our interest but none that understand and value our Church will endure such a pernicious discrimination among the Sons of the same Mother as though some few were fatally determined to be the Sons of our Church whatever their Works and Merits were and others absolutely cast off notwithstanding the greatest service I should not mention this but that I see T. G. insinuating all along such a distinction as this and crying up some persons on purpose as the only genuine Sons of the Church of England that he might cast reproach upon others and thereby foment animosities among Brethren But whose Children those are who do so I leave T. G. to consider R. P. Whatever T. G.'s intention was yet you cannot deny that he hath proved two parts in three to be incompetent Witnesses according to his own Measures P. D. Not deny it I never saw any thing more weakly attempted to be proved as Dr. St. hath shewed at large in his Preface Bishop White being rejected as a Puritan because condemned by that party Bishop Jewel because K. Charles said he was not infallible Bishop Bilson because of his errours about Civil Government though a stout defender of the Church of England Bishop Davenant because he was none of the Fathers Bishop Vsher because his Adversary gives an ill character of him By this you may judge what powerful exceptions T. G. made against two parts in three of the Witnesses R. P. T. G. saith That Dr. St. rather waved the exceptions by pretty facetious artifices of Wit than repelled them by a downright denial out of the affection Catharinus hopes he bears still to the Cause which had been honoured by such learned and godly Bishops as Jewel Downham Usher the two Abbots and Davenant which are recorded among the Puritans by the Patronus bonae Fidei P. D. You might as well have quoted Surius Cochlaeus for your Church as this Patronus bonae Fidei for ours For he is an Historian much of their size and credit But of him we shall have occasion to speak hereafter T. G. filling page after page out of him Let the Reader judge whether Dr. St. did not shew T. G.'s exceptions to be vain and srivolous and consequently these remain substantial and competent Witnesses And as to the cause of the Church of England which these learned and pious Prelates defended and honoured Dr. St. will rejoyce to be joyned with them though it be in suffering reproach for the sake of it R. P. Let us pass over these single Testimonies and come to the most material proofs which Dr. St. used and T. G. declares he is not yet convinced by them that the charge of Idolatry was the sense of the Church of England P. D. With all my heart The First was from the Book of Homilies not barely allowed but subscribed to as containing godly and wholsome doctrine very necessary for these times which owns this charge of Idolatry not in any doubtful or single passage but in an elaborate Discourse intended for the Teachers as well as the People To which he added that the Doctrine of the Homilies is allowed in the thirty nine Articles which were approved by the Queen confirmed by the subscription of both Houses of Convocation A. D. 1571. And therefore he desires T. G. to resolve him whether men of any common understanding would have subscribed to the Book of Homilies in this manner if they had believed the main doctrine and design of one of them had been false and pernicious If saith he any of the Bishops had at that time thought the charge of Idolatry unjust and that it had subverted the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority would they have inserted this into the Articles when it was in their power to have left it out and that the Homilies contained a wholesome and godly Doctrine which in their consciences they believed to be false and pernicious He might as well think he saith that the Council of Trent would have allowed Calvins Institutions as containing a wholesome and godly Doctrine as that men so perswaded would have allowed the Homily against the peril of Idolatry And how is it possible to understand the sense of our Church better than by such publick and authentick Acts of it which all persons who are in any place of trust in the Church must subscribe and declare their approbation of This Homily hath still continued the same the Article the very same and if so they must acknowledge this hath been and is to this day the sense of our Church And to what T. G. saith that this doth not evince every particular doctrine contained in the Homilies to be godly and wholesome because the whole Book is subscribed to as containing such doctrine he answers that there is a great deal of difference to be made between some particular passages and expressions in these Homilies and the main doctrine and design of a whole Homily and between subscribing to a whole Book as containing godly and wholsome doctrine though men be not so certain of the Truth of every passage in it and if they are convinced that any doctrine contained in it is false and pernicious Now those who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry do not only look on the charge as false but as of dangerous consequence and therefore such a subscription would be shuffling and dishonest From these things laid together in my mind Dr. St. hath not only clearly proved that the charge of Idolatry was not only owned by the composers of the Homilies but by all who have honestly subscribed to the Articles from that time to our own And I would be glad to hear what answer T. G. gives to all this R. P. He answers first by repeating what he said before and then by shewing that subscription is no good argument considering what had been done and undone in that kind in the Reigns of K. Henry 8. Edw. 6. Q. Mary and Q. Elizabeth not to speak of latter times P. D. What is this but in plain terms to say the subscribers of our Articles were men of no honesty or conscience but would say or unsay subscribe one thing or another as it served their turn If this be his way of defending our Church we shall desire him to defend his own But yet this doth not reach home to the Doctors argument which proceeded not meerly on their honesty but their having common understanding For here was no force or violence offered them they had the full power to consider the Articles and to compose the Homilies and would men of common sense put in things against their own minds and make and approve and recommend Homilies which they did not believe themselves This evidently proves the composers of the Homilies and Convocation at that time did approve the doctrine of these Homilies for it was in their power not to have passed them Thus far it is plain that was the doctrine of the Church then
resolved to believe it for the Authority of your Church can never perswade any man that is not R. P. When you are gotten to this point of transubstantiation it is hard to get you off It is the sore place of our Church and you are like Flyes in Summer alwayes busie about it I pray return to your Rubrick for you seem to have forgotten it P. D. No I have been pursuing it hitherto R. P. But what say you to T. G.'s reasons why this must be understood of a corporeal presence of Christs natural Body because you else overthrow the doctrine of a real presence which hath been accounted the doctrine of the Church of England P. D. To this I answer 1. The Rubrick saith expresly that it is against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one It doth not say against the corporeal presence of his natural Body but the truth of it from whence it follows that our Church believes the true natural body of Christ which was born of the Virgin suffered on the Cross and ascended into Heaven can be but in one place which is declared in the foregoing words And the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here i. e. in Heaven exclusively from being in the Sacrament Which are not true if the same natural Body of Christ could be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host. R. P. How then can your Divines hold a real presence of Christs Body as T. G. saith they do P. D. You had heard if you had staid till I came to my second Answer which is that notwithstanding this our Church doth hold that after Consecration the Elements do become the Body and Blood of Christ and so there is a real presence of Christs Body but not of his natural but of a mystical Body I will endeavour to make this out to you because you look strangely upon me as if I were big of some mighty paradox When Paschasius Radbertus did first broach the modern doctrine of the Roman Church about the same body of Christ being in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin in the Western Church he met with great opposition therein from the most learned Divines of that Age among the rest there lived then in the Court of Carolus Calvus a man very eminent for his Learning called Joh. Scotus or Erigena This man at the request of Carolus Calvus delivered his opinion directly contrary to Paschasius for whereas he asserted that the very