THE FIRST DIALOGVE.

How does my good friend Catharinus? What, ever more poring upon Books? Me thinks, you should somtimes giue your self leaue to divert a litle. Ne (que) semper arcum.—

Truly I think it much better to spend my time in reading Sermons and good Books of Controversy, than as Prophane men do now adays in Play­houses and Taverns.

These I confess are but the too frequent Employments, rather than Recreations of the time. But do you ne­ver spend an hour in reading a Play or a Romance?

It is not needfull. I have Dr Stillingfleet's Books of Controversy, which exceed them all not only in Profit but Delight: for he is the man in my mind, who Omne tulit punctum, dum miscuit utile dulci.

But is there not something of picquant, as wel as dulce in his writings, which perhaps makes them rellish the better with you? What you have before you, seems to me, by the bulk and fas­hion of the Book, to be his DEFENCE [Page 3] of his Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, in answer to T. Gs Book entituled, Catholicks no Idolaters.

It is the very same: and I have read it over once with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction, to see the Hea­thens could not be justly charged with Idolatry, bu the Papists must be so too: And am now tasting it over again, the second time.

Every one, as Aristotle saith, iudgeth (as wel as tasteth) according as he is affected. I have met with some who have been delighted with it too, at the first reading, but as we use to be with the strange Adventures and Passages in Cassandra or the Grand Cyrus; in which Fiction and Truth are so artificially inter­wouen, that men easily suffer themselues to be Surpriz'd, and then please them­selues with the surprise. But Others there are, who look upon it, as an Apology rather for the Heathens, than a Convi­ction of the Romanists. And Others again, considering the veneration given to Holy Things and Places in the Church of Eng­land, and particularly to the Altar by Dr St. himself, are of opinion, that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Ido­latry, [Page 4] for giving an Honourary Res­pect to the Images of Christ and his Saints, both himself and the Church of England must be in the same condemnation.

By this I see, that for a man to write any thing in this age, especialy Controversy, is but to ly down and hold his hand for Every one to Strike. And to say the truth, his Adversaries have not been sparing to take their turns, and lay on as hard as they could. But not­withstanding all their Rage and ma­lice, he sits down, he saith, with that Ep, De­dic. contentment, that He has defended a Righteous cause, and, with an honest mind. And therefore I hope you make a more favorable Judgment of his Performance.

To deal plainly wirh you, Ca­tharinus, I was never satisfied with the Charge it self of Idolatry, against the Church of Rome, and much less with D^r St's endeauoring to fasten it upon the Church of England as her Sense; and till I be satisfied of these things, I must begg your pardon, if my Judgment be not the same with yours.

I can not but wonder to hear this come from you, especially for what concerns the latter part of it, if you have [Page 5] seriously considered the irrefragable Evidences, which D^r. St. produces, first in the Preface to his Roman Idolatry, and afterwards in his Generall Preface, (where he brings in the Knight himself encountring the Dragon) to prove it to be the sense of the Church of England. For although the Knight shew himself not inexpert in the Art of Chivalry, by the buckling on his Armour; mounting his Steed, and according to all ancient and Modern pictures of the Combat, directing his lance into the very mouth of the dragon, as Dr St: pleasantly describes him; yet the Weapon entred no further then the Teeth, and was there Shivered in a thousand peices. And for his char­ging Dr St. with dissenting from the doctrin of the Church of England in accusing the Church of Rome of Idolatry, t'is so notorious a peice of disingenuous dealing in him, that the Dr desires the Reader by this one Instance to iudge, what Can­dor Gen: Preface. and sincerity he is to expect in his Book.

I have considered the Peices you mention over and over, and before I give you my thoughts of them, I must desire you, to consider me, as a Person perfect­ly [Page 6] of M^r Thorndike's Judgement in this matter, and so to look upon the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome not only as groundless and Dangerous in it self, but Iniurious to the Church of England; and, consequently, what I shall say upon this subiect, shall either be from the said M^r Thorndike's own words, or what I conceive himself must and would have said in conformity to his Principles. This premised, I must desire you to reflect, how Dr St: in the Pre­face to his Roman Idolatry, fearing the Censure of divers learned men of the Church of England, for charging so hor­rid a crime upon the Mother Church of the English nation, iudged it stood him upon to order the matter so, that he might not be thought in so severe acensure, as that of Idolatry, to contradict the sense of the Church of England; (which he saith he hath so great aregard to.) And the way he takes to do it is to shew that this charge of Idolatry hath been managed against the Church of Rome, by the grea­test and most learned defenders of it, ever since the Reformation, deeming those who excuse her from it, persons of more charity than Judgment in so doing, [Page 7] and accordingly alledges in his behalf the Book of Homilies and the Testimo­nies of seventeen severall Authors.

His Adversary T. G to show the Dr had not proceeded regularly in the proof of what he undertook, first demands, if he have such a regard, as he saith, for the Church of England, why he did not appeal to her 39 Articles? For, as Dr St. himself saith of the Sense of the Church of Rome that we are to appeal for it, not to the Testimonies of Particu­lar Rom Idol: p. 209. Persons in that Church, but to the de­crees of the Council of Trent. So in like manner, for the Sense of the Church of England (the same case, as himself saith, holding for Titius that doth for Sempronius) He ought to have appealed to the publickly authorized Articles of that Church. But in them the Church of England declares no such thing as shall be shewed hereafter.

2. As for the Book of Homilies, T. G. cited divers Eminent Divines of the Church of England as Bp Montague, Dr Heylin▪ and M^r Thorndike who do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the publick dogmaticall doctrin of that Church; and the last of them M^r [Page 8] Thorndike instances particularly in the very Homily against Peril of Idolatry; of which he saith, that in this particular he must have leave to think it fails, as it evidently doth in others.

3. He excepted against litle less than two parts of three, of the seventeen Au­thors produced by Dr. St, as incompe­tent Witnesses in the case, upon the ac­count of being either Puritans, or Puri­tanically inclined; And although Dr St. call this a frivolous exception, Yet to doe T. G. Justice, and free him from envy in this particular, He took this measure from Dr. St. himself, who to make the Testimony of Ar. Bp Whitgift valid in his own cause, gives this for the Reason, because none could be less suspe­cted to be Puritanically inclin'd than He; which was to insinuate that even suspi­tion of Puritanism was a sufficient exce­ption in this case. And therefore in pur­suance of this, T. G. shewd from the Testimonies not of Roman, but of Pro­testant Authors, that Eleven of the Seventeen were accounted Puritans, or Puritanically inclin'd.

I took Good notice of that Reason of Dr. St. in his first Preface, [Page 9] and how tenderly in his Generall Pre­face he handled that Point, as willing ra­ther to wave the exception by pretty fa­cetious artifices of wit, then repell it from the Generality of those Eminent Persons by a Downright denyall, out of the affection I hope he bears still to the Cause which had been honoured by such learned and Godly Bps as Iewel, Down­ham, Vsher, the two Abbots, Robert, and George, and Davenant: all which I find recorded among many others by my good frind the Patron Bonae sidei in the Catalogue he gives of Prelats in the Sp [...]c. p. 49. Church of England, who have been Pu­ritans, or Puritanically inclin'd. Dr. St. says indeed of Robert Abbot, that he was never till now suspected for a Puritan: but I understand him to speak with rela­tion to his Adversary who had mistaken the one Brother for the Other, and so endeavoured to cast upon him the Suspi­tion of Puritanism. But the Dr. has brought such a new recruit of Testi­monies, to maintain his charge.—

Hold there my good Friend; I pray content your self a while with this sweet Bit, and have a litle patience while I go on.

[Page 10] 4. For the other six remaining Au­thors, cited by Dr. St. viz▪ D [...]. Jackson, Dr. Feild. Arch Bp Lau [...] ▪ &c. T. G. evidenced from their very words alled­ged, that they did not charge the Do­ctrine of the Church of Rome in the Council of Trent, or the practice, as conformable to that Doctrine to be Idola­try; but such things as they conceived to be great abuses in the practice of it; and con­sequently Preface to Rom. Idol. that they differed only as more and lesse in the same kind, from th [...]se other Learned Protestants, of whom the Dr. Himself confesseth, that they excuse [...]h Church of Rome from Idolatry although not all who live in the Commu­nion of it.

By all which it appears to me, that T. G. did not dispute exprofesso, 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? (as he calls it) but what he un­dertook to show was no more than that two parts of the' Authors there cited by the Dr. were Puritans or Puritanically inclin'd, by the Confession of other Divines of the Church of England: and [Page 11] that therefore according to Dr. Sts. owne measures (if they were good) their testimonies were 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.

This being the true state of that Con­troversy between him and his Adversary in that place, what Ingenuity was it in the Dr. to tell his Reader in his Generall Preface (as you said even now,) that T. G. charged him with absolute Dissenting from the doctrin of the Church of England in accusing the Church of Rome of Idola­try; and then desiring his Reader by this one Instance, to iudg what Candour and sincerity he is to expect from T. G. in his Book; where as what T. G. charged him with was only, that He had not proved in the very way himself made choice of (as the best to do it) his charge of Idolatry to be the receiu'd doctrine of the Church of England, if that were not to be taken (as the Dr. himself insinua­ted) from such as were known Puritans or to be Puritanically inclin'd; and his [Page 12] charge of Idolatry were not the same with that of the aforesaid six Authors in the places alledged by him; much less if it were to be taken from the sentiments of those who are esteem'd her true and Genuin sons; who excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry, although not all who live in the communion of it. And upon this account me thinks with all due respect to Dr. St. T. G. might much better desire his Reader by this one Instance to iudge what Candour and Sincerity he is to expect from him in his defence. For to me it seems not the Same, to tell a Person, who brings witnesses to attest his Innocency, that his Witnesses are ex­ceptionable, upon the account of Friendship or Relation, &c. or that they speak not home to his purpose; And to charge him as Guilty. But by the way, I must tell you, I never thought it the greatest Sign of Innocency, for a Person to be over solicitous to prove himself not guilty.

