of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive it no otherwise than his flesh and blood conveyed the efficacy thereof upon earth and that I suppose is reason enough to call it the Body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally that is to say as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist And in two or three places more he speaks to the same purpose R. P. Hold Sir I beseech you you have said enough you will fall back again to transubstantiation in spite of my heart P. D. What when I only answer a Question you asked me R. P. Enough of Mr. Thorndike unless he were more our Friend than I find he was I pray what say you to Archbishop Whitgift P. D. Hath T. G. perswaded you that he is turned Puritan above seventy years after his death who never was suspected for it while he was living nor since till the transforming dayes of T. G. R. P. You may jeer as you please but T. G. tells a notable story of the Lambeth Articles and how Q. Elizabeths black Husband was like to have been divorced from her upon them and how K. James would not receive them into the Articles of the Church And all this as well as many other good things he hath out of one Pet. Heylin Is the man alive I pray that we may give him our due thanks for the service he hath done us upon many occasions For we have written whole Books against the Reformation out of his History of it and I find T. G. relyes as much upon him as other good Catholicks do on Cochlaeus and Surius or as he doth at other times on the Patronus bonae Fidei P. D. Dr. Heylin was a man of very good parts and Learning and who did write History pleasantly enough but in some things he was too much a party to be an Historian and being deeply concerned in some quarrels himself all his Historical writings about our Church do plainly discover which side he espoused which to me doth not seem to agree with the impartiality of an Historian And if he could but throw dirt on that which he accounted the Puritan party from the Beginning of the Reformation he mattered not though the whole Reformation suffered by it But for all this he was far from being a Friend either to the Church or Court of Rome and next to Puritanism I believe he hated Popery most so that if he had been alive and you had gone to thank him for the service he had done you in all probability you had provoked him to have written as sharply against you as ever he wrote against the Puritans But what is all this to Archbishop Whitgifts being suspected for a Puritan Dares Pet. Heylin suggest any such thing no he knew him too well and saith that by his contrivance the Puritan Faction was so muzled that they were not able to bark in a long time after Had he then any suspicion of his being Puritanically inclined And as to the Lambeth Articles they only prove that he held those opinions contained in them and recommended them to the Vniversity to suppress the disputes which had been there raised concerning them And what then doth this render him
suspected for a Puritan at that time when many of the greatest Anti-Puritans were zealous defenders of those opinions In all Q. Elizabeth's time and after the name of Puritans signified the opposers of our Government and the Service and Orders of our Church and some have undertaken to name the Person who first applyed this name to the asserters of these doctrinal points towards the latter end of K. James This is certain which is most material to our purpose that when K. Charles I. published his Declaration to prevent unnecessary Disputations about these points he saith that they did all agree in the true usual literal meaning of the said Articles of our Church and that even in those curious points in which the present differences lye men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them which is an argument again none of them intend any desertion of the Articles established And which is a certain argument that even at that time no man was charged with disaffection to the Church of England meerly on the account of these doctrinal points R. P. But what was it which Archbishop Whitgift saith for T. G. saith even that will involve him more in the suspicion of Puritanism P. D. His words are these I do as much mislike the distinction of the Papists and the intent of it as any man doth neither do I go about to excuse them from wicked and without repentance and Gods singular mercy damnable Idolatry This is enough to Dr. St.'s purpose and afterwards he saith he placeth the Papists among wicked and damnable Idolaters Is not this home do you think R. P. But doth not he say that one kind of Idolatry is when the true God is worshipped by other means and wayes than he hath prescribed or would be Worshipped and according to Dr. St. this is the Fundamental principle of those who separate from the Church of England that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what he hath expresly commanded therefore according to Dr. St. himself Archbishop Whitgift was a Puritan P. D. It is notably argued I confess and thence it follows if Archbishop Whitgift had understood the force of his own principle he must have separated from the Church of England But is it not plain to the common sense of any man that Archbishop Whitgift writing on behalf of our Ceremonies and against this very principle in T. G. his words could not bear that meaning and therefore Dr. St. had great reason to say that his meaning in those words was against his express command as appears by the application of them So that either you must make Archbishop Whitgift so weak a man as to overthrow the design of his whole Book or this must be his meaning which Dr. St. assigns R. P. But Dr. St. himself makes the charging Papists to be Idolaters a distinctive sign of Puritanism P. D. Are you in earnest I pray when and where For then I am sure he contradicts himself for his design is to prove just the contrary Name me the page I beseech you that I may judge of it R. P. Why doth he not say that it is the Fundamental principle of Puritanism that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what he hath expresly commanded P. D. And what then R. P. Then Hold a little then it will not do P. D. I think not truly If this be the Fundamental principle of Puritans that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what is commanded then to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry is a distinctive sign of Puritanism How many Cords are necessary to tye these two together 1. Can no one charge the Papists with Idolatry but by vertue of this principle I do hold whatever God hath not forbidden to be lawful in his Worship but may not I at the same time hold some kind of prohibited Worship to be Idolatry I can hardly imagine a man of T. G.'s subtilty could write thus But that you have the Book by you and tell me so I could not have believed it 2. Those who do hold this principle do not presently make every thing unlawful to be an Idol by vertue of it For they do not deduce this unlawfulness from the prohibition of Idolatry but from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule of Worship and they say we must not add thereto and therefore no humane invention must be used in the Worship of God Now judge you whether according to this principle there can be nothing unlawful but it must be an Idol R. P. This was an oversight I suppose in him Let it pass But what makes D. St. vary so much from his old principle in his Irenicum wherein he asserted that nothing is lawful in the immediate Worship of God but what is commanded this must come either from a greater light of the Spirit or from the weighty considerations mentioned by the Patronus bonae Fidei when he saith quicquid Cl. Stilling-fleet delinitus occaecatus opimitate obesitate suorum sacerdotiorum c. P. D. For the malicious suggestions of so wretched a calumniator as the Patronus bonae Fidei appears to be throughout that Book they are not worth taking notice of by any one that doth not search for dunghils It is Dr. St.'s honour to be reproached by a man who hath made it his business to reproach the best Church in Christendome and to undermine all Churches above thirty years and yet the ungrateful creature hath in some measure lived upon the Revenues of that Church himself which he hath so shamefully reviled being in great part supported by the Bounty of a very worthy and learned Church-man who is nearly related to him But as to the contradiction charged on Dr. St. I begin to suspect T. G. more than ever I did For doth not Dr. St. in that place distinguish between immediate Acts and parts of Worship and circumstances belonging to those Acts even in the very words alledged by T. G. And doth not he say expresly that he doth not speak of these but of the former And is not the very same distinction used by Bishop Andrews Bishop Sanderson and the most zealous defenders of the Rites of our Church Why then must he be supposed to have changed his mind as to this principle when he said no more at that time than what the most genuine Sons of our Church have asserted among whom I do not question Bishop Andrews and Bishop Sanderson will be allowed to pass And they distinguish after the same manner between the necessary parts of Worship for which they suppose a command necessary as well as Dr. St. and the accidental and mutable circumstances attending the same for order comeliness and edifications sake which are lawful if not contrary to Gods command And doth not Dr. St. say the very same thing viz. that in matters of meer decency and