same Body of Christ which was born of the B. Virgin was invisibly present under the accidents of Bread and Wine Scotus denyed that the Elements were in any real sense after consecration the Body and Blood of Christ the Sacrament being only a bare commemoration or figurative representation of the Body and Blood of Christ. So Hincmarus who lived in that Age delivers his opinion which was afterwards taken up by Berengarius as appears by Lanfrank's answer to him And Ascelinus in his Epistle to Berengarius shews that Joh. Scotus out of opposition to Paschasius set himself to prove from the Fathers that what was consecrated on the Altar was not truly and really the Body and Blood of Christ. These two opposite doctrines being thus dispersed and a Schism being likely to break out upon it as appears both by Ratramnus and the Anonymous Authour published by Cellotius and extant in MS in the Cotton Library Carolus Calvus sends to Ratramnus an eminent Divine of that Age being imployed by the Gallican Church to defend the Latins against the Greeks to know his judgement in this matter He who is better known by the name of Bertram gives in his Preface an Account to his Prince of both these opinions and rejects them both as against the sense of the Fathers and Doctrine of the Church In the first part of his Book he disputes against Scotus who would allow no Mysterie and in the second against Paschasius who contended that the same Body of Christ was in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin this he saith was the state of the second Question whether that very Body of Christ which sits at the right hand of God be reâ—eived by believers in the Sacramental Mysterie And he proves the Negative at large from the Testimonies of the Fathers shewing that they did put a difference between that Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and that true but mystical body of Christ on the Altar and so from the Testimonies of S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Hierom Fulgentius from the Scriptures and from the Offices of the Church he concludes point-blank against Paschasius that it was not the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin But then against the opinion of Scotus he delivers his mind fully in answer to the first Question saying If there were nothing in the Sacrament but what appeared to the senses it was unfitly called a Mysterie and there would be no exercise for faith no change at all wrought in the Elements the Sacrament would fall short of Baptism and the Manna in the Wilderness and lastly to what purpose did Christ promise his Flesh to be the Food of his People which being not to be understood carnally and literally must have a spiritual signification so that though as to their outward appearance the Sacramental Elements are Figures yet according to the invisible Power and Efficacy they are the Body and Blood of Christ. And this he shews to have been the sense of the Fathers and Christian Church This opinion of Ratramnus Paschasius in his Epistle to Frudegardus calls the doctrine of those who deny the presence of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament but do hold an invisible power and efficacy in and with the Elements because say they there is no body but what is visible and palpable And whoever will read that Epistle of Paschasius will find the expressions he answers the very same that yet occur in the Book of Bertram Of the same opinion with Ratramnus in this matter was Rabanus Maurus the greatest Divine accounted of his Age who wrote his Epistle to Egilo against them who had lately broached that doctrine mark that that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament was the very same which was born of the B. Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose from the dead And this appears from his Epistle to Heribaldus still extant wherein he saith he declared in what sense the Sacrament was the Body of Christ. Besides the Anonymus Authour published by Cellotius the only person about that time who appeared in behalf of the doctrine of Paschasius and very inconsiderable in comparison of his Adversaries confesseth the opposition made to Paschasius by Rabanus and Ratramnus and endeavours to excuse his simplicity in asserting that the same flesh of Christ was upon the Altar which was
not only affirms the modern Church of Rome to be too like to Paganism in the adoration of Images but condemns the praying to Angels as the Idolatry condemned by the Council of Laodicea as Dr. St. shewed from his M S. notes upon Bellarmine To these Dr. St. added in his General Preface the Testimonies of Archbishop Bancroft Bishop Montague Pet. Heylin and Mr. Thorndike which three last were the very persons T. G. did appeal to and the last of them did declare that the practice of Idolatry was such in the Roman Church that no good Christian dare trust his soul in the communion of it which is all one as to say they must be guilty of Hypocrisie or Idolatry R. P. But T. G. saith they only reprove some practices as Idolatrous or at least in danger to be such but Dr. St. acknowledges that they excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry although not all who live in the communion of it P. D. Doth he indeed say so or is this another piece of T. G.'s fineness His words are these And although it may be only an excess of charity in some few learned persons to excuse that Church from Idolatry although not all who live in the Communion of it and then produces the seventeen Testimonies to shew he did not differ from the sense of the Church of England or the eminent defenders of it ever since the Reformation and do you think that among his Testimonies he would produce any whom he thought to free the Church of Rome from Idolatry no certainly but I suppose that clause referred to Mr. Thorndike and some few others and as to Mr. Thorndike he afterwards produced the passage before mentioned out of some papers written by him a little before his death What saith T. G. to that R. P. Not a word more but I find he makes use of Mr. Thorndikes name on all occasions as if he favoured our side against the Church of England and Dr. St. And the man who manageth the Dialogue against him is brought in as one of Mr. Thorndikes principles I pray tell me was not he a man in his heart of our Church and only lived in the external communion of yours P. D. D. St. hath given a just character of him when he calls him a man of excellent Learning and great Piety and since so ill use is made of his name in these disputes and such dishonour done to his memory I shall but do him right to let you understand what his judgement was of the Church of Rome which he delivered in a paper to a Lady a little before his death from whom it came immediately to my Hands and is the same paper Dr. St. doth refer to 1. The truth of the Christian Religion and of the Scripture is presupposed to the Being of a Church And therefore cannot depend upon the Authority of it 2. The Church of Rome maintains the Decrees of the present Church to be Infallible which is false and yet concerns the salvation of all that believe it Therefore no man can submit to the Authority of it 3. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time did not make void the baptism of those Sects which did not baptise in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost But that Baptism is void and true baptism necessary to salvation Therefore the Church of Rome may err in matters of salvation 4. The Church of Rome may err in Schism following the wrong cause If you except only things necessary to salvation to be believed This shews that infallibility only in things necessary to salvation is not enough It is destructive to salvation to follow the wrong cause in Schism Instance The Schism with the Greek Church for appeals to Rome For there is evident Tradition to the contrary 5. The Church of Rome enjoyns Apocryphal Scriptures to be esteemed Canonical Scriptures But this injunction is contrary to Tradition and Truth and concerns the salvation of all that receive it 6. