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
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
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
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
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
Learning is in esteem in a place but here a man that intends a Library buys all sorts of Books and that makes your Traders in Books bring over from all parts and of all kinds and when they have them in their hands they make the buyers pay for their curiosity In Italy it is a rare thing to meet with a Greek Book in the Shops In Spain you see nothing almost besides Prayer-Books Novels and School-Divinity At Antwerp and Lions School-Divinity and Lives of the Saints are most sold. At Paris indeed there is greater variety But we observe it abroad that in the best Catholick Countreys Learning is in least esteem as in Spain and Italy And where Learning is more in vogue as in France you see how ready they are to quarrel with the Pope and to fall into Heats and Controversies about Religion And therefore to deal freely with you I am not at all pleased to see this eagerness of buying of Books among you For as long as Learning holds up we see little hopes of prevailing though we and the Fanaticks had Liberty of Conscience since upon long experience we find Ignorance and our Devotion to agree as well as Mother and Daughter P. D. I am glad of any symptom that we are like to hold in our Wits and I think your observation is true enough I have only one thing to add to it which is that it was not Luther or Zuinglius that contributed so much to the Reformation as Erasmus especially among us in England For Erasmus was the Man who awakened mens understandings and brought them from the Friers Divinity to a relish of general Learning he by his Wit laughed down the imperious Ignorance of the Monks and made them the scorn of Christendom and by his Learning he brought most of the Latine Fathers to light and published them with excellent Editions and useful Notes by which means men of parts set themselves to consider the ancient Church from the Writings of the Fathers themselves and not from the Canonists and School-men So that most learned and impartial men were prepared for the Doctrines of the Reformation before it brake forth For it is a foolish thing to imagine that a quarrel between two Monks at Wittemberg should make such an alteration in the state of Christendom But things had been tending that way a good while before by the gradual restoration of Learning in these Western parts The Greeks coming into Italy after the taking of Constantinople and bringing their Books with them laid the first foundation of it then some of the Princes of Italy advanced their own reputation by the encouragement they gave to it from thence it spread into Germany and there Reuchlin and his Companions joyned Hebrew with Greek from thence it came into France and England When men had by this means attained to some skill in Languages they thought it necessary to search the Old and New Testament in their Original Tongues which they had heard of but few had seen not above one Greek Testament being to be found in all Germany then Erasmus prints it with his Notes which infinitely took among all pious and learned men and as much enraged the Monks and Friers and all the fast Friends to their Dulness and Superstition When men had from reading the Scripture and Fathers formed in their minds a true notion of the Christian Religion and of the Government and practices of the ancient Church and compared that with what they saw in their own Age they wondred at the difference and were astonished to think how such an alteration should happen but then they reflected on the Barbarism of the foregoing Ages the gradual encroachments of the Bishop of Rome the suiting of Doctrines and practices to carry on a temporal Interest the complyance with the superstitious humours of people the vast numbers of Monks and Friers whose interest lay in the upholding these things and when they laid these things together they did not wonder at the degeneracy they saw in the Christian Church All the difficulty was how to recover the Church out of this state and this puzzled the wisest men among them some thought the ill humours were grown so natural to the Body that it would hazard the state of it to attempt a sudden purging them quite away and that a violent Reformation would do more mischief than good by popular tumults by Schism and Sacriledge and although such persons saw the corruptions and wished them reformed yet considering the hazard of a sudden change they thought it best for particular persons to inform the world better and so by degrees bring it about than to make any violent disturbance in the Church While these things were considered of by wiser men the Pope goes on to abuse the People with the trade of Indulgences and his Officers in Germany were so impudent in this Trade that a bold Monk at Wittenberg defies them and of a sudden lays open the Cheat and this discovery immediately spread like Wild-fire and so they went on from one thing to another till the People were enraged at being so long and so grosly abused and Tyrannized over But when Reformation begins below it is not to be expected that no disorders and heats should happen in the management of it which gave distastes to such persons as Erasmus was which made him like so ill the Wittenberg Reformation and whatever was carried on by popular Tumults Yet Rosinus saith that the Duke of Saxony before he would declare himself in favour of Luther asked Erasmus his opinion concerning him who gave him this answer that Luther touched upon two dangerous points the Monks bellies and the Popes Crown that his doctrine was true and certain but he did not approve the manner of his Writing But here in England the Reformation was begun by the consent of the King and the Bishops who yielded to the retrenchment of the Popes exorbitant power and the taking away some grosser abuses in Henry 8's time but in Edw. 6.'s time and Q. Elizabeths when it was settled on the principles it now stands there was no such regard had to Luther or Calvin as to Erasmus and Melancthon whose learning and moderation were in greater esteem here than the fiery spirits of the other From hence things were carryed with greater temper the Church settled with a succession of Bishops the Liturgie reformed according to the ancient Models some decent ceremonies retained without the sollies and superstitions which were before practised and to prevent the extravagancies of the people in the interpreting of Scripture the most excellent Paraphrase of Erasmus was translated into English and set up in Churches and to this day Erasmus is in far greater esteem among the Divines of our Church than either Luther or Calvin R. P. If this be true which you say methinks your Divines should have a care of broaching such things which do subvert the Foundation of all Ecclesiastical Authority among you as T.