order in the Church of God it is enough to make things lawful if they are not forbidden Let us now compare this saying with what he calls the Fundamental principle of Separation that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what he hath expresly commanded and can any thing be more contradictory to this than what Dr. St. layes down as a principle in that very page of his Irenicum that an express positive command is not necessary to make a thing lawful but a non-prohibition by a Law is sufficient for that Where then lay T. G.'s understanding or ingenuity when he mentions such a great change in the Dr. as to this principle when he owned the very same principle even in that Book and that very page he quotes to the contrary T. G. doth presume good Catholick Readers will take his word without looking farther and I scarce ever knew a Writer who stands more in need of the good opinion of his Reader in this kind than T. G. doth As I shall make it fully appear if you hold on this discourse with me for I have taken some pains to consider T. G.'s manner of dealing with his Adversary But this is too gross a way of imposing upon the credulity of Readers yet this is their common method of dealing with Dr. St. When they intend to write against him then have you Dr. St. 's Irenicum hoping to find matter there to expose him to the hatred of the Bishops and to represent him as unfit to defend the Church of England If this takes not then they pick sentences and half-sentences from the series of the discourse and laying these together cry Look ye here is this a man fit to defend your Church that so contradicts himself thus and thus when any common understanding by comparing the places will find them either falsely represented or easily reconciled In truth Sir I think you have shewed as little learning or skill or ingenuity in answering him as any one Adversary that ever appeared against your Church and especially when T. G. goes about to prove that he contradicts himself or the sense of the Church of England R. P. But I pray tell me if this charge of Idolatry were agreeable to the sense of the Church of England why the Articles of the Church do only reject the Romish Doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration of Images not as Idolatry but as a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God For I perceive this sticks much with T. G. and from hence he concludes Dr. St. to contradict the sense of it who is the Champion of the Church of England P. D. I perceive T. G. kept this for a parting blow after which he thought fit to breath a while having spent so many spirits in this encounter but methinks his arm grows feeble and although his fury be as great as ever yet his strength is decayed And in my mind it doth not become a man of his Chivalry so often to leave his Lance and to run with open mouth upon his Adversary and to bite till his Teeth meet For what mean the unhandsome reflections he makes on all occasions upon his being the Champion of the Church of England and the Church of Englands having cause to be ashamed of such a Champion and of his putting him in mind of his duty as the Champion of the Church not to betray the Church he pretends to defend Where doth he ever assume any such title to himself or ever entred the lists but on the account of obedience or upon great provocation The name of Champion savours too much of vanity and ostentation whereas he only shewed how easily the Cause could be defended when his superiours first commanded such a stripling as he then was to undertake the defence of it But I shall set aside these reflections and come to the point of our Articles and therein consider 1. What T. G. objects 2. What Dr. St. answered 3. Which way the sense of the Articles is to be interpreted T. G. looks upon it as a notable observation that the Compilers of the 39 Articles in which is contained the doctrine of the Church of England sufficiently insinuate that they could find no such command forbidding the Worship of Images when they rejected the adoration of Images not as Idolatry but only as a fond thing vainly invented nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture but as rather repugnant to the word of God which qualification of theirs gives us plainly to understand that they had done their endeavours to find such a command but could meet with none To which Dr. St. gives this answer that the force of all he saith lyes upon the words of the English translation whereas if he had looked on the Latin wherein they give account of their doctrine to foreign Churches this Criticism had been lost the words being immo verbo Dei contradicit whereby it appears that rather is not used as a term of diminution but of a more vehement affirmation And what saith T. G. I pray to this R. P. T. G. repeats his own words at large and then blames the compilers of the Articles for want of Grammar if they intend the word rather to affect the words that follow P. D. But what is all this to the Latin Articles which Dr. St. appealed to for explication of the English And for the Love of Grammar let T. G. tell us whether there be not a more vehement affirmation in those words immo verbo Dei contradicit Either T. G. should never have mentioned this more or have said something more to the purpose For doth he think our Bishops and Clergy were not careful that their true sense were set forth in the Latin Articles And their sense being so peremptory herein and contrary to T.G. is there not all the reason in the world to explain the English Articles by the Latin since we are sure they had not two meanings This is so plain I am ashamed to say a word more to it R. P. But T. G. is very pleasant in describing the arguments Dr. St. brings to prove the Articles to make the worship of Images Idolatry because it is called Adoration of Images and said to be the Romish Doctrine about adoration But after the Cat hath plaid with the Mouse as long as he thinks fit leaping and frisking with him in his claws at last he falls on him with his Teeth and hardly leaves a bone behind him After he hath muster'd his arguments and drawn them out in rank and file and made one charge upon another for the pleasure of the Reader he then gives him a plain and solid answer viz. by the words Romish doctrine concerning adoration of Images may be understood either the Doctrine taught in her Schools which being but the opinions of particular persons no man is bound to follow or
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
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
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
as the travellers did to Polus in Erasmus or that it is clear or manifest of it self and that it is not so he saith appears by the pains and wayes he takes to find it out P. D. This is yet a degree lower By clearly and expresly Dr. St. means that which is so to an unprejudiced mind For there is nothing so plain but men may cavil at it Not the Being of God not the certainty of our senses not the differences of Good and Evil not the coming of the Messias not the Truth of the Scriptures But will T. G. say that none of these are clear because men are put to pains and several wayes to prove them If therefore Dr. St. hath shewed that all the evasions of the force of the second Commandment are meer cavils and would take off as well the force of any other Commandment if men thought themselves as much concerned to do it I think he hath proved the sense of the Commandment to be clear and express against the Worship of God by an Image And for his Friend Polus you know it doth not look well in conversation for a man to repeat his own Jests But you named a third passage T. G. repeats out of his former Book What is that I pray R. P. That concerns Dr. St.'s first way of finding out the sense of the Law For he saith the Law doth only expresly forbid bowing down to the Images themselves as the Heathens did but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by them and upon this he upbraids Dr. St. that spending above a hundred pages about the sense of the second Commandment he neither endeavours to remove the contradictions nor to answer the arguments of T. G. P. D. Then truly he deserved pity and to have his Friends come in to help him they are such wonderful contradictions and mighty arguments But Dr. St. hath at large proved 1. That the Heathens did not take the Images themselves for Gods in a large discourse to that purpose and consequently this command was not express against the Heathen Idolatry in T. G.'s sense of it 2. That the Fathers did understand this Commandment to be expresly against the Worship of God by an Image in another large discourse which he concludes with those words of S. Ambrose Non vult se Deus in lapidibus coli God will not be worshipped in Stones And is this nothing to the answering T. G.'s arguments 3. That the Worship of God before the Ark and the Cherubims the only argument of T. G. doth not reach to the Worship of God by Images and this in another set discourse 4. That God did afterwards explain his own Law by condemning the Worship of himself by Images in the case of the Golden Calf and the Calves of Dan and Bethel and he punctually answers T. G.'s objections And after all this Is it not great tenderness and modesty in T. G. to say that Dr. St. only Criticizeth upon T. G. 