I see very wel, that what T. G. aym'd at, was to shew the way the Dr. took to prove his charge of Idolatry to be the Sense of the Church of England, not to be Regular, because not from the [Page 13] publikly authoriz'd Articles of that Church; and his Witnesses many of them to be incompetent by the Test the Dr Himself had given for the Tryal of them, as being Puritans or Puritanically inclin'd; and although I am satisfy'd my self that they were so, at least the most Eminent of them, yet I do not see, but as to any thing return'd by T. G. Dr. St. hath sufficiently removed that exception from them in his Generall Preface: and hath brought such Authentick Testimo­nies from other publick Acts and Re­cords as evidently prove it to be the Sense of the Church of England.

Nor can I see what necessity there is that T. G. should Engage him­self farther in this argument, his inten­tion being only (as I said) to shew, that Dr. St. had not sufficiently proued it to be the Sense of the Church of England, from the Testimonies he then produced, whateuer he might or could doe from other Acts or Authors of that Church, and so might leaue it to be disputed be­tween him and his Church (if it be His) and hauing giuen that only as a P [...]lu­dium of the close arguing of his Aduersa­ry, betake himself to his defence against [Page 14] the Charge of Idolatry, whether it were the sense of the Church of England or no. But because I see you think, the Dr. has sufficiently acquitted himself, as to T. G. pray let me hear some of the Principall passages, in which you think he has done it; and I shall candidly giue you my sense of them, for hitherto, I confess I am not convinc'd that it is the Sense of the Church of England, nor can I wish it may be prou'd so, the Accu­sation is so foul, so extravagant, and, as yet it appears to me, so vniust

First then, what can you say to the Book of Homilies? The greatest Exception T. G. made, was why Dr. St. did not appeal for the Sense of the Church of England to her 39. Articles: And to this Dr. St. tells him, that the Appro­bation of that Book was one of them. Viz the 35. and that they were subscribed by the Bishops and whole convocation. A D. 1571. which they could never do, he says, with a good Conscience, if they beleived any great and considerable part of the do­ctrine therin contained, to be fals and dangerous.

To the first part of this Viz; the Approba [...]ion of that Book T. G. in [Page 15] his Preface answer'd, that it doth not euince that Every particular doctrine con­tained in that Book is a Godly and whol­some doctrine, citing for it the Authorityes of Bp. Montagu, and Dr. Heylin; and what comes yet more close, Mr. Thorn­dike confessing of that very Homily against perill of Idolatry, that he must have leave to think it fails in this parti­cular, as he saith it evidently doth in others. And what gives great force to this Answer (though not taken notice of by Dr. St.) is what T. G. had said a litle before, that had the Church of England authoriz'd the particular doctrine of that Homily, as her dogmaticall doctrine, these Persons by asserting and maintaining the contrary as Erroneous, had incurr'd Excommunication ipso facto (as appears by the Canons printed before the 39. Articles, set forth by Mr. Rogers) which I never heard they were charged with.

As for the other Point of appealing to mens thoughts and Consciences in a matter of subscription, as he doth, when he saith he hopes, it doth not evince that the subscribers did not think the main do­ctrine of any one Homily to be fals, it is a very hopefull Topick, if we consider [Page 16] what hath been done and vndone in that Kind in the Reigns of Kg Henry 8. K. Edw. 6. Q. Mary and Q. Elizabeth, not to speak of later times. If this be all he hath to say for the Book of Homilies, Mr. Thorndike, whom himself confes­seth to have been a Man of Excellent Learning and great Piety must in all like­lyhood have subscribed the 39. Arti­cles against his conscience, (which I shall never be brought to believe) when nevertheless he declared his Judgment to be, that the Homily against Peril of Idolatry failed in this particular. And till I hear him and his Fellows condemned for what they assert, I must have leave to think, that the bare alledging the Fact of Subscription to the 35. Article among the rest, is not sufficient proof, that the contrary to what they iudged is the dog­maticall Sense of the Church of England, especially when speaking expressely in the 22. Article of the Romish doctrine concerning Worshipping and Adorae­tion of Images, She gives it onely the name of a vain thing and a fond In­vention.

But Dr. St. goes on; and shows the current doctrine of the Church ever [Page 17] since the Reformation to have been agrea­ble to this Homily of the Peril of Idolatry. from the Injunctions of K. Edw. 6. and Q. Elizabeth.

This he saw very well might be looked upon, as an Effect of Heat at the first reformation, and whereas he will not have vs think it was only a sudden Heat. I shall give you an account of the pro­gress of it out of Dr. Heylin. There was a time, saith he, when Q. Elizabeth be­held Cyprian Angl. pag. 342 2. Edit. the Pope as her greatest Enemy, in reference to her Mothers Marriage, her own Birth and consequently her Title to the Crown of England: and many of the Books which were printed in and about that time, were full of bitterness and revi­lings against the Church of Rome it self, and all the divine Offices, ceremonies and Performances of it. But after the C [...]own was setled vpon K. James, whose Title was vnquestionable both at Rome and abroad; the dangerous consequences of the charge of Idolatry vpon the Church of Rome began to be more calmely and maturely considered; and were so tho­roughly weighed in the time of K. Char­les I. that as the same Heylin saith Arch. B. Laud with equal diligence endea­voured [Page 18] by his decree, to hinder the reprin­ting of the said Books, as also of others containing Calvinian doctrines, that so the Church might rest in quiet, without any trouble or molestation ïn her self or giving offence to any other. Which evidently shows, that that Party never looked vpon the Expressions of Idolatry contained in those Iniunctions, as the Dogmaticall Sense of the Church of England.

I know the Heat of this charge began to grow cool in process of time, and together with it the fervour of the Reformation. But what can be said to the Rubrick in the 2d. Liturgy by Edw. 6. readmitted of late into the the Book of Communion: in which the Adoration of the Host is expressly called Idolatry? That very Rubrick of which T. G. (saith Dr. St.) according to his excellent Skil in the Offices of our Church, saith, it is not yet more than a dozen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book; which he might baue found aboue a 100. years before in the Book of E [...]w. 6. The words are these, that by kneeling at Communion no Adoration is intended or ought to be done [Page 19] either vnto the Sacrament all Bread and wine, there bodily receiued; or any Cor­poral Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Bloud: For the Sacramental Bread and wine remain stil in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be ador [...]d. For that were Idolatry to be ab­horred of all Faithfull Christians. And now what can be more plain, then that the Adoration of the Host is here ex­pressly condemned as Idolatry?

To this I answer that the various Fate of this Rubrick, first in not being annexed to the Communion Book till the 2^d. Liturgy in the 5. of Edw. 6. and being cast out again in the year 1562. vn­der Q. Elizabeth, and so remaining for almost a 100. years, and then re-ad­mitted again, is no Eviction to mee, that Dr. St's. charge of Idolatry is the dogmaticall doctrine of the Church of England; which although she affirm (Art. 28.) that Transsubstantiation hath given occasion to many Superstitions, yet doth she not charge it with Idolatry. And what cōfirms me more in this Judg­ment is that we know that Dr. Tay­lor and Mr. Thorndike both main­tain, that although they suppose those of [Page 20] the church of Rome to be mistaken in their belief of the Elements being chan­ged into the Body and Bloud of Christ; yet they deny it follows from thence, that they are Idolaters, because the Object of their Adoration is Christ the only true and Eternall God. And I never heard they were looked upon as Excom­municated Persons for it, though they both lived a considerable time after this Rubrick was annexed, Dr Taylor being advanced to a Bishoprick and Mr. Thorndike publishing his Just Weights and Measures in the year 1662. that is, two years after the said Rubrick was in­serted; in which Book he expressely main­tains that the worship of the Host in the chap. 19 Papacy is not Idolatry. and gives this reason for it, because they that worship the Host do not beleeve that the Elements remain; but beleeve our Lord Christ, the only true God hypostatically vnited to our flesh and Bloud to be there pre­sent in an especiall manner. And your friend the Patron Bonae Fidei declares his Judgment also to bee, that it is not so Prodr. p. 77. much madness in the Romanists to adore the Lord JESVS vnder the species of Bread and wine, as it is a gross Errour in [Page 21] them to belieue that the Bread is chan­ged into the Body of Christ. But then again, to tell you my own thoughts con­cerning the Sense of this Rubrick, as it now stands, I take the meaning of it not to be, the denying Adoration to be due in regard of Christ's Body being present Spiritually but truly in the Sa­crament, (for this is asserted by Bp An­drews, Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram, Mr. Thorndike, and Andr. Resp. ad Apol. Bellar. other learned men of the Church of Eng­land) but only that no adoration ought to be done to any Corporal Presence of c. 1. Thornd Epil. p. 350. Christ's Natural Flesh and Bloud, as the word Corporal is taken by D^r Taylor in his Treatise of the Real Presence, and by other Protestant Divines, to signify the Natural. (or as Dr. Cosins cals it, Carnall) manner of a Body's being pre­sent. And my Reasons are. First because the words in the 2^d, Liturgy of Edw. 6. (inserted by some of Calvins disciples then prevailing) No adoration ought to be done to any Real or Essential Being of Christ's natural Flesh and Bloud, are now changed in the present Communion-Book, into any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Bloud. For [Page 22] either the Corporal Presence is here distin­guished by them from the Real and Essential, or not. If not, why were the words changed? If it be, it is manifest that this last Edition of the Rubrick deter mins nothing expressly of the Real and Essential Being of Christ's Naturall Flesh and Bloud, nor of the Adora­tion due to it, but rather intimates that Such a presence may be the Ground of Adoration: the word Corporal supposing only for the natural Presence after a gross and Carnal manner, as hath been said. And that the denying the Ceremony of kneeling at the participation of the Sacrament, to be done in regard of a [...]y Real and Essential Being of Christs natural Flesh and Bloud, being found in that Rubrick was one of the reasons, why the whole Rubrick was expunged by the Revisors of the Liturgy in the begin­ning of Q. Elizabeth is expressly affir­med by Dr H [...]ylin in his Ecclesia R [...]for­mata, Q. Eliz pag. III. and that for this very reason, not to giue scandal or Off [...]nce to the Popish Party, who though they maintain the Body of Christ to be t [...]uly, realy and substantial­ly present in the Eucharist, yet they de­ny [Page 23] it to be there Corporaliter, Corporal­ly, as the word is understood to imply the Natural manner of a Body's Existen­ce. 2ly. Because Dr. Taylor in his Real Bellarm de Euch. li. 1. c. 2. Presence p. 12. saith that when the word Real Presence is denyed by some Prote­stants, it is taken for natural Presence, and not for Presence in rei veritate, which is at large declared by Bp. Cosins ch. 2. of his History of Transubstantiation (which at the Entreaty of Friends he permitted to be printed a litle before his death) to be the unanimous Beleif of all Protestants. Lastly had T. G. said it was not more then a Dozen years since this Rubrick was framed and deuised, Dr. St. had had some reason to tax his want of skill in the Offices of the Church of England, but saying only as he did that it was not more than a dozen years since it was inserted, I doe not conceiue it to be so improper a speech as to de­serue the Ferula, being spoken of a thing, which had been cast out by publick Authority at the reviewing and cor­recting the Liturgy in the year 1562. and had remaind so, for wel neer a 100. years, and then put in.

