YOU are well met at this Auction of Books. I have been present at many of them beyond Sea: but I never was at one in England before. How go the prices of Books here?

Very dear methinks, by the Books I have bought; but I find they are so catched up by our Brethren, that if we will have them, we must pay dear for them.

May I know what they are Sir?

Only some few choice pieces which I have picked out of this great [Page 2] Catalogue; such as, Nepthali or the Groanings of the Church of Scotland; Cooks Monarchy no Creature of Gods ma­king; but the things I most value are the Pamphlets, such as Sermons before the Long Parliament in several volumes. And a rare Collection of Authors about Liberty of Conscience.

Are there so many Books to be had about Liberty of Conscience?

Yes; a great many have written for and against it.

Who are they who have written for it?

To tell you the truth, some of the same who wrote against it heretofore; but they are now more enlightned; as those who wrote against Separation when time was, are now the greatest ad­vocates for it. For, there are some pro­vidential Truths, which vary according to circumstances. Do not we see the Papists, who were thought the greatest enemies to toleration in the world, now plead most vehemently for it? and are even angry with us for not acting suffi­ciently in this cause against the Church of England. But because I take you for a friend by your enquiring after these Books, I must tell you, it is yet a dispu­table [Page 3] point among us, how far we may joyn with Antichrist, to promote the in­terest of Christ; And some insist on that place to prove the unlawfulness of it, Be ye not unequally yoked; others again prove it lawful, because it is said, Yet not altogether with the Fornicators of this world—or with Idolaters: whence they observe, that they may joyn with them in some things, or for some ends; but not altogether, i. e. they must not joyn with them in their Idolatries, but they may against the Church of En­gland.

This is too publick a place to talk of these matters in: but may we not withdraw into the next room; for I have a great mind to set you right in this main point of present concernment. And if the Papists should be found not to be Idolaters, a great part of your difficulty is gone. Do you think, it is not fit for you to be better informed in this mat­ter, when a thing of so great conse­quence depends upon it, as your delive­rance from the persecution of the Church of England? which you know, we have all sighed and groaned for, a long time. It is in vain for any of you to expect favour from thence, as long as she is [Page 4] able to stand. For if the Bishops were never so much inclined to it, how could they possibly give ease to you without destroying themselves? And since the dissenting parties are so different among themselves in their light and attainments, it is impossible to please any one party, without displeasing all the rest. Com­prehension is a meer snare and temptati­on to the Brethren, being a design to prefer some, and to leave the rest in the lurch. Let us all joyn our strengths together, to pull down this Church of England, and then, though there be a King in Israel, every one may do what seem­eth good in his own eyes.

I doubt you are not well seen in Scripture; for the Text is, In those dayes there was no King in Israel, and every one did what seemed good in his own eyes: whence you may observe a special hint by the by, that Toleration agrees best with a Common-wealth. But this to your self: and you might justly wonder at this freedom with you; but that I re­member you many years ago, when you and I preached up the Fifth Monarchy together in the Army. Those were glo­rious dayes! Ah the Liberty we then en­joyed! Did we then think, the good [Page 5] old Cause would ever have ended thus? Well! It is good to be silent in bad times. But methinks you and I howe­ver may retire and talk over old stories, and refresh our memories with former out-goings together. For here is little at present for us to do.

Whereabouts are they now in the Catalogue?

Among the Fathers; those Old-Testament Divines. What lights have we seen since their dayes! We need not trouble our selves about them. But I observe the Church of England men buy them up at any rate. What prices do they give for a Justin Martyr, or Epi­phanius or Philo, who they say was a meer Jew? How must they starve their people with the Divinity of these men? How much of the good Divinity of the late times might they have for the money? We cannot but pity their blind­ness. But I see we cannot be here so private as we wished; for yonder sits a Divine of the Church of England, who I suppose, is the person, who bought so many Fathers at the last Auction, as though he had a mind to write against the Papists.

Sit you by a while; and we will talk of our matters another time. I have been much abroad since you and I were first acquainted, and have lately brought over a new Book from Paris. You shall see how I will handle him; and if you put in upon occasion, you shall find by this experiment, what success our united forces would have against the Church of England.

Do you begin; and you shall see how I will second you, when occasion offers it self.

Sir, I perceive the Divines of the Church of England, do buy up the Fathers very much at Auctions. I wonder that any who read the Fathers can be for the Church of England.

And I do more wonder at you for saying so. For therefore we are for the Church of England, because we read both Scripture and Fathers.

To what purpose is all this charge and pains, if there be an infallible Church?

Therefore to good purpose; be­cause there is no one Church infallible.

Is there not a Catholick Church?

Do you think I have forgotten my Creed?

Which is that Catholick Church?

Which of all the parts is the whole? Is that your wise question? Do not you know the Christian Church hath been broken into different Communions ever since the four General Councils, and continues so to this day? What do you mean by the Catholick Church?

I mean the Church of Rome.

Then you ask me, which is the Church of Rome? but what need you ask that, since you know it already?

But the Roman Church is the Ca­tholick Church.

You may as well say, London is England, or England the World. And why may not we call England the World, because the rest of the world is divided from it; as you the Roman Church the Catholick Church; because the other Churches are separated in Communion from it?

I mean the Roman Church is the Head and Fountain of Catholick Doctrine; and other Churches are pure and sound as they do agree with it.

Your proposition is not so self-evident, that the bare knowing your meaning, must make me assent. I pray first prove what you say, before I yield.

Was not the Church of Rome once a sound and Catholick Church?

What then? so was the Church of Jerusalem, of Antioch, and Alexandria; and so were the seven Churches of Asia. Were all these Heads and Fountains too?

But S. Paul speaks of the Church of Rome.

He doth so; but not much to her comfort; for he supposes she may be broken off through unbelief, as well as any other Church?

Doth not S. Paul say, that the Roman faith was spoken of throughout the World?

What then I beseech you? doth it follow that faith must alwayes continue the same any more than that the Church of Philadelphia must at this day be, what it was when S. John wrote those great commendations of it? These are such slender proofs that you had as good come to downright begging the Cause, as pre­tend to maintain it after such a manner. The faith of Rome was not more spoken of in the Apostles dayes, than its errours and corruptions have been since.

These are general words; name me one of those errours and corruptions.

For this time, I will name the [Page 9] publick and allowed Worship of your Church, which after all your shifts and evasions I cannot excuse from Idolatry.

How is that? Idolatry? God for­bid. I did not expect this charge from a Di­vine of the Church of England. I was prepared to receive it, from my old Fanatick acquaintance here: he would have thundered me with the Texts of Antichrist, and the Whore of Babylon, and have quoted half the Book of the Revelations against me, before this time, if we had not espyed you in the Room. But I perceive though your Artillery may be different, your charge is the same. I pray tell me, how long is it since you of the Church of England have main­tained this charge? For, I have been often told, that only one late Defender of your Church, hath advanced two new charges against the Church of Rome, viz. Fanaticism and Idolatry, and that the true Sons of the Church of England disown them both▪

Whoever told you so hath decei­ved you; but it is not the only thing they have deceived you in. I never yet saw so much as a tolerable Answer to the Charge of Fanaticism. And for that of Idolatry, the Authour you mean, hath proved beyond contradiction, that it hath [Page 10] been managed against the Church of Rome, by the greatest and most learned Defenders of the Church of England, and the most genuine sons of it, ever since the Reformation.

But have not you seen, what T. G. hath said to all that, and how he hath shewed that his Witnesses were incompe­tent?

I have both seen and considered all that T. G. hath said, and compared it with Dr. Stillingfleets Reply in the Gene­ral Preface to his Answers. And I must declare to you, that if the sense of a Church may be known by the concur­rent sense of her most eminent Divines, or by her most Authentick Acts, as by the Book of Homilies, Forms of Prayer and Thanksgivings, Rubricks, Injunctions, the Judgement of Convocation, even that of MDCXL, Dr. St. hath made it evi­dent, that the charge of Idolatry is agree­able to the sense of the Church of Eng­land.

You thought T. G. would have quitted this Post upon Dr. St's second charge; but you are mistaken in him; for I have brought over a Book of Dia­logues from Paris, wherein T. G. under­takes again to prove this to be only the Charge of Fanaticks, and not of the Church [Page 11] of England nor of the Genuine Sons of it.

It is true; we whom you call Fa­naticks do charge the Church of Rome, or rather the Synagogue of Antichrist, with Idolatry; for, Is it not said, And they Worshipped the Beast? But you must know for your comfort, that we do like­wise charge the Church of England with it. For what are all their bowings, and kneelings, and crossings, but vain imaginations? and the Worship of them is as bad as the Worship of Images. And do not they make an Idol of the Common Prayer?

This is not fair, Gentlemen; but one at once I beseech you. As to your charge of the Church of England, I shall be ready to answer it, when you can agree to bring it in. I now desire to know, what evidence T. G. brings to prove the Charge of Idolatry not to be agreeable to the sense of the Church of England. Hath he brought other Ho­milies, other Injunctions, other Rubricks, other Convocations, or at least other Di­vines, generally received and owned for the Genuine Sons of this Church, who have from time to time freed the Church of Rome from Idolatry, and looked upon [Page 12] the charge, not only as unjust but per­nicious and destructive to the Being of a Church? Nay, can he produce any one Divine of the Church of England, be­fore the Convocation MDCXL, that ever said any such thing, or did wholly acquit the Church of Rome from this charge? If not, let him not think, we have a new Church made after another model, and upon new principles, or that those can be esteemed the genuine Sons of it, who contradict the sense of the Church ever since the Reformation. If there be any such among us, they ought first to be proved to be true Sons of our Church, before their testimony be al­lowed, which if I be not mistaken, will be much harder, than to prove the Charge of Idolatry to be agreeable to the sense of it. But what method doth T. G. take in this matter?

T. G. like a wary man disputes in Masquerade. For he doth not think fit to appear in his own Person; but he brings in a Conformist, and a Non-conformist ar­guing the point. And the Conformist speaks T. G.'s sense in acquitting the Church of Rome; and the Non-conformist vindicates Dr. St. and makes a pitiful de­fence of him.

It was very wittily done. And the Scene was well enough laid, if the plot were only to represent Dr. St. as a se­cret enemy to the Church of England, as I suppose it was. But to what purpose are all those personal reflections: and some repeated over and over, with so much appearance of rancour and ill will, as doth not become a man of any common ingenuity? Can the Catholick Cause be maintained by no other Arts than these? Methinks T. G. might have let the little Whifflers in Controversie, such as the Authour of the Address to the Par­liament, and of that precious Pamphlet called Jupiter Dr. St's supreme God, &c. to have made a noise at they know not what; crying out upon him as an enemy to the Church of England, (because he defends her cause to their great vexati­on) and as a friend to Pagan Idolatry, (because he hath laid open the folly of yours.) These are such weak assaults as expose your cause to the contempt of all wise men; who expect reason should be answered with reason, and not with calumnies and reproaches: which in my apprehension Dr. St. ought to rejoyce in as the marks of victory; for while they have any other ammunition left, [Page 14] no enemies will betake themselves to dirt and stones. When I read through the First Part of T. G.'s Dialogues, and observed how industriously he set him­self to bespatter his Adversary, and raked all the Kennels he could for that purpose, (especially that of the Patro­nus bonae Fidei, &c.) I could not but think of an animal, which being closely pursued and in great danger, gets him­self into the most convenient place for mire and dirt, and there so layes about him with his Heels, that no one dares to come near him. It was certainly with some such design that T. G. hath at last taken sanctuary in a bog; hoping his Adversary will never pursue him thither. But notwithstanding this pro­ject of his, we will try, whether in spite of his heels we cannot bring him to rea­son. Therefore I pray let us set aside all rude and unbecoming reflections, and calmly consider, how T. G. proves that the Charge of Idolatry is not agree­able to the sense of the Church of Eng­land.

Hold Sir; You are a little too nim­ble, Dial p. 13. T. G. saith, his Intention was only to shew, that Dr. St. had not sufficiently proved it to be the sense of the Church of England, [Page 15] from the Testimony he then produced, what­soever he might or could do from other Acts or Authours of that Church. And he else­where saith, that T. G. did not dispute ex professo, p. 10. whether it were the sense of the Church of England, that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry or no? nor, whe­ther Dr. St. dissented from the sense of his Church? but what he undertook to shew was no more than that two parts of the Authours there cited by the Dr. were Puritans, or Pu­ritanically inclined, by the confession of other Divines of the Church of England; and therefore according to Dr. St 's own measures (if they were good,) their Testimo­nies ought to be looked on as incompetent to prove what he asserted; and for the other six, that what they charged with Idolatry, was not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, but some things which they concei­ved to be great abuses in the practice of it. And this, he saith, is the true state of that Controversie.

If it be so, I cry T.G. mercy. For, I thought he designed to prove this charge of Idolatry not to be agreeable to the sense of the Church of England. But you say T. G. now denies it; and if I were as Dr. St. I would thank him for it. For, would any man say this, that thought it [Page 16] could ever be proved to be against the sense of the Church of England? And what could have been more material to his purpose than this, if it could have been done? Well fare T. G.'s ingenuity for once! that finding it impossible to be done, he now denies that he ever attem­pted the doing it. But the first question in a fray is, how fell they out? we shall better judge of T. G.'s design by the oc­casion of it. Dr. St. affirmed that in the charge of Idolatry he did not contra­dict the sense of the Church of England. Did he, or did he not? If he did not, Dr. St. was in the right: if he did, why did not T. G. shew it? But after this yielding up the main point in effect, it is easie to prove that T. G. did design to shew, as well as he could, that the charge of Idolatry was against the sense of the Church of England; but finding it would not do, he now disowns it. For (1.) Doth not T. G. appeal to the Articles of the Church of England for the most au­thentick declaration of her sense? and because the Church of Rome is not there charged with Idolatry, doth he not hence dispute ex professo, Cath. no Idol. p. 197. that it was against her sense? To what purpose was that inge­nious Criticism, of being rather repugnant [Page 17] to the word of God; which he interprets as though the composers of our Articles had done their endeavour to find a command against the Worship of Images, but could not. What do you think of this argument? what did T. G. intend to prove by it? Is it not as clear as the Sun, that it was to shew that the charge of Idolatry was against the sense of the Church of Eng­land? Why then is T. G. ashamed now of it, and denies he had any such design? There must be some more than ordinary cause of a mans denying what he once so openly avowed to do. Nay, in these very Dialogues, after repeating his former words, T. G. saith, Dial. p. 62. Thus clearly hath T. G. evinced the sense of the Church of England in this matter. Say you so? and yet never designed to dispute ex professo, whether it were the sense of the Church of England or not? Who is it I pray hath the knack of saying, and unsaying; of affirming and denying the very same thing in a few leaves? or did T. G. ne­ver intend any such thing; but the Church of England of her own accord, knowing T. G.'s good affections to her, stept into the Court, and declared her sense? Have we not the best natured Church in the world that is so kind to her enemies, and [Page 18] expresseth her sense to be on their side, whether they will or not? Our Church then is like the Countrey mans River which comes without calling; alas! what need T. G. dispute ex professo, what her sense is; she offers her own Testi­mony, and desires to be heard in the di­spute whether T. G. will or not. Let any man judge by these words what T. G.'s design was then, whatever he thinks fit to own now. (2.) He shews, that if it had been the sense of the Church of England in the Articles, Preface to Cath. no Idol. that the Church of Rome were guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of Images, Adoration of the Host, or Invocation of Saints, all those who denyed it, would have incurred excommunication ipso facto, as appears by the Canons. What was T. G.'s design in this, if it were not to prove the charge of Idolatry to be against the sense of the Church of Eng­land? Is this only to shew the Witnesses Dr. St. produced to be incompetent? What a benefit it is, for a man to forget what he hath no mind to remember! And then to deny as stoutly as if the thing had never been done. (3.) Is it not T. G. who in terms asserts that Dr. St. betrayed his Church in advancing such a medium, as contradicts the sense of that [Page 19] Church, (mark that.) It is true, he adds, if it be to be taken from the sentiments of those, who are esteemed her true and genu­ine Sons. Was it T. G.'s design then, not to dispute what was the sense of the Church of England; nor whether Dr. St. dissented from it? I will not meddle with that, whether T. G. be a competent judge who are the true and genuine Sons of the Church of England. No doubt in his opinion, those who come nearest the Church of Rome are such; and advance such speculations as lay the charge of Schism at her own door. But true Sons are no more for laying division to the charge of their Mother, than the true Mother was for dividing the Son. Those are certain­ly the most genuine Sons of our Church, who own her doctrine, defend her prin­ciples, conform to her Rules, and are most ready to maintain her Cause against all her enemies. And among these there is no difference, and there ought to be no distinction. But if any frame a Church of their own Heads, without any regard to the Articles, Homilies, and current do­ctrine of our Church, and yet will call that the Church of England, and them­selves the only genuine Sons of it, I do not question T. G. and your Brethren would [Page 20] be glad to have them thought so, to les­sen our number and impair 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.

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.

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, [Page 21] 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.

T. G. saith, That Dr. St. rather waved the exceptions by pretty facetious ar­tifices of Wit, Dial. p. 9. 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.

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 [Page 22] 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.

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.

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 [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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.

He answers, first by repeating what he said before; and then by shew­ing that subscription is no good argument, Dial. p. 15. [Page 25] 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.

What is this, but in plain terms to say the subscribers of our Articles were men of no honesty or conscience; but would say or unsay, subscribe one thing or another as it served their turn? If this be his way of defending our Church, we shall desire him to defend his own. But yet, this doth not reach home to the Doctors argument, which proceeded not meerly on their honesty, but their having common understanding. For here was no force or violence offered them, they had the full power to consider the Ar­ticles, and to compose the Homilies, and would men of common sense put in things against their own minds, and make and approve and recommend Ho­milies which they did not believe them­selves? This evidently proves the com­posers of the Homilies and Convocation at that time, did approve the doctrine of these Homilies, for it was in their power not to have passed them. Thus far it is plain that was the doctrine of the Church then, and why should we sup­pose any subscribers to take them in any [Page 26] 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?

Not any that I find.

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.

To this T. G. answers, Dial. p. 17. 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 [Page 27] looked upon the expressions of Idolatry con­tained in those injunctions as the dogmati­cal sense of the Church of England.

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.

But he quotes a Doctour of your own Church for what he saith, P. Heylin, and delivers it in his Words.

P. Heylin speaks not one word in that place of the charge of Idolatry; Cypr. An­glic. p 364. 1 Ed. (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 [Page 28] 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?

I do not find a particular an­swer to this, but I suppose he reckons him with those six of whom he saith, P. 3 [...]. that they do not charge the Church of Rome it self, but the opinions of School Divines and abuses in practice.

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.

He saith, they might conceive so; but he doth not say, they might justly conceive so.

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 [Page 30] 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.

But what other argument have you to prove that P. Heylin could not speak this of the charge of Idolatry?

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, Necessary Introd to the Histo­ry of B. Laud. p. 14. 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 [Page 31] was quite spent in the time of B. Laud; since not only P. Heylin, but the Arch-Bishop himself saith, Confe­rence with Fisher. p. 277. 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, History of his Tryal. p. 472. that he had written against the adoration and superstitious use of Images as fully as any man whatsoever. What think you now Sir? was this a heat in the beginning of the Reformation; and when men in Archbishop Lauds time, more duly weighed the consequences of this charge, they grew both cooler and wiser? what evidence doth T. G. pro­duce for this? When the very person he produces for it, is so far from it, that he saith the contrary; and are we not like to meet with very hopeful Demon­strations in the scientifical way from him? But I have one argument yet more, to prove there was no such change as to this matter, in Archbishop Lauds time; which is from the Convocation, A. D. 1640. wherein no one questions the in­fluence and direction of Archbishop Laud, [Page 32] and the concurrence of those of his Par­ty, as T. G. calls them; and yet in that very Book of Pet. Heylins, Cypr. Angl. p. 435· he might have seen that Canon, wherein they acknow­ledge the Idolatry of the Mass; and T. G. could not pretend any ignorance of this; for Dr. St. had quoted this very Canon to this purpose, to shew that this was the sense of Archbishops, Bishops and Clergy in Convocation so lately; and so long after the first heats of the Reforma­tion. But what answer doth T. G. give to this, which is so material a Testimony, and so destructive to all he saith, upon this matter?

I do not remember he takes no­tice of it; but if you please I will look, for I have his Book about me.

Not take notice of it? It is im­possible. What! doth he pretend to answer, and pass by the plainest and strongest arguments, as if they had ne­ver been brought? This is a very satis­factory way of answering, and becom­ing the ingenuity of T. G.: but I pray Sir look again, I am afraid you wrong him. I suppose you never read Dr. St.'s Books, but only the Answers to them, and then I do not wonder you applaud the Answers, if they leave out the hardest arguments.

You have a little startled me with this omission; I have turned over all the Leaves which relate to this matter very carefully, and I cannot find one word about it: surely it was an involun­tary omission.

How could that be involunta­ry, when it was produced and urged with great force, to shew that this was no Puritanical charge; no heat at the be­ginning of the Reformation; no private opinion of particular persons, but the sense of our whole Church representative even in A. D. 1640.

I confess, I know not what to say more for him, but that it was an omission.

No Sir, that is not all; for there is a fault of commission too; for he doth not only leave out this, but he advances an hypothesis which he might easily see the falshood of, from this single testimony; viz. that the charge of Idolatry was only a heat of the beginning of the Reformation, which was disowned in the time of K. Charles and Archbishop Laud, when at the same time he could not but see the plainest evi­dence to the contrary by the Convocation of A. D. 1640. Is your cause to be sup­ported only by such tricks as these?

You are too like Dr. St. whom T. G. charges with being too Tragical up­on such slight occasions; Dial. p. 28. and flinging and laying about him unreasonably for a thing of nothing; as when T. G. mi­stook Robert Abbot for George.

Call you this a thing of no­thing? methinks it is rather making no­thing of a very substantial thing. As to the other mistake, I suppose we shall hear of it ere long. I pray let us pro­ceed in order.

Dr. St.'s third Argument is from the Rubrick at the end of the Com­munion; the words are these, Whereas it is ordained in this Office, for the administra­tion of the Lords Supper; that the commu­nicants should receive the same kneeling.

Hold there I pray; what! re­ceive the Communion kneeling! Give me leave to come in now; for I perceive you are hard pressed, and we ought to give friendly assistance to one another against these Church of England-men; and there­fore I will prove them guilty of Ido­latry in receiving the Sacrament kneel­ing.

This will be a digression, but I alwayes owe so much service to the Church of England, as to be ready to de­fend [Page 35] it from so unjust a charge; there­fore to your business.

Mr. Case in his Sermon before the Long Parliament at a General Fast, on such a day saith thus—

I pray Sir speak to the point, I am not now at leisure to hear Mr. Cases Sermon repeated.

I hope you will not interrupt me.

Not, when you speak to the business: Do you understand what Ido­latry is?

That is a question to be asked indeed; as though I did not know what the cup of fornication means, that is Idolatry; and to bow at the name of Jesus, and to bow to the Altar, that is Idolatry; do you think I do not know what Idola­try is? Methinks you should have more reverence for a man of my years, than to ask me such a sawcy Question; have I preached this thirty years and more in the Army and in private Congregations, and live to be asked such a question by you? Sir I knew what Idolatry was be­fore you were born.

Then I hope you can tell me, now I am of Age to understand it.

Why, have I not told you al­ready?

I pray sir let us talk calmly, and understand one another, which we shall never do unless we agree what is Idolatry. I pray give me the definition of it.

The definition! When I was a young man as you are, I had as many definitions in my head as any Body; but we that are upon constant duties of another nature cannot trouble our Heads with Definitions or such idle notions. But alas we grow old; and such things are soon forgotten. I remember in my younger dayes I read Bucanus, Polanus, and Amesius; nay, there was not a good Systeme of Orthodox Divinity to be had, but I read it, and noted it; but I lost my notes in the time of the Wars, and could never recover them.

This is a little off from our bu­siness; I hope you are better at application of the point than at explication of it. What is it in the Church of England you do charge with Idolatry?