's exceptions and doth neither remove the contradictions nor answer the Arguments of T. G. I never yet saw plainer evidence of a forlorn Cause than these things give By this taste I begin to fear when we come to the charge of Idolatry we shall find very little new or material However being thus far engaged I am resolved God willing to attend you quite through his late Dialogues and if you please at our next meeting we will enter upon the charge of Idolatry and I will undertake to make good the charge and I shall expect from you T. G.'s answers R. P. I will not fail and I pray Brother Fanatick let us have your company for I have a terrible charge against the Church of England for bowing to the Altar F. C. I shall be glad to hear that with all my heart THE Third Conference About the Nature of Idolatry P. D. WE are now entring upon a weighty business and therefore without any preface to it I begin Dr. St. in his late Defence hath undertaken to clear the Nature of Idolatry by considering two things 1. Whether it were consistent with the acknowledgement of one supreme God 2. Wherein the Nature of that Divine Worship lyes which being given to a Creature makes it Idolatry 1. To clear the former he considered who those are which by common consent are charged with Idolatry and from thence he supposed the best resolution of the question might be gathered and those were 1. the Ancient Heathens 2. Modern Heathens 3. the Arrians And concerning these he proved that they did all acknowledge one supreme God and consequently the Notion of Idolatry could not consist in the Worship of many independent Deities 1. As to the Ancient Heathens 1. From the Testimony of Scripture 2. From their own Writers in the Roman Church of whom he names twelve considerable ones 3. From the Fathers and there he shews from a multitude of plain Testimonies that the state of the Controversie about Idolatry between the Fathers and Heathens was not about a supreme God which was acknowledged on both sides but whether Divine Worship were to be given to any Creatures on the account of any supposed excellency in themselves or relation to God And so he draws the History of this controversie through the several Ages of Justin Martyr Athenagoras Clemens of Alexandria Origen Cyril S. Augustin c. In short through all those who did with greatest reputation to Christianity manage this Cause against the Heathen Idolaters 2. As to modern Heathens two wayes 1. From the Testimony of your own Writers concerning the Brachmans Chineses Tartars Americans Africans Goths and Laplanders 2. From the Testimony of the Congregation of Cardinals in a remarkable case about Idolatry in China wherein their resolution was desired 3. As to the Arrians he proves from Athanasius Gr. Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Epiphanius Cyril Theodoret S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin that the Arrians were unanimously charged with Idolatry although they did acknowledge but one God and supposed the greatest created excellencies to be in Christ and believed the Worship of Christ tended to the honour of the Father 2. As to the Nature of Divine Worship He proceeds in this method 1. To shew what Worship is which he distinguishes from honour the one relating to bare excellency the other to Superiority and Power which distinction he proves from the most eminent School Divines 2. What Divine Worship is viz. such a subjection of our selves to God as shews his peculiar Soveraignty over us from whence he proceeds to manifest That there are some peculiar external Acts of Divine Worship which he proves 1. From the Nature and design of Religious Worship and here he enquires into the distinction of Civil and Religious Worship which he saith as other moral actions is to be taken from the circumstances of them and from hence came the institution of solemn rites for Religious Worship And the best
indifferent Rite there had been some reason for what T. G. saith But the force of what Dr. St. said lay not meerly in their having no Images in Churches in the Primitive times but in the Reasons given by the Primitive Christians against the Worship of them From whence he hath at large proved that the Primitive Christians did look on the Worship of Images as utterly unlawful by the Law of God although the Object represented did deserve Worship And this I take to be one of the most material Discourses in Dr. St.'s Book to the present Controversie and which he lays the greatest weight upon For he insists upon these several particulars 1. That they judged such a representation of God by Images to be unsuitable to his Nature for which he produceth the Testimonies of Clemens Alexandr Justin Martyr Athenagoras Origen S. Hierom S. Augustin and others 2. That they looked on the Worship of Images as repugnant to the Will of God as being contrary to the second Commandment which did oblige Christians 3. That to suppose that they looked on the worship of Images as a thing indifferent is to charge the Primitive Christians with great hypocrisie 4. That the Christian Church continued to have the same opinion about the worship of Images after the Pagan Idolatry was suppressed 5. That it was no just excuse in the sense of the Primitive Church that they worshipped a true object or gave only an inferiour worship to the Images for the sake of those represented by them 6. That Ignorance and Superstition first brought in the worship of Images which was still condemned by the best Divines of the Church 7. That the Worship of Images came to be established in the Church by very indirect means such as Treason calumnies lyes and burning and suppressing all Books against it 8. That when it was established by the second Council of Nice it was vehemently opposed by the Western Church at the Council of Francford and that this Council of Nice was never owned in the Western Church for a General Council till the Reformation began And now I pray was it possible for T. G. to overlook all these things or was it fair to pretend to answer Dr. St.'s Book wherein all these things are and yet to pass them over as if they had never been written If this be the way of making Just Discharges I am afraid T. G.'s credit cannot hold out long for this is not after the rate of five shillings in the pound and for all that I see Dr. St. may take out the Statute against him However I shall consider what he pretends to Discharge and if his payment be not good in that neither his Word will hardly be taken for any Just Discharge more I pray go on R. P. For the fifth Chapter Of the sense of the second Commandment T. G. saith if God hath there expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image as Dr. St. affirms there needed no more than to expose the Law as in a Table in Legislative Gothick as it is done by him p. 671. with the addition only of a Finger in the Margent to point to the Words for every one that runs to read them P. D. And must this pass for an Answer to Dr. St.'s Discourse about the sense of the second Commandment I am really ashamed of such trifling in a matter of so great importance I know not whether it were the Legislative Gothick or no or a Finger on the Wall but something or other about that Commandment hath so affrighted you in the Church of Rome that you dare not let it be seen in your Ordinary Books of Devotion As for the cavil about expresly I have answered it already R. P. For his last Chapter T. G. saith there needed no more than to say that the Church of England doth not allow any Worship to be given to the Altar P. D. Is