If the Explication I haue giuen of it's [Page 24] meaning be not agreable to Dr. Sts sense, he may if he please, impugn. it; but it will import him, as I suppose, to do it so, as not to undermine the Constant doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Real Presence, and leaue us nothing but pure Zuinglianism in place of it.

I shall leaue that to the Dr. to make what he will or can of it; And proceed to a Passage, in which you neither will nor can deny, but that T. G. was grossly out indeed; viz, when he mistook George Abbot Arch Bp of Canterbury, for Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury, the former being neuer mentioned by Dr. St. and the latter, as he saith, neuer till now suspected for a Puritan. But they of the Church of Rome as the Dr. obserues vpon this pass [...]ge, have a faculty of doing greater wonders, with five words, than changing a Bishop into an Arch Bp. And he hopes T. G. vnderstands the Church he is of, better than that he lif [...], or els we are like to haue a sad account of History from him.

This was a terrible mistake in­deed of one Bishop for another, both [Page 25] Brothers and living at the Same time, as these Abbots were, and doubtlesse de­serues such a Magisteriall Animadver­sion aas the Dr. hath given vpon it, as tending to the confusion of all History; especially if He of Salisbury cited by Dr. St. were not also Puritanically in­clined.

Dr. Still. expressly affirms it, that he was neuer till now suspected for a Puritan. And I haue that esteem for his Skill in History, that I belieue you will not euince the contrary.

And yet you cannot but know, that your friend the Patron bonae Fidei alledged euen now by your self recites the two Abbots, Robert and George, among those of the Hierarchy, whose names are in your Diptyeks; and his Book was published a year before Dr. St. printed his General Preface. But to passe this by: Let vs hear the account Dr. H [...]ylin giues of Dr Robert Abbot in his Cypria­nus Anglious, when by the power and P. 61. fauour of his Brother, then Bishop of London, he was preferr'd to the Place of his Maties Professor for Divinity; He was, saith he, a man of Eminent Lear­ning, and a more moderate Calvinian [Page 26] than either of his Predecessors in the matter of Predestination, but altogether depending on the will of his Brother, whom the Dr. cannot deny to have been Deep dy'd in the Doctrine of Geneua. The same Dr Heylin tells vs also a passage or two which sufficiently show the temper of this Dr. Abbot. For vpon occasion of Dr. Laud's touching in his Sermon vpon the Presbyterians and their proceedings, and vsing some words to this effect, viz, that the Presbyterians were as bad as the Papists; this being so di­rectly contrary, saith Heylin to the Iudgment and opinion of this Dr. Ab­bot who was then Vice-Chancellor, Laud was exposed by him (on the next occasion) to publick shame and Censure: as Howson and Corbet both of Christ's P, 62. Church had been before by the same Dr. Abbot in the like case; the first hauing been suspended propter conciones minus Orthodoxas, for accusing the Geneua notes on the Bible of mis-inter­pretation concerning Christ's Divinity and Messiah-ship. The Other soundly ratled by the Repetitioner, for grating vpon Calvin's manifest perverting the sense and meaning of the Article of [Page 27] Christ's descending into Hell. These are Historicall Passages, which discouer this Dr. Abbot not only to haue acted in fauour of Geneua, out of complyance with his Brother, but out of Opinion and Judgment. So doe the Praises he giues Mr. Perkins as a man well deseruing for his great trauail and pains for the furtherance of true Religion, and edi­fying of the Church; as his Adversary Dr. Bishop cites the words in his Reproof pag. 48. and the same is con­firmed by his last Swan-like song, as the English-Dutch-British Author of Herwologia Anglica calls it Cygnea cantio de gratia & perseverantia San­ctorum, of the Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. And Dr. St. knows who they be, that hold no falling from Grace. By all which it appears, that Dr. St. himself was grossly mistaken in point of History, when he affirmed of Ro­bert Abbot Bp. of Salisbury that he was neuer till now suspected for a Puritan, he being Brother to Arch Bp Abbot as wel in Judgment as Nature, with that difference only which the Poet obserues to be vsually found in the faces of such neer Relations, Facies non vna duobus [Page 28] nec diversa tamen. And I thinke T. G. may with more reason return Dr. St's words vpon him, that he has a fa­culty of doing greater wonders with seuen or eight words viz (Robert Abbot was neuer till now suspected for a Puritan) than changing a Bishop into an Arch Bp And that he may hope too, the Dr understands the Church he opposes, better than that he vndertakes to defend, otherwise wee are like to haue a sad ac­count of history from him: for to me it seems a greater wonder to change a Pre­latik into a Puritan than a Bishop, into an Arch Bp. And likely to bring greater confusion into History, to erre in the Quality of the Person, than to mistake him for his Brother they being as Like as Twins to each other. Had I any power with Dr. St. I would aduise him not to be so Tragical vpon such sleight occasions, The Reader may think ei­ther that some secret Splinters of the Lance stick in the Dragons Iawes, which he cannot free himself from; or that he could find nothing of moment in his Adversary to exercise his Talent vpon; when he sees him fling and lay about him so vnreasonably for a thing of [Page 29] nothing, and in which his own mistake was farr the greater, the quality or Judg­ment of the Person being more to the purpose than his Individuality.

Euery one you know hath his seuerall Gift, and will exercise it as he sees best for his cause. I shall trouble you but with one Instance more vpon this subiect at present, and that is the Answer which T. G. giues to the other six Autho [...]s, whom he reckons of the same kind, with those of whom, Dr. St. saith, for meer shame he will not say they were Puritans, or Puritanical [...]y in­clined, Viz, that they c [...]arged the Pa­pists with what they thought they did, but the Papists deny they doe any such thing A Pretty Answer truely, and which seems to me to be the Same, as Dr. St. well obserues, as to say They charge them with Idolatry, but the Papists deny th [...]y commit it. And so saith he they doe when I charge them with it: So that T. G. by the very same reason might haue acquitted me from charging them with it, and haue spared his Book.