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews for Canonical Scripture as now it doth and as in truth it is Therefore the Church of Rome may err in declaring the Authority of Scripture 7. The Church of Rome doth err in teaching that attrition is turned into contrition by submitting to the power of the Keys But this errour is destructive to the salvation of all that believe it Therefore it may err in matters necessary to salvation That it is an errour Because of the condition of remission of sins which is before the being of a Church and therefore cannot depend on the Authority of the Church 8. The Church of Rome injoyneth to believe Transubstantiation and to profess that which is false For there is Scripture and Tradition for the presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist but neither Scripture nor Tradition for transubstantiation viz. for abolishing the Elements But the Church of Rome injoyns to believe it Therefore it enjoyns to believe that for which there is neither Tradition nor Scripture Witness the Fathers that own the Elements after Consecration 9. The Council of Trent enjoyneth to believe that Christ instituted a new Passeover to be sacrificed as well as represented commemorated and offered in the Eucharist de Sacrific Missae cap. 1. which is false For the Sacrifice of Christs Cross is commemorated represented and offered as ready to be slain in and by the Eucharist but not slain and therefore not sacrificed in it and by celebrating it And therefore when it is said there c. 11. quod in Missa Christus incruentè immolatur if it be meant properly it is a contradiction for that which hath blood is not sacrificed but by shedding the blood of it if figuratively it signifies no more than that which I have said that it is represented commemorated and offered as slain And therefore all parts agreeing to this the Church of Rome requiring more is guilty of the Schism that comes by refusing it For the propitiation of the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the propitiation of Christs Cross purchased for them that are qualifi'd 10. The Council of Trent commends the Mass without the Communion cap. 6. wherein it erreth For the Communion being the restoring of the Covenant of Baptism after sin the want of it without the desire of it is to be lamented not commended as destructive of the means of salvation 11. There is neither Scripture nor Tradition for praying to Saints departed or any evidence that they hear our prayers Therefore it evidences a carnal hope that God will abate of the Covenant of our Baptism which is the condition of our salvation for their sakes 12. To pray to them for those things which only God can give as all Papists do is by the proper sense of their words downright Idolatry If they say their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God How dare any
we shall come to that in time At present I pray clear this matter if you can P. D. To what purpose is all this raking and scraping and searching and quoting of passages not at all to the point of Idolatry R. P. What! would you have a man do nothing to fill up a Book and make it carry something of the Port of an Answer especially to a thick Book of between 800 and 900 pages P. D. If this be your design go on but I will make my answers as short as I can for methinks T. G. seems to have lost that spirit and briskness he had before for then he talked like a man that had a mind to keep close to the point but now he flags and draws heavily on For he repeats what he had said before for some pages and then quotes out of Dr. St.'s other Books for several pages more and at last it comes to no more than this Dr. St. doth in some places of his Writings seem to favour the Dissenters I am quite tired with this impertinency yet I would fain see an end of these things that we might come close to the business of Idolatry which I long to be at R. P. Your stomach is too sharp set we must blunt it a little before you fall to P. D. You take the course to do it with all this impertinency but what is it you have to say R. P. To please you I will bring this charge as near to the point of Idolatry as I can the substance of it is this Dr. St. saith the Church of England doth not look on her Articles as Articles of Faith but as inferiour Truths from thence T. G. infers 1. The Church of Rome doth not err against any Articles of Faith 2. Dr. St. doth not believe the thirty nine Articles to be Articles of Faith 3. Then this charge of Idolatry is vain and groundless because Idolatry is an error against a Fundamental point of Faith P. D. Here is not one word new in all this long charge but a tedious repetition of what T. G. had said before It consists of two points 1. The charge upon Dr. St. for undermining the Church of England 2. The unreasonableness of the charge of Idolatry upon his own supposition Because T. G. seems to think there is something in this business which touched Dr. St. to the quick and therefore he declined giving any answer to the First Part of it I will undertake to do it for him Dr. St. doth indeed say that the Church of England doth not make her Articles Articles of Faith as the Church of Rome doth the Articles of Pope Pius the fourth his Creed And did ever any Divine of the Church of England say otherwise It is true the Church of Rome from her insolent pretence of Infallibility doth make all things proposed by the Church of equal necessity to Salvation because the ground of Faith is the Churches Authority in proposing things to be believed But doth the Church of England challenge any such Infallibility to her self No. She utterly disowns it in her very Articles therefore she must leave matters of Faith as she found them i. e. she receives all the Creeds into her Articles and Offices but makes no additions to them of her own and therefore Dr. St. did with great reason say that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world and of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self from whence he doth justly magnifie the moderation of this Church in comparison with the Church of Rome R. P. But T. G. saith That he hath degraded the Articles of the Church of England from being Articles of Faith into a lower Classe of inferiour Truths P. D. I perceive plainly T. G. doth not know what an Article of Faith means according to the sense of the Church of England He looks on all propositions made by the Church as necessary Articles of Faith which is the Roman sense and founded on the doctrine of Infallibility but where the Churches Infallibility is rejected Articles of Faith are such as have been thought necessary to Salvation by the consent of the Christian world which consent is seen in the Ancient Creeds And whatever doctrine is not contained therein though it be received as Truth and agreeable to the Word of God yet is not accounted an Article of Faith i. e. not immediately necessary to Salvation as a point of Faith But because of the dissentions of the Christian world in matters of Religion a particular Church may for the preservation of her own peace declare her sense as to the Truth and Falshood of some controverted points of Religion and require from all persons who are intrusted in the Offices of that Church a subscription to those Articles which doth imply that they agree with the sense of that Church about them R. P. But Dr. St. saith from Arch-bishop Bramhall that the Church doth not oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them and upon this T. G. triumphs over Dr. St. as undermining the Doctrine and Government of the Church of England P. D. Why not over Arch-Bishop Bramhall whose words Dr. St. cites And was he a favourer of Dissenters and an underminer of the Church of England Yet Dr. St. himself in that place owns a subscription to them as necessary and what doth subscription imply less than agreeing with the sense of the Church So that he saith more than Arch-Bishop Bramhall doth And I do not see how his words can pass but with this construction that when he saith we do not oblige any man to believe them he means as Articles of Faith of which he speaks just before But I do freely yield that the Church of England doth require assent to the truth of those propositions which are contained in the thirty nine Articles and so doth Dr. St. when he saith the Church requires subscription to them as inferiour Truths i. e. owning them to be true propositions though not as Articles of Faith but Articles of Religion as our Church calls them R. P. If they are but inferiour Truths saith T. G. was it worth the while to rend asunder the Peace of Christendom for them Is not this a very reasonable account as I. S. calls it of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion and a rare way of justifying her from the guilt of Schism P. D. T. G. mistakes the matter It was not our imposing negative points on others but the Church of Romes imposing false and absurd doctrines for necessary Articles of Faith which did break the Peace of Christendom We could have no communion with the Church of Rome unless we owned her Supremacy her Canon of Scripture her Rule of Faith or the equality of Tradition and Scripture her doctrines of Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Transubstantiation c. and we were required not