here P. D. Yes he knew it well enough but he thought if he proved the Validity of Ordination he proved the lawfulness of Authority and Jurisdiction because the giving Orders is part of Church Authority and Authority is received in taking Orders and the Church never allowed one but it allowed the other also If you have any thing more to say about this matter I am willing to hear you but as yet I see no reason for T. G.'s clamours about such a mistake in Dr. St. for I think the mistake lay nearer home R. P. But E. W. publickly reproved Dr. St. for this mistake and yet after that he goes on to confirm his former answer with new proofs and Testimonies that Bishops ordained by Idolaters were esteemed validly ordained and doth not speak one word in answer to what was objected by T. G. viz. that the English Bishops must want lawful authority to exercise the power of Orders if their first Ordainers were Idolaters And E. W. calls it an intolerable mistake and T. G. saith he hath heard he was a main man esteemed for his Learning After repeating the words of E. W. at length T. G. very mildly adds as if he were wholly insensible of the gross and intolerable errour E. W. taxed him with he runs again into the same shameful mistake But saith T. G. Are the Power of giving Orders and lawful Authority to give them so essentially linked to each other that they cannot be separated May not a Bishop or Priest remaining so be deprived of all lawful Authority to exercise their Functions for having faln into Heresie or Idolatry And if they have none themselves can they give it to others P. D. On whose side the intolerable mistake lyes will be best seen by examining the force of what T. G. saith as to E. W. the matter is not great which lyes I suppose in this that those who do fall into Idolatry or Heresie may ordain validly for saith he from Estiâ—s no crime or censure soever can hinder the Validity of Ordination by a Bishop but he may be deprived of any lawful Authority to do it and therefore cannot convey this lawful Authority to others ordained by him From hence T. G. saith no crime can hinder the Validity of Ordination but Idolatry he saith doth ipso facto deprive Bishops of the Authority of exercising Orders or conveying jurisdiction and therefore though the Ordination of the Bishops of England may be valid yet their jurisdiction cannot be lawful and so the Foundation of their Authority is subverted by the charge of Idolatry I hope you will allow this to be the force of all that T. G. saith R. P. Yes now you have hit upon his right meaning P. D. Let us then consider more closely on which side the mistake lay which will be discerned by this whether we are to follow the Modern Schools or the Judgement of Antiquity in this matter For Dr. St. spake according to the sense and practice of Antiquity and T. G. according to the modern notions and distinctions of their Schools It is true their Schoolmen have so distinguished the power of Order and Jurisdiction that they make the one to depend upon an indelible unintelligible character which no crime can hinder having its valid effect but that jurisdiction or the right of excommunication and absolution may be suspended or taken away Since the Councils of Florence and Trent this Doctrine of the indelible Character given in Orders is not to be disputed among them and therefore they hold the character to remain wherever Orders are received in the due form but then they say this character is capable of such restraints by the Power of the Church that it remains like Aristotles first matter a dull and unactive thing till the Church give a new Form to it and this they call the Power of jurisdiction But that all this is new doctrine in the Church and a late Monkish invention will appear by these considerations 1. How long it was before this doctrine was received in the Church by the confession of their own Schoolmen Scotus and Biel and Cajetan no inconsiderable men in the Roman Church do confess that the doctrine of the Character imprinted in the soul can neither be proved from Scripture nor Fathers but only from the Authority of the Church and that not very ancient neither And Morinus takes notice that it was not so much as mentioned by P. Lombard or Hugo de Sancto Victore although they debate those very Questions which would have required their expressing it if they had known any thing of it 2. How many of their Schoolmen who do acknowledge the character of Priesthood yet make the power of Orders to belong to jurisdiction so Albertus Magnus and others cited by Morinus but Alex. Alensis carries this point so far that he saith that because of the indelible character of Priesthood the power can never be taken from a Priest but only the execution of it But in a Bishop there is no new character imprinted and therefore in the degrading him not only the execution but the Power of Giving Orders is taken away And Scotus saith if a Bishop be excommunicated he loseth the power of giving Orders if Episcopacy be not a distinct Order as you know many of the Schoolmen hold And Morinus grants that if Episcopacy be not a distinct Order but a larger commission the power of Bishops may be so limited by the Church as not only to hinder them from a lawful Authority but from a power of Acting so that what they do carries no validity along with it 3. How many before the dayes of the Schoolmen were of opinion that the censures of the Church did take away the power of Orders Gratian holds it most agreeable to the Doctrine of the Fathers that a Bishop degraded hath no power to give Orders although he hath to Baptize only for S. Augustines sake he thinks they may distinguish between the Power and the execution of it Gul. Parisiensis saith that Bishops deposed can confer no Order because the Church hath the same power in taking away which it hath in giving and the intention of the Church is to take away their Power If what T. G. asserts had been alwayes the sense of the Church I desire him to resolve me these Questions 1. Why Pope Lucius 3. did re-ordain those who had been ordained by Octavianus the Anti-pope 2. Why Vrban 2. declared Nezelon or Wecilo an excommunicate Bishop of Ments to have no power of giving Orders and that upon T. G.'s own Maxim That which a man hath not he cannot give to another because he was ordained by Hereticks 3. Why the Synod of Quintilinberg under Greg. 7. declared all Ordinations to be Null which were made by Excommunicated Bishops 4. Why Leo 9. in a Synod voided all Simoniacal Ordinations 5. Why Stephanus 6. re-ordained those which were ordained by Formosus 6.