Kneeling at the Sacrament.

For what reason?

Stay a little: I thought I had my arguments at my Fingers ends; but [Page 37] see how strangely good things slip out of our memories! But now I remember, I have some short notes about me which I took out of Mr. Gillespie's Idolatry of the English Popish Ceremonies; and let me tell you, he was a mighty man in his dayes against the Church of England, and this Book of his did great execution upon the Bishops in Scotland. I can remember, how much it affected the Brethren in England, and how we compared him to one of Davids Worthies that killed the Giants of the Philistins.

Sir, at this rate of talking it will be night before you come to the Question, methinks you seem to have nothing to say against us of the Church of England.

I nothing to say against you! who ever heard me, without having something to say against you? I tell you Sir, I look upon your Church as the youn­ger sister to the Whore of Babylon: never a barrel the better herring; only we can have liberty of Conscience with one, and not with the other. It is all one to me to bow to an Image, and to bow to the Altar; to worship Images, and to kneel at the Sacrament.

I am in hopes you are now com­ing [Page 38] to the point, I pray keep there with­out any farther rambling.

Call you this rambling? You know Amesius saith, even in controvert­ed points, much respect ought to be had to the experience of Gods people; I tell you, I have found it thus with me, and you ought rather to hear me teach you, than dispute with me.

All this shall not serve; I must have your arguments since you urge me thus.

Why look ye now, d'ye see how petulant and malapert these Divines of the Church of England are. But since no­thing will satisfie you, but arguing, I have an argument ready for you will do your business.

I am glad to find you come to any kind of Reasoning. I deny, that in kneeling at the Sacrament, we do wor­ship the Bread; for our Church expresly declares the contrary in this Rubrick.

What do I care for your Church or her Rubricks? I say you do worship the Bread and prove it too.

I begin to be afraid of you now; for you do not only prove by this argu­ment kneeling at the Sacrament, but read­ing the Common Prayer to be Idolatry; For if that which we kneel before and look towards when we worship, must be the object of our worship, it is plain we must indeed make an Idol of the Common Prayer; for every time we read it we kneel before it and looks towards it when we worship.

Look you to that, I alwayes took the Common Prayer for an Idol, but I did not think, I had proved it now.

I shall endeavour to undeceive you in this matter. Since we are not pure spirits, but must worship God with our bodies, by kneeling and looking towards something in our Acts of Worship; we must not determine that to be the object of our Worship which our bodies are bended towards, or we look upon in our worship, unless there be some other reason for it; for then Idolatry would be necessary and unavoidable. For we cannot kneel with [Page 40] our eyes open, but we must look upon some creature, which according to your way of arguing, must be the object of our Worship. I pray Sir, without being an­gry, give me leave to ask you, whether a man kneeling in the Fields and praying with his eyes lifted up to Heaven be an Idolater or not?

I think not.

Yet he kneels towards some creature, and looks upon some creature when he worships; therefore you must prove by some other way, that we do make the bread the Object of our Worship. But this we utterly deny; and say the doing it is Idolatry and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. And will you make us worship it, whether we will or no?

But you use the same postures which the Papists do, and yet you charge them with Idolatry?

Because this is a thing many of you stumble at, I will make the diffe­rence of our case, and theirs plain to you. In all moral Acts we are to have a great great regard to their circumstances, from whence they take a different denominati­on. He that kills a man by accident, and he that kills a man out of malice, do the very same thing as to the sub­stance [Page 41] of the Act; yet no man will say it is the same act upon a moral consi­deration. We kneel, and the Papists kneel: but we declare when we kneel, we intend no adoration to the Elements: but the Papists cannot deny that they do give proper adoration to that which is be­fore them; which we say is bread, and they say, the Body of Christ under the spe­cies of bread; and yet not meerly to the invisible Body of Christ, but taking the species of bread as united to that Body of Christ, and so directing their worship to these two together as the proper objects of divine adoration. And to make this evident to you, their adoration is per­formed at the Elevation of the Host; and at the carrying it about in processions, and at the exposing it on their Altars; and not meerly in the participation of it. Whence it is observable, that the Church of Rome doth not strictly require kneel­ing at the participation, which it would do, if it looked on the kneeling at recei­ving as a proper Act of Adoration. The Rubricks of the Mass, do not, that I can find, require the Priest to kneel in the Act of receiving; and the Pope when he ce­lebrates, receives sitting. Espencaeus saith, in the Church of Lions, many of the [Page 42] People did not receive kneeling; and upon complaint made about it, they were by the advice of two Cardinals left to their old custome. And I wonder your Brethren have not taken notice of the difference of kneeling at the elevation of the Host, and in the Act of receiving it; the one was required by the Constitu­tion of Honorius, and was intended for an act of adoration to the Host: the other was derived from the ancient Church, which although it did not al­wayes use the same posture of adoration that we do; yet it is sufficient for our purpose, if they received the Sacrament in the same posture in which they worship­ped God. And this I could easily prove, if this were a place or season for it.

Well Sir, I do not love disputing; I pray go on with your former Adver­sary.

Sir, I thank you for the diver­sion you have given us, if you please I will now return to the place where we left; I was about to tell you the An­swer T. G. gives to Dr. St.'s third Ar­gument from the Rubrick at the end of the Communion. The words are, It is here declared that by kneeling no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either unto [Page 43] the Sacramental bread or wine, there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians; and the natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven; and not here, it being against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one. About which Dr. St. charges T. G. first with Ignorance in saying, it was not yet above a douzen years since it was in­serted into the Communion Book; whereas he might have found it above a hundred years before in the Liturgie of Edw. 6. To which T. G. answers, Dial. p. 19. That the vari­ous fate of this Rubrick, first in not being annexed till the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. and being cast out again in the year 1562. and then admitted again almost a hundred years after, is no eviction to him, that the charge of Idolatry is the dogmatical doctrine of the Church of England.

If this were all the declaration our Church had made of her sense, and the intention of this Rubrick were only to declare this point of Idolatry, there were some probability in what T. G. sug­gests. [Page 44] But I have shewed already, how fully our Church hath declared her sense about Romish Idolatry by other wayes; and the design of this Rubrick was not to express her sense of Idolatry, so much as to give satisfaction to those who scru­pled the lawfulness of kneeling. For which cause it was first put in, and afterwards not thought necessary to be continued, when persons were better satisfied about the intention of our Church. But when after long disuse and violent prejudices the dissenters were grown unacquainted with the design and intention of our Church, there was the same reason for inserting it again, which held at first for putting it in. And what now hath T. G. gained by this observation? If it had been, as he imagined, what he had gotten in one point, he had lost in ano­ther: for then it would appear, that there was no such heat in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths dayes, if they were wil­ling to leave out such a declaration of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, at that time when Q. Elizabeths Title was the most disputed at Rome; so that from hence appears the vanity of T. G.'s for­mer observation, and how far they were from taking things into our Liturgie out [Page 45] of spite to the Pope; nay, so far were they from this, that in the first year of Q. Elizabeth, that petition in the Letany was left out, which had been inserted by Henry 8. and continued in both Litur­gies of Edw. 6. Cypr. Angl. p. 418. From the Tyranny of the Bi­shop of Rome, and all his detestable enormi­ties, Good Lord— And this he might have found in the same Historian. And was not the title of Head of the Church taken by her Father and Brother so quali­fied and explained then, as might pre­vent any occasion of quarreling at it by the most captious persons? Do these passages look like doing things on purpose to provoke and exasperate, and out of pure spite to the Pope, or like putting in things on purpose to heighten the differences, when T. G. himself confesses, they left out this Ru­brick, and it is evident they did leave out some of the most provoking expressi­ons?

I see you cannot bear the charge of intemperate heat on the beginning of the Reformation.

I cannot bear such an unreaso­nable and unjust imputation as this is; and I have a particular esteem for the Wisdom, Learning and Piety which was [Page 46] shewed in the Ecclesiastical part of our Reformation. But how doth T. G. take off the charge of Idolatry in this Ru­brick?

Dial. p. 21.He saith, he takes the meaning of it not to be, the denying adoration to be due in regard of Christs Body being present spiritually, but truly in the Sacrament; but only that no adoration ought to be done to any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood, as the word Corporal is taken to signifie the natural manner of a bodies being present. For which he gives these reasons, (1.) Because those words in the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. No adoration ought to be done to any real or essential be­ing of Christs natural flesh and blood, are now changed [into any corporal presence of Christ natural flesh and blood.] (2.) Be­cause the Protestant Divines do yield the real presence of Christs Body, for which he quotes Bishop Taylor and Bishop Cosins; and he desires Dr. St. so to explain these words, as not to undermine the constant do­ctrine of the Church of England concern­ing the real presence, and leave us nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it.

I am so much his Friend, that at this time I will undertake this task for him. First, We must consider the words [Page 47] of the Rubrick. (2.) How this sense of it can be reconciled with the real pre­sence as owned by the Church of England. (1.) For the meaning of the Rubrick. We are to consider that the Rubrick de­nies adoration to be intended, either unto the Sacramental bread and wine, or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood. And after, it gives two di­stinct reasons for denying adoration to ei­ther of these. 1. To the Sacramental bread and wine, for this reason, because they re­main still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. 2. To the corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood; because the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here, it being against the truth of Christs natural Body, to be at one time in more places than one. You see, here are two plainly distinct reasons given for denying adoration to the ele­ments, and to the Natural Body of Christ. The former is said to be Idolatry; the latter to be absurd and unreasonable, it be­ing repugnant to the truth of Christs body to be in more places than one at one time. So that the sense of the Rubrick lyes in these two propositions.

[Page 48]1. That it is Idolatry to give adoration to the elements remaining in their natural substances.

2. That it is absurd to believe Christs natural body to be present, because then it must be in more places than one, which is re­pugnant to the truth of a body. These things to my apprehension are the plain and natural sense of this Rubrick.

But we do not give adoration to the Sacramental elements, but to the Body of Christ.

I do believe I can prove that you give adoration to the Sacramental E­lements, as they make up one entire object of adoration with the body of Christ; but that is not my present business; which is to shew the sense of our Church, which lyes in these particulars. 1. That the Sacramental Elements do remain in their natural substances after consecration. 2. That, to adore them so remaining is Idolatry, and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. No one questions the former to be the sense of our Church; the only question lyes in the later, whether that be Idolatry or no? It is no question, that to give divine adoration to any creature is Idolatry; and it is so acknowledged on all sides; the only question then can be, [Page 49] whether the substance of bread and wine be a creature or not? and this is no que­stion with any man in his wits: therefore to give adoration to the substance of bread and wine is Idolatry. No demonstration in Euclid is plainer than this.

But I tell you, we do not worship the creature, but the body of Christ.

I tell you again, if there be a creature you do worship it, for you give adoration to what is before you, be it what it will; if it be a creature you adore it.

But we say, it is not a creature we worship.

Do not you give adoration to that which is consecrated, whether it re­mains a creature or not after consecration? At the elevation of the Host, at the carry­ing it about, at the exposing of it on the Altar, you worship that which was consecrated do you not?

We worship that which was bread before consecration, but after, is no longer so but the body of Christ.

But if it should remain bread after consecration, what do ye adore then? is it not the substance of the bread?

Yes, but we believe it is not the bread.

That is not the question, what you believe; for they that believed God to be the soul of the world, worshipped the parts of it upon a supposition, which if it had been true would have justified their worship, every jot as well as yours can do you, and yet they were gross Idola­ters for all that. Nay, I will say more to you, there never were Idolaters in the world, that did not proceed upon a false supposition, and it may be not so unrea­sonable as yours. This cannot therefore excuse you, if your supposition proves false; as no doubt it is; that the substance of the bread doth not remain after consecra­tion. But I now ask you what your ado­ration is, in the opinion of those persons who do firmly believe the Sacramental Elements to remain in their natural sub­stances. Is it not the giving divine worship to a creature? And is not the giving divine worship to a creature Idola­try? so that according to the sense of our Church the Worship of the Host must be Idolatry.

But what have you got by all this? for we confess our selves, that if the substance of bread and wine do remain after consecration we are as great Idolaters as they that worship a red cloath.

Upon my word, you had need then to be well assured, that the substance of Bread and Wine do not remain; and yet I must tell you, we can be certain of no­thing in the world, if we are not certain that the substance of bread and wine do re­main after consecration. For if we are certain of nothing by our senses, but of the outward accidents (which is all your best men do say in this case) we cannot be certain of any visible substance in the world, for no bodily substance can be di­scerned, but by our senses; and so all foundation of certainty by sense is destroy­ed. Nay, farther, it takes away all cer­tainty by reason, for it confounds the clear­est maxims of it, by overthrowing all Mathematical proportions of great and small, whole and parts; by destroying all notions of distance and place; by jumbling the notions of body and Spirit. And last­ly, it takes away all certainty by Reve­lation, which can never come to us, but upon the supposition of the certainty of Sense and Reason.

O Sir, I see what you would be at; you would fain draw me into a dispute about transubstantiation, upon principles of Reason; I beg your pardon Sir. This is a matter of faith, and must [Page 52] be stoutly believed, or else we are gone. No more of this Sir, to your business of Idolatry I pray.

I was only giving you some cau­tion by the by, how much you are con­cerned to look about you; but since you are resolved to shut your eyes, I return to the sense of our Church about the Idolatry of the Mass; and it follows necessarily from our former discourse, that since our Church believes the sub­stance of the Elements do remain, and that your worship doth really fix upon that substance, whatever your intentions be, it is really Idolatry.

However this only proves it to be material Idolatry, and not formal.

I have often heard of this di­stinction, but I could never be satisfied with it: For what is material and formal Idolatry?

Material Idolatry I take to be mistaken worship; i. e. I do give divine worship to a false object, but I do not intend to give it to a false object of Wor­ship, but to a true one.

Then Formal Idolatry must be giving divine worship to a false object of Worship, knowing it to be a false object. And where are there any such Idola­ters [Page 53] to be found in the world? Did not the Heathens believe that to be God which they worshipped? And is not God a true object of worship? only they mistook that to be God which was not▪ and so were only material Idolaters; Even those that worshipped their Images for Gods, were only mistaken; for they had a good intention only to worship God, but they unhappily took their Images for Gods. And I must needs say, they who took the Sun, Moon and Stars for Gods, and worshipped them as such, were very excusable in comparison of those who take a piece of bread for God, or that which appears like it.

You are very severe methinks; but do you think there is no difference among Idolaters?

Yes, I tell you there is, but not much to your comfort. The grosser mens erour is, the more means to con­vince men of it, the more wilful their blindness and continuance in it, the more culpable they are in their Idola­try, and consequently the less excusa­ble.

But may not a man innocently mistake? as if in the dark, a Child should ask blessing of one that is not his Father, [Page 54] would his Father have reason to be angry with him?

Not for once, or if it were in the dark; but if he should see him every day go very formally to a joyn'd Stool in the Hall, or to a Brown Loaf in the Buttery, and there very so­lemnly down upon his knees to them, and beg their blessing; tell me what you think the Father would say, to such a mistake? Would he excuse him, saying, Alas poor Child, he intended all this to me, only he mistook the Brown Loaf or a joyn'd stool for me!

Forbear such comparisons; for we have divine Revelation, This is my Bo­dy; and we believe his word against all you can say in this matter.

But what will you say, if by the confession of many of the best and most learned of your own Divines, You have not Divine Revelation for it; and that those words cannot prove that the substance of Bread doth not remain after consecration, which is the thing we now enquire after: and if it were not to go off from our present business, I would undertake to prove this evidently to you.

However we have the Authori­ty of our Church for it.

You had as good say, you are resolved to believe it; for the Authority of your Church can never perswade any man that is not.

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.

No, I have been pursuing it hi­therto.

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.

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 [Page 56] 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.

How then can your Divines hold a real presence of Christs Body, as T. G. saith they do?

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, [Page 57] 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. Hincmar. de praedest. c. 31. Lanfranc. de Corp. & Sang. Christ. c. 4. 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 [Page 58] 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 re­ [...]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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] in this matter, was Rabanus Maurus, the greatest Divine accounted of his Age, who wrote his Epistle to Egilo against them, who had lately broached that doctrine (mark that) that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, was the very same which was born of the B. Virgin, and suf­fered on the Cross and rose from the dead. And this appears from his Epistle to He­ribaldus still extant; wherein he saith, he declared in what sense the Sacrament was the Body of Christ. Besides, the Anonymus Au­thour published by Cellotius, (the only per­son about that time who appeared in be­half of the doctrine of Paschasius, and very inconsiderable in comparison of his Adver­saries) confesseth the opposition made to Paschasius by Rabanus and Ratramnus, and endeavours to excuse his simplicity in assert­ing that the same flesh of Christ was upon the Altar, which was born of the Virgin, by a new and extravagant supposition of the Sacrament being the medium of uniting two real bodies of Christ; viz. of his flesh and of his Church, and therefore that must be a real body of Christ too; which is so remote from justifying Paschasius his do­ctrine, that Cellotius himself is ashamed of him. This same doctrine of Rabanus and Ratramnus is expresly owned by the [Page 61] Saxon Homilies, which deny the Sacra­ment to be a meer commemoration accord­ing to the opinion of Joh. Erigena, but say that after consecration the bread becomes the Body of Christ after a spiritual and my­stical manner; and in the Saxon Code of Canons it is expresly determined, not to be that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. And this I assert to be the very same doctrine which the Church of Eng­land embraced upon the Reformation; as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers; which although it doth declare against the natural Body of Christ, being in more places than one, even that Body of Christ which is in heaven, yet in the Articles it declares, that the body of Christ is given, taken and eaten, so that to the faithful receivers the Bread consecra­ted and broken becomes the Communion of the Body of Christ, and the cup of blessing the communion of the Blood of Christ. And so in the Catechism, it is said, that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper; i. e. that after consecration such a divine power and efficacy doth accompany the Holy Sacrament as makes the elements to become the Spiritual and mystical Body of Christ; as the Church is really but mysti­cally [Page 62] the Body of Christ, because of his Spirit dwelling in them. So the Apology of our Church saith, that in the Lords Sup­per there is truly exhibited the Body and Blood of Christ, because that is the proper food of our souls, as Bread and Wine tends to the nourishment of our Bodiess And if the time would permit, I could not only more largely prove this to be the sense of our Church, but that it is the true and ge­nuine sense of the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church. And thus I hope, I have done that which T. G. thought so impossible a thing, viz. to ex­plain this Rubrick, so as not to undermine the doctrine of the real presence asserted by the Church of England, nor to leave no­thing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it.

I was afraid of a Paradox, and it appears, not without Reason, for I ne­ver met with any one yet who explained the doctrine of Bertram and the Church of England after this manner; and all that attempted it talked so in the clouds, that transubstantiation it self did not seem more hard to understand: but I remem­ber Pet. de Marca hath proved, that the Book of Bertram was the same which was written by Joh. Scotus, and therefore [Page 63] your hypothesis is utterly overthrown.

I have read and considered that faint attempt of that Great Man, which seemed to be designed for no other end but to make us believe that Bertrams Book was burned for heretical at the Synod of Vercelles; but if any one will impar­tially consider the Book of Bertram and compare it with the account given of the opinion of Joh. Scotus by the Writers against Berengarius, they will find De Marca's opinion without the least colour of probability.

But Card. Perron, Mauguin, Cel­lotius and Arnaud all say, that Bertram in the First part disputes against the Ster­coranists, who were a sort of Hereticks, who held that the Body of Christ in the Eu­charist was passible, corruptible and digesti­ble, and in all things just as the bread ap­peared to our senses; and asserted, that all the accidents of the Bread were founded hy­postatically in the Body of Christ, and not to have any proper subsistence of their own.

These were a notable sort of Hereticks, if they could be found; but it appears by the enemies of Berengarius that this opprobrious name was fixed by them on all those who asserted the sub­stance of the Bread to remain after conse­cration; [Page 64] and it would be very strange if Bertram should confute that which him­self asserts; for he saith, the Sacramental Elements do pass into the nourishment of our Bodies. But if any were lyable to this accusation, it must be Paschasius; if Pet. de Marca's observation of him be true, that he held both substance and quan­tity of the Bread and Wine to be turned in­to the Body of Christ; from whence it follows, that must be the subject of all those accidents which were in the Bread before; which is the very sink of Ster­coranism. Nay, I am very much decei­ved, if Pope Nicholas 2. in the recantati­on prescribed to Berengarius did not fall into the filth of it far more than Rabanus or Heribaldus; for he asserts therein, that the Body of Christ is truly and sensibly hand­led and broken by the hands of Priests and ground by the teeth of Believers. But what place could be fitter for this Heresie, than the Sedes Stercoraria? Guitm. de sacr. l. 1. And Guitmundus striving to help Pope Nicholas and his Council out, falls into the same Heresie himself: for he shews that Christs Bo­dy may be handled and chewed in the Sacrament; if so, it must be the sub­ject of the Accidents of the Bread and Wine. Which according to Perron [Page 65] and his followers is plain Stercor [...]nism.

But do not you fall into ano­ther Heresie, viz. of Impanation?

A man had need look to his words, when Heresies are so common, and buz so about a mans ears. And some think they confute a man with a vengeance, if they can find out some Heresie with a hard name to fasten up­on him. But if you did know wherein the heresie of Impanation lay, you would never charge this doctrine of our Church with it. For I find two distinct wayes of Impanation, and this doctrine is lyable to neither of them. 1. By union of the Bread to the Body of Christ, and by that to the Divinity, which was the way of Joh. Parisiensis. 2. By an immediate conjunction of the Divine Nature to the Bread; not meerly by divine efficacy and power, but by an Hypostatical Vnion: which is the opinion not without ground, attributed to Rupertus Tuitiensis; and is lyable to this great absurdity, that all that befals the Bread may be attributed to the person of Christ, which Bellarmine saith, it is blasphemy to imagine. And then it might be said, that the bread is God, that the Word is made Bread, and that God is [Page 66] both bread and wine. But all which the doctrine of our Church implyes is only a real presence of Christs invisible power and Grace so in and with the Elements, as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men: As the Bodies assumed by Angels might be called their Bodies, while they assumed them; or rather as the 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 [Page 67] 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.

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?

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, Cajet. in Aquin. 3. p. q. 75. art. 1. & 2. & [...]. 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 [Page 68] 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.

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?

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 [Page 69] 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 [Page 70] 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, Aq. 4. dist. 44. q. 2. ar. 2. 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, Conink de sacr. qu. 75. art. 3. 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. Maerat. de sacr. disp. 24. sect. 1. It is much more repugnant, saith Maeratius, for the same Body to be extended and not extended, than to have a double ex­tension. [Page 71] 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, Lugo de Sacram. disp. 5. §. 1. 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, Suarez in 3. p. disp. 48. art. 1▪ §. 4. Gamach. i [...] 3. p. qu. 76. c. 4. 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, Ysambert. qu. 75. disp. 3. art. 8. saith he, a man as in one place may be killed in a mortal sin, and so be damned; whereas in [Page 72] another place he may have contrition (and absolution) and so be saved. But Vas­quez asks an untoward Question, Vasq. in 3. p. disp. 109. c. 4. art. 6. p. 28. 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 [Page 73] 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?

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.

No Sir, It was T. G.'s fixing such an absurd sense upon our Church, as though she made it Idolatry to Worship [Page 74] Christs Body as present after a corporeal manner, and not after another; which made me insist so long upon this.

What saith my Fanatick Ac­quaintance to all this? What! sleep­ing?

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.

Come, come we will keep you waking; we are now come to the Puri­tan Cause.

Ay, Ay, there is some life in that.

What think you, was Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury a Puritan or not?

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.

But I pray Sir, how comes in this discourse about Bishop Abbot?

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.

Are you sure of that?

Yes, T. G. saith so, Dial. p. 25, 27. more than once.

However it is good to be sure. These are Dr. St.'s words. The two first he excepts against, are the two Archbishops, [Page 76] 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.

But he proves, he was Purita­nically inclined, and takes off his Testi­mony.

How doth he prove that?

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.