and why should we suppose any subscribers to take them in any other sense than the Church did then mean them Nay Dr. St. challenged him to produce any one Divine of our Church who through the long reign of Q. Elizabeth did so much as once question the truth of this charge Doth T. G. upon so long consideration of this matter name any R. P. Not any that I find P. D. But that will be best seen by considering Dr. St.'s second Argument of the sense of the Church of England in this matter viz. from the current Doctrine of the Church ever since the Reformation the injunctions of Edw. 6. of Cranmer of Q. Elizabeth the Form of Thanksgiving A. D. 1594. R. P. To this T. G. answers that this was a heat in the beginning of the Reformation but after the Crown was settled upon K. James whose title was unquestionable both at Rome at home I suppose he means and abroad the dangerous consequences of the charge of Idolatry began to be more calmly and maturely considered and were so throughly weighed in the time of K. Charles I. that as Heylin saith Bishop Laud hindred the Reprinting the Books containing Calvinian Doctrines Which evidently shews saith he that that party never looked upon the expressions of Idolatry contained in those injunctions as the dogmatical sense of the Church of England P. D. A very likely story that our Church should vary in its doctrine because K. James his title to the Crown was unquestionable It seems before the Church of Rome was guilty of Idolatry because Q. Elizabeths title was not owned by the Pope What a fine insinuation is couched under all this viz. that our Church depended wholly on the Queens pleasure and fitted her doctrines to serve her Turn and when that was over the Tide turned and that was pernicious doctrine now which was wholesome before and wholesome now which was pernicious before and yet there were the same Articles the same Homilies the same subscriptions which were before R. P. But he quotes a Doctour of your own Church for what he saith P. Heylin and delivers it in his Words P. D. P. Heylin speaks not one word in that place of the charge of Idolatry although T. G. seems to represent it so but of those who reviled the Church of Rome it self and all the Divine Offices Ceremonies and performances of it Which it is plain he there speaks of the Genevian party for but just before he mentions the Geneva Bible and the dangerous positions contained in the Annotations printed with it Now these persons whom he there speaks of looked upon the Church of Rome as a meer Synagogue of Satan and no true Church and all the Offices and Ceremonies of it to be so defiled that no use could be made of them and on that account they rejected our Liturgie and Ceremonies as taken from the Church of Rome Although therefore saith he Q. Elizabeth might suffer such things to be printed in her time yet B. Laud would not allow the Reprinting of them because Q. Elizabeth might out of State policy suffer the violent transports of irregular zeal by reason of her personal quarrels with the Pope yet now those reasons being over B. Laud would not suffer them to come abroad again But that this expression cannot be understood of the charge of Idolatry I prove by these arguments 1. Pet. Heylin himself preaching before K. Charles I. and Archbishop Laud did in plain terms charge the Worship of Images with most gross Idolatry as appears by the words cited at large in Dr. St.'s general preface What saith T. G. to this R. P. I do not find a particular answer to this but I suppose he reckons him with those six of whom he saith that they do not charge the Church of Rome it self but the opinions of School Divines and abuses in practice P. D. That cannot be for Pet. Heylin goes farther saying that they who observe the manner of their Worship of Images with what Pilgrimages Processions Offerings with what affections prayers and humble bendings of the body they have been and are Worshipped in the Church of Rome might very easily conceive that she was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism R. P. He saith they might conceive so but he doth not say they might justly conceive so P. D. This is very subtle and like T. G. himself But I pray observe P. Heylin when he gives an account of the Worship of Images saith when the Doctrine which first began in the Schools came to its growth what fruits could it bear but most gross Idolatry greater than which was never known among the Gentiles Mark that for your satisfaction What fruit could the doctrine bear and that after it came out of the Schools to its growth And when he saith they might conceive that Rome was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism the meaning is Those that saw their Worship of Images in modern Rome and compared it with what was done in old Rome would see no difference the Idolatry was so gross in both that if there were nothing else to make a distinction a man might easily conceive Rome was relapsed into her ancient Paganism R. P. But what other argument have you to prove that P. Heylin could not speak this of the charge of Idolatry P. D. Because in his Introduction he owns the doctrine of the Homilies as to this point of Idolatry and that the compilers of the Homilies were the more earnest in this point of removing or excluding Images the better to wean the people from the sin of Idolatry in which they had been trained up from their very infancy And after he adds the people of this last Age being sufficiently instructed in the unlawfulness of worshipping such painted Images they may be lawfully used in Churches without fear of Idolatry What can this signifie if he did not take the Worship of Images to be Idolatry and therefore he could not look upon this as a heat in the beginning of the Reformation and which was quite spent in the time of B. Laud since not only P. Heylin but the Arch-Bishop himself saith that the Modern Church of Rome is too like Paganism in the Worship of Images and driven to scarce intelligible subtilties in her servants writings that defend it and this without any care had of millions of souls unable to understand her subtilties or shun her practice And in his defence against the charge of the Commons he said that he had written against the adoration and superstitious use of Images as fully as any man whatsoever What think you now Sir was this a heat in the beginning of the Reformation and when men in Archbishop Lauds time more duly weighed the consequences of this charge they grew both cooler and wiser what evidence doth T. G. produce for this When the very person he produces for it is so far from it that he saith the contrary and
Church is the Body of Christ because of his spirit quickning and enlivening the Souls of Believers so the bread and wine after consecration are the real but the spiritual and Mystical body of Christ. If any one yet thinks that some at least of our Divines have gone farther than this let them know it is the Doctrine of our Church I am to defend and not of every particular Divine in it and if any do seem to speak of the presence of the very same Body which is in Heaven I desire them in the first place to reconcile that doctrine with this dogmatical assertion at the end of this Rubrick that it is against the Truth of Christs natural Body not against the corporal presence of it to be at one time in more places than one Let men imagine what kind of presence they please of the same body I only desire to know whether to be in Heaven and to be in the Sacrament be to be in the same or distinct places If the places be distinct as no doubt Heaven and Earth are then our Church declares that it is contrary to the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be in more places than one at one time R. P. But cannot God annihilate that Cylinder of air between the Body of Christ in Heaven and the Sacrament on the Altar and so make them both to be in one place P. D. This is a very idle and extravagant question because if it be granted it only proves that there is nothing between Christs Body in Heaven and the Host but it doth not prove the Host to be that Body of Christ and withal since so many thousand Hosts are consecrated in a Day you must suppose so much air annihilated as lies between Christs Body and all those Hosts but can any man imagine God should annihilate so much air every time a Priest Consecrates and I remember a good saying of Cajetan Non est disputandum de divina potentia ubi de Sacramentis tractatur we must not dispute of Gods absolute power about the matter of Sacraments because these are so often celebrated that we are to suppose no more than an ordinary power to be imployed about them And suppose we should grant a thing possible by Gods absolute power he saith it is folly to assert all that to be in the Sacrament which God can do However this doth not reach this Rubrick which supposes distinct places and saith it is contrary to the truth of Christs natural Body to be in more places than one at one time R. P. But may not all this be understood as T. G. suggests of the natural manner of a bodies being present in more places than one viz. that it is repugnant to the Truth of Christs natural Body to be naturally present or in a corporeal manner in more places than one but it may be naturally present but in one place i. e. by way of extension or quantity but it may be present in more places after another manner P. D. I think you have strained for this and it is your last effort to which I answer 1. It yields no advantage to T. G. for supposing that some of our Divines did hold it possible that the same body might be present in several places after a