Why Hincmarus re-ordained those who had been ordained by Ebbo because he had been deposed 7. Why Stephanus 4. re-ordained those who had received Orders from Pope Constantine 8. Why the Ordinations made by Photius were declared null To name no more If this had been always the sense of the Christian Church that the Power of Orders is indelible but not that of jurisdiction I desire T. G. to give an answer to those Questions which I fear will involve several Heads of his Church under that which he calls in Dr. St. an intolerable mistake Did so many Popes know no better this distinction between the Validity of Ordination and the Power of Jurisdiction I am sorry to see T. G. so magisterial and confident so insulting over Dr. St. as betraying so much ignorance as doth not become a Writer of Controversies when all the while he doth only expose his own But alas This is the current Divinity of the Modern Schools and what obliges them to look into the opinions of former Ages Yet methinks a man had need to look about him before he upbraids another with gross and intolerable errors lest at the same time he prove the guilty person and then the charge falls back far more heavily on himself 4. Those who did hold the Validity of Ordinations did it chiefly on the account of the due Form that was observed whoever the Persons were whether Hereticks or Excommunicated-persons For after all the heats and disputes which hapned in the Church about this matter the best way they found to resolve it was to observe the same course which the Church had done in the Baptism of Hereticks viz. to allow that Baptism which was administred in due form although those who administred it were Hereticks Thence Praepositivus as he is quoted by Morinus saith That a Heretick hath power to administer all the Sacraments as long as he observes the Form of the Church And not only such a one as received Episcopal Orders in the Church himself but those who do derive a succession from such as appears from Tarasius in the second Council of Nice where he saith That five Bishops of Constantinople successively were Hereticks and yet their Ordinations were allowed by the Church to the same purpose speak others who are there produced by the same learned Author Let these considerations be laid together and the result will be 1. Either Dr. St. was not guilty of an intolerable error and mistake in this matter or so many infallible Heads of the Church were guilty of the same 2. It was believed for some ages in the Roman Church that the censures of the Church did take away the Power of Orders 3. T. G.'s distinction as to the foundation of it in the indelible Character of Orders is a novel thing and acknowledged by their own Divines to have no Foundation either in Scripture or Fathers 4. The ground assigned by those who held the validity of Ordination by Hereticks will hold for the Authority of exercising the Power of Orders if not actually taken away by the Censures of the Church For every man hath the power which is given him till it be taken from him every one that receives Orders according to the Form of the Church hath a power given him to excommunicate and absolve therefore every such person doth enjoy that power till it be taken from him For as I have already shewed this is part of the Form of Orders in the Roman Church Accipe Spiritum Sanctum Quorum remiseritis c. and the Council of Trent determines the character to be imprinted upon the use of these words therefore this power of jurisdiction is conveyed by the due Form of Orders from whence it unavoidably follows that every one who hath had the due Form of Orders hath had this Power conveyed to him and what power he hath he must enjoy till it be taken away R. P. But T. G. saith That Excommunication by the Apostles sentence doth it Gal. 1.8 P. D. This is indeed a piece of new doctrine and a fruit of T. G.'s Mother-wit and which I dare say he received neither from Schoolmen nor Fathers For it involves such mischievous consequences in it as really overthrow all Authority in the Church For by this supposition in case any Bishop falls into Heresie or Idolatry he is ipso facto excommunicated by St. Paul 's sentence and consequently hath no Authority to exercise the power of Orders and so all who derive their power from him have no lawful Authority or Jurisdiction I do wonder in all this time T. G. did no better reflect upon this assertion and the consequences of it and rather to thank Dr. St. that he took no more notice of it than upbraid him with intolerable error and mistake I will put a plain case to you to shew you the ill consequence of this assertion to the Church of Rome it self Dr. St. hath proved by undeniable evidence that the Arians were looked on and condemned as Idolaters by the Primitive Church and T. G. doth not deny it and what now if we find an Arian among the Bishops of Rome and from whom the succession is derived He must stand excommunicated by vertue of the Apostles sentence and therefore hath no Authority to give Orders and so all the Authority in the Church of Rome is lost The case I mean is that of Liberius who shewed himself as much an Arian as any of the Arian Bishops did for he subscribed their confession of Faith and joyned in communion with them St. Hierom saith more than once That he subscribed to Heresie the Pontifical Book saith he communicated with Hereticks Marcellinus and Faustinus say That he renounced the faith by his Subscription yea more than this Hilary denounced an Anathema against him and all that joyned with him and Baronius confesseth he did communicate with the Arians which is suffient to our purpose Then comes T. G. upon him with St. Paul 's sentence of excommunication and so he loseth all Authority of exercising the power of Orders and consequently that Authority which is challenged in the Church of Rome being derived from him is all lost And now judge who subverts the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority most T. G. or Dr. St. yet it falls out unhappily that Pet. Damiani mentions these very Ordinations of Liberius the Heretick so he calls him to shew how the Church did allow Ordinations made by Hereticks But this is not all for by all that I can find if this principle of T. G. be allowed no man can be sure there is any lawful Ecclesiastical Authority left in the world For who can tell what secret Idolaters or Hereticks there might be among those Bishops from whom that Authority is derived This we are sure of that the Arian Bishops possessed most of the Eastern Churches and made Ordinations there and the Western Bishops in the Council of Ariminum did certainly comply with them
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
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