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 [Page 77] not possible, for men to be zealous for our Liturgie and Ceremonies, if they held the doctrine of Election and Perseverance! But we do not want those of the Highest Order of our Church at this day, who are eminent for Learning, and Piety, and Zeal for the Church; who would take it very ill from T. G. upon the account of those opinions, to be thought enemies to the Church of England; as no doubt the Puritans were. But T. G. runs on with this perpetual mistake; when his own Author Dr. Heylin hath told him whom he means by Puritans, Cypr. Angl. p. 48.1 ed. viz. the Noncon­formists; for speaking of Dr. Buckeridge Bishop Lauds Tutor, he saith, that he op­posed the Papists on one hand, and on the other the Puritans or Non-conformists. These are very pittiful shifts to over­throw Bishop Abbots Testimony, when Dr. Heylin himself saith of him, P. 66. he was so moderate a Calvinian that he incurred the high displeasure of the Supralapsarians, who had till then carried all before them. But what saith T. G. to those whom he yields not to have been Puritanically in­clined, and yet charged the Church of Rome with Idolatry?

He saith, they do not impugn the doctrine it self of the Church of Rome, or [Page 78] the practice conformable to that doctrine, but such things as they conceived to be great Abuses in the practice of it.

That will be best tryed by par­ticulars; the First of these is no less a Person than K. James, who calls the Wor­ship of Images, damnable Idolatry; and Dr. St. shews that K. James takes off their distinctions and evasions; and saith, Let them therefore that maintain this Do­ctrine answer it to Christ at the latter day when he shall accuse them of Idolatry. And then I doubt if he will be paid with such Sophistical Distinctions. Is all this, saith D. St. nothing but to charge them with such practices which they detest? Doth he not mention their doctrine, and their distincti­ons? Did not K. James understand what he said, and what they did? What saith T. G. to this?

Not a word that I can find.

Let us then see what he doth take notice of.

A very notable thing I assure you. He saith, they only found fault with some abuses committed in our Church, Dial. p. 30. to 33. and did not think men by vertue of the terms of her communion forced either to hypocri­sie or Idolatry: as Dr. St. doth: so that it is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome, [Page 79] if truly stated out of the decrees of her Councils, or practice agreeable to that do­ctrine, which these Divines impeach as Ido­latrous, but the opinions of some School-Divines, or Abuses they conceived to be committed in the practice of it. And for this he instanceth in the decree of the Coun­cil of Nice about the Worship of Images.

Who doth not know T. G. to be a man of art? and to understand the way of fencing in the Schools as well as another? Was it not skilfully done in this place to run to the point of Images, when we had been so lately upon the Idolatry in adoration of the Host, as it is declared in our Rubrick? For the Consti­tution of the Church of Rome is plain to all persons about adoration of the Host, at the elevation of it, and carrying it about; but in the matter of Images they endea­vour to palliate and disguise their allow­ed practices as much as may be. I an­swer therefore on behalf of Dr. St. (1.) That when he speaks of what men are obliged to do by vertue of Communi­on with the Church of Rome, he speaks of the things strictly required by the Rules of that Church; and since our Church de­clares the Mass Idolatrous, he doth not in the least recede from the sense of our [Page 80] Church in the disjunction he useth, either of hypocrisie, or Idolatry; and I have some reason to believe that was the thing he aimed at chiefly, when he spoke of the terms of Communion; because he had of­ten heard of some persons who live in the communion of that Church, who be­ing not obliged to make the same pro­fessions which Ecclesiastical persons are, do content themselves with doing the same external Acts which others do; but with a very different intention; who look upon transubstantiation, and many other doctrines as foolish and ridiculous, and yet think they may joyn with those who do believe them in all external acts of wor­ship rather than break the peace of the Church they live in; such persons would say they never worshipped the Host, and therefore excuse themselves from Idola­try, but Dr. St. saith, they cannot then ex­cuse themselves from hypocrisie, because they seem to give the same Worship which the other doth. (2.) As to the Idolatry committed in the Worship of Images, we shall consider that in its proper place; but yet by vertue of communion with the Church of Rome, all persons are (1.) bound to declare the worship of Images lawful as it is practised in that [Page 81] Church. (2.) To worship Images upon oc­casion o [...]fered, as in processions, &c. (3.) To Worship the Cross as it repre­sents Christ with that worship which is proper to his person. That which con­cerns us now, is to give an account of the judgement of these Persons, how far they suppose the Church of Rome to be guilty of the Idolatry committed in it. As to K. James we have seen already how far T. G. is from answering his testimo­ny; the next is Is. Casaubon, and he saith, the Church of England did affirm the pra­ctises of the Church of Rome to be joyned with great impiety. So that he speaks the sense of our Church and not barely his own; and surely when he wrote by K. James his direction and order, and had so great intimacy with Bishop Andrews and other learned men of our Church, he would declare nothing to be her sense which was contrary to it. And as to his own private opinion, I could tell T. G. some­what more, viz. that when he was vio­lently set upon by all the Wit and In­dustry of Card. Perron, and disobliged by some persons of his own Communion at Paris, he set himself seriously to con­sider the terms of Communion in that Church, and whether he might with a [Page 82] safe conscience embrace it; and I have seen in his own hand-writing the reasons which hindred him from it; and the first of them, was the Fear of Idolatry, which he saw practised in the worship of Images and Saints. Which is as full a proof as may be, that he did not think any person could embrace the communion of that Church without Hypocrisie or Idolatry as to the Worship of Images and Saints. The third is Bishop Andrews, who not only charges the Church of Rome with Idola­try; but he saith, that in their Brevia­ries, Hours, and Rosaries, they pray direct­ly, absolutely and finally to Saints; and not meerly to the Saints to pray to God for them, but give what they pray for them­selves: To this T. G. saith, they profess they do no such thing; as though we were enquiring what they professed, and not what Bishop Andrews charged them with. If Idolatry according to Bishop Andrews be required in the Authorized Offices of Devotion in their Church, how can the members of it be excused either from hyocrisie or Idolatry? The fourth is Dr. Field, who chargeth the Invocation of Saints with such superstition and Idola­try as cannot be excused: The fifth Dr. Jackson who saith, the Papists give divine [Page 83] honour to Images. The sixth Archbishop Laud, who 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.

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.

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 [Page 84] 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?

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?

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 [Page 85] 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,

4. The Church of Rome may err in Schism, following the wrong cause. If you except only things necessary to salvation [Page 86] 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;

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,

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,

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 [Page 89] any evidence that they hear our prayers.

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 Christian trust his soul with that Church, which teaches that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not the Figure?’

13. There is neither Scripture nor Tradition for worshipping the Cross, the Images, and Reliques of Saints, ‘Therefore it evidences the same car­nal hope, that God will abate of his Gospel for such bribes. Which is the Will-worship of Masses, Pilgrimages, and Indulgences to that purpose.’

14. Neither Scripture nor Tradition is there for the removing any soul out of Purgatory unto the Beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement, ‘Therefore the same carnal hope is seen in the Will-worship of Masses, [Page 90] Indulgences, Pilgrimages and the like for that purpose: and that de­structive to the salvation of all that believe that the guilt of their sins is taken away by submitting to the Keys before they be contrite; and the temporal penalty remaining in Purgatory paid by these Will-wor­ships.’

15. Both Scripture and Tradition con­demn the deposing of Princes, and acquit­ting their subjects of their Allegiance, and enjoyning them to take Arms for them whom the Pope substitutes.

16. There is both Scripture and Tra­dition for the Scriptures and Service in a known Tongue; and for the Eucharist in both Kinds. ‘How then can any Christian trust his soul with that Church, which hath the Conscience to bar him of such helps provided by God?’

These are all his own words without addition or alteration. And what think you now of Mr. Thorndike? was this man a secret Friend to the Church of Rome do you think? who saith so plainly, that a man cannot embrace the Commu­nion of that Church without hazard of his salvation.

I did little think by the Use T. G. on all occasions makes of him, that he had been a man of such princi­ples. But I think T. G. had as good have let him alone, as have given occa­sion for producing such Testimonies of the thoughts which a man of his Learning and Fame had, concerning the Church of [Page 92] Rome. However, you see, he holds the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and can you reconcile this, to what you asserted to be the Doctrine of the Church of England?

Yes very well. If you com­pare what he saith here, with what he declares more at large in his Book, wherein you may read these remarkable words to this purpose. Laws of the Ch. Ch. 4. p. 30. If it can any way be shewed that the Church did ever pray that the Flesh and Blood might be sub­stituted instead of the Elements under the accidents of them, then I am content that this be accounted henceforth the Sacramen­tal presence of them in the Eucharist. But if the Church only pray, that the Spirit of God, coming down upon the Elements, may make them the Body and Blood of Christ, so that they which receive them may be filled with the Grace of his Spirit; then is it not the sense of the Catholick Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance; be­cause supposing that they remain, they may nevertheless come to be the instrument of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive it, no otherwise than his flesh and blood conveyed the efficacy thereof upon earth: and that I [Page 93] suppose is reason enough to call it the Body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally, that is to say as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. And in two or three places more he speaks to the same purpose.

Hold Sir I beseech you; you have said enough; you will fall back again to transubstantiation in spite of my heart.

What? when I only answer a Question you asked me?

Enough of Mr. Thorndike; un­less he were more our Friend, than I find he was. I pray what say you to Arch­bishop Whitgift?

Hath T. G. perswaded you that he is turned Puritan, above seventy years after his death, who never was suspect­ed for it while he was living, nor since till the transforming dayes of T. G.?

You may jeer as you please, but T. G. tells a notable story of the Lam­beth Articles, Dial. p. 42. &c. and how Q. Elizabeths black Husband was like to have been divorced from her upon them, and how K. James would not receive them into the Arti­cles of the Church. And all this, as well as many other good things he hath out of one Pet. Heylin. Is the man alive I pray, that we may give him our due [Page 94] thanks for the service he hath done us upon many occasions? For we have written whole Books against the Refor­mation, out of his History of it; and I find T. G. relyes as much upon him as other good Catholicks do on Cochlaeus, and Surius; or as he doth at other times on the Patronus bonae Fidei.

Dr. Heylin was a man of very good parts and Learning, and who did write History pleasantly enough; but in some things he was too much a party to be an Historian, and being deeply con­cerned in some quarrels himself, all his Historical writings about our Church do plainly discover which side he espoused: which to me doth not seem to agree with the impartiality of an Historian. And if he could but throw dirt on that which he accounted the Puritan party, from the Beginning of the Reformation, he matter­ed not though the whole Reformation suffered by it. But for all this he was far from being a Friend either to the Church or Court of Rome; and next to Puritanism, I believe he hated Popery most; so that if he had been alive, and you had gone to thank him for the ser­vice he had done you, in all probability you had provoked him to have written [Page 95] as sharply against you as ever he wrote against the Puritans But what is all this to Archbishop Whitgifts being suspect­ed for a Puritan? Dares Pet. Heylin sug­gest any such thing? no, he knew him too well: and saith, Cypr. Angl. p. 62. that by his contri­vance the Puritan Faction was so muzled that they were not able to bark in a long time after. Had he then any suspicion of his being Puritanically inclined? And as to the Lambeth Articles, they only prove that he held those opinions con­tained in them, and recommended them to the Vniversity to suppress the disputes which had been there raised concerning them. And what then? doth this ren­der him suspected for a Puritan at that time? when many of the greatest Anti-Puritans were zealous defenders of those opinions. In all Q. Elizabeth's time and after, the name of Puritans, signified the opposers of our Government, and the Ser­vice and Orders of our Church; and some have undertaken to name the Person who first applyed this name to the asser­ters of these doctrinal points, towards the latter end of K. James. This is certain, (which is most material to our purpose) that when K. Charles I. published his Declaration to prevent unnecessary Di­sputations [Page 96] about these points, he saith, that they did all agree in the true usual lite­ral meaning of the said Articles of our Church, Cypr. Angl. p. 189. and that even in those curious points in which the present differences lye, men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them, which is an argument again, none of them intend any desertion of the Articles established. And which is a certain argument that even at that time no man was charged with dis­affection to the Church of England meerly on the account of these doctrinal points.

But what was it which Arch­bishop Whitgift saith, for T. G. saith, even that will involve him more in the suspicion of Puritanism.

His words are these, I do as much mislike the distinction of the Papists and the intent of it, as any man doth, nei­ther do I go about to excuse them, from wicked and (without repentance, and Gods singular mercy,) damnable Idolatry. This is enough to Dr. St.'s purpose; and af­terwards he saith, he placeth the Papists among wicked and damnable Idolaters. Is not this home do you think?

But doth not he say, that one kind of Idolatry is, when the true God is worshipped by other means and wayes than he [Page 97] hath prescribed or would be Worshipped? and according to Dr. St. this is the Funda­mental principle of those who separate from the Church of England, Dial. p. 46, 47, &c. that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God, but what he hath expresly commanded: therefore ac­cording to Dr. St. himself, Archbishop Whitgift was a Puritan.

It is notably argued, I confess; and thence it follows, if Archbishop Whit­gift had understood the force of his own principle, he must have separated from the Church of England. But is it not plain to the common sense of any man that Archbishop Whitgift writing on be­half of our Ceremonies, and against this very principle in T. G., his words could not bear that meaning, and therefore Dr. St. had great reason to say, that his meaning in those words was, against his express command; as appears by the ap­plication of them? So that either you must make Archbishop Whitgift so weak a man as to overthrow the design of his whole Book, or this must be his meaning which Dr. St. assigns.

But Dr. St. himself makes the charging Papists to be Idolaters, Dial. p. [...]7▪ a distin­ctive sign of Puritanism.

Are you in earnest? I pray, when and where? For then I am sure he contradicts himself, for his design is to prove just the contrary. Name me the page, I beseech you, that I may judge of it.

Why doth he not say, that it is the Fundamental principle of Puritanism, that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God, but what he hath expresly commanded?

And what then?

Then — Hold a little— then— it will not do.

I think not truly. If this be the Fundamental principle of Puritans, that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God but what is commanded, then to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry is a distin­ctive sign of Puritanism. How many Cords are necessary to tye these two to­gether? (1.) Can no one charge the Papists with Idolatry, but by vertue of this principle? I do hold, whatever God hath not forbidden, to be lawful in his Worship; but may not I at the same time, hold some kind of prohibited Worship to be Idolatry? I can hardly imagine a man of T. G.'s subtilty could write thus. But that you have the Book by you, and tell me so, I could not have believed it. [Page 99] (2.) Those who do hold this principle, do not presently make every thing un­lawful to be an Idol by vertue of it. For they do not deduce this unlawfulness from the prohibition of Idolatry, but from the perfection and sufficiency of the Scri­ptures as a rule of Worship, and they say, we must not add thereto, and therefore no humane invention must be used in the Worship of God. Now judge you whe­ther according to this principle there can be nothing unlawful, but it must be an Idol?

This was an oversight I sup­pose in him. Let it pass. But what makes D. St. vary so much from his old princi­ple in his Irenicum, wherein he asserted, that nothing is lawful in the immediate Worship of God, Dial. p. 49. but what is commanded, this must come either from a greater light of the Spirit, or from the weighty considera­tions mentioned by the Patronus bonae Fi­dei, when, he saith, Prodr. p. 76. quicquid Cl. Stilling-fleet delinitus & occaecatus opimitate & obesitate suorum sacerdotiorum, &c.

For the malicious suggestions of so wretched a calumniator, as the Pa­tronus bonae Fidei appears to be through­out that Book, they are not worth taking notice of by any one that doth not search [Page 100] for dunghils. It is Dr. St.'s honour to be reproached by a man who hath made it his business to reproach the best Church in Christendome, and to undermine all Churches, above thirty years; and yet the ungrateful creature hath in some mea­sure lived upon the Revenues of that Church himself, which he hath so shame­fully reviled; being in great part sup­ported by the Bounty of a very worthy and learned Church-man who is nearly related to him. But as to the contra­diction charged on Dr. St. I begin to suspect T. G. more than ever I did. For doth not Dr. St. in that place distinguish between immediate Acts and parts of Wor­ship, and circumstances belonging to those Acts, even in the very words alledged by T. G.? And doth not he say expresly, that he doth not speak of these, B. Andrews Resp. ad Apolog. Bell. p. 37. compared with Bur­ [...]il. De [...]ens. Respons. ad Apolog. c. 6. q. 21. B. Sanders. Preface to his Serm. §. 15. De obligat. cons. prael. 4. §. 33. but of the former? And is not the very same distin­ction used by Bishop Andrews, Bishop Sanderson, and the most zealous defen­ders of the Rites of our Church? Why then must he be supposed to have chang­ed his mind as to this principle, when he said no more at that time, than what the most genuine Sons of our Church have asserted, among whom I do not question Bishop Andrews and Bishop Sanderson [Page 101] will be allowed to pass. And they di­stinguish after the same manner, be­tween the necessary parts of Worship, for which they suppose a command necessary, as well as Dr. St.: and the accidental and mutable circumstances attending the same for order, comeliness, and edifica­tions sake, which are lawful if not con­trary to Gods command. And doth not Dr. St. say the very same thing? viz. that in matters of meer decency and order in the Church of God, it is enough to make things lawful if they are not forbidden. Let us now compare this saying with what he calls the Fundamental principle of Se­paration; that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God, but what he hath expresly commanded: and can any thing be more contradictory to this, than what Dr. St. layes down as a principle in that very page of his Irenicum? that an express positive com­mand is not necessary to make a thing law­ful, but a non-prohibition by a Law is suf­ficient for that. Where then lay T. G.'s understanding or ingenuity, when he mentions such a great change in the Dr. as to this principle, when he owned the very same principle, even in that Book, and that very page, he quotes to the contrary? T. G. doth presume good Catholick [Page 102] 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: [Page 103] and especially, when T. G. goes about to prove that he contradicts himself, or the sense of the Church of England.

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, Dial. p. 51, &c. I perceive this sticks much with T. G. and from hence he concludes Dr. St. to contradict the sense of it, P. 63. who is the Champion of the Church of England.

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, Dial. p. 52. upon his being the Cham­pion of the Church of England; and the [Page 104] Church of Englands having cause to be ashamed of such a Champion; P. 160. P. 162. 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; [Page 105] 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?

T. G. repeats his own words at large, Dial. p. 59, 60, 61. and then blames the compilers of the Articles for want of Grammar, if they intend the word rather to affect the words that follow.

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 [Page 106] 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.

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. Dial. p. 53, 54. 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; P. 56. 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 the doctrine taught in her Councils which all those of her communion are bound to sub­mit [Page 107] to. If the Doctrine which the Church of England chargeth be that which is taught by some of her School Divines (which he takes to be her true meaning) this is also de­nyed (at least by those very Divines who teach it) to be Idolatry. If by the Romish Doctrine be meant the Doctrine of Councils owned by the Church of Rome concerning worshipping and adoration of Images, then herein she is vindicated from Idolatry by E­minent Divines that have been esteemed true and genuine Sons of the Church of England.

And doth this mighty effort come to this at last? What pity it is T. G. had no better a Cause, he sets this off so prettily? and dazels the eyes of his beholders with the dust he raises, so that those who do not narrowly look into his feats of activity, would imagine him still standing, when he is only endeavour­ing to recover a fall. For 1. By Adora­tion of Images, our Church doth not mean that which their School Divines call adoration of Images, as they distinguish it from Veneration of them, but it means all that Religious Worship which by the allowed Doctrine and practice of the Roman Church is given to Images. And this is just the case of the Council of Francford (concerning which I hear T. G. saith [Page 108] not one word in his last Book, and I commend him for it) the Western Bi­shops condemn adoration of Images: very true, saith T. G. and his Brethren, but all this was a bare mistake of the Nicene Council, which never approved adoration of Images, but only an inferiour Worship; but Dr. St. hath shewed that the Franc­ford Council knew of this distinction well enough, and notwithstanding their de­nying it, the Western Church did not judge that the worship which they gave to Images was really adoration whether they called it so or not. Just so it is with the Church of England, in reference to the Church of Rome; this distinguishes ado­ration from inferiour Worship, but our Church owns no such distinction, and calls that Religious worship which they give to Images, adoration; and supposing it were really so, Dr. St. saith, their own Di­vines yield it to be Idolatry; i. e. the Church of England calls their worship of Images adoration, or giving Divine Worship to a Creature, but their Divines do yield this is Idolatry, and therefore the Church of England doth charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry. But how subtilly had T. G. altered the whole force of the ar­gument? by taking adoration not in the [Page 109] sense of our Church, but of their School-Divines, and then telling us, that even those School-Divines who teach adoration of Images deny it to be Idolatry. And who­ever expected they should confess them­selves guilty? But what is this, to the sense of the Church of England? where doth it allow such a distinction of Divine worship into that which is superiour and in­feriour, or that which is proper to God and that which is not? 2. By Romish Doctrine the Church of England doth not mean the doctrine of the School-divines; but the Doctrine received and allowed in that Church from whence the Worship of Images is re­quired and practised. Such kind of Wor­ship I mean, as is justified and defended in common among them, without their School-distinctions; such worship as was re­quired here in the Recantation of the Lol­lards as Dr. St. observes, Defence p. 581. I do swear to God and all his Seynts upon this Holy Gospel, that fro this day forward I shall worship Images with praying and offering unto them in the Worship of the Seynts that they be made af­ter; such Worship as was required here by the Constitutions of Arundel, A. D. 1408. with processions, genuflections, thuri­fications, deosculations, oblations, burnings of Lights, and Pilgrimages which are called [Page 110] Acts of Adoration; and this Constitution was a part of the Canon Law of England, which all persons were then bound to ob­serve, or else might be proceeded against as Lollards. And this is that which Dr. St. insists upon, was the thing condemned by the Articles of our Church, viz. the Worship of Images which was required and practised here in England. And what reason have we to run to School-Divines for the sense of matters of daily practice, as the worship of Images was before the Re­formation? And so I conclude, if this be all T. G. in so long time hath had to say about this matter, ( viz. above four years since Dr. St.'s General Preface was Pub­lished) he hath very unreasonably char­ged him with dissenting from the Church of England in this Charge of Idolatry.

I hope you have done for this time; and if you catch me again losing so much time in hearing Fending and pro­ving about the Church of England; I will give you leave to call me Fanatick. If you have any thing more of this kind, talk it out your selves if you please. I expected to have had some comfortable talk with my old Friend about Liberty of Conscience; and how many precious hours have you lost about the Church [Page 111] of England? This will never do our busi­ness. If you please, my good Friend, you and I will meet in private at such a place to morrow.

Nay Sir, let me not be excluded your company, since I am so accidentally faln into it; and have but patience to hear us talk out these matters, since we have begun them. For I hear your Friends Friend T. G. hath said some things where­in your Cause is concerned.

I do intend for the Auction again to morrow, and if I can easily get the Books I look for, I will bear you company; other­wise go on with your Discourse, and I will come to you when I have made my Ad­ventures. It is possible I may meet with some of them to night; for I hear them at Rutherford, and Gillespee, and our Divi­nity follows just after the Scotch. Which was well observed by the Catalogue-maker, For the Covenant bound us to reform ac­cording to the pattern of the Church of Scotland.

You intend then to meet here again to morrow at three of Clock, to pursue our Conferences about these mat­ters. I will not fail you; and so adieu.

HOw long have you been at the Auction?

Above an hour; for I had a great desire to see how the Books were sold at them.

And I pray what do you observe concerning the buying of Books here?

I find it a pretty humoursome thing: and sometimes men give greater rates for Books, than they may buy them for in the Shops; and yet generally, Books are sold dearer here, than in any part of Europe.

What reason can you give for that?