different manner yet how doth it hence follow that the Rubrick doth not charge them who worship the substance of Bread and Wine with Idolatry 2. Supposing the Church did fix this charge upon those who worship the Body of Christ as present I desire to know whether another kind of presence would excuse from Idolatry i. e. supposing that to worship Christs Body as corporeally present be Idolatry it would not be Idolatry to worship the very same Body as present after another manner Which is all one as to ask whether if it be Idolatry to worship a man with his cloaths on it be likewise Idolatry to worship him with his cloaths off If it be the very same body let the manner of its being present be the same or different it doth not alter the nature or reason of worship Only of the two it seems more unreasonable to worship an invisible Body than a visible one for in a visible body he that worships is sure of something that he sees but when he fancies an invisible Body present he fancies something which if it were must be seen and yet though he cannot see it he resolves to worship it 3. It is altogether as unreasonable to believe that a Body may be present in several places after a different manner as after the same manner For whereever a Body is really present let it be with extension or without it is so in that place as not to be in another i. e. the Body of Christ being in the Host on the Altar is so there as not to be on the floor or any other place about it for otherwise it could not be said to be only under the accidents I then ask on what account the same body cannot be present in two places at once after the same manner and yet may be after a different manner Aquinas saith it doth imply a contradiction for the same Body to be in several places at once after the same manner i. e. by way of extension or quantity because it is necessary for the same thing to be undivided from it self but that which is in several places must be divided from it self But as Conink well observes this argument proves it as impossible for the same body to be in several places after a different manner for it is never the less divided from it self by being in one place after another manner than in the other yea it will be more divided because it will be after two several wayes repugnant to each other And it is much more easie to conceive that a Body should be in two several places after a natural manner than to be so in one place and in another after such a spiritual manner as is very hard to be understood It is much more repugnant saith Maeratius for the same Body to be extended and not extended than to have a double extension If it be repugnant to the finite nature of a body to be in more places than one because then it might be present in all places this saith Lugo will hold against a Sacramental Presence for that comes nearer to a Divine immensity for a Body to be in more places without quantity than with it Suarez and Gamachaeus say this comes nearer to ubiquity because a Sacramental presence supposes the Body to be whole in every part which a natural doth not And they grant that all the contradictions which follow upon being present in several places after a natural manner will hold if the one be natural and the other not i. e. that the same Body may be above it self and below it self within it self and without it self and may move with two contrary motions
upwards and downwards forwards and backwards it may be hot in one place and cold in another it may be alive in one place and dead in another and which is the highest contradiction one would think by force of this principle a man may be damned in one place and saved in another And no less a man than Ysambertus hath defended the possibility of this upon this principle for saith he a man as in one place may be killed in a mortal sin and so be damned whereas in another place he may have contrition and absolution and so be saved But Vasquez asks an untoward Question suppose such a man be reduced to one place whether shall he be saved or damned for he cannot then be both and there is no more reason he should be put out of the state of Grace by the state of sin than out of the state of sin by the state of Grace Such horrible contradictions do men run into rather than let go an absurd hypothesis and Suarez confesseth that a Sacramental Presence is liable to the same contradictions because that supposeth a capacity for Acts of the Mind under it 4. I say that asserting a Body to be present naturally in one place and spiritually and indivisibly in more doth involve more contradictions in it than to be present in several places after a natural manner For the very manner of a bodies being present indivisibly carries contradictions along with it peculiar to it self For whereever there is a body there must be quantity and whereever there is quantity there must be divisibility how then can a divisible body be indivisibly present If they say it is after the manner of a Spirit that doth by no means salve the contradiction for how can a body be after the manner of a Spirit and if it can how can the notion of Body and Spirit be differenced from each other If actual extension may be separated from a Body why not quantity it self why may not divisibility be separated from a line and two and two not make actually four supposing that they retain their intrinsick aptitude to do it What becomes of the differences of greater and less since that which is greater may be contained under the less and so the very same thing will be greater or less greater and not greater than it self What notion can we have of distance since here a Body is supposed to have all its organical parts head breast legs and feet and yet no local distance between Head and Feet R. P. I see it is a dangerous thing to give you but a hint about transubstantiation if you but once take the scent you run on so fast that it is a very hard matter to take you off I did not think this Rubrick could have held us thus long but I see you were resolved to have two or three throws at transubstantiation in passing though I warned you before about it P. D. No Sir It was T. G.'s fixing such an absurd sense upon our Church as though she made it Idolatry to Worship Christs Body as present after a corporeal manner and not after another which made me insist so long upon this R. P. What saith my Fanatick Acquaintance to all this What! sleeping F. C. Only a Nod or two I hearkened a while but I found you were about hard and unsavoury notions truly it was to me no awakening discourse R. P. Come come we will keep you waking we are now come to the Puritan Cause F. C. Ay Ay there is some life in that R. P. What think you was Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury a Puritan or not F. C. What! a Bishop a Puritan a good one I warrant you a Puritan in Lawn sleeves a Puritan with Cross and Surplice You know well what belongs to a Puritan do you not I tell you there never was a true Puritan but abhorred these things with all his heart What do you tell me of a Bishop of Salisbury for a Puritan I say again if he had been so he would have taken his Lawn sleeves and thrown them into the Fire P. D. But I pray Sir how comes in this discourse about Bishop Abbot R. P. I will tell you Among other Divines produced by Dr. St. to prove the charge of Idolatry maintained against the Church of Rome in K. James his time one was Bishop Abbot in his answer to Bishop T. G. takes this to be Archbishop Abbot and excepts against him as an abettor of the Puritan party and tells from Dr. Heylin that on that account it was thought necessary to suspend him from his Metropolitical Visitation Dr. St. makes sport with his Suspending a Bishop of Salisbury from Metropolitical jurisdiction and tells what strange things those of the Church of Rome can do with five words and upbraids T. G. with Ignorance of our Church and in truth is too Tragical upon such a slight occasion Now T. G. proves that it was only a mistake of the person and not of his quality although Dr. St. saith that he was never till now suspected for a Puritan P. D. Are you sure of that R. P. Yes T. G. saith so more than once P. D. However it is good to be sure These are Dr. St.'s words The two first he excepts against are the two Archbishops Whitgift and Abbot as Puritanically inclined but as it unhappily falls out one of them was never mentioned by me and the other never till now suspected for a Puritan I pray advise T. G. to read a little more carefully before he confutes Is it not plain that he means Archbishop Abbot was never mentioned by him and Archbishop Whitgift was never till now suspected for a Puritan It could be no want of understanding in T. G. to make him thus misconstrue his words R. P. But he proves he was Puritanically inclined and takes off his Testimony P. D. How doth he prove that R. P. From Dr. Heylin whose Histories serve us to many a good purpose for he saith he was a Calvinian though a moderate one that he was an enemy to Bishop Laud in the Vniversity that he commends Mr. Perkins and wrote his last Book of Grace and Perseverance of the Saints P. D. Very wonderful proofs As though many of the stiffest Defenders of our Church against the Puritan party had not been inclining to Calvinism as it is called in the point of Predestination especially in that moderate way wherein R. Abbot asserted it As though it were not possible for men to be zealous for our Liturgie and Ceremonies if they held the doctrine of Election and Perseverance But we do not want those of the Highest Order of our Church at this day who are eminent for Learning and Piety and Zeal for the Church who would take it very ill from T. G. upon the account of those opinions to be thought enemies to the Church of England as no doubt the Puritans were But T. G. runs on with this perpetual mistake when