only to own them as true which we know to be false but as necessary to Salvation which we look on as great hinderances to it What was to be done in this case Communion could not be held on other terms than declaring false opinions to be true and dangerous Doctrines to be necessary to Salvation On such terms as these we must renounce our Christianity to declare that we believed falshoods for truths and not barely as truths but as necessary Articles of Faith Therefore what Schism there was the Church of Rome must thank her self for And when this breach happened our Church thought it necessary to express her sense of these Doctrines that they were so far from being Articles of Faith that they were false and erroneous having no foundation either in Scripture or Antiquity and required a subscription to this declaration from such as are admitted to teach and instruct others How could our Church do less than she did in this matter if she would declare her sense to the World or take care of her own security And is this making Negative Articles of Faith about which T. G. and E. W. and others have made such senseless clamours when we only declare those things they would impose upon us to be so far from being Articles of Faith that they are erroneous Doctrines and therefore are rejected by us And this I take to be a Reasonable Account of the Potestant Religion which is more than I. S. hath given to those of his own Church of his Demonstrations R. P. But since Dr. St. grants the Church of Rome to hold all the essential points of Faith how can he charge her with Idolatry since Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith I pray answer to this for this comes home to the business P. D. I am glad to see you but coming that way To this Dr. St. hath already given a full and clear answer in his late Defence 1. He saith by the Church of Romes holding all essential points of Faith no more is meant than that she owns and receives all the Ancient Creeds 2. T. G. grants that Idolatry is giving the Worship due to God to a Creature If therefore a Church holding the essential points of faith may give the Worship due to God to a Creature then there is no contradiction between saying the Church of Rome holds all the essential points of faith and yet charging it with Idolatry Because Idolatry is a practical Errour and therefore may be consistent with holding all the doctrinal points of Faith no more being necessary to it as Dr. St. proves than entertaining a false notion of Divine Worship by which means it may really give Gods worship to a Creature and yet be very Orthodox in holding that Gods Worship ought not to be given to a Creature R. P. T. G. was aware of this Answer and thus he takes it off To err he saith strictly speaking is to teach that which is opposite to Truth but if the Church of Rome teaches that the Worship she gives to Saints and Images is not a part of the Honour due to God and yet it is then she errs against the second Commandment though she judges she doth not P. D. What is this to the purpose the question is not whether Idolatry doth not imply a practical errour against the second Commandment but whether it be consistent with the doctrinal points of Faith such as are essential to the Being of a Church For of this sort of Errours all the dispute was as is plain from Dr St.'s words which gave occasion to this objection R. P. But is it not a Fundamental Errour to destroy the doctrine of the second Commandment P. D. If it be The more care had they need to have who put it out of their Books that it may not fly in their Faces But who ever reckoned the Commandments among the Articles of Faith I do not deny it to be a very dangerous practical Errour to destroy the doctrine of the second Commandment or rather to take away the whole force of the precept but I say this is none of those essential points of Faith which Dr. St. spake of and therefore this is no answer to him R. P. Therefore T. G. adds that this doth not proceed upon a general Thesis whether some Idolatrous practice may not consist with owning the general principles of Faith but upon a particular Hypothesis whether the Worship of God by an Image be not an errour against the doctrine of the second Commandment if that be to forbid men to worship him by an Image And therefore if it be a Fundamental point to believe that to be Idolatry which God hath expresly forbidden in the Law under the notion of Idolatry and that be the worshipping of him by an Image as Dr. St. asserts 't is clear that the Church of Rome in telling men it is not Idolatry errs against a Fundamental point and he cannot according to his principles maintain his charge of Idolatry without a contradiction P. D. This is then the thing to be tryed and therefore we must judge of it by what Dr. St. said to which this is supposed to be a Contradiction Did he ever say that the Church of Rome did not erre against the doctrine of the second commandment Nay he hath invincibly proved it hath I say invincibly since T. G. gives it up in these Dialogues spending so many pages upon the repetition of his old arguments and passing over all that elaborate discourse of Dr. St. about the sense of the second Commandment on which the hinge of the Controversie depends If then Dr. St. doth charge them with a very dangerous and pernicious errour in respect of this Commandment that could not be the Fundamental errour he cleared the Church of Rome from when he said she held all essential points of Faith mark that and he explained himself purposely to prevent such a mistake to mean such doctrinal points of Faith as are essential to the constitution of a Church and the true Form of Baptism now the question is whether it be a contradiction for a man to say that the Church of Rome doth hold all these essential points of faith and yet is guilty of Idolatry And how after all hath T. G. proved it It is a fundamental point saith he to believe that to be Idolatry which God hath forbidden as Idolatry and so it is to believe that to be Perjury and Theft and Adultery which God hath forbidden under their notion But will any man say the true notion of Adultery is a doctrinal point of Faith Although therefore it be granted that the Church of Rome do err fundamentally against the second Commandment yet that doth not prove Dr. St. guilty of a contradiction because he spake not of practical errours but of the Doctrinal and essential points of Faith And now I hope we have done with all these preliminaries and may come
to 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
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
Works which being neither from Mathematical Demonstrations nor supernatural infallibility he called Moral Certainty Which he might do from these grounds 1. Because the force of the Argument from the Creatures depends upon some Moral Principles Viz. From the suitableness and fitness of things to the Wisdom of an Intelligent and Infinite Agent who might from thence be inferred to be the Maker of them It being unconceivable that meer matter should ever produce things in so much beauty order and usefulness as we see in every Creature in an Ant or a Fly as much as in the vast bodies of the Heavens 2. Because they do suppose some Moral Dispositions in the persons who do most readily and firmly assent to these Truths For although men make use of the highest titles for their arguments and call them Infallible Proofs Mathematical Demonstrations or what they please yet we still see men of bad minds will find something to cavil at whereby to suspend their assent which they do not in meer Metaphysical notions or in Mathematical Demonstrations But vertuous and unprejudiced minds do more impartially judge and therefore more readily give their assent having no byas to incline them another way Although therefore the principles be of another nature and the arguments be drawn from Idea's or series of Causes or whatever medium it be yet since the perverseness of mens will may hinder the force of the argument as to themselves the Certainty might be called Moral Certainty 2. As to the Christian Faith So he grants 1. That there are some principles relating to it which have Metaphysical Certainty in them as that Whatever God reveals is impossible to be false or as it is commonly expressed though improperly is infallibly True 2. That there is a rational Certainty that a Doctrine confirmed by such Miracles as were wrought by Christ and his Apostle must come from God that being