What needed the words for meer shame, when T. G. did not charge the [Page 30] aforesaid six Authors of being Puritans or Puritanically inclin'd? But the Gift must be kept in vre for fear of growing restiff. What T. G. answers (howeuer Dr. St. moulds it after his own fashion to make it appear ridiculous) is this, that whoeuer attentiuely considers but the very places cited by Dr. St. out of those Authors, shall find that they do not impugn the doctrine it self of the Church of Rome, or the practice con­formable to that doctrine; but such things as they conceiued to be great Abuses in the practice of it, which by the way is all can be made out of the Drs new Testimony of Arch Bp. Bancroft w [...]en he charges the Papists, with I kn [...]w not what (they are his own words) intolerable superstition and Idolatry, And in this T. G. sayes, these Authors differ only as more or less in the same kind, from what M^r Thorndike, and other learned Protestants pre­tend, when they reproue some practices, as Idolatrous, or at least in danger to be such, when neuerthelesse as Dr. St. Himself acknowledges in his first Pre­face, they excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry, although not all who liue [Page 31] in Communion of it. Now to me, I con­fess it seems not to be the same, to accuse the Doctrine of a Church and the Practice conf [...]rmable to that doctrine, which is what Dr. St. doth in charging the Church of Rome as guil [...]y of Idolatry; and to reproue some abuses conceiued to be committed in the practice of it, which is what the aforesaid Authors doe. Again, it seems not to me to be the same, not to excuse all the persons who liue in the Communion of a Church from the guilt of Idolatry, which is what Mr. Thorn­dike, and those other Learned Pr [...] ­testants doe; and to accuse the Church of Rome, f [...]r requiring by the termes of Communion with her, the committing Idolatry, paralel to that of the Hea­thens, as Dr. St. does. These I take to be very different charges, and so did Dr. St. vnderstand them, when he said, that vpon the whole matter T. G. cannot produce any one Person of our Church that hath clearly and wholly (mark that) acquitted the Church of Rome f [...]om the charge of Idolatry. It was not then T. G's. denying (as Dr. St. represents it) that those of the Church of Rome de [Page 32] commit Idolatry in the practices those Authors reproue, that acquits them, (though not in the whole, yet in part) of the charge of Idolatry, as it is aduan­ced by Dr. St. but their own excusing, (as himself confesses) the Church of Rome from Idolatry, though not all who liue in the Cōmunion of it. From whence it followes that the case is not the same between them and Dr. St. who asserts, that all the Members of that Church inust by the terms of Communion with her be guilty of damnable hypo­crisy or Idolatry. 1. c. if their practice be conformable to her doctrine, since the termes of Communion can oblige them to no more And now if thus be what he means by the Sense of the Church of England when he would not be thought to contradict it, I thinke he will neuer be able to make out that it is so; when that Church proposes no such thing in her Articles, and such Eminent Diuines of her Communion, as are farthest from the suspition of Puri­tanism affirm the contrary. For what the Church of Rome requires of those of her Communion in the Point of Ima­ges [Page 33] (the grand contest at present between Dr. St. and his Adversary) as it is declared in the 2^d. Council of Nice (to which the Council of Trent refers, and to which, according to the Drs. own Rule we are to appeal for the Sense of that Church and not to the testimonies of particular persons) what I say the Church of Rome requires there of those of her Communion, is to salute and giue an honorary adoration (or respect as the term Adoration is there declared to mean) to the Images of Christ and his Saints, like as is giuen to the Figure of the Holy Crosse, to Chalices, to the Books of the Holy Gospels, and sucb like sacred vtensils: but not Latria which (as true Faith teacheth) is due only to God. And in this, as T. G. shewed (and it ought to be repeated because Dr. St. takes no notice of it in his De­fence) the Council is vindicated from Cath. no Idol. p. 144. Epil. 3. P. p. 363. Idolatry by Eminent diuines, as I said, of the Church of England, as Mr. Thorndike, who freely confesses, that he must maintain as vnquestionable, Of the Church li. 3. c. 36. that the Council of Nice enioyns no Idolatry, and Dr. Feild, who affirms [Page 34] that the Nicen Fathers mean nothing els [...]y adorati [...]n [...]f Images, but embracing, kissing and rever [...]ntly vsing of them, like to the Honour, we (saith he) do the Books of [...]oly Scripture: and Bp. Montague hauing laid down the do­ctrine of the Church of Rome in these termes, you say the Pictures of Christ, the Bd. Virgin and Saints must not haue Latria; so Wee. You giue them Dulia: I quarrel not the term, saith he, Gagg. p. [...]18. though I could. There is a respect due vnto, and honour giuen relatiuely to them. If this you call Dulia, we giue it too. Let practice and Doctrine go together, we agree. So that it is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome (if truely stated out of the Decrees of her Councils) or pra­ctice agreable to that doctrine, which these Divines impeach as Idolatrous; but the Opinions of some School Di­uines, or Abuses they conceiu'd to be committed in the practice of it. And I think T. G. hath still good reason to desire the Reader to iudge, whether Dr. St. being (as he saith) by command pu­blickely engaged in the defence of so Ex­cellent [Page 35] a cause, as that of the Church of England against the Church of Rome, haue not betrayd his Trust, and his Church too (if it be his) by aduancing such a Medium to iustify her separation, as contradicts the sense of that Church, if it be to be taken form the Sentiments of those who are esteem'd her true and Genuine sons: that is (as Dr. St. para­phrases) the most remote from all suspi­tion of disaffection to her, or Inclination to Puritanism (as these were) and in the Iudgment of Mr. Thorndike, makes her in plain termes to be Schismaticall. This T. G. Saith, will appear yet more clearly, if we consider how this charge of Idolatry, as maintained by Dr. St. subuerts the very foundation of Eccle­siasticall Authority in the Church of England, of which I may haue occa­sion to speak hereafter.

What I obserue at present is, that how couragiously soeuer He charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry, yet he Seldome or but Obiter only speaks of the Images of Christ and his Saints, which are the only subiect of the Decree of the Council of Trent, and conse­quently [Page 36] ought to be the chief if not only argument of his Book; but the main of his discourse is of the Image of God, which Bellarmin tells vs belongs not to Faith, but stands vnder Opinion: To. [...]. li. 2. c. 8. and thereupon taxes Calvin of extraor­dinary fraud and craft, who after he had proued, that Images of God are not to be made, as being incongruous to the diuine nature, runs out into Amplifica­tions (in which he is followed and at last out-run by Dr. St.) and sings Io trium­phe in so merry a t [...]ne, as if he had proued it vnlan f [...]ll to m [...]k [...] or worsh [...]p any Image at all. And vpon this acount, I confess I thinke T. G. might haue spared his Book, till the Dr. had thought fit to speak to this Essentiall Question, Whether it be Idolatry for a Christian to giue, not Latria, which is due only to God, but a honourary respect and Vene­ration, to the Images of Christ and his Saints; such as is giuen to the Books of the Holy Gospells, to the Sacraments, and such like sacred Things? This being as much as the Church of Rome requires by the terms of Communion with her. If Dr. St. can proue this to be Idolatry, the [Page 37] Knight must vnbuckle his Armour, descend from his steed, and yeild vp his Lance. But if Declining this, he will set himself to combate the Opinions of school men concerning the nature of the worship, some of them contending that the worship, due to Holy Image [...] in ge­neral is Religious, and to [...]hat of Christ Latria, &c. Howeuer it may serue him to his purpose (which himself knows best what it is, and others are not w [...]olly ignorant of,) it will be nothing to the Question; since none of those expres­sions are found in their Pr [...]f [...]ssion of Faith, or the Decree [...] of their Councils, from whence we are to take the terms of Communion with that Church. And as Mr. Thorndike well obserueth. (Iust weights. ch. 1.) we are not to forsake it for the actions of particular persons con­trary to that which they publickly prof [...]ss. For my part as I told you I am of the same Mr. Thorndik'es mind, when he saith, that f [...]r any to cha [...]ge the Pope to be Antichrist, and the Papists Idola­ters, is to lead the P [...]ple by the Nose, to belieue that they can proue th [...]ir Sup­position, when they cannot; but much [Page 38] more as it is managed by Dr. Sr. for which I shall give you my reasons to morrow, if you can be at leisure.

I shall preferr no business to this, and therefore pray fail not to be as good as your word.

Til then Farewel.

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

What you discoursed yesterday concerning the sense of [Page 40] the Church of England, hath I confess confirmed me something more in the Judgment, our Par [...] hath alwaies made of that Church, that it is but too much inclind to Rome. And if euer they lay aside the Disputes about the Nature of the Worship which you look vpon as Impertinent, and come vp closely to debate what you call the Essentiall Que­stion, Whether a Chistian nay not giue a honourary respect and Veneration to the Images of Christ and his Saints? I think they will quickly come to an agreement, and so fare-well the Refor­mation: and much more if the Charge it self of Idolatry, which you wil haue to be hartily and throughly aduanced by none but the Puritan Party may not be made vse of to Justi [...]y the separation. I am very desirous to hear what you can say vpon this Subiect; but [...]wo things haue occurred to me since yesterday, vpon a Review I made of Dr. St's. Generall Preface about the former contention between him and T. G. concerning the Sense of the Church of England: and I should be glad, you would first speak to them.

I cannot easily belieue, that any [Page 41] thing Material in that matter hath escaped your diligence. But if you think them so, I pray propose them.

The first, being about a par­ticular Author Arch Bp. Whitgift, Is not So Materiall, as the Second, which I take to be an Euident Demonstration from the publickly authorized Articles of the Church of England, that the Charge of Idolatry, as aduanced by Dr. St. against the Church of Rome, is the Dogmaticall Sense of that Church.

I wonder so important a passage should haue been forgotten, and which alone would haue done the work. But first, what of Arch Bp. Whitgift?

Why must He, Saith Dr. St. be thrown away to the Puritans? (I could quarrel the expression, but that I suppose him to speak his Adversary's mind, not his own) why must He be thrown away (saith he) to the Puritans, when all the world knows he was a great Aduersary to T. C. on the very account of the Pu­ritan cause? But he is known also, saith T. G. to haue consented to the fra­ming of the Lambeth Articles, and sen­ding them to the Diuines of Cambridge. And what then? Are the Dominicans [Page 42] Puritans, and no Papists? If the Church of Rome may haue liberty not to deter­min those nice Points, why may not the Church of England? And so both par­ties remain of it, as long as they contra­dict no receiued Artticles among vs? But then again the Lambeth Articles were neuer intended for any more, then as Responsa Prudentum to silence dis­putes in the Vniversity. And I beleeue none of the Puritan Party after that took Arch Bp. Whitgift to be a Patron of the Cause.