One is, that the Scholars of Eng­land allow themselves greater Liberty in Learning than they do in foreign parts, where commonly only one kind of Learning is in esteem in a place; but here a man that intends a Library, buys all sorts of Books; and that makes your Traders in Books bring over from all parts, and of all kinds, and when they have them in their hands, they make the buyers pay for their curiosity. In Italy it is a rare thing to meet with a Greek Book in the Shops; In Spain you see no­thing almost besides Prayer-Books, No­vels, and School-Divinity. At Antwerp and Lions, School-Divinity and Lives of the Saints are most sold. At Paris in­deed there is greater variety. But we observe it abroad, that in the best Catho­lick Countreys, Learning is in least esteem; as in Spain and Italy. And where Learning is more in vogue, as in France, you see how ready they are to quarrel with the Pope; and to fall into Heats and Controversies about Religion. And therefore to deal freely with you, I am not at all pleased to see this eagerness of buying of Books among you. For as [Page 115] long as Learning holds up, we see little hopes of prevailing, though we and the Fanaticks had Liberty of Conscience: since upon long experience we find Ignorance and our Devotion, to agree as well as Mother and Daughter.

I am glad of any symptom that we are like to hold in our Wits; and I think your observation is true enough. I have only one thing to add to it: which is, that it was not Luther, or Zuinglius that contributed so much to the Refor­mation, as Erasmus; especially among us in England. For, Erasmus was the Man who awakened mens understandings; and brought them from the Friers Divi­nity to a relish of general Learning; he by his Wit laughed down the imperious Ignorance of the Monks, and made them the scorn of Christendom; and by his Learning he brought most of the Latine Fathers to light, and published them with excellent Editions, and useful Notes; by which means men of parts set themselves to consider the ancient Church from the Writings of the Fa­thers themselves, and not from the Cano­nists and School-men. So that most learn­ed and impartial men were prepared for the Doctrines of the Reformation before [Page 116] it brake forth. For it is a foolish thing to imagine that a quarrel between two Monks at Wittemberg should make such an alteration in the state of Christendom. But things had been tending that way a good while before; by the gradual re­storation of Learning in these Western parts. The Greeks coming into Italy af­ter the taking of Constantinople, and bring­ing their Books with them, laid the first foundation of it; then some of the Princes of Italy advanced their own re­putation by the encouragement they gave to it: from thence it spread into Germany, and there Reuchlin and his Companions joyned Hebrew with Greek; from thence it came into France and England. When men had by this means attained to some skill in Languages, they thought it necessary to search the Old and New Testament in their Original Tongues, which they had heard of, but few had seen, not above one Greek Testa­ment being to be found in all Germany; then Erasmus prints it with his Notes, which infinitely took among all pious and learned men, and as much enraged the Monks and Friers, and all the fast Friends to their Dulness and Superstiti­on. When men had from reading the [Page 117] Scripture and Fathers formed in their minds a true notion of the Christian Re­ligion and of the Government and pra­ctices of the ancient Church, and compared that with what they saw in their own Age, they wondred at the difference; and were astonished to think how such an alteration should happen; but then, they reflected on the Barbarism of the foregoing Ages, the gradual encroach­ments of the Bishop of Rome, the suiting of Doctrines and practices to carry on a temporal Interest, the complyance with the superstitious humours of people, the vast numbers of Monks and Friers, whose interest lay in the upholding these things; and when they laid these things together, they did not wonder at the degeneracy they saw in the Christian Church. All the difficulty was, how to recover the Church out of this state; and this puz­zled the wisest men among them; some thought the ill humours were grown so natural to the Body, that it would hazard the state of it to attempt a sudden purg­ing them quite away; and that a vio­lent Reformation would do more mis­chief than good, by popular tumults, by Schism and Sacriledge; and although such persons saw the corruptions and [Page 118] wished them reformed, yet considering the hazard of a sudden change, they thought it best for particular persons to inform the world better, and so by de­grees bring it about, than to make any violent disturbance in the Church. While these things were considered of by wiser men, the Pope goes on to abuse the People with the trade of Indulgences, and his Officers in Germany were so impudent in this Trade, that a bold Monk at Wittenberg defies them, and of a sudden lays open the Cheat, and this discovery immediately spread like Wild-fire; and so they went on from one thing to another, till the People were enraged at being so long and so grosly abused and Tyrannized over. But when Reformation begins below, it is not to be expected that no disorders and heats should happen in the management of it; which gave distastes to such per­sons as Erasmus was, which made him like so ill the Wittenberg Reformation, and whatever was carried on by popu­lar Tumults. Joh. Rosin. vit. [...]ed. sapient. Yet Rosinus saith, that the Duke of Saxony before he would declare himself in favour of Luther, asked Eras­mus his opinion concerning him, who gave him this answer, that Luther touched upon two dangerous points, the Monks bellies, [Page 119] and the Popes Crown; that his doctrine was true and certain, but he did not approve the manner of his Writing. But here in Eng­land, the Reformation was begun by the consent of the King and the Bishops, who yielded to the retrenchment of the Popes exorbitant power, and the taking away some grosser abuses in Henry 8's. time; but in Edw. 6.'s time, and Q. Elizabeths, when it was settled on the principles it now stands, there was no such regard had to Luther, or Calvin, as to Erasmus and Melancthon, whose learning and modera­tion were in greater esteem here, than the fiery spirits of the other. From hence, things were carryed with greater tem­per, the Church settled with a successi­on of Bishops; the Liturgie reformed ac­cording to the ancient Models; some de­cent ceremonies retained, without the sollies and superstitions which were be­fore practised: and to prevent the ex­travagancies of the people in the inter­preting of Scripture, the most excellent Paraphrase of Erasmus was translated in­to English and set up in Churches; and to this day, Erasmus is in far greater esteem among the Divines of our Church, than either Luther, or Calvin.

If this be true which you say, methinks your Divines should have a care of broaching such things, which do subvert the Foundation of all Ecclesiastical Authority among you, as T. G. told Dr. St. the charge of Idolatry doth. For by ver­tue of this charge, he saith, the Church of England remains deprived of the lawful Authority to use and exercise the Power of Orders; and consequently the Authority of Governing, Preaching, and Adminstring the Sacraments, which those of the Church of England challenge to themselves, as derived from the Church of Rome, can be no true and lawful jurisdiction, but usurped and An­tichristian. Dial. p. 141, &c. This I assure you T. G. layes great weight upon in his late Dialogues, and charges him with Ignorance, and Ter­giversation, and other hard words about it. So that I have a mind to hear what you can say in his defence about this, before I touch upon the other consequences which he urgeth upon this charge of Ido­latry.

With all my heart. There are two things wherein the force of T. G.'s argument lyes. (1.) That which he calls his undeniable Maxim of Reason, viz. That no man can give to another that which he hath not himself. (2.) That Idolatry lays men un­der [Page 121] the Apostles excommunication, and there­fore are deprived of all lawful Authority to use or exercise the Power of Orders.

In answer to these, two things are already proved by Dr. St. (1.) That the sin of the Givers doth not hinder the validity of Ordination. (2.) That the Christian Church hath allowed the law­ful Authority of giving and exercising the Power of Orders, in those who have been condemned for Idolatry. Which he proves more briefly in his Preface, and at large in his last Book from the case of the Arian Bishops. And now let any one judge whether T. G. had any cause to Hector about this matter for so many pages together, as though he had either not understood, or not taken notice of the force of his Argument. Concerning his undeniable Maxime of Reason he obser­ved, that it was the very argument used by the Donatists to prove the nullity of Baptism among Hereticks: and that the answer given by the Church was, that the Instrument was not the Giver, but the First Institutor, and if the Minister keep to the Institution, the Grace of the Sacra­ment may be conveyed though he hath it not himself. This Dr. St. thought ve­ry pertinent to shew, that where Power [Page 122] and Authority are conveyed by men only as Instruments, the particular default of such persons, as heresie or Idolatry, do not hinder the derivation of that Power or Authority to them. And this he proved to be the sense of the Christian Church in the Ordinations of Hereticks. It is true, he did not then speak to Authority so much as to Power; nor to jurisdiction, as it is called by the School Divines, so much as to the validity of Ordination. But he proceeded upon a parity of Reason in both cases; and could not imagine that any persons would suppose the Christian Church would allow a validity of Orders without lawful Authority to use and exercise those Orders. For in all the In­stances produced by him from the second Council of Nice, wherein undeniable ex­amples were brought of Ordinations of Hereticks allowed by the ancient Fa­thers and Councils (even those of Nice, Ephesus and Chalcedon) it was apparent that their Authority to use and exercise their power of Orders, was allowed as well as their Ordinations: For he there shews that Anatolius the President of the fourth Council was ordained by Dioscorus in the presence of Eutyches; that many of the Bishops who sat in the sixth Council [Page 123] were ordained by Sergius, Pyrrhus, Pau­lus and Petrus, who in that Council were declared Hereticks. And doth T. G. in earnest think this doth not prove they had lawful Authority? What becomes then of the Authority of these Councils? nay, of the Authority of the Church it self, when Tarasius there saith, as Dr. St. produceth him, they had no other Ordinations for fifty years together. Doth this prove either Dr. St.'s ignorance, or tergiversation? Is not this rather plain and convincing evidence that the Christian Church did allow, not barely the validity of Ordination by Hereticks, but the lawful Authority to use and exer­cise the Power of Orders? Which he likewise proves by the Greek Ordinations allowed by the Church of Rome; by which he doth not mean the validity of the bare Orders, but all that Power and Authority which is consequent upon them. For can any man be so sensless to think, that the Church of Rome only allowed the Sacrament of Orders among the Greeks, without any Authority to excommunicate or absolve? What mean then these horrible clamours by TG. of Dr. St.'s Ignorance, intolerable mistake, shameful errors, tergiversation, and what [Page 124] not? because he speaks only to the validi­ty of Ordination, and not to the lawful Authority of exercising the Power of Or­ders. Whereas the contrary appears by that very Preface about which these outcries are made by E. W. and T. G. What ingenuity is to be expected from these men, who deny that which they cannot but see?

But T. G. gives this for a Taste, Dial. p. 132. not only what candour and sincerity, but what skill in Church-Affairs you are to expect in the rest from Dr. St. which surely he would never have done, if he had spoken to the point.

You may think as you please of him; I only tell you the matter of fact, and then do you judge where the candour and sincerity, where the skill in Church affairs lies.

But is it not an undeniable Ma­xime, that no man can give to another, that which he hath not himself? and there­fore it lies open to the conscience of every man, that if the Church of Rome be guil­ty of Heresy, much more, if guilty of Ido­latry; Dial. p. 133, 134. it falls under the Apostles excom­munication, Gal. 1.8. and so remains de­prived of the lawful Authority to use and exercise the power of Orders, and conse­quently [Page 125] the Authority of Governing, Preaching, &c. This you see bids fair towards the subversion of all lawful Autho­rity in the Church of England, if the Church of Rome were guilty of Idolatry when the Schism began; because excom­municated persons being deprived of all lawful Authority themselves can give none to others; and if those others take any up­on them, it must be usurped and unlawful.

This is the terrible argument which T. G. produces again in Triumph, as though nothing were able to stand before it: and yet in my mind T. G. him­self hath mightily weakened it by yield­ing the Validity of Ordinations made by Hereticks or Idolaters. For, if no man can give that which he hath not; how can those give power and Authority who have none? But the Power of Orders doth ne­cessarily carry Authority along with it; For it is part of the Form of Orders in the Roman Church, Accipe spiritum sanctum, Pontificale Rom. de or­dinat. Pres­byt. Concil. Trident. Sess. 23. c. 4. Quorum remiseritis, &c. So that a power to excommunicate and absolve is given by vertue of the very Form of Orders; and your Divines say, the Form is not com­pleat without it. But then, I pray, re­solve me these Questions. Is not a power to excommunicate and absolve a [Page 126] part of that jurisdiction which T. G. doth distinguish from the bare power of Orders?

Yes, without doubt.

Is not this power given by the very Form of Orders in your Church?

Yes, but what then?

Doth not the Council of Trent say the character is imprinted upon saying those words, Accipe spiritum sanctum, &c.

What would you be at?

Is the character of Orders given by words that signifie nothing, and carry no effect along with them?

No certainly.

Then these words have their effect upon every man that hath the power of Orders.

And what then?

Then every one who hath the power of Orders, hath the power to excom­municate and absolve.

Be it so.

But the power to excommunicate and absolve is a part of jurisdiction, there­fore a power of Orders carries a power of jurisdiction along with it; and conse­quently valid Ordination must suppose lawful Authority to use and exercise the power of excommunication and absolution.

In the name of T. G. I deny that.

Hold a little; you are denying the conclusion. Consider again what you deny. Do you deny this power to be given in your Orders?

No.

Do you deny this power to be part of jurisdiction?

No.

Then this power of jurisdiction is given wherever the Orders are valid.

This cannot be; for T. G. com­plains over and over of Dr. St.'s igno­rance, wilful and intolerable mistake, unbe­coming a Writer of Controversies, for not distinguishing between the validity of Ordination, and the power of Jurisdiction, which he would never have done, if one had carried the other along with it.

Do not tell me, what T.G. would, or would not have done. I tell you what he hath done; and judge you now with what advantage to himself.

But T. G. is again up with his undeniable Maxim, that none can give to another what he hath not himself: Dial. p. 143. and this he thinks will carry him through all.

I tell you that very Maxim overthrows the validity of Ordinations as he applyes it. For if the Validity of Or­ders doth suppose Authority to be con­veyed; and there can be no such Autho­rity given in the case of Idolatry: then the Power of Orders is taken away as well as Jurisdiction. Besides, Is not the Power of giving Orders a part of that lawful Au­thority which belongs to Bishops?

I do not understand you.

Can any man give Orders with­out a Power to do it?

No.

Is not that Power a part of Epi­scopal Authority?

Yes.

How then can there be a power of giving Orders without Authority?

Now you shew your Ignorance. Do not you know that there is an indelible character imprinted in the Soul by the Power of Orders, which no act of the Church can hinder a Bishop from giving in the Sacrament of Orders, or a Priest from receiving; but jurisdiction is quite another thing, that is derived from the Church, or rather from the Pope who is the fountain of jurisdiction; and this may be suspended or taken away.

I cry you mercy Sir. I was not bred up in your Schools; this may be currant doctrine with you; but I assure you I find no footsteps of it either in Scripture or Fathers, and if I be not much mis-informed, some of your greatest Di­vines are of my mind. I see all this out­cry of T. G.'s concerning Dr. St. 's Igno­rance comes at last to this Mysterie of the Indelible Character imprinted in the soul by the Sacrament of Orders, which makes Or­dination to be valid, but gives no Authori­ty or Jurisdiction. I pray make me a little better acquainted with this chara­cter; for at present, I can neither read, nor understand it.

Yes, yes, This you would be alwayes at, to make us explain our School-notions, for you to fleer and to mock at them.

But this I perceive is very material to prevent intolerable errour and mistake; and for all that you know I may come to be a Writer of Controversies, and then I would not be hooted at for my Ignorance; nor have the boyes point at me in the Streets and say, There goes a man that doth not understand the character: which in my mind would sound as ill, as say­ing there goes one that cannot read [Page 130] his A. B. C. I beseech you Sir, tell me what this indelible Character is; for to tell you truth, I have heard of it before, but never met with one who could tell what it was.

Yes, that is it; you will not believe a thing, unless one can tell you what it is. Why, it is a mark or a seal imprinted in the soul by the Sacrament of Orders that can never be blotted out; and therefore Ordination is valid, because if re-ordination were allowed, one character would be put upon another, and so the first would be blotted out. Do not you un­derstand it now?

I suppose altogether as well as you. Is it a Physical kind of thing, just like the strokes of a pen upon pa­per; or rather as the graving of a Car­ver upon Stone, so artificially done that it can never be taken out while it conti­nues whole; or is it only a moral rela­tive thing depending upon divine insti­tution, and only on the account of di­stinction called a Character?

Without doubt it is an absolute thing, but whether to call it a habit, or a power; whether it be a quality, of the first, or the second, or the third, or fourth kind, that our Divines are not agreed [Page 131] upon: and some think it is a new kind of quality: nor whether it be imprinted on the essence or powers of the soul; and if in the Faculties, whether in the Vnderstand­ing or Will; but it is enough for us to believe, that there is really such an ab­solute indelible Character imprinted on the soul; from whence that Sacrament can never be reiterated which doth imprint a Character as that of Orders doth.

I am just as wise by all this ac­count as I was before. For the only reason of the point is, it must needs be so.

Yes, the Church hath declared it in the Council of Trent, and that is in­stead of all reasons to us.

But what is this to Dr. St.? Must he be upbraided with ignorance, er­rour and tergiversation, because he doth not believe the indelible character on the Authority of the Council of Trent?

No; that is not the thing, but because he did not understand the diffe­rence between the Power of Order, and jurisdiction.

Are you sure of that? If I do not forget, he hath this very distinction in that pestilent Book called Irenicum, [Page 132] which T. G. hits him in the teeth with▪ on all occasions.

But he did not, or would not understand it here.

Yes, he knew it well enough; but he thought if he proved the Validity of Ordination, he proved the lawfulness of Authority and Jurisdiction; because the giving Orders is part of Church Authority, and Authority is received in taking Orders; and the Church never allowed one, but it allowed the other also. If you have any thing more to say about this matter, I am willing to hear you, but as yet I see no reason for T. G.'s clamours about such a mistake in Dr. St., for I think the mi­stake lay nearer home.

But E. W. publickly reproved Dr. St. for this mistake, and yet after that he goes on to confirm his former answer with new proofs and Testimonies, Dial. p. 151, &c. that Bishops or­dained by Idolaters were esteemed validly ordained, and doth not speak one word in an­swer to what was objected by T. G. viz. that the English Bishops must want lawful au­thority to exercise the power of Orders, if their first Ordainers were Idolaters. And E. W. calls it an intolerable mistake, and T. G. saith, he hath heard he was a main [Page 133] man esteemed for his Learning. After repeat­ing the words of E. W. at length T. G. very mildly adds, P. 155. as if he were wholly in­sensible of the gross and intolerable errour E. W. taxed him with, he runs again into the same shameful mistake; But saith T. G. Are the Power of giving Orders and lawful Authority to give them, P. 157. so essentially linked to each other, that they cannot be se­parated? May not a Bishop or Priest re­maining so, be deprived of all lawful Au­thority to exercise their Functions, for ha­ving faln into Heresie or Idolatry? And if they have none themselves, can they give it to others?

On whose side the intolerable mistake lyes, will be best seen, by examin­ing the force of what T. G. saith (as to E. W. the matter is not great) which lyes I suppose in this, that those who do fall into Idolatry or Heresie may ordain va­lidly; for, saith he, from Esti [...]s, no crime, or censure soever can hinder the Validity of Ordination by a Bishop; but he may be de­prived of any lawful Authority to do it, and therefore cannot convey this lawful Autho­rity to others ordained by him. From hence T. G. saith, no crime can hinder the Validity of Ordination; but Idolatry, he saith, doth ipso facto deprive Bishops of the Authority [Page 134] of exercising Orders, or conveying jurisdi­ction; and therefore though the Ordination of the Bishops of England may be valid, yet their jurisdiction cannot be lawful, and so the Foundation of their Authority is sub­verted by the charge of Idolatry. I hope you will allow this to be the force of all that T. G. saith.

Yes; now you have hit upon his right meaning.

Let us then consider more close­ly, on which side the mistake lay; which will be discerned by this, whether we are to follow the Modern Schools, or the Judgement of Antiquity in this matter. For Dr. St. spake according to the sense and practice of Antiquity, and T. G. accord­ing to the modern notions and distinctions of their Schools. It is true, their School­men have so distinguished the power of Order and Jurisdiction, that they make the one to depend upon an indelible unin­telligible character, which no crime can hinder having its valid effect: but that jurisdiction, or the right of excommuni­cation and absolution may be suspended or taken away. Since the Councils of Florence and Trent this Doctrine of the indelible Character given in Orders, is not to be disputed among them; and there­fore [Page 135] they hold the character to remain wherever Orders are received in the due form; but then they say this character is capable of such restraints by the Power of the Church, that it remains like Aristotles first matter, a dull and unactive thing till the Church give a new Form to it, and this they call the Power of jurisdiction. But that all this, is new doctrine in the Church and a late Monkish invention, will appear by these considerations.

(1.) How long it was before this doctrine was received in the Church by the confession of their own Schoolmen. Scotus, and Biel, and Cajetan, Scot. in s [...]nt. l. 4. dist. 4. q. 9. Biel. in S [...]nt. q. 2. Cajet. in 3. p. q. 63. art. 1. (no incon­siderable men in the Roman Church) do confess, that the doctrine of the Character imprinted in the soul can neither be proved from Scripture, nor Fathers, but only from the Authority of the Church, and that not very ancient neither. Morin. de Ordin. part. 3. Exercit. 3. c. 1. [...]. 4. And Morinus takes notice that it was not so much as mentioned by P. Lombard, or Hugo de Sancto Victore: although they debate those very Questions which would have required their expressing it, if they had known any thing of it.

(2.) How many of their Schoolmen who do acknowledge the character of Priesthood, yet make the power of Orders [Page 136] to belong to jurisdiction, so Albertus Mag­nus and others cited by Morinus; but Alex. Alensis carries this point so far, that he saith, that because of the indelible cha­racter of Priesthood, the power can never be taken from a Priest, but only the executi­on of it; Alex. Al. 4. p. q. 8. memb. 5. art. 1. §. 6. ad 2. But in a Bishop there is no new character imprinted, and therefore in the degrading him, not only the execution, but the Power of Giving Orders is taken away. And Scotus saith, if a Bishop be excommu­nicated, Scot. in 4. dist. 25. q. 1. resp. ad 3. he loseth the power of giving Orders; if Episcopacy be not a distinct Order; as you know many of the Schoolmen hold. And Morinus grants, Morin. ib. exerc. 5. c. 9. n. 12, 13. that if Episcopacy be not a distinct Order, but a larger commission, the power of Bishops may be so limited by the Church, as not only to hinder them from a lawful Authority, but from a power of Act­ing; so that what they do, carries no validity along with it.

(3.) How many before the dayes of the Schoolmen were of opinion that the censures of the Church did take away the power of Orders? Gratian holds it most agreeable to the Doctrine of the Fathers, that a Bishop degraded hath no power to give Orders, Grat. 1. q. 1. post can. 97. although he hath to Baptize; only for S. Augustines sake, he thinks, they may distinguish between the Power and [Page 137] the execution of it. Gul. Parisiensis saith, that Bishops deposed can confer no Order, Gul. Pa [...]is. de Sacr. Ord. c. 7. be­cause the Church hath the same power in taking away, which it hath in giving, and the intention of the Church is to take away their Power. If what T. G. asserts, had been alwayes the sense of the Church, I desire him to resolve me these Questions. 1. Why Pope Lucius 3. did re-ordain those who had been ordained by Octavia­nus the Anti-pope? 2. Why Vrban 2. declared Nezelon or Wecilo an excommu­nicate Bishop of Ments to have no power of giving Orders? and that upon T. G.'s own Maxim, That which a man hath not, he cannot give to another; because he was ordained by Hereticks. 3. Why the Sy­nod of Quintilinberg under Greg. 7. de­clared all Ordinations to be Null which were made by Excommunicated Bishops? 4. Why Leo 9. in a Synod voided all Si­moniacal Ordinations? 5. Why Stepha­nus 6. re-ordained those which were or­dained by Formosus? 6. Why Hincma­rus re-ordained those who had been or­dained by Ebbo, because he had been de­posed? 7. Why Stephanus 4. re-ordain­ed those who had received Orders from Pope Constantine? 8. Why the Ordina­tions made by Photius were declared null? [Page 138] To name no more. If this had been al­ways the sense of the Christian Church, that the Power of Orders is indelible, but not that of jurisdiction, I desire T. G. to give an answer to those Questions; which, I fear, will involve several Heads of his Church under that which he calls in Dr. St. an intolerable mistake. Did so many Popes know no better this distin­ction between the Validity of Ordinati­on, and the Power of Jurisdiction? I am sorry to see T. G. so magisterial and con­fident, so insulting over Dr. St. as be­traying so much ignorance as doth not become a Writer of Controversies, when all the while, he doth only expose his own. But alas! This is the current Divinity of the Modern Schools; and what obliges them to look into the opi­nions of former Ages? Yet methinks a man had need to look about him, before he upbraids another with gross and into­lerable errors, lest at the same time he prove the guilty person; and then the charge falls back far more heavily on himself.