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
proposals he makes about tempering Episcopacy they were no other than what King Charles 1. and Mr. Thorndike had made before him and doth T. G. think they designed to ruine the Church of England And as long as he declared this to be the design of his Book both at the beginning and conclusion of it suppose he were mistaken in the means he took must such a man be presently condemned as one that aimed at the ruine and destruction of the Church R. P. But T. G. saith he tendred it to consideration after Episcopacy was resetled by Law P. D. That is as true as others of his suggestions The Book was Printed while things were unsetled and was intended to remove the violent prejudices of the dissenting party against Episcopal Government and I have heard did considerable service that way at least in a Neighbour Kingdom and it happened to be reprinted afterwards with the same Title it had before But what then Do not Booksellers look on Books as their own and do what they please with them without the Authors consent or approbation Hath he ever Preached or Written any Doctrine since contrary to the sense of the Church of England Hath he made any party or faction to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church Hath he not conformed to its Rules observed its Offices obeyed his Superiours and been ready to defend its Cause against Adversaries of all sorts And can malice it self after all this fasten such a calumny upon him that he is a secret enemy to the Church of England and designs to ruine and destroy it I remember a poor Englishman in Amboyna being cruelly tormented by the Dutch and finding nothing he could say would perswade his Tormentors to release him and he said any thing that he thought would prevail with them at last he prayed God that he might tell them Probable Lies I would advise T. G. the next time he goes a Mole-catching to find out Probable Plots otherwise he will lose all the reputation of an Informer and Discoverer But I can hardly tell whether his Plot or his Proofs were the worse for as there appears no likelihood in the Plot so there is no evidence in the Proofs There being nothing pretended since the Irenicum but this charge of Idolatry and that hath been sufficiently cleared already by shewing that it doth not subvert the Authority of the Church of England R. P. Let us now if you please proceed to the other dangerous consequences of this charge as they are mustered up by T. G. One is That it overthrows the Article of the Holy Catholick Church P. D. That is something indeed what doth it take away an Article of the Creed Nay then it is time to look about us But how I pray R. P. I will tell you how If the Church hath been guilty of Idolatry 1. Then she hath required and enjoyned Idolatry for many hundreds of years parallel to the Heathens 2. Then Mahomet had more wisdom and power to carry on his design than the Son of God for his followers have been preserved from it by the grounds he laid above a thousand years 3. Then our Fore-fathers had better been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity as they were P. D. I deny every one of these consequences For our present dispute is only about the Church of Romes being guilty of Idolatry and from thence 1. it doth not follow that the whole Christian Church must require Idolatry if that doth unless T. G. had proved that all other Churches are equally involved in the same guilt which he never attempted 2. It doth not follow that Mahomet was wiser than Christ for if you compare the grounds laid for Divine Worship by Christ and Mahomet I say that Christ did shew infinitely more Wisdom in them than so vile an Impostor and it is a shame for any Christian to suggest the contrary but if T. G. speaks of Power to carry on his design then it must suppose that Mahomets Power hath preserved the Mahumetan Religion so long free from Idolatry although Christ hath not which must imply the greatness of Mahomets Power in Heaven and so it borders upon blasphemy 3. It doth not follow that our Fore-fathers had better been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity For they had incomparably greater advantages towards their salvation than either Turks or Pagans and such circumstances might accompany their practice of Idolatry as might make it not to hinder their salvation But I shall give you a full answer to this in the words of Bishop Sanderson who is another competent witness if any more were needful that Dr. St. doth not in the charge of Idolatry contradict the sense of the Church of England We have much reason to conceive good hope of the salvation of many of our Fore-fathers who led away with the common superstitions of those blind times might yet by those general truths which by the mercy of God were preserved among the foulest over-spreadings of Popery agreeable to the Word of God though clogged with an addition of many superstitions and Antichristian Inventions withal be brought to true faith in the Son of God unfeigned Repentance from dead Works and a sincere desire and endeavour of new and holy Obedience This was the Religion that brought them to Heaven even Faith and Repentance and Obedience This is the true and the Old and the Catholick Religion and this is our Religion in which we hope to find salvation and if ever any of you that miscall your selves Catholicks come to Heaven it is this Religion must carry you thither If together with this true Religion of Faith Repentance and Obedience they embraced also your additions as their blind Guides then led them prayed to our Lady kneeled to an Image crept to a Cross flocked to a Mass as you now do these were their spots and their blemishes these were their hay and stubble these were their errours and their Ignorances And I doubt not but as S. Paul for his blasphemies and persecutions so they obtained mercy for these sins because they did them ignorantly in misbelief And upon the same ground we have cause also to hope charitably of many thousand poor souls in Italy Spain and other parts of the Christian world at this day that by the same blessed means they may attain mercy and salvation in the end although in the mean time through ignorance they defile themselves with much foul Idolatry and many gross superstitions Obj. But the Ignorance which excuseth from sin is Ignorantia facti according to that hath been already declared but theirs was Ignorantia juris which excuseth not And besides as they lived in the practice of that Worship which we call Idolatry so they dyed in the same without repentance and so their case is not the same with S. Pauls who saw those sins and sorrowed for them and forsook them but how can Idolaters living and dying so without
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
at least as to the generality But afterwards he takes heart and sayes roundly that the Fathers evermore charge the Arians for giving absolute Divine Worship to Christ although they believed him to be of a different nature from the Supreme God which he hopes is far enough from the Doctors relative or inferior Worship But I am very far from being satisfied with this Answer For I pray tell me wherein lies the difference between Soveraign Worship and Inferiour In Acts of the Mind or in External Acts R. P. In Internal doubtless on T. G.'s principles who makes External Acts to signifie according to the determination of the Church P. D. What are those Internal Acts wherein the Worship of the Supreme God consists R. P. A due esteem of his excellency and suitable affection to it P. D. Must not this due esteem distinguish him from all Creatures R. P. Yes surely for otherwise it can be no due esteem the distance being infinite between God and his Creatures P. D. Can a man then have an equal esteem of God and a Creature which he acknowledges to be made by him R. P. Certainly not P. D. Then it must be unequal according to the difference of uncreated and created excellencies R. P. Yes P. D. Then the Worship must be unequal and that which is given to a Creature must be inferiour worship R. P. But T. G. saith they might believe true Divinity to be in him as the Heathens did