Admitting all this to be as you say, yet I see not but Arch Bp Whitgift by this f [...]ct of his, brought himself at least vnder the Suspition of being Puri­tanically inclin'd, which was all that T. G. aimed at to show, in opposition to what Dr. St. himself had asserted, that of all persons of that Age none could be less suspected to be Puritanically incli­ned than Arch Bp. Whitgift. Now that there was ground at least of Suspi­tion of it in this fact, (howeuer he de­fended the Cburch of England against T. C.) appears first because Whitaker and Perk [...]ns, both Caluinists, saith Dr. Cyprian. Angl. pag. 193. Heylin and both of them Supralap­sarians, [Page 43] were the chief Promoters and sollicitors for the making those Articles, among which the 5^th carries that very stamp vpon it which Dr. St. giues for a mark of Puritanism, that there is no falling from Grace. 2^dly because the Arch Bp. himself consented to the fra­ming of those Articles, and proposed them to the Divines of Cambridge for regulating disputations in those Points of Controuersy. And though they were not intended as Articles determin'd by the Church but as Responsa Prudentum (not so much to silence, as to regulate disputes) yet the Arch Bp. it seems thought it prudent by this proceeding to countenance the maintaining of them. 3^dly because the news of these proceedings being brought to the Queen, she was so offended, that onee she was at a point to haue them all endited of a Praemunire, had not the high esteem she had for Whitgift, whom she commonly called her Black Husband, reprieued all the rest from the danger of it. And her Of­fence proceeded not only from their intrenchment vpon her Prerogatiue in making such a declaration without her Authority; but ftom the Information [Page 44] she had how litle those Articles agreed Ibid. p. 132. with the Practice of Piety and Obedience to all Gouernment: whereupon such a strict cours was taken for the suppressing of them, that a Copy of them was not to be found in Cambridge for a long time after, though after the Queen's death they began to peep abroad again.

4^thly Because K. James was no better conceited of them, than Q. Elizabeth was; for when it was moued by Dr. Rey­nolds, at Hamptoncourt that the nine Orthodoxall Assertions (as He pleased to call them) which were concluded on at Lambeth, might be admitted into the Confession of the Church of England, the King so much disliked the motion, that it was presently reiected without more adoe. This is the account which Dr. Heylin giues of this matter in his Cy­prianus Angl. p. 193. 194. And I desire any indifferent Person to consider whe­ther the Arch Bp's consenting to the framing these Articles, and sending them to Cambridge, and thereby coun­tenancing the maintaining of them, were not sufficient to bring him at least vnder the Suspition of being Puritanically in­clined, and consequently ground enough [Page 45] for T. G. to lay this Exception against him. What esteem the Puritan Party had for him after it I know not. If they did not look vpon him as a Patron, they had reason I am sure to think him a Favourer. Fot my part I should not stick to hold that Dominican to be no true Papist, but a Patron of the cause. who should doe but the half of what Arch Bp. Whitgift did.

This Peter Heylin's Book I see, serues you for a store house to fur­nish you with Historicall passages, as Dr St. saith, that Bellarmin and Coccius do T. G, sor Testimonies of the Fathers. But he is known to be a great Enemy to the Puritan Party.

And that makes it the more vnlikely, that he would, though not throw away so eminent a Man to the Pu­ritans, yet bring him at leust by such a relation vnder the Suspition of being a Fauourer of them. But what is it after all, that Arch Bp. Whitgift says?

Marry, that there are three kinds of Idolatry The one is, when the true God is worshipped by other means and wayes, than he hath prescribed, or would be worshipped. The other is when [Page 46] the true God is worshiped with f [...]ls Gods: the third is when we worship fals Gods, and altogesher forget the worship of the true God. And although, he saith he cannot see or learn, that the Papists are in this third kind of Ido­latry yet he condemns them as guilty of the two former: which is enough and too much for any Christians.

I haue not Arch Bp. Whitgift's Book by me to see on what occasion he said this, nor what connexion these words haue to the Antecedent and con­sequent discourse, but as they stand, they seem to me but to involue him deeper in the suspition of Puritanism. But first I pray tell me, what you vnderstand by his first kind of Idolatry: when (as he saith) the true God is worshipped by other means and ways, than he hath prescribed or would be worshipped.

I know Dr. St. saith his meaning is, when God is worshipped against his express Command: but the words to me seem not so much to con­demn of Idolatry the giuing that wors­hip to God, which he hath expressly forbidden; as the giving him any wor­ship, which he hath not expres [...]ly com­manded. [Page 47] And this appears euident to me from the Application the Arch Bp. makes, of what he had said, to the Pa­pists, viz, that they worhip God other wise than his will is, and otherwise than he hath prescribed i. e. by means and wayes, which he hath not commanded; and then, that they also giue to the crea­ture that which is due to the Creator, and sin against the first Table. i. e. against his express Prohibition in the 2^d Commandment.

This I should also take with Dr. St's. leaue to be the meaning of his words. And now I beseech you to con­sider if this do not involue him more deeply yet in the suspition of Puritanism. For although I do not make the charg­ing the Papists to be Idolaters to be a distinctive signe of Puritanism, yet Dr. St. himself in his answer to N. O. p. 181. doth; when he saith that those who separate from the Church of England make this their Fundamentall Principle as to worship, (wherein the difference lyes) that nothing is lawfull in the wor­ship of God, but what he hath expressly commanded: We say all things are lawful which are not forbidden: and vpon this [Page 48] single Point saith he the whole Contro­versy of separation stands as to the Con­stitutiō of our Church. Now if this single Point be, as Dr. St. saith, the Cri­terium between a Protestant and a Pu­ritan, that the former says all things are lawf [...]ll in the worship of God which are not forbidden; and the latter, that nothing is lawfull but what he hath ex­pressly commanded; And Arch Bp. Whitgif [...] haue carried his charge so farr, as to make it Idolatry, not only to worship God against his express command but by other means and ways than he hath commanded, it is plain that ac­cording to Dr. St. himself, he takes part with the Puritans in that very Point, vpon which the whole Contro­versy of the Separation stands as to them.

This is one of those which they call Argumenta ad hominem. And I cannot but wonder Dr. St. would lay himself open to it by varying so much from his Old Principles so firmly setled by him in his Irenicum, where page 6. he teacheth, that in those things which are therefore only Good because com­manded, a command is necessary to make [Page 49] them lawfull, as in immediate positiue Asts of worship towards God; in which nothing is lawfull any further, than it is founded vpon a Divine Command. I Speak not, saith he, of Circumstances belonging to the acts of Worship, but whateuer is looked vpon, as a part of Diuine Worship, if it be not command­ed by God himself, it is no ways accep­table to him, and theref [...]re not lawfull. And then a litle after. Although euen here we may say too, that it is not meerly the want of a D [...]vine Precept, which makes any part of Divine Worship vn­commanded by God vnlawfull, but the General Prohibition, that nothing should be done in the immediate Worship of God, but what we haue a Divine Command for,

This is a Wonder indeed; and must be attributed to those men, who as Dr. St. saith, haue a facul [...]y of doing greater wonders wich five words, than changing a Bishop into an Arch. Bishop: for if they are not the cause, they haue been at least the occation of this great change in him, viz that whereas before he asserted with those of your Party, that nothing is lawfull in the immediate [Page 50] worship of God, but what is commanded: he affirms now with the Church of Eng­land, that all things are lawfull which are not forbidden; vnless we may impute it to a greater light of the Spirit, which I am sure you will not. For other con­siderations which your friend Patronus Prodr. p▪ 76. bonae fidei would haue thought to be the Motiues of this Change, I shall not concern my self with them.

Whateuer wrought the wonder in Dr. St. or howeuer Arch-Bishop Whitgift fell upon this Principle, that to worship the true God by other means and ways, than He had pre­scribed, is Idolatry; his name is not found that I know of, among our Worthies; and you cannot deny, but that he charges the Papists with this kind of Idolatry, and that other too of giuing to the Creature that which is due to the Creator.

Whether it were heat of dispu­tation, or con [...]escendence to free him­self from a troublesome Adversary, who had taxed him for hauing spok [...] some­thing in b [...]half of the Papists (of which [...]. to [...]. Idol [...]. there is some appearance in his words cited by the Dr) yet his charge as you [Page 51] see, so farr forth as it makes the giuing to God any worship which he hath not commanded, to be Idolatry, is groun­ded vpon the very Fundamental Prin­ciple, which according to Dr. St. dis­tinguishes the Puritan Party, from those of the Church of England; and so can be no Proof that it is the Sense of that Church. And for the 2^d part of it, viz that the Papists giue to the Creature that which is due to the Creator, we may consider the time when he liued, in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth, of which you haue heard what Dr. Heylin saith. How euer, methinks Dr. St. ought not to assert this Charge of Idolatry to be the Sense of the Church of Eng­land, but might haue been content to haue it pass for one of those nice Points, of which, himself saith, that the Church may haue liberty not to determin, when the Church herself (as I said before) in her 39. Articles reiects the Romish doctrine concerning worshipping and Adoration of Images, not as Ido­latry, but as a fond thing vainly inven­ted, and grounded vpon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God. And therefore that he [Page 52] exceeded the bounds, which he ought to haue observed as the Champion of the Church of England, in making it to be her Sense to charge that with Idolatry, which the Compilers of the Articles call only a fond thing vainly invented; and in positively defining that to be ex­pressly prohibited in the 2^d Command­ment, which they, after their best in­quiry, pronounce Problematically only as rather repugnant to the word of God, than agreable to it.