the most certain Criterion of Divine Revelation 3. That there was a Physical Certainty of the truth of Christs Miracles and Resurrection from the dead in the Apostles who were eye-witnesses of them 4. That there was an Infallible Certainty in the Apostles delivering this doctrine to the world and writing it for the benefit of the Church in all Ages 5. That we have a moral Certainty of the matters of Fact which do concern the Doctrine the Miracles and the Books of Scripture which is of the same kind with the certainty those had of Christs Doctrine and Miracles who lived in Mesopotamia at that time which must depend upon the credibility of the Witnesses who convey these things which is a Moral Consideration and therefore the Certainty which is taken from it may be properly called Moral Certainty Of which there being many degrees the highest is here understood which any matter of fact is capable of And now I pray tell me what reason hath there been for all this noise about Moral Certainty R. P. T. G. owns that the Dr. in other places doth acknowledge a true certainty of the principles of Religion but he saith he can say and unsay without retracting with as much art and ease as any man he ever read P. D. I had thought unsaying had been retracting But Dr. St. saith as much in those very places T. G. objects against as in those he allows Only T. G. delights in cavilling above most Authors I have ever read R. P. But doth not Dr. St. allow a possibility of falshood notwithstanding all this pretence of Certainty P. D. Whatever is true is impossible to be false and the same degree of evidence any one hath of the truth of a thing he hath of the impossibility of the falshood of it therefore he that hath an undoubted certainty of the truth of Christianity hath the same certainty that it is impossible it should be false And because possibility and impossibility are capable of the same distinctions that Certainty is therefore according to the nature and degrees of Certainty is the possibility or impossibility of falshood That which is Metaphysically certain is so impossible to be false that it implyes a contradiction to be otherwise but it is not so in Physical Certainty nor in all rational Certainty nor in Moral and yet whereever any man is certain of the truth of a thing he is proportionably certain that it is impossible to be false R. P. This only relates to the person and not to the Evidence Is there any such evidence of the Existence of a Deity as can infallibly convince it to be absolutely true and so impossible to be false P. D. I do not doubt but that there are such evidences of the Being of God as do prove it to any unprejudiced mind impossible to be otherwise And T. G. had no reason to doubt of this from any thing Dr. St. had said who had endeavoured so early to prove the Being of God and the Principles of Christian Faith before he set himself to consider the Controversies which have happened in the Christian Church T. G. therefore might well have spared these reflections in a debate of so different a nature but that he was glad of an opportunity to go off from the business as men are that know they are not like to bring it to a good issue R. P. T. G. confesseth this is a digression but he promises to return to the matter and so he does I assure you for he comes to the second thing which he saith the Dr. ought to have done viz. to have shewed how the Notion of Idolatry doth agree to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils P. D. It is a wonder to me you should think him defective in this when he shews that there are two things from whence the sense of the Roman Church is to be taken 1. From the Definitions of Councils 2. From the practice of the Church 1. From the Definitions of Councils And here he entred upon the consideration of what that worship was which was required to be given to Images and shewed from the words of the Council and from the Testimony of the most eminent Divines of the Roman Church that it was not enough to worship before Images and to have an intention to perform those external Acts but there must be an inward intention to worship the Images themselves and that the contrary doctrine was esteemed little better than downright Heresie 2. From the Practice of the Church For he shews many of your best Divines went upon this principle that God would not suffer his Church to err and therefore they thought the allowed practice of the Church sufficient for them to defend those things to be lawful which they saw generally practised And from hence he makes it appear that the Church of Rome hath gone beyond the Council of Nice in two things 1. In making and worshipping Images of God and the B. Trinity which was esteemed madness and Pagan Idolatry in the time of the
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
saith then without all question they gave their most Soveraign worship to the Devil And when he pleads so earnestly that all the Gods of the Heathens were Devils under whatsoever name or title they worshipped them what injury can T. G. think it to his Hypothesis to say that the Heathen Idolatry did consist in giving Soveraign worship to the Devil Besides Dr. St.'s words do not imply that according to T. G. the Heathens did not give Soveraign worship to other things but that they did it eminently to the Devil which must needs follow if the Supreme God among them was no other than an Arch-Devil as T. G. then asserted and now endeavours more at large to prove R. P. Therefore waving this I come to the main point whether the Heathen Jupiter were the true God or an Arch-Devil P. D. You are just like the Author of a late Scurrilous Pamphlet called Jupiter Dr. St. 's Supreme God c. who would fain reduce the whole Question of Idolatry to this single point without considering either the occasion of this Question or the main arguments used by Dr. St. or the very scope and design of his Discourse But he is so pitiful a trifler that he deserves no notice at all That we may proceed more clearly in this Debate we ought first to attend to the principal Question which was whether Idolatry be consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being And the reason of this Question was because those who did plead the most plausibly in excusing your Church from Idolatry went upon this principle that supposing men preserved in their minds the notion of one Supreme Being it is impossible they should give to a creature that honour which was due to God alone To overthrow this Dr. St. undertook to shew that this principle would equally excuse the Heathen Idolatry since both the ancient and modern Heathens did own one Supreme God And if this be granted him it matters not to the main design of his Discourse whether it were Jupiter or not And it is a wonder to me since the man in T. G.'s Dialogues who argues against Dr. St. professes himself a Disciple of Mr. Thorndike he should never take notice of this principle nor once go about to defend it But since T. G. acknowledges that the Heathens had a notion of one Supreme Being ingraffed in their minds by nature the point then in debate is on what account they were charged with Idolatry and whether that will not reach to the practices of the Roman Church i. e. whether their Idolatry lay in worshipping the Creature and not the Creator or in giving Divine Worship though of different degrees to the Creature and the Creator And here lies the main strength of this controvesie and supposing Dr. St. were mistaken as to the sense of the Fathers about Jupiter yet if the true notion of Idolatry be proved to consist in giving the same Divine Worship