of their lesser Gods P. D. True Divinity What is that when they believed him to be a Creature did they take him for an uncreated creature For that can be no true Divinity which is not uncreated and yet you confess they owned Christ to be a Creature What nonsense and contradiction would T. G. cry out upon if Dr. St. had ever said any such thing R. P. Might not they believe Christ to be assumed as Consort in the Empire and so absolute Divine Honour to be due to him P. D. What do you mean by this absolute Divine Honour For I have already proved it must be inferiour Worship R. P. I do suppose absolute Divine Honour is that which is given to a Being on the account of its own excellency and relative from the respect it hath to another P. D. But whether absolute or relative it is proper Divine Honour you mean And doth not that imply an esteem of proper divine excellency and is not that proper to God alone and uncreated How then can this absolute Divine Honour be given to a Created Being R. P. How did the Gentiles to their false Gods P. D. Just as the Arians for they made distinctions in their worship as will appear when we come to that subject R. P. What do you make then this worship of the Arians to be P. D. An Inferior and Relative Worship for they supposed they worshipped God when they gave those Acts of Worship to Christ which were agreeable to the excellencies that were in him R. P. But 2. Those Acts were such as by the consent of the Church were understood to be due only to God incarnate P. D. Here we are to know both what these Acts were and what power the Church hath to impose a signification upon them R. P. T. G. names these 1. Worshipping and serving him with Latria 2. Putting their trust in him as Mediator of Redemption 3. Invoking him as the Judge of the quick and the dead c. P. D. What means this c. I am afraid here is something beyond the trick about Gregory Nyssen which lies under this Dragons Tayl. Are these all which Dr. St. mentioned R. P. I know not that if you know more I am sure to hear of it P. D. You are not mistaken for Dr. St. had shewed at large 1. That external adoration was one of those things which the Fathers charged the Arians with Idolatry for giving to Christ supposing him to be a Creature from Peters forbidding Cornelius and the Angel St. John because this is only proper to God from the plain testimonies of Athanasius Epiphanius and St. Cyril 2. That invocation of Christ as a Mediator of Intercession was condemned as Idolatry in the Arians Athanasius supposes it inconsistent with Christianity to joyn Christ if he were a creature in our prayers together with God 3. That they made no such distinction of worshipping and serving with Latria as T. G. insinuates For he shews from the Testimonies of Athanasius and even Gregory Nyssen St. Cyril and Theodoret that the very worship which they condemn for Idolatry is called Doulia by them And therefore these are meer shifts and evasions which do not remove the difficulty at all I deny not but they did put their trust in Christ for Salvation and expect his coming to judge the quick and the dead but I say these were but expressions suitable to the apprehensions they had of his excellencies above any other Creatures but still inferiour to Gods and the Fathers did not charge them with Idolatry meerly for these Acts but for the other likewise mentioned before R. P. But T. G. hath a reserve still behind viz. that it is in the Churches Power to determine the signification of external Acts of Worship what belongs to Soveraign or proper Divine Worship and what to inferiour worship that at that time the Church might take those for Acts of Divine Worship which afterwards by consent of the Church came only to signifie inferiour Acts of Worship when applied to Creatures and therefore the argument cannot hold from that time to after Ages P.D. I think you have hit upon T. G.'s meaning and in truth it is the only thing to be said in the case For if Idolatry be a thing in the Churches Power to determine it is the only way in the world for the Church of Rome to free her self supposing that power to be lodged in her but if it should happen that the Law of God the consent of Nations the Reason of Divine Worship and the Practice of the Primitive Church have determined Idolatry antecedently to the power of the present Church what a case are you then in The guilt of Idolatry must lie heavily upon you and if it be so great a sin as your own Schoolmen determine you have a great deal to answer for notwithstanding all the tricks and evasions of T. G. But why doth not T. G. make the external Acts of Theft Adultery Murder and Perjury as much under the Churches power as those of Idolatry But I forbear now supposing that we shall meet with this useful notion again before we end this debate R. P. You are mistaken if you think T. G. had no other answer to give For he saith they could not be understood of that worship which our Church gives to Saints because they acknowledge an inferiour worship due to the Saints for which he quotes St. Austin Gregory Nazianzen St. Hierom and Gregory Nyssen P. D.
to know whether it was singular in him or the sense of the Church of that Age R. P. No doubt T. G. brings it for an instance of the sense of the Church for it were to no great purpose to produce a singular opinion or practice of one man condemned by the rest of the Church P. D. Then I ask whether offering up ones self or offering up a cake to a Saint be the greater Idolatry R. P. A mans self certainly P. D. Do not they who devote themselves to a particular Saint choosing her for their perpetual Patroness vowing themselves to be her slaves offer up themselves to her R. P. What would you have P. D. I will tell you Epiphanius who lived in the same Age with Greg. Nyssen condemns those for rank Idolatry who offered up Cakes to the B. Virgin and do you think he would have excused those who offered up themselves and their devotions to her And at the same time he condemns the worship both of Saints and Angels in the places produced by Dr. St. What answer hath T. G. made to this R. P. I do not remember he takes notice of it P. D. T. G. would make an excellent Commentator for he knows how to pass over a hard place as well as any I have met with But still I have one question more Whether Greg. Nyssen did argue well against the Arians or not R. P. Why should you question that P. D. Do you think he spake consistently to himself Or if not is his opinion to be taken from a Panegyrical Oration or a strict Dispute R. P. A strict dispute for then men consider every word and the consequence of it P. D. Greg. Nyssen goes upon this principle To give Divine Worship to a Creature is Idolatry but the Arians in worshipping Christ as a Creature do give Divine Worship to a Creature therefore c. To make good the particulars of this charge we must consider what Greg. Nyssen makes to be the parts of Divine Worship and if I can prove that Greg. Nyssen doth make prayer to be such a part of Divine Worship then by necessary consequence he makes praying to a Creature to be Idolatry Now it is very well known that Greg. Nyssen in several places makes prayer with supplication to be peculiar to God therefore he calls it a conversing with God a request of good things with supplication unto God In which he agrees with the rest of the Fathers who made Religious Invocation peculiar to God Sed tamen tu solus Domine invocandus es saith S. Ambrose I do not pray to any besides thy self saith Ephreem Syrus in the Officium Diurnum of the Maronites We call not on the name of this man or that man saith S. Chrysostome but on the name of the Lord. This is an honour he saith God hath reserved to himself to call upon him and will not give it to Angels or Arch-angels as he elsewhere speaks Vnto God alone do we pray saith the Greek Catena on the fifth Psalm To whom shall I call but unto thee saith S. Augustine This is the best sacrifice we can offer unto God say Clemens of Alexandria and Tertullian It were easie to produce many more Testimonies to this purpose if these be not sufficient to prove that in Greg. Nyssens Age as well as before Prayer was looked on as a peculiar part of Divine Worship R. P. To what purpose since no body denyes that prayer as it is a means to obtain blessings from God as the Author of them is peculiar to God P. D. This Answer doth not take off the force of the argument For prayer may be considered two wayes 1. As a Means to obtain blessings 2. As a solemn part of Divine Worship Now if they reserved prayer to God on the latter account then it follows that whatever Invocation doth take off from the peculiarity of this part of external worship is against the design of the Fathers So Origen argues that Invocation and Adoration do imply each other Invocare nomen Domini adorare Deum unum atque idem est To invocate God and to adore him is all one from whence he proves that those who invocate Christ do adore him And where the Church of Smyrna declares in her