it possible for T. G. to think to fob us off with such answers as these barely to tell his Adversary he might have spared this and the other Discourse R. P. But T. G. saith this is the most material thing in that Chapter P. D. Say you so Was the wise Council of Nice so immaterial a thing that it must now be quite abandoned and no kind of Discharge be so much as offered to be made for it Was there nothing material in what concerns the charge of Contradictions Paradoxes School-disputes c. And all the other Instances waved to come to this of Bowing to the Altar there must be some Mysterie in this and I think I have found it the Patronus bonae Fidei inveighs bitterly against this as worse than Egyptian Idolatry and reproaches Dr. St. upon account of his defending it and T. G. finds it much easier to reproach than to answer R. P. The truth is this Patronus bonae Fidei doth T. G. Knights service For when he hath no mind to appear himself he serves him for a Knight of the Post who runs blindfold upon any thing that may discredit the Church of England two or three such rare men would ease us of a great deal of trouble For T. G. takes between five and six pages together out of him in this place besides what he hath taken up at interest upon other occasions P. D. Is this the Just Discharge to borrow so much out of the Fanatick stock Setting then aside what is brought over of the old Account which had been reckoned for before and how very many material things are never entred which he was accountable for and how much he hath borrowed upon the Bona Fides of the Fanatick Historian all the rest will amount to a very pitiful Discharge But since no better payment can be had let us at least examine this For this Bona Fides is a kind of Republican Publick Faith which no body will trust twice not so much as for Bodkins and Thimbles F. C. Hold Sir You love alwayes to be rubbing upon old Sores have you forgot the Act of Oblivion You know we dare not speak what we think of those times now and is that fair to accuse when we dare not answer Mind your own business defend the Church of England if you can in that Idolatrous practice of bowing to the Altar I alwayes thought what it would come to when Dr. St. went about the charge of Idolatry upon the principles of the Church of England I knew he could never defend himself but upon good Orthodox Fanatick principles as you call them Now Sir you have him at an advantage joyn your force and T. G.'s with that of the Patronus bonae Fidei and if the Geese follow the Fox close you will keep him from ever stirring more P. D. I thank you for your good Will to the Cause and that is all I fear from you you only add to the number and help to preserve the Roman Capitol by
your noise R. P. You shall not escape thus what say you to bowing to the Altar is not that as great Idolatry as worship of Images P. D. Do you not remember the answer Dr. St. hath already given to this objection R. P. I tell you I read none of his Books and know not what he hath written but as I find it in T. G. P. D. What is that R. P. Have I not told you already that the Church of England doth not allow any worship to be given to the Altar P. D. And is not that to the purpose For dare any of you say so of the Church of Rome in respect of Images R. P. But T. G. saith this is not the meaning of the Canon which Dr. St. produces for he saith the Canon only implyes that they give no Religious worship to it but they do not deny any kind of worship to be given to it and Dr. St. himself grants that there is a Reverence due to Sacred Places P. D. Now your bolt is shot I hope I may have leave to say something both in behalf of the Canon and Dr. St. 1. For the Canon I say as Dr. St. did that it denyes any worship to be given to the Altar for it makes the adoration to be immediately made to the Divine Majesty without respect to the Altar either as the Object or Means of Worship which I prove 1. From the Introduction For can any words be more express than those in the Introduction For as much as the Church is the House of God dedicated to his holy Worship not to that of the Altar and therefore ought to mind us both of the Greatness and Goodness of his Divine Majesty not of the sacredness of the Altar certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof not only inwardly in our hearts but also outwardly with our Bodies must needs be pious in it self profitable unto us and edifying unto others If the intention of the Canon had been to have given any worship to the Altar the Introduction must have related to that and not to the Divine Majesty 2. From the Recommendation we therefore think it meet and behooveful and heartily commend it to all good and well-affected People members of this Church that they be ready to tender unto the Lord not to the Altar the said due acknowledgement by doing Reverence and Obeysance both at their coming in and going out of the said Churches c. according to the most ancient Custom of the Primitive Church in Purest times and of this Church also for many years of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth 3. From the express disowning the giving any Religious worship to the Communion Table Which is not meant of an individuum vagum but of this Act of Adoration which is the Religious worship here spoken of and thereby no kind of worship is intended to the Altar but only to God And which is more plain yet by what follows that it is not done out of an opinion of the Corporal Presence of Christs Body on the Table or in the Mystical Elements but only mark that for the advancement of Gods Majesty and to give him Alone not the Altar together with him that honour and glory which is due unto him and no otherwise Can any words be plainer than these They want only Legislative Gothick and a Finger in the Margent for T. G. to understand them 4. Archbishop Laud who certainly understood the meaning of this Canon pleads only for the worship to be given immediately to God himself God forbid saith he that we should worship any thing but God himself and he adds if there were no Table standing he would worship God when he came into his House And he calls it still Doing Reverence to Almighty God but only towards his Altar and he saith the People did understand this fully and apply the worship to God and to none but God 5. When the introducing this was made one of the Articles of his Charge by the Commons his Answer was That his bowing was only to worship God not the Altar and I hope it is no offence or treason to worship God in the Kings own Chapel or to induce others to do the like 6. I do not find any of our Divines who pleaded most for it do contend for any more than worshipping God towards the Altar and not giving any worship to the Altar the arguments they used were for determining the local circumstance of worship and not for making the Altar the object of it And the difference between these two Dr. St. hath at large cleared R. P. But cannot we say that we only worship God before an Image and do not give any Religious worship to the Image and then the case is parallel P. D. You may say so and you sometimes do to deceive ignorant people but you cannot say it truly For 1. Your Councils have determined that Religious worship is to be given to Images our Canon saith it is not to be given to the Altar therefore the case is far from being parallel And Dr. St. hath fully proved that the Nicene Council did require Religious worship to be given to Images and Anathematizes all who do it not And utterly rejects those that say they are to be had only for memory and out of some kind of Honour or Reverence for nothing but Religious worship would satisfie them And the Acts of that worship are expressed to be not only bowing but prostration kissing oblation of Incense and Lights and Dr. St. hath elsewhere shewed that all the Acts of worship which the Heathens did perform to their Images in old Rome are given to Images in modern Rome 2. Those in the Church of Rome who have only contended for the worship of God before the Image have been condemned by others as savouring of Heresie who say it is a matter of Faith in the Roman Church that Images are to be worshipped truly and properly and that the contrary opinion is dangerous rash and sovouring of Heresie which is likewise proved at large by Dr. St. R. P. But doth not Dr. St. himself allow a Reverence due to Sacred places P. D. He doth so But do you observe the difference he puts between that and Worship I will endeavour to make his distinct notion of these things plain to you First He distinguishes between Honour and Worship 1. Honour he makes to be the Esteem of Excellency Either Inward only in the mind Either Outward in acts suitable to that estimation And this Excellency may be twofold 1. Personal 2. Relative 1. Personal and that threefold 1. Civil in regard of humane Society as that of Abraham to the Children of Heth. 2. Moral on account of moral Excellencies either Natural or Acquired 3. Spiritual in regard of supernatural Graces And that may be given two wayes 1. To the Persons as present which is Religious Respect as that of Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel Dan. 2.46 Of Abraham