This is the very place, which Dr. St. hath pitch'd vpon to proue his charge of Idolatry to be the Sense of the Church of England. And he hath done it so home, that I think there is no avoiding it. And that you may better see the force of his Arguments, I shall put them in form. And First he argues also ad hominem against T. G. in this manner.

If T. G. and all others of their Divines yeild that adoration of Images which the Church of England charges them with, to be Idolatry, then they must needs grant it to be her sense to charge them with Idolatry.

But T. G. and all others of their [Page 53] Divines, yeild that Adoration of Ima­ges, which our Church chargeth them with Art. 22. (viz, not barely worship­ping, but Adoration of Images) to be Idolatry. Therefore they must grant it to be her sense to charge them with Idolatry.

And that it is not meerly the Practice used in the Church of Rome but their very doctrine, which the Church of Eng­land chargeth with Idolatry heproues no lesse strongly by this 2d Argument.

The Romish doctrine (mark that) concerning the worshipping and Ado­ration Art. 22. of Images &c. is a f [...]nd thing, vainly inuented, and grounded vpon no warranty of scripture, but rather re­pugnant to the word of God.

Therefore it is not meerly the Practice vsed in the Church of Rome but their very doctrine concerning Ad [...]ration of Images, which is here charged. But a Church cannot teach Adoration of Images but she must be guilty of Idolatry;

Ergo the Sense of the Article is to char­ge with Idolatry the very doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Adoration of Images. What doe you think of this my Friend?

I'le be sworn, I think Dr. St. is much obliged to you for reducing his Argumēts into form: for as you haue done it, they appear at first sight Formidable indeed, like an vpper and lower Range of Teeth with their Maiors, Minors, Subsumptions, and Conclusions, threat­ning the very last extremity of danger to the Knight, if he dare euermore direct his lance into the Dragon's mouth. But then vpon second considerations, I think he may venture to draw neer, for (if I mistake not) these arguments, like the Young men, who arose to play before Abner and Ioab, catch each other by the head, and thrust their swords into their fellows side; and both fall down together. And I doubt not to make you see it as clearly, as two and three make five, if we can but agree what is meant by those words of the Article viz The Romish Doctrine concerning Ado­ration of Images: For the term Romish Doctrine is not clear, and as Mr. Thorn­dike hath observed, the word Adoratiō is and may be in despite of our hearts Equi­uocall, i. e. sometimes signifie one kind of honour, and sometimes another.

But I haue a way to avoid all [Page 55] that in the present case, by telling you, that, the Romish doctrine concerning Adoration of Images, is as if one should say, the Adoration of Images taught in the Church of Rome.

Very Identically answered I can assure you; and as much as is needfull. Let vs then apply it to our present pur­pose, and reduce both arguments into one, since the First is but a consequence of the Second.

It is not meerly the Practice vsed in the Church of Rome, but their very doc­trine concerning Adoration of Images, i. e. the Adoration of Images taught in that Church, which is Charged by the Church of England.

But T. G. and all others of their Di­vines yeild that Adoration of Images which our Church chargeth them with, i. e. which is taught in the Church of Rome, to be Idolatry. Ergo.

Doe you not see how if the First Proposition be true, the second is false? For who euer heard that T. G. or any other of the Divines of the Church of Rome, held the doctrine taught in that C [...]urch, concerning the Adoration of Images to be Idolatry? And consequent­ly [Page 56] to vse a simile suitable to the Dr's Genius, the Teeth of this dragon like those▪ of that other sown by Cadmus, come vp like armed Souldiers, but fight and Destroy each other. For if T. G. and all others of their Diuines do not yeild the Adoration of Images taught in the Church of Rome to be Idolatry (as cer­tainly they doe not) tis manifest that they do not yeild that Adoration of Images to be Idolatry, which the Church of England chargeth them with; if she charge the very doctrine of that Church.

I did not think such vse could be made of Identicall Proposi­tions, as you haue made of them. But what do you say to each argument a part.

I say that by the words, Romish doctrine concerning Adoration of Ima­ges, may be vnderstood, either the do­ct [...]ine 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, to which all those of her Communion are bound to submit by the terms of Com­munion with her. And if the Doctrine which the Church of England here [Page 57] chargeth, be that which is taught in the Church of Rome by some of her School-Diuines (which I take indeed to be her true meaning) this also is denyed (at least by those very Diuines who teach it,) to be Idolatry: and comes not home to the charge aduanced by Dr. St. viz that what she requires by the termes of her Communion is Idolatry. And so the first argument falls to the ground. But if you will haue the Church of England to lay her charge against the Doctrine of the Church of Rom in her Councils concerning worship­ping and Adoration of Images; herein She is vindicated from the note of Idolatry by Eminent Divines, and such as haue alwaies been esteemed the true and Ge­nuine Sons of the Church of England, as you heard before. And so the second goes after the first. For were this her Sense, those Divines had not escaped without some note, if not incurred the censure of excommunication for maintai­ning the contrary. In a word, which way soeuer you vnderstand the words, Romish Doctrine concerning Adoration of Images, all that the Church of Eng­land chargeth it with, is that it is a [Page 58] fond thing, vainly inuented and rather rep [...]gnant to the word of God, but not that is Idolatry.

But as Dr. St. wel obserues, It is not barely worshipping, but Ado­ration of Images which is here charged: And can any Church teach Adoration of Images, and not be guilty of Idolatry? Or were the Compilers of the Articles so Senselesse, as not to think Idolatry repugnant to Scripture?

I hope I may suppose the Church of England, to be as litle in loue with wrangling about words, as Dr. St. professes himself to be▪ You haue heard Mr. Thorndike and others affirm, that the word Adoration is or may be in des­pite of our hearts Equiuocall, that is sometimes signify one kind of honour, sometimes another, And if it be taken, not for Latria, which is due to God, but to signify an Honoura [...]y [...]espect and Venera [...]ion (as they confess it is vsed in the 2^d Council of Nice) they main­tain it is not Idolatry: which they could not haue done without a Reproof were it the Sense of the Church of Eng­land, that it is Idolatry. As for the Compilers of the Articles, I do not take [Page 59] them to be so Senseless, as not to think Idolatry repugnant to Scripture, but had they thought it to be Idolatry, thay had been Senseless indeed to reiect it only as being rather repugnant to the word of God.

An ingenious Criticism in­deed! as Dr. St. calls it: but such an one as had been vtterly lost, if T. G. had looked into the Latin Articles, where the words are, Immo verbo Dei contra­dicit, whereby it appears, that [rather] is not vsed as a term of diminution, but of a more vehement affirmation.

And what of this for the loue of Grammar? Would the Dr. haue the word rather to be of so vehement an affirmation▪ as to aff [...]ct the words that follow, and affirm it to be absolutely repugnant [...]o the word of God? This were to make the Compilers no wiser Gram­marians, than He would haue them thought to be Diuines, and to send the Church of England to School to learn her Accidence. Or would he haue it only to be a more vehement Affirma­tion of what went before, that is, that they looked upon the worshipping of [Page 60] Images, not only as grounded upon no warranty of scripture, but of the two to be rather repugnant, than agreable to the word of God? This is what was urgedby T. G. against him to shew his Confidence in peremptorily fixing vpon the Church of England a sense which she durst not own. Haue but a litle patience and I shall giue you the very words of T. G. which had the Dr. set down, this notable Criticism of his had been vtterly lost.

‘As for any Command, saith he, of God forbiding to honour the Images Cath. no Idol p: 197. of Christ and his Saints, besides that I haue shown that Assertion to be in every respect groundless, yet for the satisfaction of the true Protestant Rea­der I shall adde one Observation more upon that subject. And it is this, that the Compilers of the 39. Articles (in Which is contained the doctrine of the Church of England) sufficiently insi­nuate they could sind no such cōmand, when they rejected the Adoration of Images, not as Idolatry (as the Dr. doth) but only as a Fond thing, vainly invented; nor as repugnant to the plain [Page 61] words of Scripture (as they profess very roundly Artic. 28. though without ground, when they speak of Transub­stantiation) but as being rather repug­nant to the word of God: Which Qua­lification of theirs plainly giues us to understand. That they had done their endeavours to find a Command, but could meet with none; For had they made any such discovery either in the Second Commandment, or els where in the Word of God, they would not haues pared to tell us of it, and haue cry'd it down for flat Idolatry, as the Dr. does. In the mean time, saith he, it is pleasant (I should have said Sad) to see what Veneration this Champion of the Church of England, hath either for the compilers of those Articles, or for the Articles themselues, when what they call only a Fond thing, a vain Invention; he condemns as Idolatry, most damnable Idolatry; and Magiste­rially declares it to be expressly prohi­bited in the second Commandment, when they after the best Inquiry they could make, pronounce only Proble­matically, that in their Iudgment, they [Page 62] thought it to be rather repugnant, than conformable to the word of God. Thus cleerly hath T. G. evinced the sense of the Church of England in this matter.’ And although he had not only that re­gard to her as to repel the odious char­ge of Idolatry (which Dr. St. would have fixed vpon her) by shewing he had not proved what he vndertook; but that Civility also for the Dr. himself, as not to charge him with downright contra­dicting the sense of that Church which he was engaged to defend, I think it my part to speak my mind more freely, and affirm as I may do from what I have here alledged, that t'is plain he dissents from the sense of the Church of Eng­land: while he endeauours to make that worsh [...]pping and Adoration of Images which the Church of Rome tea­cheth in her Councils, and requires sub­mission to by the terms of Communion with her, to be I [...]olatry. I shall proceed, if you give leaue, in our next Confe­rence to lay downe the dangerous and detestable consequences, vrged by T. G. as following from the charge of Idolatry and particularly that of the Subversion [Page 63] of all Ecclesiasticall Authority in the Church of England; to all which Dr. St. hath either returned nothing at all, or such an answer as is worth iust no­thing.