Epistle about the Martyrdom of Polycarp that they did not worship any other but Christ the old Latin Translation renders it neque alteri cuiquam precem orationis impendere And Theodoret makes praying to Angels and the worshipping of them the same thing So that prayer was looked on as a part of adoration therefore whosoever gives the external worship of prayer to another besides God doth give to a Creature that which belongs to God R. P. I know not what you mean I pray explain your self more P. D. Is not God worshipped solemnly by us when we joyn together in prayer to him R. P. Yes P. D. Is not this external worship that which the Fathers mean by the adoration that is implyed in prayer R. P. Suppose it be P. D. Wherein lyes this external worship Is it not that we meet together and joyn in acts of Devotion to testifie our acknowledgement of Gods Soveraignty and dependence upon him R. P. What then P. D. Then whosoever do use the same external Acts of Worship to a Creature do apply that to a Creature which the Fathers did suppose to belong only to God as if men kneel and pray to Saints in the same place at the same time with the same Ceremonies of Devotion they use to God himself they take off the peculiarity of this worship to God and make it common to his Creatures R. R. This only reaches to the external Acts but the intention and design of the worshippers with us make the difference P. D. I do not now meddle with your intention and design but I am pursuing the force of the argument used by the Fathers To make this yet more plain to you The Fathers use the argument of external adoration against the Arians for say they Peter forbad Cornelius to worship him and the Angel S. John from whence they infer that God only ought to be worshipped and therefore giving external adoration to Christ supposing him to be a Creature is Idolatry Is this argument good or not R. P. Let me consider a little It was good then but it is not now for T. G. saith it is in the Churches power to determine the signification of exteriour signs P. D. An admirable answer which makes the arguments of the Fathers in truth to have no force at all For the Arians might say the external acts of adoration did not signifie the same with them which they did with Catholicks for they only signified an inferiour and relative worship when applyed to the Son and Soveraign and absolute worship when given to the Father So that if there be any force in what the Fathers did argue against the Arians it will
his argument is the stronger for the distinction between them For although no prayers be made to Confutius no divine power be supposed to be in him as in the Tutelar Spirits yet because he had a Temple in every City with his Image in it and all other external Rites of adoration used as genuflections wax-candles incense and oblations such as your Church useth to Images without prayers yet these are condemned as Idolatrous And although the Cardinals might not then reflect on the consequence of this resolution as to their own practices yet I cannot but admire at the Wisdom of that Providence which once directed Caiaphas to speak a great Truth beside his intention that so overruled the Congregation of Cardinals to condemn their own Idolatry under the name of Confutius For if the using those external acts of adoration towards the Image of Confutius be Idolatry why shall it not be so where prayers are added as they are in your Church to the Images set up in your Churches Let T. G. tell me wherein the Nature of that Idolatry lay which consisted in external Acts of adoration without any opinion of Confutius being a God truly and properly so called 3. That external Acts are capable of Idolatry however the intention of the mind be directed For although the Cardinals believed the Crucifix to be a proper object of Divine Worship yet they condemned those Acts as Idolatrous which were directed to it in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirits And upon the whole matter I think no impartial Reader will believe that T. G. hath said any thing to purpose upon this matter and that he had better left those few leaves still vacant than have filled them with such an insignificant Postscript and he hath no reason to thank his Friend for putting him upon laying open so much the Weakness of his Cause For from hence it farther appears that the Modern Idolaters will likewise be excused if the nature of Idolatry doth consist as T. G. saith in Worshipping many Gods truly and properly so called R. P. But you are mistaken if you think T. G. placeth the Nature of Idolatry wholly in this for he saith that the Heathens were guilty of Idolatry in worshipping Nature instead of God either the several parts of the Vniverse as Sun Moon and Stars c. understanding the Fire by Jupiter the Air by Juno c. or the Soul of the World as the Stoicks did whereby the Heathens did as T. G. often repeats it from Vossius relicto Deo in Naturae Veneratione consistere forsaking God stay in the worship of the Creatures and for this he quotes Athanasius S. Augustine and Athenagoras P. D. It is sufficient for Dr. St.'s design if the worship of Images and of intellectual Beings under one supreme God were Idolatry among the Heathens for then it must remain so among Christians as well as Murder and Adultery are the same whereever they are found But since you have proposed it I shall consider with you how far the worship of the Creatures in general is Idolatry But I have some few questions to ask you about this sort of Idolatry 1. Whether you think the Heathens Idolatry did lye in worshipping meer matter as God Or 2. In worshipping God as the soul of the world and the several parts of it with respect to him Or 3. In acknowledging a Creator but giving all the worship to the Creatures R. P. In all these according to their several opinions P. D. Do you really think any of them did worship meer matter without life sense or understanding for God For either they did believe some other God or not if they did how is it possible they should not worship that which could hear and understand and help them and worship that which could do none of these If they did not believe any other God they were Atheists and not Idolaters For are not those Atheists who acknowledge no other God but meer matter i. e. no God at all For so Vossius himself saith those who held meer matter to be God verbo Deum fatebantur re negabant did only seem to believe a God whom they really denyed For what kind of God saith he was that which had neither sense nor reason R. P. It was Idolatry then to worship the parts of the world with a respect to God as the Soul of it which as T. G. saith in his Postscript is to make a false God P. D. There are two things which deserve to be considered as to this matter 1. In what sense making God the soul of the world is setting up a false God 2. How far the Gentiles could be charged with Idolatry who worshipped the parts of the world with respect to God as the soul of it R. P. Do not you think making God the soul of the world is setting up a false God P. D. I pray tell me what you mean by the soul of the world For either you mean the natural series of Causes or the more subtil and active parts of matter diffused through the Vniverse without Mind and Vnderstanding or you mean an Intelligent Being which by Wisdom and Providence orders and governs the world but withall is so united to it as the Soul is to the Body If you mean the former I say all such who held it were really Atheists and only differed in the way of speaking from those who worshipped meer matter for let them call God the soul of the world never so much they mean no more than that there is no other God but the Power of Nature If you mean an Vnderstanding Being Governing the World whose essence is distinct from matter but yet is supposed to be so united to it as the Soul is to the Body then I pray tell me in what sense you make him to be a false God and how it comes to be Idolatry to worship the parts of the world with respect to him R. P. S. Augustin proves against Varro that God was not the Soul of the World if there were any such thing but the Creator and Maker of it and he shews that this opinion is attended with impious and irreligious consequences P. D. I do not go about to defend the opinion but I hope I may ask wherein the Idolatry lay of worshipping one God under this notion as he animated the world and the several parts of it R. P. In worshipping the several parts of the world with Divine Worship not with a respect to the Body but to God as the Soul of it for therein Aquinas placeth their Idolatry P. D. Is relative Latria Idolatry R. P. Why do you ask me such an impertinent question P. D. Nothing can be more pertinent for this is meer relative Latria R. P. It was Idolatry in them but yet not so in us when we worship the Crucifix with respect to Christ. P. D. You may as well say Lying with another mans Wife was Adultery in them but not
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.