to the Angels Gen. 18.2 2. To them as absent and this is Religious Honour and it lyes chiefly in Thanksgiving to God for them and celebrating their memories because the Honour of Divine Graces ought to redound chiefly to the giver of them 2. Relative from the relation which things have to what we esteem on the account of its own excellency 1. Civil Relation to our Friends or strangers whom we esteem and so we set a value on their Pictures on their Letters or Hand-writing or any thing belonging to them 2. Spiritual Relation to God and his Worship and the regard to these he calls Reverence And that lies in these things 1. Discrimination from common use 2. Consecration to a sacred use 3. Suitable Vsage of them in regard of that relation But if you ask wherein the difference of this lies from Worship He saith from the greatest Divines of your Church that 2. Worship hath a respect to Power and Superiority and that is 1. Civil in regard of the Power and Authority of Magistrates 2. Religious in regard of Gods peculiar Soveraignty over us And that is twofold 1. Internal in Submission Dependence 2. External which must be 1. Such as express our submission and dependence as 1. Sacrifice 2. Solemn invocation 3. Adoration 4. Vows 5. Swearing by him c. 2. They must be peculiar to himself 1. From the dictate of Nature as to the peculiarity of Gods Soverainty 2. From the Will of God which appropriates such Acts to himself 3. From the consent of Nations and the Christian Church Therefore the giving that Worship which is due to God and doth express our subjection to him to any thing besides him is violation of the Rights of Gods Soveraignty and if it be given to any creature it receives its denomination from the Nature of that Creature to which it is given 1. To Animate Creatures Angels Good Bad. Dead men Saints Wicked Brutes of all sorts 2. To Inanimate Natural Elements Minerals Plants Artificial made to represent the objects of Worship and therefore called Images Which is properly Idolatry being the worship of a representation but because that word Idol is extended to any creature to which the Worship proper to God is given therefore every such kind of Worship is in Scripture and by the Christian Church called Idolatry And by this Scheme of Dr. St.'s notion of these things you may easily understand the difference he puts between Reverence and Worship R. P. But T. G. saith The Church of Rome requires by the terms of Communion with her no more than Reverence or Honorary respect to Images P. D. Why doth T. G. go about thus to impose on his Readers without answering what Dr. St. had produced to the contrary From three things 1. From the Decrees of the second Council of Nice 2. From the constant opinion of their most eminent Divines both before and after the Council of Trent 3. From the publick and allowed Practises of their Church 1. In Consecration of Images for Worship with Forms prescribed in the Roman Pontifical 2. In Supplication before them with prostrations and all other Acts of Worship which the Heathens used towards them 3. In Solemn Processions with Images with the same kind of Pomp and Ceremony which was used in Heathen Rome And after all this can T. G. have the confidence to say this is only Honorary Respect without answering to any one of these particulars which were purposely alledged to prove the contrary R. P. But now Sir look to your self for the Patronus bonae Fidei knocks all down before him and proves bowing to the Altar practised in the Church of England to be worse than Popish or Egyptian Idolatry P. D. I hope not worse than the Power of Excommunication which the same excellent Advocate for Fanaticks hath bestowed as ill names upon and with as little Reason but such as it is I am prepared to receive it R. P. The Patronus bonae Fidei saith that However Dr. St. wheadled and blinded with preferments for that is the meaning of T. G.'s c. endeavours to palliate this kind of Adoration and to vindicate it from the crime of Idolatry yet I doubt not to affirm that this bowing outvies the Idolatry both of Egyptians and Romanists not only in horrible iniquity and enormitie but in madness and folly F. C. Who is this Patronus bonae Fidei you speak so much of He is a good man I warrant him He speaks home to the business P. D. Yes if ignorance and confidence doth it for never did man betray more than your Advocate in this saying F. C. He will prove it I warrant you P. D. Just as you did Kneeling at the Communion to be Idolatry if so well But first for the Roman Idolatry R. P. It is not saith he so much madness in them to adore the Lord Jesus under the species of bread as it is an error in them to believe transubstantiation But it is an Hypochondriacal madness and giddy-brained stupidity for men to perform adoration towards that place where Christ is no more present than any where else and where neither the Table nor Altar nor any thing that is set upon the Table unless perchance a clean Towel two Books richly bound or a pair of Candlesticks with two Candles in them not to be lighted till their minds be quite drunk with Popery represent either Christ or his Image A Fanatical Adoration he calls it without any Object P. D. Call you this proving It is rather raving and foaming at the mouth This is such biting as may endanger an Hydrophobia There is no arguing with such a man but in a dark Room and under good Keepers But that you may take no advantage by his sayings how can it be Idolatry without an Object i.e. Idolatry without an Idol But can there be no Object of worship but what is visible What doth he worship himself Or rather whom do his Clients the Fanaticks worship Nothing Because not a visible object Is not adoration a part of Worship If not it is no Idolatry to give it to an Image If it be then bowing to an Invisible Object in a place dedicated to Divine Worship is giving to God that Worship which being given to an Image makes it Idolatry I pray Sir do you answer for him F. C. I understand you not P. D. I thought so But I will endeavour to make you understand me Is the bowing down to an Image Idolatry F. C. Yes without all doubt P. D. Is not Idolatry giving to a Creature the Worship that is due to God F. C. Yes P. D. How can that be giving to a Creature the Worship due to God if it be not lawful to give this Worship to God which you give to the Creature F. C. I know not what you mean P. D. Not yet Is not adoration of an Image Idolatry F. C. Yes I told you so once already P. D. Then adoration is to
Persons of the Father and Holy Ghost are too R. P. You may account this an absurdity but we account it none at all yea some of our Divines have said If the Holy Trinity were not every where yet it would be in the Eucharist by vertue of this Concomitancy P. D. I do not now meddle with your opinions I only consider the Patronus bonae Fidei and his Brethren who do look on these as absurdities and yet are so foolish to say that our worshipping God towards the Altar is more absurd than your worshipping Christ on the Altar on supposition of Transubstantiation But why worse than Egyptian Idolatry I beseech you R. P. The Egyptians saith he pretended some colour for their Idolatry as than an Ape or a Cat or a Wolf c. had some participation of the Divinity but those that bow down to a Wooden Table are themselves stocks with much more to that purpose P. D. Is such a man to be endured in a Christian Common-wealth not to say a Church for excommunication he regards not who parallels the adoration given only to the Divine Majesty as our Church professeth with the Worship of an Ape or a Cat or a Wolf c Nay he makes the Egyptian Idolatry more reasonable than our Worship of God The only thing that can excuse him is Rage and Madness and therefore I leave him to his Keeper But I pray tell me was it meer kindness to the Church of England which made T. G. to produce all these passages at full length out of the Patronus bonae Fidei Or out of pure spite to Dr. St. by so often repeating the passage of his being delinitus occaecatus And why in such a place where he pretends only to give an account of Dr. St.'s vain and endless Discourses doth he bring in this at large Is it only for his comfort to let him see there is one body at least in the world more foolish and impertinent than he We have seen enough of what T. G. ought not to have done let us now see what he saith Dr. St. ought to have done R. P. The first thing to be done in a Dispute is to