to God and his Creatures his parallel will be sufficient to make good the charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome Yet since T. G. seems to lay so much weight upon the Fathers sense concerning Jupiter I am content to examine them together with you but in the first place let us consider what the Scripture saith to this point for as I remember Dr. St. began with that then he proceeded to your own Writers and at last brought in the Testimonies of Fathers and I see no reason we should go off from this method R. P. Since you will have it so I will begin with the Scripture and Dr. St. pretends to prove Jupiter to be the Supreme God from those words Acts 17. Whom ye ignorantly worship him I declare unto you P. D. Consider I pray the question between Dr. St. and T. G. viz. whether it were the true God or an Arch-devil and Dr. St. argues in these words Did St. Paul mean the Devil when he said whom you ignorantly worship him I declare unto you Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach the Devil to the world Yet he preached him whom they ignorantly worshipped What saith T. G. to this R. P. From this very Inscription To the unknown God he notably proves it could not be understood of Jupiter who was a known God and St. Paul could not be said to come to preach their Jupiter to the Athenians when he expresly tells them he came to declare to them a God whom they did not know P. D. To this I answer that the Athenians had so confounded the notion of the supreme God with that of the Poetical Jupiter and the Peoples fancies were so stained and polluted with those vulgar representations of Jove which they learnt from the Poets and Painters that the Apostle rather chose to preach the true God to them from the inscription to the unknown God than from any Altars that were inscribed Jovi Opt. Max. Because the People would have imagined if St. Paul had made choice of any usual inscription to a Deity worshipped in common with the rest that he must in consequence allow the nature and kind of their Worship For they joyned Jupiter and the rest of their Gods together the Body of their Worship consisting of an acknowledgment of one as Supreme viz. Jupiter and of the rest as worshipped together with him and so their worship being a complex thing it was more agreeable to the Apostles design which was to destroy their Idolatry not to make use of that notion of God which was corrupted by their Idolatries but to take advantage from the Inscription to the unknown God so to declare his Nature as to confute their Idolatrous Worship as he doth in the following verses Jupiter therefore as he was the Head of the Heathen Worship and as he stood in conjunction with their other Deities was a known God amongst them and solemnly worshipped by the Athenians but as by Jove was understood the Eternal Mind as the only proper object of Divine Worship and therefore ought not to be worshipped with mens hands nor to be joyned with his Creatures so he was an unknown God For they had no other knowledge of a Supreme God than as of one who admitted others into a participation of the same Worship with himself And there were these two things which made those Gentiles disown the God of the Jews who agreed with them in the acknowledgement of one Supreme God who made the world 1. That he would be worshipped by no Images or representations of himself 2. That he would admit no inferiour beings to have any share in Divine Worship but all such were accounted Idolaters by the Jewish Laws who according to the Eastern Customs worshipped any other as Mediators or inferiour Deities From hence the Heathens accounted the God of the Jews an unknown and unsociable Deity there being no representations made of him nor any others to be joyned in worship with him therefore Dion Cassius calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
I pray tell me for what end were the Fathers appealed to in this dispute about the nature of Idolatry Was it not to prove Idolatry consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme God For doth not Dr. St. propose several ways for the proof of this concerning the Heathens either the Testimony of the Heathens themselves or of the Writers of the Roman Church or of the Scriptures or of those Fathers who disputed against their Idolatry or of the Roman Church it self Therefore the Fathers were appealed to as Witnesses concerning this main point and if it appear from them that it was Idolatry in the Heathens to own a Supreme Deity and to give Divine Worship to any created Being then the notion of Idolatry will reach to the Roman Church But T. G. endeavours to get off from the close debate of this which was the most pertinent of all and would fain substitute another question in the place of it which was but a secondary and accidental dispute occasioned by T. G.'s saying that the Heathens Supreme God was an Arch-devil Although Dr. St. hath proved that was not agreeable to the general sense of the Fathers yet any one may see that quite through his discourse his chief aim was at stating the Nature of Idolatry according to the sense of the Fathers From Justin Martyr he shews that the question between the Christians and Heathens was not about one Supreme God which he acknowledges to be owned by them but whether Divine Worship ought in general to be given to any creature and in particular to the Heathen Gods And he lays the force of the Christian Doctrine as to worship upon that peremptory declaration of the Will of God Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve The same he shews as to Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Cyril and all the Fathers who managed the dispute against the Heathen Idolatry Is it impertinent to the right stating the nature of Idolatry to consider whether they who charged the Heathens with it did at the same time confess they owned one Supreme God Doth not T. G. himself grant that it is very material towards the right understanding the nature of Idolatry to consider what was the design of the Fathers to charge them with Idolatry in Whether in worshipping the Creature and not the Creator with Divine Worship or in worshipping more Gods than one properly so called which he seems to fix the Heathen Idolatry upon or in giving the same worship to God and his Creatures which Dr. St. asserts which notion soever of these be true it cannot be said to be impertinent for Dr. St. to prove his notion to be the sense of the Fathers And if the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God as T. G. grants and the Fathers do allow this in their disputes of Idolatry which T. G. cannot deny then the question comes to this whether they charged them with Idolatry only for neglecting to worship the Supreme God which they owned or in holding one Supreme and many Supremes at the same time For if they believed one Supreme God as T.G. grants and yet held many independent Deities which they worshipped as such they must hold one Supreme and yet many for every independent Deity must be Supreme I wonder therefore if T. G. designed to debate this matter fairly why he should account the other questions impertinent and account that the only point in debate whether according to the sense of the Fathers Jupiter was the Supreme God R. P. Do not you remember how Dr. St. insulted over him as to the sense of the Fathers in this matter and had he not reason then to speak to this point P. D. I allow him all the liberty he can desire provided he do not reject the main evidence as to the Cause of Idolatry to be impertinent which he would cut off by this trick that they do not refer to