(4.) Those who did hold the Validi­ty of Ordinations did it chiefly on the ac­count of the due Form that was obser­ved, whoever the Persons were; whe­ther [Page 139] Hereticks, or Excommunicated-per­sons. For after all the heats and disputes which hapned in the Church about this matter, the best way they found to re­solve it was to observe the same course which the Church had done in the Ba­ptism of Hereticks: viz. to allow that Baptism which was administred in due form, although those who administred it were Hereticks. Thence Praepositivus, as he is quoted by Morinus, saith, Morin. de Ord. Sacr. p. 3. ex. 5. c. 1. n. 3. That a Heretick hath power to administer all the Sacraments as long as he observes the Form of the Church. And not only such a one as received Episcopal Orders in the Church himself, but those who do derive a suc­cession from such: as appears from Ta­rasius in the second Council of Nice, where he saith, That five Bishops of Con­stantinople successively were Hereticks, and yet their Ordinations were allowed by the Church: to the same purpose speak others, who are there produ­ced by the same learned Author. Let these considerations be laid together and the result will be, 1. Either Dr. St. was not guilty of an intolerable error and mistake in this matter, or so many infal­lible Heads of the Church were guilty of the same. 2. It was believed for some [Page 140] ages in the Roman Church, that the cen­sures of the Church did take away the Power of Orders. 3. T. G.'s distinction as to the foundation of it in the indelible Character of Orders is a novel thing, and acknowledged by their own Divines to have no Foundation either in Scripture or Fathers. 4. The ground assigned by those who held the validity of Ordination by Hereticks, will hold for the Authori­ty of exercising the Power of Orders, if not actually taken away by the Censures of the Church. For every man hath the power which is given him, till it be ta­ken from him; every one that receives Orders according to the Form of the Church hath a power given him to excom­municate and absolve, therefore every such person doth enjoy that power, till it be taken from him. For as I have already shewed, this is part of the Form of Orders in the Roman Church, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, Quorum remiseritis, &c. and the Council of Trent determines the character to be imprinted upon the use of these words: Conc. Trid. sess. 23. can. 4. therefore this power of jurisdicti­on is conveyed by the due Form of Orders, from whence it unavoidably follows that every one who hath had the due Form of Orders, hath had this Power conveyed to [Page 141] him, and what power he hath, he must enjoy till it be taken away.

But T. G. saith, That Excommu­nication by the Apostles sentence doth it, Gal. 1.8.

This is indeed a piece of new do­ctrine, and a fruit of T. G.'s Mother-wit, and which I dare say, he received neither from Schoolmen nor Fathers. For it in­volves such mischievous consequences in it as really overthrow all Authority in the Church. For by this supposition, in case any Bishop falls into Heresie or Ido­latry, he is ipso facto excommunicated by St. Paul 's sentence, and consequently hath no Authority to exercise the power of Orders, and so all who derive their power from him have no lawful Authority, or Jurisdiction. I do wonder in all this time T. G. did no better reflect upon this assertion and the consequences of it, and rather to thank Dr. St. that he took no more notice of it, than upbraid him with intolerable error and mistake. I will put a plain case to you to shew you the ill consequence of this assertion to the Church of Rome it self. Dr. St. hath proved by undeniable evidence, that the Arians were looked on and condem­ned as Idolaters by the Primitive Church: [Page 142] and T. G. doth not deny it; and what now if we find an Arian among the Bi­shops of Rome, and from whom the suc­cession is derived? He must stand excom­municated by vertue of the Apostles sen­tence, and therefore hath no Authority to give Orders, and so all the Authority in the Church of Rome is lost. The case I mean is that of Liberius; who shewed himself as much an Arian, as any of the Arian Bishops did, for he subscribed their confession of Faith, and joyned in com­munion with them. S. Hier. de Script. Ec­cles. in For­tunat. in Chronico. Libel. pre­cum, p. 4. St. Hierom saith more than once, That he subscribed to Heresie; the Pontifical Book saith, he communicated with Hereticks; Marcelli­nus and Faustinus say, That he renounced the faith by his Subscription; yea more than this, Hilary denounced an Anathe­ma against him and all that joyned with him: Baron. A D. 357. n. 46. and Baronius confesseth he did com­municate with the Arians, which is suffi­ent to our purpose. Then comes T. G. upon him, with St. Paul 's sentence of ex­communication; and so he loseth all Au­thority of exercising the power of Orders, and consequently that Authority which is challenged in the Church of Rome be­ing derived from him is all lost. And now judge who subverts the foundation of [Page 143] Ecclesiastical Authority most; T. G. or Dr. St.: yet it falls out unhappily, that Pet. Damiani mentions these very Ordi­nations of Liberius the Heretick (so he calls him) to shew how the Church did allow Ordinations made by Hereticks. Pet. Dam. Gom. opuse, 7. c. 16. But this is not all; for by all that I can find, if this principle of T. G. be allow­ed, no man can be sure there is any lawful Ecclesiastical Authority left in the world. For who can tell what secret Idolaters or Hereticks there might be among those Bishops from whom that Authority is derived? This we are sure of, that the Arian Bishops possessed most of the Eastern Churches and made Ordina­tions there: Libel. prec. p. 26. Sub­scribentes in illâ fide Ariano­rum, quam integro & libero judi­cio damna­verant. Ad­vertit Sa­pientia vestra, Ari­minensem Synodum, piissimè coeptam, sed impiissimè termina­tam. and the Western Bishops in the Council of Ariminum did certainly comply with them: as is now plain from Marcellinus and Faustinus, whose Book was published by Sirmondus at Paris; where Sulpitius Severus saith, more than four hundred Western Bishops were pre­sent; who were all excommunicated by T. G.'s principle; and what now be­comes of all Ecclesiastical Authority? But Dr. St. hath shewed that the Christian Church was wiser, than to proceed upon T. G.'s principle, proving from Authen­tick Testimonies of Antiquity, that the [Page 144] Arian Ordinations were allowed by the Church, although the Arians were con­demned for Idolaters.

Dial. p. 156, 157.Yes, T. G. saith, That Dr. St. was resolved to go on in the same track still, and to prove that the Act it self of Ordination is not invalid in case of the Idolatry of the Givers, which was never denied by his Adversary.

How is it possible to satisfie men who are resolved to cavil? Doth not Dr. St. by that instance of the Ari­an Bishops evidently prove, that the Authority of giving Orders was allowed by the Christian Church at that time, and that which he calls their jurisdiction as well as the power of Orders? because no­thing more was required from the Ari­an Bishops but renouncing Arianism and subscribing the Nicene Creed; and thus for all that I can see by T. G.'s princi­ple, they still remained under St. Paul's excommunication, and so Ecclesiastical Au­thority is all gone with them.

But do not you think that Dr. St. had some secret design in all this really to subvert the Authority of the Church of England? For T.G. lays together several notable things to that purpose to make it appear that he purposely de­clined Dial. p. 161. [Page 145] defending the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Church of England: I assure you it is a very politick Discourse, and hath se­veral deep fetches in it. First, he begins with his Irenicum, and there he lays the Foundation, that the Government may be changed. 2. The Book was reprinted since the Bishops were reestablished by Law. 3. He perswades the Bishops in that Book to reduce the form of Church Government to its primitive State and Order, by resto­ring Presbyteries under them, &c. 4. When this would not do, he charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry, and makes this the sense of the Church of England, to make her contribute to the subversion of her own Authority. 5. When T. G. told him of the consequence of this, he passed it by, as if he saw it not, and trifled with his Ad­versary about the validity of Ordination. 6. When E. W. endeavoured to bring him to this point, he still declined it, and leaves Episcopacy to shift for it self. And after all these T. G. thinks, he hath found out the Mole that works under ground.

A very great Discovery I assure you! and T. G. deserves a greater re­ward than any common Mole-catchers do. But I never liked such Politick In­formers; for if people are more dull and [Page 146] quiet than they would have them, they make plots for them to keep up their reputation and interest. They must have always something to whis­per in Great Mens Ears, and to fill their Heads with designs which were never thought of; by which means they tor­ment them with unreasonable suspici­ons, and tyrannize over them under a pretence of kindness. Just thus doth T. G. do by the Governours of our Church: he would fain perswade them, that there is one Dr. St. who hath undertaken to defend the Church, but doth carry on a very secret and subtile design to ruine and destroy it. If they say, they do not believe it; he seems to pity them for their incredulity and weakness, and en­deavours to convince them, by a long train of his own inventions; and if they be so easie to hearken to it, and to re­gard his insinuations, then he flatters and applauds them as the only Friends to the Church, when in the meantime he really laughs at them as a sort of weak men, who can be imposed upon by any man who pretends to be a Friend, although even in that he doth them and the Church the greater mischief. I can­not believe such kind of insinuations as [Page 147] these can prevail upon any one man of understanding in our Church, against a person who hath at least endeavoured his utmost to defend it. But since T. G. talks so politickly about these mat­ers, I will convince you by one ar­gument of common prudence, that if Dr. St. be a man of common sense, (much more if he be so politick and designing as T. G. represents him) all these sug­gestions must be both false and foolish. For that which all designing men aim at, is their own interest and advantage: Now can any man that hath common sense left in him, imagine that Dr. St. can aim at any greater advantage by ruining the Church than by preserving it? Are not his circumstances more conside­rable in the Church of England than ever he can hope they should be, if it were destroyed? They who would perswade others that he carries on such a secret design, must suppose him to be next to an Ideot, and such are not very dange­rous Politicians. But what is it then should make him act so much against his interest? It can be nothing but folly or malice. But I do not find they have taxed him of any malice to the Church of England, or of any occasion [Page 148] for it which the Church hath given him, if he were disposed to it. Why then should any be so senseless them­selves, or suppose others to be so, as to go about to possess men with an opi­nion of an underground plot Dr. St. is carrying on, not only to blow up the Thames, but the rising Fabrick of St. Pauls too: i. e. to ruine and destroy him­self? If he be a Fool, he is not to be feared; if he be not, he is not to be mistrusted.

But what say you to T. G.'s proofs? Do you observe the several Mole­hills which he hath cast up; and is not that a sign he works un-derground? What say you to his Irenicum in the first place?

I will tell you freely; I believe there are many things in it, which if Dr. St. were to write now, he would not have said; For there are some things which shew his youth, and want of due consideration: others which he yielded too far in hopes of gaining the dissent­ing Parties to the Church of England; but upon the whole matter I am fully satisfied the Book was written with a design to serve the Church of England: and the design of it, I take to be this; that among us there was no necessity of entring upon nice and subtile disputes [Page 149] about a strict jus divinum of Episcopacy, such as makes all other Forms of Go­vernment unlawful; but it was suffici­ent for us, if it were proved to be the most ancient and agreeable to Apostoli­cal practice, and most accommodate to our Laws and Civil Government; and there could be no pretence against sub­mitting to it, but the demonstrating its unlawfulness, which he knew was impos­sible to be done. And for what propo­sals he makes about tempering Episco­pacy, they were no other than what King Charles 1. and Mr. Thorndike had made before him; and doth T. G. think they designed to ruine the Church of Eng­land? And as long as he declared this to be the design of his Book both at the beginning and conclusion of it, suppose he were mistaken in the means he took, must such a man be presently condem­ned as one that aimed at the ruine and destruction of the Church?

But T. G. saith, he tendred it to consi­deration after Episcopacy was resetled by Law.

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 [Page 150] 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 [Page 151] 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.

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.

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?

I will tell you how. If the Church hath been guilty of Idolatry, (1.) Then she hath required and enjoyned Idolatry, Dial. p. 66, 67. 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. [Page 152] (3.) Then our Fore-fathers had better been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity as they were.

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 [Page 153] 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, B. Sanders­on Gen. 20.6. n. 17. 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 [Page 154] 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 [Page 155] 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 repentance, be saved?’

‘ Ans. It is answered, that Ignorance in point of Fact so conditioned as hath been shewed doth so excuse à toto; that an Action proceeding thence, though it have a material inconfor­mity with the Law of God, is yet not formally a sin. But I do not so excuse the Idolatry of our Fore-fathers, as if it were not in it self a sin, and that (with­out repentance) damnable. But yet their Ignorance being such as it was; nourished by Education, Custom, Tra­dition, the Tyranny of their Leaders, the fashion of the Times, not without shew also of Piety and Devotion; and themselves, withal, having such slender means of better knowledge; though it cannot wholly excuse them from sin [Page 156] without repentance damnable, yet it much lesseneth and qualifieth the sin­fulness of their Idolatry; arguing that their continuance therein was more from other prejudices, than from a wilful contempt of Gods Holy Word and Will. And as for their Repentance, it is as certain, that as many of them as are saved did repent of their Idolatries, as it is certain no Idolater nor other sin­ner can be saved without repentance. But then there is a double difference to be observed between repentance for Ig­norances, and known sins; the one must be particular, the other general; the one cannot be sincere without for­saking, the other may;’ which he in­larges upon, and then concludes, ‘Some of our Fore-fathers then, might not only live in Popish Idolatry, but even dye in an Idolatrous Act, breathing out their last with their lips at a Crucifix and an Ave Mary in their thoughts: and yet have truly repented, (though but in the General, and the croud of their unknown sins) even of those ve­ry sins; and have at the same instant true Faith in Jesus Christ, and other Graces accompanying salvation.’

But hath not Christ promised that [Page 157] the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against his Church?

This Dr. St. hath already an­swered thus. ‘Against what Church? The whole Christian Church? who­ever said they could, or how doth that follow? The Church of Constantinople, or the Church of Jerusalem? Have not the Gates of the Turk been too strong for them? The Church of Rome? The Gates of Hell do certainly prevail against that, if it doth unchurch all other Churches that are not of its com­munion. And why may not Idolatry prevail where Luciferian Pride, and Hellish Cruelty, and desperate Wick­edness have long since prevailed? Hath Christ made promises to secure that Church from Errour, which hath been over-run with all sorts of Wick­edness by the confession of her own members and friends?’

But T. G. saith, Dial. p. 68, 69. that Dr. St. ought to have assigned us some Church di­stinct in all Ages, from all Heretical and Idolatrous Congregations, which Christ hath preserved alwayes from Heresie and Idolatry?

Why so? Unless he had first yielded, that Christ had promised to pre­serve such a distinct Congregation of [Page 158] Christians, which he never did. But he shewed the feebleness of that kind of arguing, from particulars to generals; as though all the promises made to the Church must fail, if the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry.

But I will prove that Dr. St. ought to assign such a distinct Church, be­cause, he saith, that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to joyn in some Church or Congregation of Christians, there­fore there must be such a Church at all times to joyn with.

I answer, (1.) Dr. St.'s an­swer doth imply no more than this, that a Christian is bound to joyn with other Christians in the Acts of Gods publick Worship; but withal he adds immedi­ately, that he is bound to choose the com­munion of the purest Church; which doth suppose a competition between two Churches, where a person may em­brace the Communion of either, as the Church of England, and the Church of Rome. So that where there are distinct Communions, the best is to be chosen. (2.) Supposing no Church to be so pure that a mans Conscience can be fully sa­tisfied in all the practices of it, yet he may lawfully hold Communion with [Page 159] that Church he is baptized in, till the un­lawful practices become the condition of his Communion. As here in England, the conditions of Communion are diffe­rent as to Clergy-men and Lay-men; if the latter be satisfied in what concerns them, they have no reason to reject Communi­on themselves, for what concerns others. (3.) Where any Church doth require Idolatrous Acts as conditions of Com­munion, that Church is the Cause of a se­paration made for a distinct Communion. So that there is no necessity of assigning a distinct Church in all Ages free from here­sie and Idolatry; since men may Com­municate with a corrupt Church, so they do not Communicate in their cor­ruptions; and when they come to that height to require this, they make them­selves the Causes of the Separation which is made on the account of Heresie, or Ido­latry.

Still that promise sticks with me, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church: and are not Heresie and Idolatry the two Posts of those Gates?

If you turn over that promise never so much, you will prove no more from it, than the continuance of a Chri­stian Church in the World, with a capaci­ty [Page 160] of salvation to the members of it. And this we do not deny: but it doth not prove that any particular Church shall be preserved in all Ages free from He­resie and Idolatry. For whatever may be consistent with the salvation of the mem­bers of a Church, may be consistent with the Gates of Hell not prevailing against it; but Heresie and Idolatry may be con­sistent with the salvation of the mem­bers of a Church. Because there are so many cases assigned by Divines, wherein sins of Ignorance and Errour, are consistent with salvation. I say then, that Christs Promises do prove a possibility of salvation in all Ages of the Christian Church; but they do not prove the indefectibility of any distinct Church.

But why doth Dr. St. say, the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church of Rome, Dial. p. 70. when himself acknow­ledges it to be a true Church, as holding all the essential points of faith?

As though a man could be damned for nothing, but for denying the Articles of his Creed! It is in respect of Pride, Cruelty, and all sorts of Wickedness, as well as Idolatry, that he saith, the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it.

Well! But T. G. for all that proves, that all Christians are bound by vertue of their Christianity to joyn in com­munion with the Church of Rome. Dial. p. 73.

Doth he so? It is a great un­dertaking, and becoming T. G. But how?

First, There was in the world be­fore Luther a distinct Church, whose com­munion was necessary to salvation, but this was not the Protestant, for that came in af­ter Luther, therefore it was the Roman.

This is very subtle reasoning, yet it is possible we may find out some­thing like it. There was in the World before Julius Caesar some Civil Society, in which it was necessary for a man to live for his own preservation; but this was not the Roman Empire, for that rose up after him; therefore it was the Ro­man Common-wealth. But doth not this imply, that there was no other Civil So­ciety in the world, wherein a man could preserve himself, but the Roman Common-wealth? But I will put the case a little farther home; after Britain was made a Province, it became a Member of the Ro­man Empire, and depended so much up­on the strength and Arms of Rome, that it was not able to defend it self; it being [Page 162] sore distressed by enemies, and in danger of Ruine, sends to Rome for help; there it is denyed, and the Britains forced to look out for help elsewhere. Now after T. G.'s way of reasoning the Bri­tains must return to the Romans, because once they had been members of the Ro­man Empire. The case is alike in the Church; the time was when the Western Church was united under one Head, but by degrees this Head grew too heavy, and laid too great a load on the mem­bers, requiring very hard and unreasona­ble conditions from them; upon this, some of the members seek for relief, this is denyed them, they take care of their own safety, and do what is necessary to preserve themselves. The Head and some corrupt members conspiring, de­nounce excommunication, if they do not presently yield and submit. These parts stand upon their own rights and ancient priviledges; that it was not an Vnion of submission but association originally be­tween several National Churches: and therefore the Church of Rome assuming so much more to it self, than did belong to it, and dealing so tyrannically; upon just complaints our Church had Reason to assert her own Freedom, and to reform [Page 163] the abuses which had crept either into her doctrine or practice. And that this was lawful proceeding, it offered to ju­stifie by Scripture and Reason and the Rules of the Primitive Church. Now the question of Communion, as it was stated between T. G. and Dr. St. comes to this, whether any person being bapti­zed in this Church, ought in order to his salvation to forsake the communion of it, for that of the Church of Rome? And this being the true state of it, I pray, where lies the force of the argument? Dr. St. yields communion with some Church to be necessary: and what fol­lows, the communion of the Church of England is so to one baptized in it; why must any such leave it for that of the Church of Rome? Yes, saith T. G., there was a distinct Church before Luther, whose communion was necessary to salvation; and what then? what have we to do with Luther? we are speaking of the present Church of England, which was reformed by it self, and not by Luther. Why is it necessary to leave this Church, in which persons are baptized, and not in that be­fore Luther? Here lyes the main hinge of the Controversie; to which T. G. ought to speak, and not to run to a Church be­fore [Page 164] Luther. The Church of England was the Church of England before the Refor­mation as well as since; but it hath now reformed it self, being an entire body within it self, having Bishops to govern it, Priests and Deacons to administer Sa­craments, to preach the Word of God, to officiate in the publick Liturgie, in which all the Ancient Creeds are read and owned; the question now is, whether sal­vation cannot be had in the communion of this Church? or all persons are bound to return to the Church of Rome? This is the point, if T. G. hath any more to say to it.

T. G. urgeth farther, Nothing can render the communion of the Roman Church not necessary to salvation, Dial. p. 74. but ei­ther Heresie or Schism; not Heresie, because she holds all the essential articles of Christi­an Faith; not Schism, because then Dr. St. must assign some other distinct Church (then at least in being) from whose Vnity she de­parted.

A right Doway argument! one would take T. G. for a young Missioner by it; it is so exactly cut in their Form. But it proceeds upon such false supposi­tions as these. (1.) That Communion with the Roman Church as such, i. e. as a [Page 165] Body united under such a Head, was ne­cessary to salvation, which we utterly de­ny; and it can never be proved, but by shewing, that Christ appointed the Bi­shop of Rome to be Head of the Church; which is an argument, I do not find that now adays, You are willing to enter up­on; being so thread-bare and baffled a Topick. (2.) That no Doctrines but such as are contrary to the Articles of the Creed, can be any reason to hold off from the Communion of a Church; but we think, the requiring doubtful things for certain, false for true, new for old, absurd for reasonable are ground enough for us not to embrace the Communion of a Church, unless it may be had on better terms than these. (3.) That no Church can be guilty of Schism, unless we can name some distinct Church from whose Vnity it separated; whereas we have of­ten proved, that imposing unreasonable conditions of Communion, makes the Church so imposing guilty of the Schism. Surely T. G.'s stock is almost spent, when he plays the same game so often over. These are not such terrible argu­ments to be produced afresh, as if they had never been heard of; when there is [Page 166] not a Missioner that comes, but hath them at his fingers end.

But the Roman Church was once the true Church, Dial. p. 78. Rom. 1. and the Christian world of all Ages, believed it to be the only true Church of Christ; but it cannot be pro­ved not to be the true one, by an evidence equal to that which once proved it true; therefore we are bound to be of the communi­on of that Church.

O the vertue of sodden Cole­worts! How often are they produced without shame! To be short Sir, (1.) We deny that the Church of which the Pope is Head, was ever commend­ed by St. Paul; or in any one Age of the Christian World, was owned by it to be the only true Church: which is very much short of the whole Christian World of all Ages. (2.) Since the evidence is so notoriously faulty about proving the Roman Church to be the only true Church; a small degree of evidence as to its cor­ruptions may exceed it, and consequent­ly be sufficient to keep us from return­ing to its communion. But what doth T. G. mean by repeating such stuff as this? Which I dare say Dr. St. only pas­sed by, on account of the slightness [Page 167] and commonness of it; they being ar­guments every day brought, and every day answered. And if he had a mind to see Dr. St.'s mind about them, he might have seen it at large in his Defence of Archhishop Laud; And do you think it fair for him, every Book he writes, to produce afresh every ar­gument there, which hath received no Answer?

I perceive you begin to be out of patience.

Not, I assure you, when I meet with any thing that deserves it.

Here comes our Fanatick Friend to refresh you a little. What is the matter man? why so sad? have you met with an ill bargain at the Auction?

No, no. I got a Book last night, hath taken me up till this time; and truly, I have read something in it which fits much upon my Spirit.

What is it? if we may ask you.

It is no comfort either to you, or me.

If I be concerned, I pray let me know.

You know last night we heard them at Rutherford and Gillespee; I came [Page 168] in time enough for Gillespee's Miscel­lany Questions; a rare Book, I promise you. And by a particular favour I carried it home with me, and looking upon the Contents, I found the Seasonable Case, viz. About Associations and Confede­racies with Idolaters, Infidels, or Here­ticks: and he proves them to be so abso­lutely unlawful from Scripture, and ma­ny sound Orthodox Divines, that for my part he hath fully convinced and setled me, and I thought it my duty to come and to tell you so.

Well, we will let alone that discourse at present, we are at our old trade again: and I was just coming to a seasonable question for you, viz. Whe­ther you have not as much reason to sepa­rate from the Church of England, as the Church of England had from the Church of Rome?

Who doubts of that?