settle the state of the Controversie upon its true Grounds by laying down the true notion of the matter in debate therefore Dr. St. ought in the first place to have given us the true Notion of Idolatry in the nature of the Thing and then to have shewn that notion to have agreed to the honour and veneration which the Church of Rome in her Councils declares may be given to the Images of Christ and the Saints but he chose rather to dazle the eyes of the Reader with the false lights of meer external Acts the obscure practice even of wiser Heathens and the clashing of School-Divines P. D. Now I hope we are come to something worthy of consideration I like the method of proceeding very well And I like Dr. St.'s Book the better because I think he pursued the right method beginning first with the Nature of Idolatry and Divine Worship and then coming to the first Particular of Image-worship which he hath handled with great care and exactness in respect of your Councils as well as your Practices and School-Divines R. P. It is true he proposed well at first but like a Preacher that hath patched up a Sermon out of his note-book he names his Text and then takes his leave of it For what he was to speak to was Idolatry in the nature of the thing independently of any positive Law whereas he speaks only of an Idolatry forbidden by a positive Law but if there be no Idolatry antecedent to a positive prohibition the Heathens could not be justly charged with Idolatry P. D. In my mind he did not recede from his Text at all but pursued it closely but you are uneasie at his Application and therefore find fault with his handling his Text. What could a man speak to more pertinently as to Idolatry in the Nature of the thing than to consider what that is which is acknowledged to be Idolatry both in the Heathens and Arrians What that was which the Primitive Church accounted Idolatry in them What opinons those have of God whom the Roman Church do charge with Idolatry Wherein the Nature of Divine Worship consists not only with respect to positive commands but the general consent of mankind Did he not expresly argue from the Reason and design of solemn Religious worship abstractly from positive Laws Did he not shew from many Testimonies that the Heathens did look on some peculiar Rites of Divine worship as Sacred and Inviolable that they chose rather to dye than to give them any but a Divine Object It is true after this he enquires into the Law of God and what acts of worship he had appropriated to himself and was there not great Reason to do so Are we unconcerned in the Laws God made for his worship In my apprehension this was the great thing T. G. had to do to prove that Gods Law about worship was barely ceremonial and only respected the Jews but that we are left to the Liberties of the Law of Nature about Religious worship but he neither doth this nor if he had done it had he overthrown Dr St.'s Book For he proves in several places that the Heathens had the same distinctions of soveraign and inferiour worship absolute and relative which are used in the Roman Church and if these do excuse now they would have excused them who by Scripture and the consent of the Christian Church are condemned for Idolatry And judge you now whether Dr. St. took leave of his Text whether he did not speak to Idolatry in the Nature of the thing R. P. But he saith the Heathens could not understand the nature and sinfulness of Idolatry if not from some Law of God which is in effect to clear the Heathens from Idolatry till that Law was delivered to them whereas S. Paul saith they had a Law written in their hearts whereby they might understand it and Dr. St. ought to have shewn wherein the deordination and sinfulness of Idolatry did consist antecedently to any positive prohibition and till this be done he can make no parallel between the Heathen Idolatry and that of the Roman Church P. D. I am glad to find any thing that looks like a difficulty which may give an occasion of farther thoughts about this weighty matter and of clearing the Doctors mind concerning it Herein I shall endeavour to explain these two things 1. How far Dr. St. doth make the nature and sinfulness of Idolatry to depend on the Law of God 2. Wherein the sinfulness of Idolatry doth consist abstractly from a positive Law 1. How far he makes the sinfulness of it to depend on a positive Law 1. He supposes Natural Religion to dictate these things 1. That God ought to be solemnly worshipped 2. That this worship ought to be
second Council of Nice and is justified by the modern Divines of the Church of Rome from the general practice of their Church 2. In giving the Worship of Latria to Images which was condemned by the Council of Nice and notwithstanding is defended by multitudes of Divines in the Roman Church from the allowed practice in the Worship of the Cross both before and after the Council of Trent After which he enquires at large into the publick Offices and commended Devotions of that Church in respect to Images and from thence he proves that 1. As to Consecration of Images for worship 2. As to the Rites of Supplication to them 3. As to pompous procession with them the modern Church of Rome doth not fall short of the practice of Pagan Rome And do you think all this is not applying the notion of Idolatry home to the Roman Church When 1. He shews by the principles of the second Council of Nice the modern practices of the Church of Rome are chargeable with Idolatry 2. That the practices agreeable with that Council were charged with Idolatry by the Western Church in the Council of Francford not from any mistake of their meaning but because they looked on the Worship then decreed to be proper adoration R. P. But T. G. saith If the Worship defined by the Council of Nice were inferiour Worship and not Latria as Dr. St. confesseth then nothing can be clearer than that it was not the Worship due to God and consequently the Church of Rome cannot be chargeable with Idolatry from any thing contained in that decree P. D. Will T. G. never understand the difference between the intention of the person and the Nature of the Act They might declare it to be only inferiour Worship but the Council of Francford took it to be proper adoration which was due only to God And if that Councils Judgement must stand all those in the Church of Rome who give Latria to the Cross must be guilty of Idolatry R. P. Doth not the Church of England allow bowing to the Altar which if the Altar had any sense would think were done to it as T. G. saith he was certainly informed of a Countrey fellow who being got near the Altar in his Majesties Chapel thought all the Congies had been made to him and so returned Congy for Congy And if bowing may be used out of Religious respect to the Altar why not kneeling or prostration or fixing our eyes in time of Prayer or burning Incense or Lights before the Images of Christ and his Saints but how can Dr. St. purge the Church of England from Idolatry in that practice when he saith that any Image being made so far the object of Divine Worship that men do bow down before it and he supposes the same will hold for any other creature it doth thereby become an Idol and on that account is forbidden in the second Commandment P. D. What would T. G. have done had it not been for this practice of bowing towards the Altar when yet he cannot but know that the practice of it is not enjoyned by our Church for the Canon leaves it at liberty If the Church of Rome did the same about the Worship of Images the parallel would hold somewhat better But the Church of Rome declares Religious Worship is to be given to Images and our Church declares that none is to be given to the Altar and doth not this make an apparent difference If the Countrey fellow standing without the rails fancied the Congies made to himself what would he have done if he had stood within an Image of our Lady and seen all the Courtship that had been used towards her by some of her devoted servants and slaves when he beheld the bare knees bleeding the tears trickling the breast knocking the eyes scarce lifted up to shew the greater reverence and humility towards the Image what could he have thought but that he was shut up within the bowels of the Goddess they worshipped Whereas if the Countrey fellow had gone up into the Court and seen the ancient servants make their Reverences after dinner in the Presence chamber he would soon have been better informed if some of the old Courtiers had told him it was the ancient Custome of the Court to make their Reverences in all Chambers of Presence and from thence when they went into his Majesties Chapel they used the same custome out of Reverence to God Almighty whose Presence-chamber they accounted the Chapel to be What is all this to giving Religious Worship to the Altar wherein