his question about Jupiter But since you have such a mind to tell me the sense of the Fathers in this matter let us hear and consider them in order R. P. T. G. begins as Dr. St. doth with Justin Martyr and he shews from him that the Devils appearing in humane shapes were the first beginners of Idolatry the people taking them for Gods and worshipped their Images P. D. This is no great discovery to Dr. St. for he takes notice of this very opinion of Justin Martyr R. P. But he makes Jupiter to have been one of these Devils in his first Apology Where he saith the Poets and Mythologists not knowing that the Angels and Daemons begotten by them had been the Authors of the infamous practises he there speaks of attributed them to God himself and to the sons begotten by him and to those who are called his Brethren Neptune and Pluto P. D. What follows from hence I beseech you R. P. That according to the sense of Justin Martyr Jupiter the Supreme God was a Devil P. D. That should be better proved For how doth it follow from Justins words That which Justin saith is that what he attributes to Devils the Poets attribute to God himself and his Sons and what then It thence follows that Justin thought they attributed very unworthy things to God but not that he thought him to be a Devil For doth not the same Author prove that their Poets as well as Philosophers did own one supreme God and that Homer calls him Emphatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very expression Justin useth in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by that he saith is meant the truly existent Deity whom he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 R. P. But Justin saith the Devils were the causes of Idolatry and the Poets say the true God was the cause therefore according to Justin Martyr their true God was a Devil P. D. Which is just like this kind of reasoning The Poets and Mythologists of the Roman Church attribute the miracles wrought by Images to the true God others say they are wrought by the power of the Devil therefore they make the Papists God to be a Devil Which is altogether as true reasoning as the former For Justin saith he believes Idolatry to have come from the Devils the Poets they say it came from God and although he quotes this opinion of theirs it doth not follow that he thought their God to be a Devil but that they attributed those things to God which did come from the Devil So much for the first Testimony let us come to the next and if the rest prove like it notwithstanding T. G.'s fluttering all his Fathers will be but a Covie of one still R. P. The next is Athenagoras who first shews from what the Poets and Historians relate concerning the Heathen Gods that there was nothing that might induce us to believe Saturn Jupiter Proserpine and the rest of them to be Gods but rather that they were men
a publick profession and consent that those acts are applyed to those objects upon different accounts it is intolerable impertinency to understand such Acts as are in themselves equivocal in any other sense than the Church declares viz. as applyed to Saints or Images the outward Acts of Worship as bowing kneeling c. are used only as tokens or expressions of an inferiour respect and Veneration P. D. If this be all you have to say for your selves the Heathens must be excused from Idolatry as well as You. For they acknowledged by common consent and publick profession a difference between the supreme God and inferiour Spirits they allowed of different degrees of Worship and without all question did not look on their Emperours as the Supreme Deity that made and governs the world and yet I hope the primitive Christians were not guilty of intolerable impertinency in charging them with Idolatry But it seems the holy Angel was guilty of the same intolerable impertinency in so rashly rebuking the Apostle for falling down to Worship him for this was an equivocal Act and in all probability was intended only as a token of respect and Veneration inferiour to what was thought due to God over all Blessed for evermore But those Acts of Divine Worship which by the Law of God become due only to himself can by no consent or declaration of a Church be made lawful to be given to any creature however they may call them Acts of inferiour respect and Veneration as long as they are of the same nature with those which were condemned both by the Scripture and Fathers as Idolatrous Worship R. P. Doth not Dr. Hammond say that Naaman the Syrian was excused from Idolatry because of the publick profession he made that he intended not the Worship to the Idol but to his Master And will not the same plea hold for us who declare we do not give Soveraign Worship to any Creatures but only inferiour Worship P. D. If Naaman had desired leave to worship Rimmon or Saturn with an inferiour Worship declaring that he did not take Saturn for the true and Supreme God but the God of Israel and therefore he might apply the same Act after a different manner and the Prophet had then bid him Go in Peace You had some reason for your parallel But as long as Naamans question only related to the performing an act of Civil Worship to his Prince in the House of Rimmon what colour can be hence taken for giving any kind of Religious Worship to Saints or Images in places and at times set apart for Divine Worship R. P. But Monsieur Daillé saith that external signs whether of nature or Religion are to be interpreted by the publick and common practice of those who use them and not by the secret and particular intentions of this or that Person P. D. And what then I beseech you Monsieur Daillé discourses against those who would use all the external Acts of adoration of the Host which others did but with a different intention and hoped this would excuse them from Idolatry Now in this case he saith that signs of Religious Worship as uncovering the Head kneeling or prostrating the body at the sound of a little bell and such other actions are the plain and ordinary signs of the adoration of the Host and are so appointed by the Church of Rome and so understood by those who generally practise it therefore saith he those who do use these outward signs are to be understood to give adoration to the Host. From whence it follows that men cannot comply with others in the Acts of adoration of the Host without hypocrisie or Idolatry which it was Mons. Daillé's design to prove But what is all this to the proving that inferiour worship is not Idolatry we desire that these signs of Worship may be interpreted according to the common and publick practice of those who use them by which we say it is as truly Religious Worship as the Nations used which all Christians do charge with Idolatry But if your meaning be that your actions are to be interpreted in your own sense it will come to this at last that You are not guilty of Idolatry because you declare you are not guilty of it And whoever condemned themselves for it by publick declarations unless it were when they repented of it as a great sin which I do not find you are yet willing to do I pray remember this saying of Daille's when you think to justifie giving acts of Divine Worship to a Creature by your secret intention for he saith and you seem to approve his saying that such Acts when they are of the nature of Religious Worship are to be interpreted by the common and publick practice and not by particular intentions if therefore the Acts of Worship be such as by the Scriptures and sense of the Primitive Church belong only to God no intention of yours of applying them after an inferiour manner can excuse you from giving