I do Sir; nay more, I absolute­ly deny it.

What matter is it, what you say or deny? You will do either for a good preferment. Have not you assent­ed and consented to all that is in the Book of Common Prayer, and what will you stick at after?

Consider Sir, what it is to judge rash judgement; I wonder men that pre­tend to Conscience, and seem so nice and scrupulous in some things, can al­low thmselves in the practice of so dan­gerous a sin. If you have a mind to debate this point before us, without cla­mour and impertinency, I am for you.

You would fain draw me in to dispute again, would you? No such mat­ter, there is your man, he will manage our Cause for us against you of the Church of England, I warrant you.

I am provided for it: For T. G. desires of Dr. St. for the sake of the Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Dial. p. 78. and other separated Congregations, to know why the be­lieving all the ancient Creeds, and leading a good life may not be sufficient to Salva­tion, unless one be of the Communion of the Church of England?

A very doughty question! As though we were like you, and imme­diately damned all persons, who are not of the Communion of our Church. We say, their separation from us is ve­ry unjust and unreasonable; and that there is no colour for making their case equal with ours, as to the separation from the Church of Rome.

I will tell you of a man who makes the case parallel, it is one Dr. St. in his Irenicum: and T. G. produces ma­ny pages out of him to that purpose. Dial. p. 79.

To save you the trouble of re­peating them, I have read them over, and do think these Answers may serve for his vindication. (1.) That in that very place he makes separation from a Church retaining purity of Doctrine, on the account of some corrupt practices to be unlawful; and afterwards in case men be unsatisfied as to some conditi­ons of communion, Ire [...]. p. 117. P. 123. he denies it to be lawful to erect New Churches; because a meer requiring conformity in some suspected rites, doth not make a Church otherwise sound to be no true Church: or such a Church from which it is law­ful to make a total separation, which is then done, when men enter into a new and distinct Society for worship, under distinct and peculiar Officers, govern­ing by Laws and Church Rules different from those of the Church they separate from. And now, let your Fanatick Friend judge whether this man, even in the dayes of writing his Irenicum, did justifie the practices of the separated Congregations; which he speaks expressely against?

No truly. We are all now for separated Congregations, and know bet­ter what we have to do, than our Fore-Fathers did. Alas! what comfort is there in bare Nonconformity? For our people would not endure us, if we did not proceed to separation. He that speaks against separation ruins us and our Cause.

So far then we have cleared Dr. St. from patronizing the Cause of the separated Congregations. (2.) He saith, that as to things left undetermined by the Law of God in the Judgement of the Primitive and Reformed Churches, Iren. p. 124. and in matters of Order, Decency and Govern­ment, every one notwithstanding what his private judgement may be of them, is bound to submit to the determinati­on of the lawful Governours of the Church. Can any thing be said plainer for Conformity, than this is by the Au­thor of the Irenicum?

But how then come in those words produced by T. G.?

I will tell you; he supposes that some scrupulous and conscientious men after all endeavours used to satisfie them­selves, may remain unsatisfied as to the Lawfulness of some imposed Rites, but dare not proceed to positive separation [Page 172] from the Church, but are willing to com­ply in all other things save in those Rites which they still scruple; and con­cerning these he puts the Question, whether such bare-nonconformity do in­volve such men in the guilt of Schism? And this I confess he resolves negative­ly, and so brings in that long passage T. G. produces out of him. I now ap­peal to your self, whether T. G. hath dealt fairly with Dr. St. in two things, (1.) In not distinguishing the case of se­paration, from that of bare nonconformi­ty, only in some suspected Rites; and in producing these words to justifie the se­parated Congregations? (2.) In taking his judgement in this matter rather from his Irenicum written so long since, than from his late Writings, wherein he hath purposely considered the Difference of the Case of those who separate from the Church of England and of our sepa­ration from the Church of Rome.

But hath he done this indeed? and did T. G. know it?

Yes very well. Answer to several Treat. part 1. from p. 1 [...]0, to 1 [...]6. For it is in that very Book, the Preface whereof T. G. pretends to answer in these Dialogues: and he doth not speak of it by the by, but discourseth largely about it. Is this [Page 173] fair dealing? But the Irenicum served better for his purpose as he thought, and yet he hath foully misrepresented that too.

But yet Dr. St. must not think to escape so: for he hath searched ano­ther Book of his, called his Rational Ac­count, and there he finds a passage he thinks in favour to Dissenters from the Church of England; Dial. p. 87. and which under­mines the Church of England.

Therefore the Church of Rome is not guilty of Idolatry.

Have a little patience; we shall come to that in time. At present I pray clear this matter, if you can.

To what purpose is all this ra­king, and scraping, and searching, and quoting of passages not at all to the point of Idolatry?

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?

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 [Page 174] 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.

Your stomach is too sharp set; we must blunt it a little before you fall to.

You take the course to do it, with all this impertinency; but what is it you have to say?

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, Dial. p. 84, &c. 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 [Page 175] against a Fundamental point of Faith.

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 [Page 176] 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.

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.

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 [Page 177] 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.

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.

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 [Page 178] 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.

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?

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 [Page 179] have no communion with the Church of Rome unless we owned her Supre­macy, her Canon of Scripture, her Rule of Faith, or the equality of Tradition and Scripture, her doctrines of Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images, Transubstantiation, &c. and we were re­quired not only to own them as true, which we know to be false; but as neces­sary to Salvation, which we look on as great hinderances to it. What was to be done in this case? Communion could not be held on other terms, than decla­ring false opinions to be true, and dan­gerous Doctrines to be necessary to Sal­vation. On such terms as these we must renounce our Christianity, to de­clare that we believed falshoods for truths, and not barely as truths, but as necessary Articles of Faith. Therefore what Schism there was, the Church of Rome must thank her self for. And when this breach happened, our Church thought it necessary to express her sense of these Doctrines, that they were so far from being Articles of Faith, that they were false and erroneous, having no foun­dation either in Scripture or Antiquity: and required a subscription to this decla­ration, from such as are admitted to [Page 180] 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.

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.

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. Defence, p. 187, &c.

(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.

[Page 181](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.

T. G. was aware of this Answer, and thus he takes it off. To err, he saith, Dial. p. 92. 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.

What is this to the purpose? the question is not whether Idolatry doth not imply a practical errour against the se­cond [Page 182] 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.

But is it not a Fundamental Er­rour to destroy the doctrine of the second Commandment?

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.

Therefore T. G. adds, that this doth not proceed upon a general Thesis, Dial. p. 94. 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 [Page 183] 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; 'tis 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.

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 [Page 184] 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.

Hold a little, you are still too quick; I have something more yet to say to you before we come to it.

What is that?

I have a great deal to tell you out of Mr. Thorndikes Just Weights and Mea­sures, Dial. from p. 99. to p. 113. about the Charge of Idolatry and the mischievous consequences of it.

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.

But I have somewhat more to say to you, which is, Dial. p. 116. that you charge T. G. with declining the dispute about the [Page 186] sense of the second Commandment, whereas he doth speak particularly to it.

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.

What would you have a man do? Dial. from p. 116. to 120. p. 121, 122. p. 127. 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?

No truly. Nor you neither, upon any consideration. For the Dr. in his Discourse upon the second Com­mandment, Defence, from p. 673. to p. 692. (1.) hath manifestly over­thrown T. G.'s notion of an Idol, viz. of a figment set up for Worship, by such clear [Page 187] 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.) From p. 692. to p. 698. He hath proved the sense he gives of the Commandment to be the same which the Fathers gave of it. (3.) From p. 702. to p. 717. He takes off T. G.'s instances of worshipping before the Ark and the Che­rubims; and From p. 717. to p. 720. the Testimony of S. Austin. (4.) From p. 720. to p. 784. 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.

But why did not Dr. St. answer punctually to all that T. G. said?

Because he did not think it ma­terial, if the main things were proved.

Bu [...] T. G. will think them un­answerable, [Page 188] till he receive satisfaction concerning them.

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.

Dial. p. 116, 117. 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 [Page 189] 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.

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 [Page 190] 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.

But T.G. would know, what he means by expresly forbidden, Dial. p. 121. only that it is clear to himself, expecting that others should sub­mit to his saying it, as the travellers did to Polus in Erasmus; or that it is clear or ma­nifest of it self? and that it is not so, he saith, appears by the pains and wayes he takes to find it out.

This is yet a degree lower. By clearly and expresly, Dr. St. means that which is so to an unprejudiced mind. For there is nothing so plain, but men may cavil at it. Not the Being of God; not the certainty of our senses; not the differences of Good and Evil; not the coming of the Messias; not the Truth of the Scriptures. But will T. G. say, that none of these are clear, because men are [Page 191] put to pains and several wayes to prove them? If therefore Dr. St. hath shewed that all the evasions of the force of the second Commandment are meer cavils, and would take off as well the force of any other Commandment, if men thought themselves as much concerned to do it; I think he hath proved the sense of the Commandment to be clear and express against the Worship of God by an Image. And for his Friend Polus, you know it doth not look well in conversation for a man to repeat his own Jests. But you named a third passage T. G. repeats out of his former Book. What is that, I pray?

That concerns Dr. St.'s first way of finding out the sense of the Law; For, he saith, Dial. p. 125. the Law doth only expresly forbid bowing down to the Images themselves, as the Heathens did, but speaks not one word of the lawfulness, or unlawfulness of worshipping God himself by them; and up­on this he upbraids Dr. St. that spending above a hundred pages about the sense of the second Commandment, he neither en­deavours to remove the contradictions, nor to answer the arguments of T. G.

Then truly he deserved pity, and to have his Friends come in to help [Page 192] him, they are such wonderful contradicti­ons and mighty arguments. But Dr. St. hath at large proved, (1.) That the Heathens did not take the Images them­selves for Gods; Defence p. 465, &c. in a large discourse to that purpose, and consequently this com­mand was not express against the Hea­then Idolatry in T. G.'s sense of it. (2.) That the Fathers did understand this Commandment to be expresly against the Worship of God by an Image; From p. 419. to p. 431. in another large discourse: which he concludes with those words of S. Ambrose, Non vult se De­us in lapidibus coli, God will not be worship­ped in Stones. And is this nothing to the answering T. G.'s arguments? (3.) That the Worship of God before the Ark and the Cherubims (the only argument of T. G.) doth not reach to the Worship of God by Images; From p. 702. to p. 717. and this in another set discourse. (4.) That God did afterwards explain his own Law, by condemning the Wor­ship of himself by Images; in the case of the Golden Calf, and the Calves of Dan and Bethel, and he punctually answers T. G.'s objections. From p. 748. to p. 783. And after all this, Is it not great tenderness and modesty in T. G. to say, that Dr. St. only Criticizeth upon T. G. 's exceptions, and doth neither remove the contradictions, nor answer the [Page 193] Arguments of T. G.? I never yet saw plainer evidence of a forlorn Cause, than these things give. By this taste, I begin to fear, when we come to the charge of Idolatry, we shall find very little new, or material. However, being thus far en­gaged, I am resolved, God willing, to attend you quite through his late Dia­logues; and if you please at our next meeting, we will enter upon the charge of Idolatry: and I will undertake to make good the charge, and I shall expect from you T. G.'s answers.

I will not fail; and I pray Bro­ther Fanatick, let us have your company, for I have a terrible charge against the Church of England for bowing to the Altar.

I shall be glad to hear that with all my heart.

WE are now entring up­on a weighty business, and therefore without any preface to it, I be­gin. Dr. St. in his late Defence hath un­dertaken to clear the Nature of Idolatry, by considering two things. 1. Whe­ther it were consistent with the acknow­ledgement of one supreme God? 2. Where­in the Nature of that Divine Worship lyes, which being given to a Creature makes it Idolatry?

1. To clear the former, he considered, who those are, which by common consent [Page 196] are charged with Idolatry, and from thence he supposed the best resolution of the question might be gathered; and those were, (1.) the Ancient Heathens, (2.) Modern Heathens, (3.) the Arrians. And concerning these he proved, that they did all acknowledge one supreme God, and consequently the Notion of Ido­latry could not consist in the Worship of many independent Deities.

(1.) As to the Ancient Heathens. (1.) From the Testimony of Scripture. (2.) From their own Writers in the Ro­man Church, of whom he names twelve considerable ones. (3.) From the Fa­thers; and there he shews from a multi­tude of plain Testimonies, that the state of the Controversie about Idolatry between the Fathers and Heathens, was not about a supreme God which was acknowledged on both sides, but whether Divine Wor­ship were to be given to any Creatures on the account of any supposed excel­lency in themselves, or relation to God? And so he draws the History of this con­troversie through the several Ages of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Cyril, S. Augustin, &c. In short, through all those who did with greatest reputation to Christia­nity [Page 197] manage this Cause against the Hea­then Idolaters.

(2.) As to modern Heathens; two wayes. (1.) From the Testimony of your own Writers concerning the Brachmans, Chineses, Tartars, Americans, Africans, Goths and Laplanders. (2.) From the Testimony of the Congregation of Cardi­nals in a remarkable case about Idolatry in China, wherein their resolution was desired.

(3.) As to the Arrians, he proves from Athanasius, Gr. Nazianzen, Nyssen, Basil, Epiphanius, Cyril, Theodoret, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin; that the Arri­ans were unanimously charged with Ido­latry; although they did acknowledge but one God, and supposed the greatest created excellencies to be in Christ, and believed the Worship of Christ tended to the honour of the Father.

2. As to the Nature of Divine Worship. He proceeds in this method.

1. To shew what Worship is; which he distinguishes from honour, the one re­lating to bare excellency, the other to Su­periority and Power; which distinction he proves from the most eminent School Divines.

[Page 198]2. What Divine Worship is; viz. such a subjection of our selves to God as shews his peculiar Soveraignty over us: from whence he proceeds to manifest, That there are some peculiar external Acts of Divine Worship, which he proves, (1.) From the Nature and design of Re­ligious Worship; and here he enquires into the distinction of Civil and Religious Worship; which, he saith, as other moral actions, is to be taken from the circum­stances of them: and from hence came the institution of solemn rites for Religi­ous Worship. And the best Divines of the Roman Church do allow, that there ought to be some peculiar external Acts of Divine Worship; which he likewise proves from the infinite distance between God and his Creatures; and from the remarkable Testimonies of the Heathens to that purpose.

(2.) From Gods appropriating some external Acts of Worship to himself; wherein he speaks to two things:

1. What those Acts are which God hath appropriated to himself; of which he reckons up six.

1. Sacrifice. 2. Religious adoration. 3. Erection of Temples and Altars. [Page 199] 4. Burning of Incense. 5. Solemn Invo­cation. 6. Vows.

2. How far Gods appropriating these Acts doth concern us? Which he thus resolves. 1. It is granted there must be some peculiar Acts. 2. God is the best Judge of them. 3. What he hath once appropriated cannot be made common till his Will be declared. 4. Christ hath made no alteration herein by his Law. 5. The Apostles suppose the same notion of Idolatry to continue still. 6. The Jews did esteem it Idolatry to use those acts of Worship towards any Creature. Where he shews that Idolatry may be committed as many wayes as Worship may become due to God.

(3.) From the sense of the Christian Church; which hath condemned those for Idolatry who have applyed these ap­propriate Acts of Worship to any thing besides God.

3. How the applying the Acts of Re­ligious Worship to a Creature makes that Worship Idolatry? Where he explains,

1. What real honour we do allow to the Saints on the account of their excel­lencies.

2. What Worship we deny to them. (1.) Inward submission of our souls in [Page 200] prayer, dependence, and thanksgiving. (2.) External and solemn Acts of Religious Worship, which are given to Saints in the Church of Rome: and he proves from un­questionable Testimonies of Antiquity, that the Fathers did deny to be given to them. And so he concludes that Discourse with a full and clear explication of a Testimony of S. Augustin against Invocation of Saints.

This is a brief Abstract of the design of Dr. St.'s discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatry; whose parts are too well considered and put together to be blown down with a puff or two of Wit. Let me now hear how T. G. hath acquitted himself in this matter, which we shall the better judge of, by having this Scheme before us.

I perceive you expect T. G. should have followed Dr. St.'s method, and have answered him part by part; but he was wiser than so; for he charges him with three things. (1.) That he makes vain, and endless, and unnecessary dis­courses. (2.) That he ought to have laid down the true notion of Idolatry from the nature of the thing, which he hath not done. (3.) That he hath unfaithfully reported the words and sense of Authors. After which, [Page 201] he disproves the parallel between the Hea­then and Romish Idolatry.

This last, if you please, we will reserve to another Conference; for I be­lieve the other three, will hold us long enough. I pray begin where T. G. doth.

First, He complains much of the Bulk of the Book; and brings in a kind of a Taylors bill of the number of pages: Dial. p. 167, 171, 172. Imp. of T. G.'s notion of Idolatry, p. 183. It. Of the Nature of Divine Worship, p. 164. It. Of the Controversie about Images between Christians and Heathens, p. 140. It. Of Images in the Christian Church, p. 180. odd. It. Of the sense of the second Commandment, p. 113. It. Of Instances, and facings and linings, p. 96. Sum. tot. p. 877. Was not this enough to put any man out of humour?

No doubt; when he considered he was to pay it all. And I do believe what he saith, that he was very uneasie when he read it; and like the Laconian in Boccalini, who was condemned to read over Guicciardines War of Pisa: and desired rather to be condemned to the Gallies. For there is nothing more troublesome to a man than to see that he owes more than he is ever able to pay.

But T. G. shews how much of the Bill might have been cut off.

The shortest way had been to have thrown all into the Fire, as no doubt he would have done, if it had been in his Power, and that had been the most ef­fectual Discharge to Dr. St. 's charge of Idolatry. But do you think, it is a good answer to an Indictment, to say it con­sisted of too many lines?

T. G. saith he ought to have proceeded more Mathematically.

How so?

By laying down only these four Po­stulata. Dial. p. 173. 1. That Idolatry may consist with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being. 2. That God ought to be worshipped accord­ing to his own appointment. 3. That the Wiser Heathens pretended they did not look on their Images as Gods, but as Symbols of that Being to which they gave divine Wor­ship. 4. That for the four first Centuries, there was little or no use of Images in the Temples and Oratories of Christians. Which as far as I understand T. G. he was willing to have granted him.

Are you sure of that? If these things be fairly granted, they will go a great way toward the resolution of the present Question. But I pray let me [Page 203] understand how far and in what sense?

For the first, that Idolatry may consist with the acknowledgement of one su­preme Being: I perceive T. G. puts this limitation to it, Dial. p. 174. at least as Idolatry is taken by Dr. St. for the giving external Acts of Worship, due only to God, to a Creature.

Let us then lay up this at pre­sent, that real Idolatrous Worship is con­sistent with the acknowledgement of one supreme God; which may be of use to us in this debate.

For the second, T. G. saith, that it is no where denyed, but is supposed by him, Dial. p. 175. when he saith, that if God have forbidden himself to be worshipped after such a man­ner, the giving him such worship will be dis­honouring of him, though the Giver intend it never so much for his honour, much more then, the giving acts of worship appropriated to him to another.

This is very kind. For then if it appear, that God hath forbidden the Worship of himself by an Image, it fol­lows that no intention of the person can excuse such worship from Idolatry.

For the third, concerning the pra­ctice of the wiser Heathens, T. G. allows the Dr. to make his best of it.

Then there may be Idolatrous worship of Images, where the Images them­selves are not made the objects of Worship; and consequently if such worship be for­bidden in the second Commandment, that cannot be understood only of bowing down to the Images themselves.

For the fourth, he saith, since the Church hath a power in decreeing Rites and Ceremonies, Dial. p. 176, &c. it had been no prejudice to his Cause, if it had been longer, before the Use of Images was brought into Churches.

If the Church had looked on the worship of Images as an indifferent Rite, there had been some reason for what T. G. saith; But the force of what Dr. St. said, lay not meerly in their ha­ving no Images in Churches in the Primi­tive times; but in the Reasons given by the Primitive Christians against the Wor­ship of them. From whence he hath at large proved that the Primitive Christi­ans did look on the Worship of Images as utterly unlawful by the Law of God, al­though the Object represented did de­serve Worship. And this I take to be one of the most material Discourses in Dr. St.'s Book, to the present Contro­versie, and which he lays the greatest weight upon. For he insists upon these [Page 205] several particulars. (1.) P. 419. to p. 428. That they judged such a representation of God by Images to be unsuitable to his Nature; for which he produceth the Testimonies of Clemens Alexandr., Justin Martyr, A­thenagoras, Origen, S. Hierom, S. Augustin and others. (2.) Defence, p. 428, &c. p. 490, &c. That they looked on the Worship of Images as repugnant to the Will of God; as being contrary to the second Commandment, which did oblige Christians. (3.) P. 494, &c. That to suppose that they looked on the worship of Images as a thing indifferent, is to charge the Primi­tive Christians with great hypocrisie. (4.) P. 497. to p. 505. That the Christian Church continued to have the same opinion about the wor­ship of Images after the Pagan Idolatry was suppressed. (5.) P. 506. to p. 521. That it was no just excuse in the sense of the Primitive Church, that they worshipped a true ob­ject, or gave only an inferiour worship to the Images, for the sake of those repre­sented by them. (6.) P. 503, &c. That Ignorance and Superstition first brought in the wor­ship of Images, which was still condemn­ed by the best Divines of the Church. (7.) P. 538. to p. 555. That the Worship of Images came to be established in the Church by very in­direct means; such as Treason, calum­nies, lyes, and burning and suppressing [Page 206] all Books against it. (8.) P. 812. to p. 840. That when it was established by the second Council of Nice, it was vehemently opposed by the Western Church at the Council of Franc­ford: and that this Council of Nice was never owned in the Western Church for a General Council till the Reformation be­gan.

And now I pray was it possible for T. G. to overlook all these things? or was it fair to pretend to answer Dr. St.'s Book, wherein all these things are, and yet to pass them over, as if they had ne­ver been written? If this be the way of making Just Discharges, I am afraid T.G.'s credit cannot hold out long; for this is not after the rate of five shillings in the pound: and for all that I see, Dr. St. may take out the Statute against him. However, I shall consider what he pre­tends to Discharge, and if his payment be not good in that neither, his Word will hardly be taken for any Just Discharge more. I pray go on.

For the fifth Chapter, Of the sense of the second Commandment, T. G. saith, Dial. p. 177. if God hath there expresly prohibited the giving any Worship to himself by an Image, as Dr. St. affirms, there needed no more than to expose the Law as in a Table [Page 207] in Legislative Gothick (as it is done by him, p. 671.) with the addition only of a Fin­ger in the Margent to point to the Words for every one that runs to read them.

And must this pass for an An­swer to Dr. St.'s Discourse about the sense of the second Commandment? I am really ashamed of such trifling in a matter of so great importance. I know not whether it were the Legislative Go­thick or no, or a Finger on the Wall, but something or other about that Command­ment hath so affrighted you in the Church of Rome, that you dare not let it be seen in your Ordinary Books of Devotion. As for the cavil about expresly, I have an­swered it already.

For his last Chapter, T. G. saith, there needed no more than to say, Dial. p. 179. that the Church of England doth not allow any Wor­ship to be given to the Altar.

Is it possible for T. G. to think to fob us off with such answers as these? barely to tell his Adversary, he might have spared this and the other Dis­course.

But T. G. saith, this is the most material thing in that Chapter.

Say you so? Was the wise Coun­cil of Nice, so immaterial a thing? that [Page 208] it must now be quite abandoned, and no kind of Discharge be so much as offered to be made for it? Was there nothing material in what concerns the charge of Contradictions, Paradoxes, School-disputes, &c.? And all the other Instances waved to come to this of Bowing to the Altar? there must be some Mysterie in this; and I think I have found it, the Patro­nus bonae Fidei inveighs bitterly against this, as worse than Egyptian Idolatry, and reproaches Dr. St. upon account of his defending it: and T. G. finds it much easier to reproach than to answer.