the force of all T. G. saith must lye R. P. But you do bow before the Altar as we do before Images P. D. I utterly deny that For your Church declares bowing before Images without an intention to worship the Images is next to Heresie if we are to take the sense of your Councils from their own words and the explication of Divines You explode their Doctrine who say that we are only to worship God before them And is there no difference between the Acts of these two men as to Images themselves The one declares that he looks on no Religious worship as due to an Image but it serves him only to put him in mind of him who is the proper object of Worship and he never intends by any Act of his to worship the Image it self another saith the Church requires Images to be worshipped and for my part I think my self bound to do what the Church requires and therefore it is my intention to give Worship not barely to the object represented but to the very Image it self although it be on the account of its representation And the latter Dr. St. hath shewed to be the only allowed sense in the Church of Rome and the other rejected either as heretical or next to it Which T. G. never so much as once takes notice of But however this doth not reach our case for we believe the second Commandment to be still in force which is express and positive against all worship of Images and bowing down to them but that which was lawful among the Jews notwithstanding that precept viz. to Worship God towards the Mercy Seat is still lawful among Christians viz. to Worship God alone but towards the Altar And thus I hope T. G. will at last be brought a little better to understand the sense of our Church in this practice and how far it is from being a parallel with your Worship of Images R. P. T. G. finds great fault with Dr. St. 's citation out of Card. Lugo about submission to Images because he left out aliquis and potest dici and I tell you he makes a huge outcry about it and fills up several pages with it P. D. Doth he truly It was a great sign he wanted matter to fill up his book But I pray on what occasion was this passage brought in It may be that will give us some light
Worship but an occasional and rare thing and done upon supposition as if he had been alive and then present among them And that the practice of these men who seemed most to make addresses to Saints in the fourth Century did differ from the invocation of Saints in your Church I shall make appear by these particulars 1. Invocation of Saints is made a solemn part of Religious Worship in the Church of Rome For which we do not run to some extravagant expressions of your Preachers nor barely to the Ave Maries they use in their Pulpits of which no single instance can be produced out of Antiquity but to the publick solemn Authorized Offices of your Church And although you may say the Church is not answerable for the indiscretion of Preachers or the Figures of Poets yet certainly she is for all standing and allowed Offices of Divine Worship And this is that we charge you with that by this you make Religious Worship of the Creatures a part of your constant and solemn worship Even in the Masse it self you begin with confession to God and to his Creatures which Athanasius accounted so great an impiety to joyn God and his Creature together in an Act of Worship and afterwards pray to them And although in the plain Canon of the Masse you pretend there is scarce any or but twice or thrice a direct invocation of the Saints yet upon occasional and anniversary Masses such Invocation is very frequent as in the Masses of the Festivals of the Blessed Virgin which are many in the year the Masse for Women with Child the Masses of the Apostles the Angel Michael and many Saints which it were tedious to repeat It would be endless to give an account how much of your Breviaries Houres Litanies and private Offices of Devotion is stuffed out with formal addresses to Saints If you but cast your eye on any of the Offices of the B. Virgin you cannot question the truth of this Now I pray tell me where you meet with any like this in Antiquity you may pick up some flourishes of Orators or Poets in the fourth Century but what are these to the standing Offices of the Church which are the standard of Divine Worship Name me any one Liturgy of the Church which is Authentick that had the name of aâ—y Saint or Creature in it by way of Invocation before the time of Petrus Fallo who is no Author to be gloried in And of him indeed Nicephorus saith that he first brought the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin into the Prayers of the Church Before his time the Fathers utterly deny there was any Invocation of Saints in the Prayers of the faithful as Dr. St. hath evidently proved from St. Augustin and methinks T. G. should have said something or other to it and not think this poor single Testimony of Gregory Nyssen would overthrow all 2. The Invocation of Saints in your Church is direct and formal not meerly by way of desire to pray for them but to bestow blessings upon them Of which Dr. St. hath produced several late Instances in Books of Devotion now in use here in England to which many more might be added if it were needful And it is a wonder to me that any man who hath looked into the Offices of the B. Virgin can make the least doubt of this And considering the Titles given her in the Roman Church it were a disparagement to her not to pray directly to her for blessings For if she be the Fountain of Grace and Mercy the Mother of Consolation the Safety of all that trust in her the Dispenser of Graces to whom she pleases the Queen of Heaven to whom all Power is committed the Mediatrix between her Son and us as she is stiled in the Roman Church why may not men pray as directly to her as to Christ himself As long as these and many other Titles are owned in their Prayers in their Sacred Hymns in their Commentators on Scripture and not meerly in their Poets and Orators Why doth T. G. go about to deceive the world in making it believe that all their Invocation is only praying to pray for them Which is all that is pretended to be used in the Ancient Church And Cassander thinks they were rather wishes and desires than prayers for which he gives a very good reason viz. that there was a condition expressed by them such as that of Greg. Nazianzen in his Oration on his Sister Gorgonia If thou hast any regard to our affairs and if this be part of the reward of holy Souls to be sensible of things done below receive this Office of Kindness from me Which shews they had no confidence or assurance that the Saints in Heaven did understand our affairs and therefore all expressions of this kind in them were rather Wishes than Prayers And even Greg. Nyssen in this Oration upon Theodore supposes that unless he came down from above where-ever he was whether in the Aethereal Region or Celestial or Angelical and were actually present among them he could not understand the honours that were done him nor the addresses they made to him And when they did express such an uncertainty as this at the same time they made these Addresses towards the Conclusion of their Orations after the manner of Oratours it is plain they are to be understood rather for Rhetorical Wishes than formal Invocations Now let any man compare this doubtfulness of the Ancients with the confidence expressed in the Church of Rome when they declare it to be de Fide that the Saints do hear them although the manner be not and then judge whether their practises can be of the same kind 3. The Invocation of Saints in your Church doth imply inward submission to a Creature and therefore goes very much beyond the addresses of the Ancients There are three things which prove this Inward submission to a Creature in the Invocation of Saints 1. Inward Devotion to them 2. An acknowledged superiority over them 3. An intention to give them Divine Worship 1. Inward Devotion For even mental Prayers to Saints are allowed by the Council of Trent as Dr. St. told T. G. of which he takes no notice and yet quarrels with him for two other passages in the same place Must we impute this to a casual Vndulation of the visual rayes as T. G. very finely expresseth it I am afraid there was some other cause for it For since that Council allows internal prayers to Saints it must not only certainly suppose their knowledge of the heart but a due submission of our souls to them which inward Prayer doth import And therefore suppliciter invocare tam voce quà m mente which are the words of the Council of Trent doth not only imply formal Invocation but internal submission both which do belong to suppliants 2. An acknowledged Superiority over them which appears by that Authority and Government which they attribute to them
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.