This with your leaue, is I hope, more than you can make good: and therefore I pray thinke well on [...]t against the next time we meet.

THE THIRD DIALOGVE.

You promised at our last parting to let me see I know not what dangerous and detestable conse­quences, which T. G. vrged as follow­ing from the charge of Idolatry, and to which you say Dr. St. hath either re­turned nothing at all in answer, or such an answer as is worth iust nothing. And I cannot but wonder they should be of any importance, when Dr. St. at the end of his defence saith, he hath gone through all the material points in T. Gs p. 877. Book, which relate to the General nature of Idolatry; and diligently weighed and considered euery thing that lookod like a difficulty in the Controversy about the worship of Images.

How Dr. St. hath performed this, his Readers will iudge. But there are other material Difficulties relating to the Charge of Idolatry (be it's nature what it will, of which we may speak here aster) which he hath either not weighed or considered at all, or not in their Iust weights and measures. For as Iust vveights chap. 1. Mr. Thorndike well obserues; To charge [Page 66] the Church of Rome with Idolatry, it is Necessary to provide that we contradict not our selues. It is necessary also to consider the importance and consequence of it; Whether tbe reason of the di­stance amount to so heauy a charge or not. It is necessary that we vnderstand our selues, whether we admit the conse­quence of our own Supposition or not. And to let you see that Dr. St. hath not considered nor prouided for these things, and consequently failed in his Defence, I shall desire you to consider in the first place that whoeuer will vndertake to maintain this charge, must at the same time profess, that Christ, who comman­ded vs vnder pain of damnation to hear his Church, hath permitted Her to re­quire and enioyn her Children for many hundreds of years together, to commit Idolatry paralel (as Dr. St contends) to that of the Heathens.

2^dly. That Mahomet (that Grand Impostor) whose Followers haue been preserued by the grounds he layd, for aboue a thousand years from falling into Idolatry, had more wisdome and Power to contriue and carry on his design, than the Son of God. And 3^dly. that our Fore-Fathers in this Land, had better haut [Page 67] been converted to Judaism or Turcism, than to Christianity as they were. These are things which must needs strike hor­rour into the Soul of any Christian as often as he repeats those words of his Creed, I beleeue the Holy Catholick Church, if he consider what he sayes; and firmly beleeues that Christ himself hath promised to be with his disciples al­waies euen to the end of the world: and send the Holy Ghost, to guide them into all truth, and that the Gates of Hell shall neuer preuail against his Church; and being laid down by T. G in his Epistle Dedicatory as following from the cbarge of Idolatry, ought not Dr. St. when he vndertakes to maintain it, to haue remoued them in the first place, and not passed them ouer in silence? What can such a Silence argue, but that he declined them as too true to be refu­ted? And now please your self if you can in the charge of Idolat [...]y.

Perhaps these things appear not such horrible Bugbears to all, as you would make them. We know that excel­lent Seruant of God Caluin (as the Dr. represents him in his Irenicum) maintains in the Preface to his Institutions, that Iren. p. 405. [Page 68] God had suffered men for their unthank­fulness to be dro [...]ned in deep darkness, so that there was no Face of the true Church to be seer. And et is no new thing to find Cypr. Ang [...]. P. 391. among vs Godly Persons who (as your Peter H [...]ylin obserues) look vpon the R [...]lig [...]on of Rome, as worse than that of the Turk [...] and Moors, and hold con­formity to them in Rites and Ceremonies [...] tolerable than to those of Rome. But how fart this Silence of Dr. Sts. argues his consent to these Points, I cannot de­termin. I wonder he should neither grant nor deny them, yet now I think on't, I remember that in his Defence he doth deny it follows from the charge of P. 141. I [...]olatry, that the Gates of Hell haue preuaild against the Church, when he askes T. G. upon his obiecting it to him, Against what Church? the whole Chri­stian Church? Whoeuer said they could, o [...] low doth that follow? which I take to be the same as to deny it doth or can follow.

And so do I too. But then, if it be as you say, that Dr. St. denyes it to follow from the charge of Idolatry that the Gates of Hell haue prevailed against the whole Christian Church, ought he not to haue assigned vs some Church, [Page 69] distinct in all Ages from all Hereticall and Idolatrous Congregations, which Christ hath preserued allwaies from he­resy and Idolatry?

Not at all, if he be of Mr. Calvin's mind (that Excellent Ser­vant of God) that there was a time when the Face of the true Church was not to be seen.

But what if Dr. St. assert (as he doth in his Roman Idolatry) that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is pag. 8. bound to ioyn insome Church or Congre­gation of Christians, doth it not follow, that the [...]e must be such a Church at all times to joyn with? And that those who in any time did not ioyn with it, acted against their very Christianity, by vertue of which they were bound to do it? Let him then assign vs such a Church in the world before Luther, to which all Christians by vertue of their being so, were bound to ioyn in Communion; or els he must grant that the Gates of Hell had then preuailed against the whole Christian Church.

This Principle of the Drs. viz that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to ioyn in some Church [Page 70] or Congregation of Christians, I con­fess, hath always seem'd odd to me. But I am very well assured, he will not assign the Roman to be that Chu [...]ch, be­cause in that very place he expressly affirms, that the Gates of Hell do cer­tainly Defence. P. 141. preuail against the Church of Rome, if it doth vn-church all other Christians that are not of it's Commu­nion: as certainly it doth.

But if the Dr. some Ieaucs be­fore, viz, pag. 785. allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church, as holding all the Essential Points of Faith, what does he mean now by telling us that the Gates of Hell haue prevailed against it? Do you not see into what turnings and windings they are driven, who will take upon them to maintain this Charge of Idolatry? Such frequent dizzi­ness giues cause to suspect, that the Point of the Lance hath pass'd beyond tbe Teeth of the Dragon.

No such matter. For a Church may hold all the Essential Points of Faith, and yet rhe Gat [...]s of Hell prevail against it for it's Tyranny in un-churching all other Christians, who are not of its Communion.

It is not then the meer holding and teaching Idolatry inconsistent (as the Dr. saith) with salvation, for which the Gates of Hell haue prevail'd against the Church of Rome, but her Severity in removing those from her Commu­nion, who will not conform to her do­ctrin. But what euer the cause be, if the Gates of Hell haue prevailed against it, the Dr. is obliged by his Prin­ciples to assign some other Church, which Christians by vertue of their being so are bound to ioyn in Communion with; and if he can assign none such, he must grant that the Gates of Hall haue prevailed against the wh [...]le Christian Church.

Whateuer he can or may do in this matter, (and I see by his Prin­ciples he is bound to doe it) I am very much pleased with a Qu [...]stion, which I remember he often requested, and insi­sted vpon so earnestly as to coniure the Lady whose satisfaction he end eavou­red, to intercede if n [...]t fo [...] her own sake, yet for his, to procure of T. G. that he might k [...]ow one reason at least, why the Beleeving all the Ancient C [...]eeds, and leading a Good life, may not be sufficient [Page 72] to saluation, vnless one be of the Com­munion of the Church of Rome?

I beleeue I ghess the reason why you are so pleased with this Question: as supposing there lyes at the bottome of it, that the Beleeuing the Ancient Creeds, and Leading a Good life, may be sufficient to salvation without com­municating with any Church at all. But I know not whether you will be as much pleased with the Answer. For whereas Dr. St. had reproached T. G. Cath. no I [...]ol. p. 5. that he had often requested an answer to this Question, but could not procure it T. G. tells him, that had he pleased to haue taken notice of it, he had done it in his first paper, as farr as was pertinent to the present purpose (that is in hand­ling the 2d Question, where it came in order) where Dr. St. grants, that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to ioyn in some Church and to chuse the Communion of the Purest. Where vpon saith T. G. I subioyned, that that Church was to be iudged the purest, which had the strongest Motives for it, and then laid down a Catalogue of such weighty motiues for the Roman. Catho­lick, allowed by Dr. Taylor (lib. of [Page 73] Proph. Sect. 20). that neither Dr. St. in his Defence, nor Dr. Taylor himself when he had a mind to invalidate them, produ­ced any thing to weigh against them, but a few Tinsel-words, and one Scripture-Testimony, interpreted by and according to their own fancy. But then again, be­cause Dr. St. passed this Answer by, as not worth his taking notice of, T. G. not to be wanting to so earnest a Request, proceeded to adde three rea­sons more to the former to proue the Roman Church to be that, with which all are bound by vertue of their Chris­tianity to ioyn in communion: And I shall giue you them in order as they lye.

1. There was in the world before Lu­ther a distinct Church, whose Commu­nion was necessary to Saluation; but this was not the Protestant; Therefore it was the Roman. The Maior, saith he, is euident from Dr. St's. own Conf [...]ssion, that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to ioyn in some Church; which is not possible, if there be not such a Church to ioyn with. The Minor also, that this was not the Protestant, is ma­nifest, because before Luther there was [Page 74] no such Church in the world distinct from the Roman. It follows therefore, saith he (the Q [...]estion between Dr. St. and him, being supposed to be of the necessi­ty of Communion either with the Roman, or wih the Protestant) that of the two the Roman Church was, and still is (as remaining still the same) that Church, whose Communion is necessary to saluation.