The truth is, this Patronus bonae Fidei doth T. G. Knights service; For when he hath no mind to appear him­self, he serves him for a Knight of the Post, who runs blindfold upon any thing that may discredit the Church of England; two or three such rare men would ease us of a great deal of trouble. Dial. p. 182. to 187. For T. G. takes between five and six pages together out of him in this place, besides what he hath taken up at interest upon other oc­casions.

Is this the Just Discharge, to borrow so much out of the Fanatick stock? Setting then aside what is brought over of the old Account, which had been [Page 209] reckoned for before; and how very ma­ny material things are never entred, which he was accountable for; and how much he hath borrowed upon the Bona Fides of the Fanatick Historian, all the rest will amount to a very pitiful Dis­charge. But since no better payment can be had, let us at least examine this: For this Bona Fides is a kind of Republi­can Publick Faith, which no body will trust twice, not so much as for Bodkins and Thimbles.

Hold Sir. You love alwayes to be rubbing upon old Sores; have you forgot the Act of Oblivion? You know we dare not speak what we think of those times now; and is that fair to ac­cuse when we dare not answer? Mind your own business, defend the Church of England if you can, in that Idolatrous pra­ctice of bowing to the Altar. I alwayes thought what it would come to, when Dr. St. went about the charge of Idolatry upon the principles of the Church of England; I knew he could never defend himself but upon good Orthodox Fana­tick principles, as you call them. Now Sir, you have him at an advantage, joyn your force and T. G.'s with that of the Patronus bonae Fidei, and if the Geese [Page 210] follow the Fox close, you will keep him from ever stirring more.

I thank you for your good Will to the Cause, and that is all I fear from you; you only add to the number, and help to preserve the Roman Capitol by your noise.

You shall not escape thus; what say you to bowing to the Altar, is not that as great Idolatry, as worship of Images?

Do you not remember the an­swer Dr. St. hath already given to this objection?

I tell you I read none of his Books, and know not what he hath writ­ten, but as I find it in T. G.

What is that?

Have I not told you already, that the Church of England doth not allow any worship to be given to the Altar?

And is not that to the purpose? For dare any of you say so of the Church of Rome in respect of Images?

But T. G. saith, this is not the meaning of the Canon which Dr. St. pro­duces: Dial. p. 180. for, he saith, the Canon only implyes that they give no Religious worship to it, but they do not deny any kind of worship to be given to it; and Dr. St. himself grants [Page 211] that there is a Reverence due to Sacred Places.

Now your bolt is shot I hope I may have leave to say something both in behalf of the Canon and Dr. St. (1.) For the Canon, I say as Dr. St. did, that it denyes any worship to be given to the Altar, for it makes the adoration to be immediately made to the Divine Majesty, without respect to the Altar, either as the Object or Means of Worship, which I prove, (1.) From the Introduction. For can any words be more express than those, in the Introduction? For as much as the Church is the House of God, dedicated to his holy Worship (not to that of the Altar) and therefore ought to mind us both of the Great­ness and Goodness of his Divine Majesty (not of the sacredness of the Altar) certain it is that the acknowledgement there­of, not only inwardly in our hearts, but also outwardly with our Bodies, must needs be pious in it self, profitable unto us and edify­ing unto others. If the intention of the Canon had been to have given any wor­ship to the Altar, the Introduction must have related to that, and not to the Di­vine Majesty.

[Page 212](2.) From the Recommendation; we therefore think it meet and behooveful, and heartily commend it to all good and well-affected People, members of this Church, that they be ready to tender unto the Lord, (not to the Altar) the said due acknow­ledgement by doing Reverence and Obeysance both at their coming in and going out of the said Churches, &c. according to the most an­cient Custom of the Primitive Church in Purest times, and of this Church also for many years of the Reign of Queen Eliza­beth.

(3.) From the express disowning the giving any Religious worship to the Com­munion Table. Which is not meant of an individuum vagum, but of this Act of Ado­ration, which is the Religious worship here spoken of; and thereby no kind of wor­ship is intended to the Altar, but only to God. And which is more plain yet by what follows, that it is not done out of an opinion of the Corporal Presence of Christs Body on the Table, or in the Mystical Ele­ments; but only (mark that) for the ad­vancement of Gods Majesty, and to give him Alone, (not the Altar together with him) that honour and glory which is due unto him and no otherwise. Can any words be plainer than these? They want [Page 213] only Legislative Gothick, and a Finger in the Margent, for T. G. to understand them.

(4.) Archbishop Laud who certainly understood the meaning of this Canon, pleads only for the worship to be given immediately to God himself. God forbid, saith he, Speech in Star-Chamber, p. 43, 46. that we should worship any thing but God himself: and he adds, if there were no Table standing, he would worship God when he came into his House. And he calls it still, Doing Reverence to Al­mighty God, but only towards his Altar: and he saith, the People did understand this fully, and apply the worship to God, and to none but God.

(5.) When the introducing this, was made one of the Articles of his Charge by the Commons; his Answer was, Canterbu­ry's Tryal, p. 473. That his bowing was only to worship God, not the Al­tar, and I hope it is no offence or treason to worship God in the Kings own Chapel, or to induce others to do the like.

(6.) I do not find any of our Divines who pleaded most for it, do contend for any more than worshipping God towards the Altar, and not giving any worship to the Altar; the arguments they used were for determining the local circumstance of worship, and not for making the Altar the [Page 214] object of it. Defence, p. 705, &c. And the difference between these two Dr. St. hath at large cleared.

But cannot we say, that we only worship God before an Image, and do not give any Religious worship to the Image, and then the case is parallel?

You may say so, and you some­times do, to deceive ignorant people; but you cannot say it truly. For (1.) Your Councils have determined that Religious worship is to be given to Images; our Canon saith, it is not to be given to the Altar, therefore the case is far from being pa­rallel. And Dr. St. hath fully proved, that the Nicene Council did require Religi­ous worship to be given to Images; Defence, p. 577, &c. and A­nathematizes all who do it not. And utter­ly rejects those that say they are to be had on­ly for memory, and out of some kind of Ho­nour or Reverence; for nothing but Religi­ous worship would satisfie them. And the Acts of that worship are expressed to be not only bowing but prostration, kissing, ob­lation of Incense and Lights; and Dr. St. hath elsewhere shewed, that all the Acts of worship which the Heathens did per­form to their Images in old Rome, are given to Images in modern Rome. From p. 648. to p. 699. (2.) Those in the Church of Rome who have only contended for the worship of [Page 215] God before the Image, have been con­demned by others as savouring of Here­sie, who say it is a matter of Faith in the Roman Church, that Images are to be wor­shipped truly and properly; and that the contrary opinion is dangerous, rash, and sovouring of Heresie, From p. 583. to p. 599. which is likewise proved at large by Dr. St.

But doth not Dr. St. himself allow a Reverence due to Sacred places?

He doth so. But do you ob­serve the difference he puts between that and Worship? I will endeavour to make his distinct notion of these things plain to you.

First, He distinguishes between Ho­nour and Worship:

(1.) Honour he makes to be the Esteem of Excellency;

• Either Inward, only in the mind.
• Either Outward, in acts suitable to that estimation.

[Page 216] And this Excellency may be twofold, 1. Personal. 2. Relative.

1. Personal; and that threefold;

• 1. Civil; in regard of humane Society, as that of Abraham to the Children of Heth.
• 2. Moral; on account of moral Excellen­cies; either
  • Natural,
  • or Acquired.
• 3. Spiritual; in regard of superna­tural Graces:

And that may be given two wayes,

• (1.) To the Persons as present; which is Religious Respect: as that of Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel, Dan. 2.46. Of Abra­ham to the Angels, Gen. 18.2.
• (2.) To them as absent; and this is Religious Honour: and it lyes chiefly in Thanksgiv­ing to God for them, and cele­brating their memories; be­cause the Honour of Divine Graces ought to redound chiefly to the giver of them.

[Page 217]2. Relative: from the relation which things have to what we esteem on the account of its own excellency.

• 1. Civil Relation to our Friends, or strangers whom we esteem; and so we set a value on their Pictures, on their Letters or Hand-writing, or any thing belonging to them.
• 2. Spiritual Relation to God and his Worship; and the regard to these he calls Reverence.

And that lies in these things:

• (1.) Discrimination from common use.
• (2.) Consecration to a sa­cred use.
• (3.) Suitable Vsage of them in regard of that relation.

[Page 218]But if you ask wherein the difference of this lies from Worship, He saith, from the greatest Divines of your Church, that

(2.) Worship hath a respect to Pow­er and Superiority; and that is

• 1. Civil; in regard of the Power and Authority of Magistrates.
• 2. Religious; in regard of Gods peculiar Soveraignty over us,

And that is twofold,

• 1. Internal in
  • Submission,
  • Dependence.
• 2. External; which must be,
  • 1. Such as express our submis­sion and dependence; as
    • 1. Sacrifice. 2. Solemn invo­cation. 3. Adoration. 4. Vows. 5. Swearing by him, &c.
  • 2. They must be peculiar to himself.
    • 1. From the dictate of Na­ture, as to the peculiarity of Gods Soverainty.
    • [Page 219]2. From the Will of God, which appropriates such Acts to himself.
    • 3. From the consent of Nati­ons and the Christian Church.

Therefore the giving that Worship which is due to God, and doth express our subjection to him, to any thing besides him, is violation of the Rights of Gods Soveraignty; and if it be given to any creature, it receives its denomination from the Nature of that Creature to which it is given.

• (1.) To Animate Creatures.
  • Angels.
    • Good.
    • Bad.
  • Dead men.
    • Saints.
    • Wicked.
  • Brutes of all sorts.
• (2.) To Inani­mate.
  • Natural.
    • Elements.
    • Minerals.
    • Plants.
  • Artificial; made to re­present the objects of Worship, and there­fore called Images.

[Page 220]Which is properly Idolatry, being the worship of a representation; but because that word Idol is extended to any crea­ture to which the Worship proper to God is given, therefore every such kind of Worship is in Scripture, and by the Christi­an Church called Idolatry. And by this Scheme of Dr. St.'s notion of these things, you may easily understand the difference he puts between Reverence and Worship.

But T. G. saith, The Church of Rome requires by the terms of Communi­on with her, Dial. p. 181. no more than Reverence, or Honorary respect to Images.

Why doth T. G. go about thus to impose on his Readers without an­swering what Dr. St. had produced to the contrary? From three things.

• 1. From the Decrees of the second Council of Nice.
• 2. From the constant opinion of their most eminent Divines, both be­fore, and after the Council of Trent.
• 3. From the publick and allowed Practises of their Church.
  • 1. In Consecration of Images for Worship; with Forms prescribed in the Roman Pontifical.
  • 2. In Supplication before them, with prostrations and all other Acts [Page 221] of Worship which the Heathens used towards them.
  • 3. In Solemn Processions with Images, with the same kind of Pomp and Ceremony which was used in Heathen Rome.

And after all this can T. G. have the confidence to say, this is only Honorary Respect without answering to any one of these particulars, which were pur­posely alledged to prove the contrary?

But now Sir look to your self, for the Patronus bonae Fidei knocks all down before him, and proves bowing to the Altar practised in the Church of Eng­land to be worse than Popish or Egyptian Idolatry.

I hope not worse than the Power of Excommunication, which the same excellent Advocate for Fanaticks hath bestowed as ill names upon and with as little Reason: but such as it is I am prepared to receive it.

The Patronus bonae Fidei saith, that, However Dr. St. wheadled and blind­ed with preferments (for that is the meaning of T. G.'s &c.) endeavours to palliate this kind of Adoration, Prodr [...]m. p. 76. and to vin­dicate it from the crime of Idolatry, yet I doubt not to affirm, that this bowing out­vies [Page 222] the Idolatry both of Egyptians and Romanists, not only in horrible iniquity and enormitie, but in madness and folly.

Who is this Patronus bonae Fidei, you speak so much of? He is a good man I warrant him. He speaks home to the business.

Yes if ignorance and confi­dence doth it: for never did man betray more than your Advocate in this saying.

He will prove it I warrant you.

Just as you did Kneeling at the Communion to be Idolatry; if so well. But first for the Roman Idolatry.

It is not, saith he, so much mad­ness in them to adore the Lord Jesus under the species of bread, as it is an error in them to believe transubstantiation. Dial. p. 183. But it is an Hypochondriacal madness, and giddy­brained stupidity for men to perform ado­ration towards that place, where Christ is no more present than any where else, and where neither the Table, nor Altar, nor any thing that is set upon the Table (unless perchance a clean Towel, two Books richly bound, or a pair of Candlesticks with two Candles in them, not to be lighted, till their minds be quite drunk with Popery) repre­sent either Christ or his Image. A Fana­tical Adoration he calls it, without any Ob­ject.

Call you this proving? It is rather raving and foaming at the mouth. This is such biting as may endanger an Hydrophobia. There is no arguing with such a man, but in a dark Room and un­der good Keepers. But that you may take no advantage by his sayings; how can it be Idolatry without an Object? i.e. Idolatry without an Idol. But can there be no Object of worship but what is visible? What doth he worship himself? Or rather whom do his Cli­ents the Fanaticks worship? Nothing? Because not a visible object. Is not ado­ration a part of Worship? If not, it is no Idolatry to give it to an Image. If it be, then bowing to an Invisible Object in a place dedicated to Divine Worship is giving to God that Worship, which being given to an Image makes it Idola­try. I pray Sir do you answer for him.

I understand you not.

I thought so. But I will en­deavour to make you understand me. Is the bowing down to an Image Idolatry?

Yes, without all doubt.

Is not Idolatry giving to a Crea­ture the Worship that is due to God?

Yes.

How can that be giving to a Creature the Worship due to God; if it be not lawful to give this Worship to God which you give to the Creature?

I know not what you mean.

Not yet? Is not adoration of an Image, Idolatry?

Yes, I told you so once al­ready.

Then adoration is to be given to God. How else can the giving it to a Creature make it Idolatry?

I do not well understand you; but as far as I can guess, you speak of bodily worship; but alas! we know that God must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth.

Who denies that? But observe what follows, then no man is guilty of Idolatry, that doth not worship an Image in Spirit and in Truth: but the Law for­bids bowing down to them and worshipping of them; do you think that bowing down is meant of the Mind or of the Body?

What is it you would have by all these Questions?

No more but this, that it is lawful to give external adoration to the Divine Majesty.

And what then?

Is it lawful to give God that worship, (which it is lawful to give ab­solutely) in a place set apart for his Worship?

That is a strange question in­deed.

See now, what you have brought your self to; to acknowledge that to be lawful which you so rashly called Idolatry.

What is that?

Bowing in the Church, in testi­mony of our adoration of the Divine Ma­jesty.

That is not it; but it is bowing to the Altar.

Who knows best? Those that made the Canon or you? They declare they meant nothing else than what I have said; and deny any Religious Wor­ship to be given to the Altar. And would not you think it hard for us to accuse you for worshipping your Hats in prayer, because you put them before your faces when you pray; as you do us for worship­ping the Altar, because we bow towards it?

But you look towards the Altar when you bow.

And are not your eyes upon your Hats when you pray? And is not prayer a part of Gods immediate Wor­ship?

But we call it bowing to the Altar.

We may as well call yours, praying to the Hat.

Some do assign the reason of their worship from the Communion Table, and we never do from our Hats.

They do not assign the reason of their worship; but the reason of that cir­cumstance of it, why that way rather than another; which they parallel with the Jews worshipping of God towards the Ark and the Cherubims, which yet were no objects of Divine Worship, either by Gods appointment, or the Jewish pra­ctice, or in the opinion of some of the most learned Divines, even of the Ro­man Church; who make the most advan­tage they can of it; Defence from p. 702, to p. 717. as Dr. St. hath at large proved in his Answer to T. G.; and I do not hear of any Reply T. G. hath made to it.

But the Patronus bonae Fidei saith, the Papists have more reason to wor­ship Christ on the supposition of Transub­stantiation, than you have to worship—

What? Speak out. The Altar? we deny it to be any Object of Worship to us: If he means, than to worship God with external adoration towards the Altar, let him do that, which he never yet did, prove what he saith; viz. that there is more reason to worship Christ under the bread on supposition of transubstan­tiation, than for our giving external ado­ration to the Divine Majesty. For to give this adoration to God needs no other supposition but of his infinite Majesty and Omnipresence; but to worship Christ on the Altar under the species of Bread, doth not only suppose the truth of one of the most absurd suppositions in the world, that the substance of the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and the Body of Christ is there invisibly present un­der the species of Bread: but it supposes likewise these things. 1. That the Bo­dy of Christ as united with the species of Bread is a proper object of Divine Adora­tion: i. e. that these two do make up one entire object of Divine Worship; and then it follows that the sacramental species are a partial object of Divine Adorati­on, for whatever goes to make up an ob­ject entire must have share with it; which is quite another thing from an [Page 228] accidental connexion, as of a Princes Robes together with his Person; for no man ever said the Princes Garments made up with his Person an Object fit to be kneeled to in token of Subjection. But here is an union supposed between Christs Body and the Accidents, and such an union by vertue whereof Divine Wor­ship is directed to the species of Bread, and consequentially to the Body of Christ as united thereto. 2. It supposeth, that the Body of Christ being thus united with the species of bread may receive all that worship which is due to God alone. Which is not very easie to prove. Because it doth not follow, that where­ever a Body is, there those things must be which do not result by necessary concomitancy from the being of a Body. For since it doth not follow by vertue of the Hypostatical union that where­ever the Divinity is, the humane na­ture of Christ must be there also; how doth it necessarily follow, that where­ever the Body of Christ is, the Divinity is so present as to make that Body be­come an Object of Divine Adoration? We say the Foot is united to the Soul as well as the Head, but do we therefore say that whatever is in the Soul is equal­ly [Page 229] present in the Foot as in the Head? as that the Foot reasons, considers, di­rects as the Head doth. It is not there­fore bare union but the manner of Pre­sence, which doth make an Object fit for adoration. That Presence ought to be (if not glorious and becoming the Di­vine Majesty in that respect) yet so well attested, as the Divinity of Christ was in his humane nature, by the voice of Angels, by Testimony of God himself from Heaven, by miracles, by Prophecies, &c. But here is nothing like this; no evi­dence being given of the Divine Presence under the Elements, neither from sense, nor reason, nor Scripture. For the Scri­pture is only pretended to speak of the Body of Christ, and not of his Divinity.

But by vertue of the hypostatical union where-ever the Body of Christ is, his Divine Nature must be present too.

That I know very well is com­monly said by you; but I pray consider these two things. (1.) If the Body of Christ may be present by reproduction of the same Body; as some of your greatest and latest Divines have asserted; then there is no such necessity of concomitancy of the Divinity of Christ; because they say, God may reproduce the same body with­out [Page 230] all the accidents of it, and consequent­ly without the Hypostatical Vnion. (2.) By the same way of Concomitancy they may hold the Persons of the Father and Holy Ghost to be under the species, and to be there worshipped. For where the Body of Christ is, there the soul is; where Soul and Body is, there the Divinity is; where the Divinity is, there the Person of the Son is; and where the Person of the Son is, there the Persons of the Father and Holy Ghost are too.

You may account this an absur­dity, but we account it none at all: yea some of our Divines have said, If the Holy Trinity were not every where, yet it would be in the Eucharist, by vertue of this Concomitancy.

I do not now meddle with your opinions; I only consider the Patronus bonae Fidei and his Brethren, who do look on these as absurdities, and yet are so foolish to say, that our worshipping God to­wards the Altar is more absurd than your worshipping Christ on the Altar, on supposition of Transubstantiation. But why worse than Egyptian Idolatry, I be­seech you?

The Egyptians, saith he, pre­tended some colour for their Idolatry, as [Page 231] than an Ape, or a Cat, or a Wolf, Dial. p. 184. &c. had some participation of the Divinity; but those that bow down to a Wooden Table are themselves stocks: with much more to that purpose.

Is such a man to be endured in a Christian Common-wealth (not to say a Church, for excommunication he regards not) who parallels the adoration given only to the Divine Majesty (as our Church professeth) with the Worship of an Ape, or a Cat, or a Wolf, &c? Nay he makes the Egyptian Idolatry more rea­sonable than our Worship of God. The only thing that can excuse him is Rage and Madness; and therefore I leave him to his Keeper. But I pray tell me, was it meer kindness to the Church of Eng­land which made T. G. to produce all these passages at full length out of the Patronus bonae Fidei? Or out of pure spite to Dr. St. by so often repeating the pas­sage of his being delinitus & occaecatus? And why in such a place, where he pre­tends only to give an account of Dr. St.'s vain and endless Discourses, doth he bring in this at large? Is it only for his com­fort to let him see, there is one body at least in the world, more foolish and im­pertinent than he? We have seen enough [Page 232] of what T. G. ought not to have done, let us now see what he saith Dr. St. ought to have done.

The first thing to be done in a Dispute, Dial. p. 193. is to settle the state of the Contro­versie upon its true Grounds, by laying down the true notion of the matter in debate; therefore Dr. St. ought in the first place to have given us the true Notion of Idolatry in the nature of the Thing; and then to have shewn that notion to have agreed to the ho­nour and veneration which the Church of Rome in her Councils declares may be given to the Images of Christ and the Saints: but he chose rather to dazle the eyes of the Rea­der with the false lights of meer external Acts, the obscure practice even of wiser Heathens, and the clashing of School-Divines.

Now I hope we are come to something worthy of consideration. I like the method of proceeding very well. And I like Dr. St.'s Book the better, because I think he pursued the right method, beginning first with the Nature of Ido­latry and Divine Worship; and then com­ing to the first Particular of Image-wor­ship, which he hath handled with great care and exactness in respect of your Coun­cils as well as your Practices and School-Divines.

It is true, he proposed well at first, Dial. p. 195, &c. but like a Preacher that hath patched up a Sermon out of his note-book, he names his Text, and then takes his leave of it. For, what he was to speak to, was Idolatry in the nature of the thing, independently of any positive Law, whereas he speaks only of an Idolatry forbidden by a positive Law; but if there be no Idolatry antecedent to a positive prohibition, the Heathens could not be justly charged with Idolatry.

In my mind, he did not recede from his Text at all, but pursued it close­ly; but you are uneasie at his Application, and therefore find fault with his handling his Text. What could a man speak to more pertinently as to Idolatry in the Na­ture of the thing, than to consider, what that is, which is acknowledged to be Ido­latry both in the Heathens and Arrians; What that was which the Primitive Church accounted Idolatry in them; What opinons those have of God, whom the Roman Church do charge with Idolatry; Wherein the Nature of Divine Worship consists, not only with respect to positive commands, but the general consent of mankind; Did Defence, p. 191. p. 210. he not expresly argue from the Reason and design of solemn Reli­gious worship abstractly from positive [Page 234] Laws? Did he not shew From p. 210. to p. 215. from many Testimonies, that the Heathens did look on some peculiar Rites of Divine worship as Sacred and Inviolable, that they chose rather to dye, than to give them any but a Divine Object? It is true, after this, he enquires into the Law of God, and what acts of worship he had appropriated to him­self; and was there not great Reason to do so? Are we unconcerned in the Laws God made for his worship? In my appre­hension, this was the great thing T. G. had to do, to prove that Gods Law about worship was barely ceremonial, and only respected the Jews; but that we are left to the Liberties of the Law of Nature, about Religious worship: but he neither doth this, nor if he had done it, had he overthrown Dr St.'s Book. For he proves in several places, that the Hea­thens had the same distinctions of sove­raign and inferiour worship; absolute and relative, which are used in the Roman Church; and if these do excuse now, they would have excused them, who by Scri­pture and the consent of the Christian Church are condemned for Idolatry. And judge you now, whether Dr. St. took leave of his Text, whether he did not speak to Idolatry in the Nature of the thing?

But he saith, P. 199, &c. the Heathens could not understand the nature and sinfulness of Idolatry if not from some Law of God; which is in effect to clear the Heathens from Idolatry, till that Law was delivered to them; whereas S. Paul saith, they had a Law written in their hearts, whereby they might understand it; and Dr. St. ought to have shewn wherein the deordination and sin­fulness of Idolatry did consist antecedently to any positive prohibition; and till this be done, he can make no parallel between the Heathen Idolatry and that of the Roman Church.