say If Christ be the Sacrifice he must be slain again at every Mass as he was once on the Cross or you can assign no destruction which you say is necessary to such a true and proper Sacrifice R. P. Do not you observe T. G.'s words that Christ is whole under either species and his Blood separated from his Body not really but Mystically only and in representation P. D. How is that Whole Christ under the bread and whole Christ under the wine and the blood separated from the Body not really but mystically only and by representation This is admirable stuff and true Mystical Divinity If the body of Christ doth remain whole and entire where is the true proper Sacrifice where is the change made if not in the Body of Christ if that be uncapable of a change how can it be a true and proper Sacrifice If the blood be not really separated from the Body where is the mactation which must be in a propitiatory Sacrifice If Christ do remain whole and entire after all the Sacrificial Acts where I say is the true and proper Sacrifice T. G. had far better said and more agreeably to Scripture Antiquity and Reason that there is no real and proper sacrifice on the Altar but only mystical and by representation R. P. But T. G. saith that Religion which admits no external visible Sacrifice must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the publick worship of God P. D. I pray remember it is an external and visible Sacrifice which you contend for and now tell me where it is in your Church Doth it lye in the mimical gestures of the Priest at the Altar in imitation of Christ on the Cross If that be it the necessary consumption of the Sacrifice will be no comfortable doctrine to the Priest Doth it lye in the consecration of the Elements which are visible But you say the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the change and we can see no visible change made in them and therefore there is no external and visible Sacrifice Besides if the Sacrifice did lye in the change of the Elements after Consecration into the Body of Christ then the Elements are the thing sacrificed and not the Body of Christ for the destructive change is as to the elements and not as to the Body of Christ. Or doth it lye in the swallowing down and consumption of the species after Consecration by the Priest But here likewise the change is in the accidents and not in the Body of Christ which remains whole and entire though the species be consumed and I think there is some difference between changing ones seat and being sacrificed For all that the Body of Christ is pretended to be changed in is only its being no longer under the species but T. G. I suppose will allow it to be whole and entire still Doth it then lye in pronouncing the words of consecration upon which the Body of Christ is under the species of Bread and the Blood under that of Wine and so separated from the Body But this can least of all be since T. G. assures us that whole Christ is under the Bread as well as under the Wine and so there cannot be so much as a moment of real separation between them and we know how necessary for other purposes the doctrine of Concomitancy is Tell me then where is your external and visible Sacrifice which you boast so much of since according to your own principles there is nothing that belongs to the essence of a sacrifice is external and visible and consequently your own Church labours under the defect T. G. complains of R. P. But what makes Dr. St. so bitter against the Sacrifice of the Altar since the most true and genuine Sons of the Church of England do allow it as Mr. Thorndike Dr. Heylin and Bishop Andrews and doth not this rather look like betraying the Church of England than defending it P. D. I see now you are wheeling about to your first Post and therefore it is time to give you a space of breathing Your great business is to set us at variance among our selves but you have hitherto failed in your attempts and I hope will do I do not think any two or three men though never so learned make the Church of England her sense is to be seen in the Publick Acts and Offices belonging to it And in the Articles to which T. G. sometimes appeals your Sacrifices on the Altar are called blasphemous Figments and dangerous Impostures But as to these three persons I answer thus 1. Mr. Thorndike as I have shewed already declares against the true proper Sacrifice defined by the Council of Trent as an innovation and a contradiction And that which he pleads for is that the Eucharist is a commemorative and representative Sacrifice about which Dr. St. would never contend with him or any one else and immediately after the words cited by T. G. he adds these It is therefore enough that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross as the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is represented renewed revived and restored by it and as every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth 2. Pet. Heylins words are expresly only for a commemorative Sacrifice as T. G. himself produces them and therefore I wonder what T. G. meant in citing them at large For he quotes the English Liturgie for the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving and S. Chrysostom calling it the remembrance of a Sacrifice and many of our learned Writers a Commemorative sacrifice What is there in all this in the least repugnant to what Dr. St. had delivered R. P. But he quotes Bishop Andrews saying Take from the Mass your Transubstantiation and we will have no difference with you about the sacrfiice P. D. Bishop Andrews calls the Eucharist a commemorative sacrifice and he saith it was properly Eucharistical or of the nature of peace-offerings concerning which the Law was that he that offered should partake of them and a little after follow those words you mention to which he adds We yield you that there is a remembrance of Christs sacrifice but we shall never yield that your Christ being made of Bread is there sacrificed Which is the very thing that T. G. is so angry with Dr. St. about And have not you bravely proved that Dr. St. hath herein gone against the sense of the genuine Sons of the Church of England If you have any thing yet left which you think material I pray let us have it now for fear lest T. G. make use of it to stuff out another Book R. P. I think we are near the Bottom P. D. So I imagine by the dregs which came last R. P. There is one thing yet left for a close which is Dr. St. saith supposing this sacrifice were allowed yet this doth not prove that we reserve any