adoration to a Creature Especially if they be such Acts which God hath appropriated to himself as the six mentioned by Dr. St. for who dares alter what God himself hath appointed R. P. I think you are turning Quaker for this is their principle do not they alledge Christs precept against swearing and then say who dares alter what God himself hath appointed P. D. I may as well fear you are renouncing Christianity for what Christian ever said or thought otherwise than that it is not in the power of men to alter the Laws of Christ If Christs precept were to be understood of all kind of swearing do you really think it would be lawful to swear at all I am ashamed of this loose not to say profane way of talking about the obligation of Divine Laws R. P. I only mentioned this by the by to let you see what kind of principles the Dr. makes use of to combate the Church of Rome P. D. Just such principles as all Christians own and are bound so to do by their being Christians But do you think in earnest that it is in the power of men to alter the Laws of God R. P. No. But T. G. means that there is now no Law of God binding men concerning these external Acts of worship and therefore it is in the Power of the Church to appoint these as well as other Rites and Ceremonies and to determine the signification of them P. D. If this be his meaning it is very ill expressed But I say that our Saviour hath declared the immutable obligation of that Law concerning applying all Acts of Religious worship only to God and that the Vniversal Church of Christ in the first Ages so understood it as appears not barely by their words but by the greatest testimony of their Actions when such multitudes laid down their lives upon this Principle Therefore I say again You must call in question their Title to Martyrdom or
same form of words continues still in the Offices as if the oblations of Bread and Wine were still made by the People and so Sirmondus and Bona both say those expressions of the Mass-Book you mention are to be understood of these oblations of the People and not of the Sacrifice of Christs Body And that these oblations were called sacrifices appears by the known passages of S. Cyprian Locuples dives es Dominicum celebrare te credis quae in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis quae partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulit sumis In which he blames the rich women that came without an Oblation which he calls a sacrifice and did partake of that which the poor offered which S. Augustin calls de aliena oblatione communicare and therefore he bids all Communicants to make their own oblations at the Altar But suppose these expressions were not to be understood of the oblations of the people as it is certain the prayers called Secretae and the first part of the Canon of the Mass are yet it was not fairly done of T. G. to leave out a very significant word which immediately followed viz. laudis qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis If the People be allowed their share in the Eucharistical Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving what is this to their offering up the proper propitiatory sacrifice of the Body of Christ I do not deny that the People had a share in the sacrifice according to the sense of Antiquity not only from their oblations but because as Cassander well observes the Ancients did call the whole Eucharistical Office as it took in the Peoples part as well as the Priests by the name of a sacrifice and so the Oblations Prayers Thanksgivings Consecration Commemoration Distribution Participation did all belong to the sacrifice But since you restrain the true and proper sacrifice to the oblation of the Body of Christ to God by the Priest Dr. St. had reason to say that the sacrifice among you belongs to the Priests and is not an external Act of Worship common to all And so according to the sense you put on the Mass-Book you leave no one Act of peculiar external worship appropriated to God which is to be performed by all Christians which was the thing to be proved THE END Books Printed for and Sold by Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard and at the White Hart in Westminster-Hall A Rational account of the grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord-Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. Folio Sermons preached upon several occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the true reasons of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius's Answer to Grotius is considered Folio Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches wounds in Quarto Origines Sacrae or a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and matters therein contained Quarto A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it in Answer to some Papers of a revolred Protestant wherein a particular account is given of the Fanaticisms and Divisions of that Church Octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the communion of it the first Part Octovo A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church Octavo An Answer to Mr. Cressey's Epistle Apologetical to a person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in Answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters all written by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty The Rule of faith or an Answer to the Treatise of Mr. I. S. Entituled Sure Footing c. by John Tillotson D. D. Preacher to the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn To which is adjoyned a Reply to Mr. I. S. his third Appendix c. by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty The Antiquities of Nottinghamshire Extracted out of Records Original Evidences Lieger Books other Manuscripts and Authentick Authorities beautified with Maps Prospects and Portraictures by Robert Thoroton Dr. of Physick Folio FINIS Dial p. 13. p. 10. Cath. no Idol p. 197. Dial. p. 62. Preface to Cath. no Idol Dial. p. 9. Dial. p. 15. Dial. p. 17. Cypr. Anglic p 364. 1 Ed. P. 3â— Necessary Introd to the History of B. Laud. p. 14. Conference with Fisher. p. 277. History of his Tryal p. 472. Cypr. Angl. p. 435· Dial. p. 28. Dial. p. 19. Cypr. Angl. p. 418. Dial. p. 21. Hincmar de praedest c. 31. Lanfranc de Corp. Sang. Christ. c. 4. Guitm de sacr l. 1. Cajet in Aquin. 3. p. q. 75. art 1. 2. â— Aq. 4. dist 44. q. 2. ar 2. Conink de sacr qu. 75. art 3. Maerat de sacr disp 24. sect 1. Lugo de Sacram. disp 5. §. 1. Suarez in 3. p. disp 48. art 1 §. 4. Gamach iâ— 3. p. qu. 76. c. 4. Ysambert qu. 75. disp 3. art 8. Vasq. in 3. p. disp 109. c. 4. art 6. p. 28. Dial. p. 25 27. Cypr. Angl. p. 48.1 ed. P. 66. Dial. p. 30. to 33. Laws of the Ch. Ch. 4. p. 30. Dial. p. 42. c. Cypr. Angl. p. 62. Cypr. Angl. p. 189. Dial. p. 46 47 c. Dial. p. â—7 Dial. p. 49. Prodr p. 76. B. Andrews Resp. ad Apolog. Bell. p. 37. compared with Burâ—â—il Deâ—ens Respons ad Apolog. c. 6. q. 21. B. Sanders Preface to his Serm. §. 15. De obligat cons. prael 4. §. 33. Dial. p. 51 c. P. 63. Dial. p. 52. P. 160. P. 162. Dial. p. 59 60 61. Dial. p. 53 54. P. 56. Defence p. 581. Joh. Rosin vit â—â—ed sapient Dial. p. 141 c. Dial. p. 132. Dial. p. 133 134. Pontificale Rom. de ordinat Presbyt Concil Trident. Sess. 23. c. 4. Dial. p. 143. Dial. p. 151 c. P. 155. P. 157. Scot. in sâ—nt l. 4. dist 4. q. 9. Biel. in Sâ—nt q. 2. Cajet in 3. p. q. 63. art 1. Morin de Ordin part 3. Exercit. 3. c. 1. â— 4. Alex. Al. 4. p. q. 8. memb 5. art 1. §. 6. ad 2. Scot. in 4. dist 25. q. 1. resp ad 3. Morin ib. exerc 5. c. 9. n. 12 13. Grat. 1. q. 1. post can 97. Gul. Paâ—is de Sacr. Ord. c. 7. Morin de Ord. Sacr. p.