I am glad to find any thing that looks like a difficulty, which may give an occasion of farther thoughts about this weighty matter, and of clearing the Do­ctors mind concerning it. Herein I shall endeavour to explain these two things. 1. How far Dr. St. doth make the na­ture and sinfulness of Idolatry to depend on the Law of God. 2. Wherein the sin­fulness of Idolatry doth consist abstractly from a positive Law.

1. How far he makes the sinfulness of it to depend on a positive Law.

1. He supposes Natural Religion to dictate these things. Defence, p. 194, 195, 196, 197. 1. That God ought to be solemnly worshipped. 2. That [Page 236] this worship ought to be peculiar to the Divine Nature in regard of his Soveraign­ty over us, and the infinite distance be­tween him and his Creatures. 3. That the giving this solemn worship which is due to God to any Creature, is the inva­ding the Rights of his Soveraignty. Thence he shews from Aquinas, that wor­ship is not given to God because he needs it, but that the belief of one God may hereby be confirmed in us by external and sensible Acts, which cannot be done un­less there be some peculiar Acts of his Worship. And external worship is a profession of internal; acts being ex­pressive of our minds as well as words. Thence he determines, that Idolatry is a sin of the highest nature, because it in­vades Gods peculiar Rights; and implyes blasphemy in it, because it takes away from God the peculiarity of his domini­on. Are not these arguments drawn from the nature of the thing, and not meerly from a positive Law?

2. Notwithstanding these dictates of natural Reason concerning the worship of God, yet he supposes mankind to have been so corrupted as to have lost the sense of the sinfulness of giving divine worship to creatures. Which, he saith, they did [Page 237] chiefly on a threefold supposition. (1.) That God committed the Government of the world under him to some inferiour Deities. Or, P. 113. (2.) That God was the soul of the world, and therefore the wor­ship given to the parts of it did redound to him. Or (3.) That external adora­tion was below him, and that the service due to God was that of our minds, and the other might be given to Creatures.

3. That God saw it necessary to revive the peculiarity of his worship by his Law given in the Decalogue; which although given to the Jews, was of an eternal and immutable nature, being not built on any reason peculiar to them, but common to all mankind; and on this account the Christian Church did look on the same Law as obliging all Christians; as the Doctour hath proved in several places before cited.

4. That when the Apostles went abroad to reclaim the world from Idola­try, they made use of no other notion of it, than what was received among the Jews; and by the Reasons on which the Law of God was founded, they convinced the world of that sin of Idolatry, which by the corruption of mankind, and the custom of the world they had lost the [Page 238] sense of. And this was plainly the mean­ing of Dr. St.'s words to any unpreju­diced mind, as appears by laying these things together; which are all contain­ed in the same discourse. If we say the Gentiles had lost the sense of other sins, as it is evident they had, and the Apo­stles made use of the Law of God to con­vince them; doth it hence follow that the sinfulness of those things did barely depend upon a positive Law? And there­fore the notion of Idolatry may be said to be new, not as though it were not against the principles of Natural Religion, but because they had lost the sense of them: so the Law of Moses was a new Law though it revived the Law of Nature in its moral precepts; the doctrine of Christ was a new doctrine to the world although most agreeable to the principles of natu­ral reason.

(2.) The sinfulness of Idolatry accord­ing to natural Religion consists in these things. (1.) In taking away the due sense of the Distance between God and his Creatures: which is a violation of the Rights of his Soveraignty, and conse­quently it is crimen laesae Majestatis Divi­nae, or Treason against the Divine Ma­jesty. (2.) In neglecting to give God the [Page 239] worship which was proper to him. And this was the consequent of Idolatry; and not as though the Nature of Idolatry did lye barely in not giving to God the worship due to him, as T. G. seems to suggest: Dial. p. 205. but when men did accustome themselves to the worship of Idols, they grew so fond of their own inventions, that they had five Ave Maries for one Pater Noster, and so the worship of God came to be almost lost in the croud of Deities which they joyned with him. (3.) In worship­ping bad Spirits, instead of good ones; which craftily insinuated themselves among the Idolaters under the pretence of Inferiour Deities. For so the people still believed them to be good Spi­rits, and their learned men defied all those who said they worshipped any other, as Dr. St. hath shewed; Defence, p. 518. yet the Christians proved they were evil, because they received that worship from them, which the good ones would not do. (4.) In disparaging the Divine Nature by making Images to represent him, (which suggested mean thoughts of God to their minds, lessening the appre­hensions of the Greatness of his Majesty) and hoping to please God by worshipping such representations of him. Which [Page 240] he thought so dishonourable to himself, that he forbids it by a severe Law, and punished the transgressours of it; and from hence the Christian Church hath accounted the same thing unlawful to them, because so dishonourable to God. (5.) In taking away that dependence upon God, which he expects from his Crea­tures. For when they suppose that God hath committed the care of these things to any inferiour beings, they are apt to make their addresses to them more fre­quently because of a vicinity of Nature to them; and to depend upon them for help in time of need; which takes off that entire trust in God which is most agreeable to his Wisdom, Goodness and Providence. (6.) In giving divine wor­ship to vile and wicked men instead of God. This was an aggravation of Idolatry, and increased the sinfulness of it; although the nature of Idolatry doth not lye in giv­ing divine worship to bad men, but to any Creatures. And in this particular lay the abominable sinfulness of the Poetical Ido­latry among the Greeks and Romans, which was in this respect worse than of the most barbarous Nations we ever read of. (7.) The more vile the practices, the more mean the submissions, the more [Page 241] gross the errours of Idolaters were, the greater was the sinfulness of Idolatry. Hence the filthy and obscene Actions of the Eastern, Greek and Roman Idolatries; the mean submissions and the gross errours of the Egyptian Idolatries heightned the sin­fulness of them. These are the main things wherein the sinfulness of Idolatry did consist, abstractly from any positive Law. You see how freely I give them to you upon such an invitation, and much good may they do you. If Dr. St. had thought T. G. had desired any such thing from him, I do believe he would have added not only a seventh, Dial. p. 201. but an eighth Chapter for his sake on such a subject as this, which it is so easie to inlarge upon. But I stop for fear T. G. should think I am only patching up a Sermon out of Note-books, yet I think I have not taken leave of my Text.

Did you ever hear of the speak­ing Trumpet?

What hath the speaking Trum­pet to do with Idolatry? I am afraid I waked you out of some pleasant dream, you talk so far off from the business. Now I think of it, I have found it by the train of thoughts, in Mr. Hobs his way. Text led you to preaching, and preaching [Page 242] to the speaking Trumpet, because of the rare invention of the Virtuoso to have one Parson to preach to a whole County.

No, that is not it. T. G. brings it in on the occasion of this dispute.

Doth he truly? But how comes it in? As the man brought in Hercules into his Sermon by Head and Shoulders?

T. G. is a man of a great reach; and therefore he may be allowed to bring in a thing, which another man would never have thought of.

But I pray how?

You know the Virtuoso argued thus, If the speaking Trumpet might be made to carry the voice a League, then eight mile about, if eight mile, then round a whole County, and then why not from one Nation to another, there being no stop in Art?

This is very ridiculous; but how doth T. G. apply it?

To Dr. St.'s argument against relative Worship; Dial. p. 202. who saith that by vertue of that, men may worship the Sun, the Stars, the Earth, or any other Creature.

And doth not the argument hold?

No; T. G. saith, it is like the Virtuoso's arguing about the speaking Trum­pet.

I pray tell how. In my mind T. G. rather imitates the Virtuoso's swim­ing on the Table; for he puffs and blows, and moves all the joynts of his Body, but he is on the Table still. The difficulty re­mains just where it was; and the speaking Trumpet takes away none of the force of it. For the parity of Reason holds in one case, which it is ridiculous to imagine in the other.

T. G. saith, there is a conformity between it, and the extension of worship to any Creature. For, he saith, there is a stop in nature.

How and where? For why may not I worship God in any creature as well as by an Image? Where are the measures and bounds fixed, that thus far we may go and no farther? Why may we not worship Trees, and Fountains, Earth, and Water, and the whole Host of Heaven as well as an Image? if we have due apprehensions of God in our minds as the Creator of them, and do not suffer our worship to rest absolutely on the Crea­tures, but intend to carry it at last to God, and to fall only after an inferiour manner upon them. I cannot for my heart find out this stop in nature. For the reason of relative worship as to an Image is [Page 244] bare imagination, supposing that person to be present who deserves worship: but in the Worship of the Creatures, there is a real presence of the Divinity, and a cer­tain relation which the Creatures have to God; why therefore may I not worship God in any of his Creatures, as well as by an Image? and so the ancient Idolatry of the World, which the Christian Religion rooted out, may by the help of this trick of Relative Worship be revived again.

You run too fast. For T. G. saith, the Creatures ever since sense prevail­ed against reason, Dial. p. 204. are become like stumbling-blocks to the souls of men, and a snare to the feet of the unwise, to allure and draw them to the worship of them.

And do you think Images (but that they are set so high) have not more of the Nature of Stumbling-blocks in them? Are they such immaterial and insensible things, when S. Augustine saith, their very fashion and shape is apt to move men more, and the likeness to a living being prevails more on the affections of miserable men to worship them, Defence, p. 529. than their knowledge that they are not living doth to the contempt of them; as Dr. St. observed.

But T. G. adds, that those very Divines of the Church of Rome who do ad­mit [Page 245] the consequence in speculation, and do not condemn the practice of it in Philosophi­cal and contemplative men, who consider the creatures purely as the works of God, and as it were behold him present in them; do not­withstanding utterly condemn the common and promiscuous use of it in the vulgar, as ex­posing them to manifest danger of being se­duced by the tempting beauty and astonish­ing power of the Creatures, to forget the Cre­ator and worship them.

What is become of the speaking Trumpet now? and of the stop in nature? All the danger, it seems, is in the dulness and stupidity of the People. And yet, if I mistake not, T. G. hath provided against this, when he saith, the difference is so great between vulgar Heathens and Christians, Dial. p. 419. as to the Believing in one God the Father Al­mighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible. If the common people have so firm and settled a Notion of this in their minds, they may as easily pass from the Scale of Creatures to the Creatour, as from an Image to what is represented by it. Is there so much danger they should stop in the Creatures; and none at all they should stop in Images; when himself confesseth, it is Idolatry to worship the [Page 246] Images themselves? And since Dr. St▪ hath shewn from their own Divines, Defence, p. 698. how many wayes Idolatry may be committed in the worship of Images. (1.) If proper Latria or Divine Worship be given to an Image, it becomes an Idol. Nay Bellar­mine saith, that those who worshipped an Image of Christ with Divine Honours, al­though it were for the sake of Christ, and not of the Image, did commit Idolatry. Therefore, he saith, those were condemned for hereticks, who gave Divine Worship to the Image of Christ. If then the people happen to give Divine Worship to an Image, although they no not believe it to be so, yet this doth not excuse them from Idolatry; for, saith he, although a man pre­tend in words, the Worship to be Relative, or for the sake of God, or Christ; yet it being divine worship, he doth really do it ab­solutely and for themselves. (2.) When Images are worshipped as true representa­tions of the Divine Nature. (3.) When Images are worshipped for the sake of any sanctity, vertue or Divinity abiding in them. But tell me now, whether com­mon people are not in danger of any of these things, as much at least as of resting in the Creatures? Is it not as easie for them to forget the distinction of absolute [Page 247] and relative worship, or to fancy God to be like the Images of him; or to imagine some sanctity, vertue or Divinity to be inherent in the Images; as to stop at the Creatures and to go no higher? Yea, more than this, have not the common people been charged with doing these things by your own Divines? When they tell us of their madness in the Worship of Images; Defence, p. 309. and that there was little or no dif­ference between their worship and that of the Heathens? in some places cited by Dr. St. Is it possible for any man that ob­serves what the common people do, to imagine that they place no Sanctity, Ver­tue or Divinity in their Images? When they walk so many miles barefoot to a certain Image of our Lady; when they creep upon their bare knees towards it; when they make formal supplications to the Images, with as much Ceremony as if the persons they represent were pre­sent; when they look with so much sub­mission and devotion towards them; when they come with such mighty ex­pectations of relief and help from them; when they tell stories of so many mira­cles which have been wrought by them; nay, when their learned men, who should have more wit or honesty, write [Page 248] Books on purpose to heighten these follies and madnesses of the People. Can you, with any face say, there is not so much danger in the worship of Images, as in the worship of the Creatures? I did not ex­pect, after what Dr. St. had represented in this matter, T. G. should have given so wretched an answer as this. For if this were all to keep men from the Re­lative worship of Creatures, I dare affirm that most of the Fathers arguments against this sort of Idolatry were very weak and feeble, and that they did not reach the Philosophical and contemplative men; but only the dull and stupid vulgar; that there was nothing of real Idolatry in their worship of the Creatures, but only danger to the common people, and scandal to the weak. Name me that Christian, who through all the Primitive Church ever let fall an expression to this purpose. It was Idolatry, downright Idolatry they charged them with in the worship of the Creatures, and not any meer scandalous complyance with the ignorant vulgar. If this had been all they meant, for all that I can see the Work of the Apostles and Primitive Christians had been to have in­formed them only of the True God whom they were to worship in the Creatures, [Page 249] and if all the People were once through­ly informed of this, all the ancient Rites of worship might have continued. They might have still baked Cakes to the Queen of Heaven, and worshipped the whole Host of Heaven; they might have con­tinued their Devotion to the Earth, and Fire, and Trees and Fountains, if they did but direct their worship through them to God. What mean all those sayings of Fathers, all those Canons of Councils, wherein this very manner of Worship was condemned for Idolatry? Defence, p. 400, &c. as Dr. St. hath in part shewed. Speak out Gentlemen, and let us know what you think of the Primitive Church, which so freely con­demned this Relative Worship; but ne­ver imagine that we will be guided by your modern Schools, or the Doctrine of your Church in these things, against the consent of the whole Primitive Christian Church; whose Fathers you must con­demn as Children, and whose Martyrs you must look on as Fools, if your do­ctrine of Relative worship be allowed. For most of those who suffered Martyr­dom might have escaped if they had al­lowed these principles of Relative worship; no more being required of them, but to do as the rest did, to burn a little incense [Page 250] in obedience to the Laws, to make some customary libations before the Emperours Images, to make the common supplications at the Temples of Vesta or Ceres, or any other of the Gods, which the Philoso­phers understood of the several parts of the world: and might they not have done all these things, and referred the worship ultimately to the True God? I do not think this so trifling a matter as T. G. makes it, but I think the honour of Christianity and of the Primitive Mar­tyrs deeply concerned in it; and I wish you not to maintain your Fooleries upon such principles as reflect dishonour upon Christianity it self.

Methinks the speaking Trumpet hath roused you, and put you into a fit of furious zeal.

No Sir, I do assure you. It is the honour I have for Christianity which hath made me speak thus warmly; for I am very unwilling to have the primi­tive Christians to suffer as Fools and as weak Brethren.

But T. G. saith from Vossius, That the Gentiles concluded Nature it self to be God, Dial. p. 204. and the parts of it also to be Dei­ties, and that they forsook God and staid in the worship of Nature.

Some persons not inferiour to Vossius for learning or judgement in these matters, do suppose it to be a great mi­stake in him to make the Gentiles wor­ship inanimate nature for a true God, which say they, is in plain terms to make them Atheists: For then they must own nothing but meer matter in the world. And to what purpose men should worship an inanimate senseless being, it is very hard to un­derstand; it is therefore much more probable that they did own some inferi­our Deities over the several parts of the world, and one Supream which passed through all; whom they did worship in and by his Creatures. But I am not now to give an account of the Pagan Idolatry, of which we shall have occasion to dis­course afterwards. That which I in­sist upon is, that those who had a right notion of God might upon the principles of relative worship have justified them­selves in doing the same things which the Heathens did, provided their inten­tions were directed aright; and conse­quently that there was no necessity of ta­king away the Heathen Rites as Idola­trous in reference to the parts of the world, but only of acquainting them [Page 252] more fully with the Notion of God, and the nature of Relative Worship.

But T. G. still stands to it, that there is more danger in worshipping the Creatures, Dial. p. 206. than in the worship of Images; because the Creatures are not so apparently representative of God, as an Image is of the Person represented by it, which carries the thoughts presently and effectually to him. But the other needs a great deal of discourse to discover the analogy they bear to the Cre­ator, and the dependence they have of him for their very being: yet so, that from the greatness and beauty of the Creatures the Maker of them may proportionably be seen.

To this Dr. St. gave a full an­swer, Defence p. 806. when he said, that in an object of worship, we are not so much to consi­der the quickness of representation, as the perfections represented. Although there­fore an Image may carry ones mind sooner to the thing represented, than the Creatures; yet the one is so infinite a disparagement to the Divine Nature in comparison of the other, that there is far greater danger upon T. G.'s prin­ciples in one than in the other. I will make this plain to you by this instance. Suppose the Image of a venerable old man [Page 253] with Pontifical Habits set up to repre­sent God Almighty, as hath been usual in the Church of Rome; and one man wor­ships God by this; another he looks up­on the Sun as a wonderful Work of God, and he worships God as manifesting him­self in the Sun; the Question now is, whether there be more danger in worship­ping God by an Image, or by the Sun? I say by an Image. For (1.) T. G. con­fesses that Images are unlawful objects of Worship, which are conceived to be proper likenesses of the Divinity; now I appeal to your self, whether men are not more apt to take the Image of a man for a like­ness of the Divinity, than any of Gods Creatures? Besides (2.) Images do not represent any thing that deserves our worship; but only lineaments and fi­gures, the work of Painters and Car­vers; but the Creatures represent to our minds infinite power, wisdom and good­ness, which are the greatest Motives of Divine Worship. For as Dr. St. hath said, the least work of Nature infinitely exceeds the greatest of Art in curiosity, Defence p. 805. beauty, strength, proportion▪ and every thing that can discover Wisdom and Power. (3.) The presence of God in an Image is only by a fiction of the mind, [Page 254] a man fancying the true Object of Wor­ship to be really present; but in the Creatures there is a real Divine Presence. And where there is greater reason for worship, there is surely the less danger. (4.) If the greater excellency of the Creature make the danger greater, then as Dr. St. argued, where there is less excellency there is less danger; and con­sequently there must be less danger in worshipping the Inanimate Creatures than Animate, and Bruits than Men, and mere Moral Men than Saints; because the danger must increase as the excellency doth: and consequently the Egyptians were more excuseable in their worship than you. And by this reason there was less danger in worshipping the Tail of the Asse our Saviour rode upon, than St. Peter, or his pretended Succes­sor. (5.) There is less danger of Wor­ship where the representation is more di­vine and spiritual, than where it is more gross and corporeal; but the represen­tation of God is much more divine and spiritual by his Creatures than by Ima­ges. And therefore Cardinal Lugo said, if a Wooden Image may be worshipped for the sake of the exemplar, much more such a lively Image of God as man is. And [Page 255] thus upon this principle of Relative Worship all the several sorts of Idolatry which were used among the Heathens may be revived, and set up with as fair pretences at least as Image-worship.

T. G. saith, If Dr. St. can dis­cern God so easily in his Creatures, Dial. p. 207. as a mans mind is carried from the Image to the Prototype, he believes he is one of the most admirable Persons in the Meletetiques in the whole World.

What is this but trifling in weighty matters? I would allow T. G. as much scope for his wit, as he would desire; provided it become the gravity of the subject. What is there in these Meletetiques, but what is the duty of every good man, to see God in his works? which all persons do who are not Atheists; And is this a thing to be expo­sed to scorn and derision?

But T. G. takes it for that part of Mystical Theology which inessences the soul with God.

Alas for his ignorance! that he cannot distinguish between natural and mystical Theology. I always took the seeing the great evidences of Gods Power, Wisdom and Goodness in his Crea­tures to be Natural Theology: and is it [Page 256] not possible to discover God in his works without inessencing the Soul with God? This is too mean and low for T. G.; surely you father this upon him. For I can hardly believe this and many other passages you mention, to be writ­ten by him; or else T. G. hath helped me to another piece of Meletetiques; for I dis­cover him much better in his Works than I did before; but with no great advantage either as to his Wisdom or Goodness.

You may satisfie your self if you please that I▪ do not wrong him; for here's the Book; and in the next page he compares Dr. St. with one who said Christ might be better represented by a Cow than a Crucifix, Dial. p. 208. and another who said he detested the Image of Christ Crucified.

For what good end was Dr. St. joyned with these? (supposing the sto­ries true, which I hardly believe) hath he ever said any such thing? or that tended that way? It is the worship he writes against, and not the bare represen­tation of Christ Crucified. T. G. was not to seek for Dr. St.'s mind in this mat­ter, for these are his words. I do not say there is as great incongruity in re­presenting the humane nature of Christ, Defence p. 746. as there was in representing the infinite [Page 257] nature of God, but I say there is as great incongruity still in supposing an Image of whatsoever it be, can be the proper object of Divine Worship. For the hu­manity of Christ is only capable of re­ceiving adoration from us, as it is hypo­statically united to the Divine Nature; and if the humane nature of Christ be not, what then is the Image of it? What union is there between the Divine Na­ture and a Crucifix? All that can be said is, that imagination supplyes the Uni­on, and Christ is supposed to be present by representation. But (1.) this overthrows all measures and bounds of Worship, and makes it lawful to worship any creature with respect to God. (2.) It contra­dicts the argument of S. Paul, for then God may be worshipped with the work of mens hands. (3.) 'Tis contrary to the sense and practice of the Primitive Church which interpreted the second Commandment to hold against all Images set up for wo [...]ship, as well those proper to Christians, as others among Jews or Gentiles. Why did not T. G. rather an­swer these arguments, than make odious comparisons of him, with Viret and Be­za? But there is a reason for all things if a man can hit on it.

But T. G. wonders Dr. St. should discover God so easily in his Creatures, while he saith elsewhere, the Creatures can give no greater than Moral Certainty of the Being of God himself.

It was well thought upon, and deserves an answer; because T. G. is not the only person who hath cavilled at this. If Dr. St. by Moral Certainty doth mean only a bare probability, there were some colour for the objection, but in the very place to which T. G. referrs, he asserts the highest degree of actual certainty: Rat. Acc. p. 178, 179. and that which he calls Moral Certainty, he saith is, a firm, rational, and undoubted certainty. Why then may not Dr. St. discover God in his Creatures, since he asserts so great an assurance of Gods being their Creatour?

But why then doth he call it Moral Certainty?

It is meer cavilling, when a mans mind is understood, to be quarrel­ling at his terms; especially if they be such, as others have used before him, and seem most agreeable to the nature of the Evidence. For we may conceive these several sorts of Certainty.

1. A Certainty of Principles: which is that, I suppose, they call Metaphysical Cer­tainty. [Page 259] For that was the proper Office of Metaphysicks, to establish certain gene­ral principles which might be of Vse to all other Sciences: such as those, that both parts of a contradiction cannot be true of the same thing: and that, of every thing, Arist. Anal. Post. l. 1. c. 11. n. 5, 6, 7. Metaph. l. 1. c. 12. l. 13. c. 1. Philop. in Analyt. l. 1. p. 27. either the one, or the other part of a contra­diction is true. These are such princi­ples, Metaph. l. 4. c. 6. Themist. in Analyt. Post. l. 1. of which Aristotle saith, it is folly in any man to go about to demonstrate them, any otherwise than by shewing the absurdity of him that denyeth them: They are such, Themistius saith, which every man hath by nature, and without which he cannot be sup­posed to learn any thing; and these are called self-evident and indemonstrable principles; and Axioms; which need no more than the bare representation of them to the mind, as that the whole is greater than a part. If you take away equal things from equal, the remainder is equal. For whatever depends upon Induction, or needs any medium to prove it, more than the bare perception of terms, was never by any Philosopher accounted an indemonstrable and self-evident principle. Much less were Identical propositions taken for first principles, by any man that ever understood what principles were; as it were very easie to prove, if there [Page 260] were occasion for it. I have but two things to add concerning this kind of Certainty.