2. Again, saith he; taking the term Roman-Church, not only for the Par­ticular Diocess of Rome, but for the Churches also in Communion with it, as the Head, (as it is generally taken in this Controversy) nothing can render her Communion not necessary to salvation, but either Heresy, that is, an adhesion to some private or singular Opinion or Er­rour in Faith; Or Schism, that is sepa­ration from former Ecclesiasticall vnity. For the first, he saith, that Dr. St. himself (Rat. Aecount, p. 54) acknow­ledges the Church of Rome to beleiue all the same Articles of Faith with the Protestant; and that the Points in which the Protestant differs from the Roman, are not Articles of Faith. Consequently the Opposite Tenets to them can be no [Page 75] Errours in Faith with him. And for the second, if he will make the Cburch of Rome guilty of Schism, he must assign some other distinct Church, (then at least in being) from whose vnity She departed: which T. G. thinkes he saith, was neuer pretended, and mak [...]s him­self sure can neuer be performed.

T. G. is no good Under­taker for what his Adversary can or cannot performe in this point. But t'is euident the Church of Rome hath giuen iust cause for other Churches to withdraw themselues from her Communion, by imposing new Articles of Faith, and some of them Idolatrous. And this makes the crime of the Schism to lye at her door.

This Obiection T. G. foresaw, and three things he saith to it. 1. that this is the Common Plea of all Separa­tists, viz to charge those from whom they separated with bringing in new do­ctrines. 2. that it implyes an acknowledg­ment of the Fact of Schism, that is, of breaking Church-Vnity to be on the Protestants side. 3. that this being so, the Protestants stand arraigned of the crime of Schism also, for breaking Com­munion [Page 76] with the Church of Rome, vn­till the Accusation be made good, and iudged to be so, by some other more com­petent Judge than themselues in their own cause.

3. The third and last argument pres­sed p. 9. by T. G. why the beleiuing all the Ancient creeds, and leading a good life, may not be sufficient to saluat on, vnless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome is this A Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to be of the Communion of that Church, which eui­dently was the t [...]ue one, and the purest; vntill it be as euidently at least (if not more euidently) proued not to be so; for otherwise he wrongs both his Reason and conscience, if he leaue a greater euidence and adhere to a lesser. But the Roman Church, as comprehending all those in Communion with her by the Testi­mony not only of S. Paul (Rom. C. 1. and c. 16) but of the whole Christian world of all Ages, was euidently once the only true Church of Christ, and consequently, the Purest; and neither hath it, nor can it be as euidently, (much less more euidently) proued not to be so still; since the Testimony of those who do or will [Page 77] deny it, is incomparably Short of the former. Therefore saith T. G. a Chris­tian by vertue of his being so is bound to be of the Communion of the Roman Church.

These are the reasons which T. G. gaue to Dr. St's demand, and saith, he hea [...]tily prayes they may do him good, because he requested so earnestly to know them for his own sake; and I cannot but wonder that▪ the Dr. hauing so earnestly requested them, and so feel­ingly complained that he could not procure them, now that they are giuen, should pass them also by in Silence and take no notice of them.

I fear you think these ar­guments conclude, that Communion with the Church of Rome is necessary to salvation, and I should be loath to hear so convincing an argument of your Inclination to Popery.

You do not hear me say so; and yet I cannot but look upon them, as coming so home to the Point, that unless answered, they carry all before them and quite ruine the Cause of the Reformation. And although perhaps you will not confess so much, yet I [Page 78] perceiue by your discourse, you are not so well pleased either with the Ar­gument [...] of T. G. or Dr. St's silence, as you were with the Question. However there is one thing added by T. G. which I think you wil not be displeased with: and that is a Reflexion he makes, that wbereas it hath been hitherto speciously pretended against the Church of Rome, [...]. 9. 10. that the beleeuing all the Ancient Creeds, and leading a good life, is all that is ne­cessary to saluation, yet now there is more required by Dr. St. Viz, to ioyn in some Church or Congregation of Chris­t [...]a [...], by vertue of a man's being a Chris­tian; and that he is bound to chuse the Communion of the Purest: by which T. G. saith, he will suppose he meanes at present the Church of England: and thereupon hopes he may without Offence tak [...] the same liberty with Dr. St. which Dr St. had done with him, and desire if not for his own sake, yet for the sake of the Presbyterians, Anabaptists, and other se­parated Congregations, to know one reason from him, why the beleeuing all the An­cient Creeds, and leading a good life may not be sufficient to salvation vnless one be of the Communion of the Church [Page 79] of England? This you see how it was press't by T. G. after he had giuen his reasons to Dr. St's demand; but the Dr. has not been so mutually kind as to de­fer [...] to so earnest a request in his Defence.

Perhaps he looked vpon it as an impertinent Digression.

So himself also feared he should be thought to digress when he proposed the Rom. Idol. p. 50. Question to T. G. and yet could neuer be at rest till he had procured an answer from him. Why then ought he not to haue done the same, when if there were any digression, himself was the Author of it

Perhaps it suited not with his Circumstances, yet I could wish he had done it, because then I suppose we should haue seen with how much grea­ter Justice the Church of England exacts Cōmunion with her from other Churches, than the Church of Rome. Which hitherto I confesse I haue not been able to discern, and that for a reason offered for­merly to Consideration by Dr. St. himself in his Irenicum pag. 117. where hauing laid down this Proposition viz. [where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming [Page 80] to any vnlawfull or suspected practice, Men may lawf [...]lly deny conformity to, and Communion with that Church in such things, without the guilt of Schism] he endeavours to iustify it from the lawfulnesse of separation from the Church of Rome, in this manner. If our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawful, because she requi­red vnlawful things as conditions of her Communion; then whereuer such things are required by any Church (as we say they are by the Church of England) non-Communion with th [...]t Church in those things will be lawful too, and where non-communion is lawful, there can be no Schism in it. If it be said here (he means, I suppose, by the Prelates of Iren. p. 118. the Church of England) that the Pope's Power was an vsurpation, which is not in lawful Governours of Churches; it is som replied saith he, that the Pope's vsurpation mainly lyes in impo­sing things vpon men's Consciences, as necessary, which are doubtfull or vnlaw­ful. And whereuer the same thing is done, there is an vsurpation of the same nature, though not in so high a degree: and it may be as lawful to withdraw [Page 81] Communion from one, as well as the othre.

But may it not be said, that Men are bound to be ruled by their Governours, in determining what things are lawful and what not?

To this it is answered by Dr. St. first that no true Protestant can swear blind Obedience to Church-Go­vernours in all things. That euery one hath a Judicium priuatae discretionis, which is the Rule of practice as to him­self: and though we freely allow a Mi­nisteriall Power vnder Christ in the Governours of the Church, yet that ex­tends not to an obligation vpon men to go against the dictates of their own reason and conscience. Their power is only di­rectiue, and declaratiue, and in matters of duty can bind no more than reason and euidence brought from Scripture by them doth. Again if the Governours must be Judges, what things are lawful what not, their power will be absolute; for to be sure what euer they command, they will say is lawful either in it's self, or as they command it: If euery priuate person must iudge what is lawfull, what not, which is commanded; (as when all is [Page 82] said, euery man will be his own Judge in this case, in things concerning his own welfare) then he is no further bound to obey, than he iudgeth the thing to be lawful which is commanded. And for the plea of an erroneous conscience, that takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates of it: for as he is bound to lay it down, supposing it erroneous; so he is bound not to go against it while it is not laid down. But then again — Did not the Pope plead to be a lawfull Governour? And if men are bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governours, as to the lawfulnesse of things, they were bound to beleeue him in that as well as other things, and so separation from that Church (that is, the Church of Rome) was vnlawfull then. Where vpon he con­cludes, that let men turn and wind them­selues, which way they will, by the very same Arguments, that any will proue Se­paration from the Church of Rome law­ful, because she required vnlawful things, as conditions of her Communion, it will be proued lawful, not to conform to any suspected or vnlawfull practice, required by any Church-Governours, vpon the same terms? if the thing so re­quired, [Page 83] be after serious and sober inquiry, iudged vnwarrantable by a Man's own Conscience. Lastly, he addes, that withall, it would be further considered, whether when our best Writers against the Papists do lay the imputation of Schism, not on those who withdraw Communion, but on them for requiring such conditions of Communion (whereby they did rather eiect men out of their Communion, than the others separate f [...]om them) they do not by the same ar­gument, lay the Imputation of Schism on all, who require such conditions of Communion, and take it wholly off from those, who refuse to conform for Con­science sake: And much more to the same purpose, which for breuities sake I omit to repeat.

Now I perceive what it is you would be at; you would haue had Dr. St. answer his own argument. A very vngrateful employement I can assure you; for either he cannot absolue you from the crime of Schism, or he must deny (which I am sure you will not) that the Church of England imposes any doubtful and suspected practices, as conditions of Communion with her, ye [...] [Page 84] if I mistake not, he hath offered some­thing to this purpose in his Rational Account pag. 54. where he lays down the State of the difference between the Church of Rome and the Church of England in these words. The Church of Rome, saith he, imposeth new Articles of Faith to be beleeued as necessary to saluation. But the Church of England mak [...]s no Articles of Faith, but such as haue the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self; and in other things she requires subscription to them, not as Articles of Faith, but as Inferiour Truths, or as Dr. Br [...]hall calls them pio [...] Opinions fitted for the Preseruation of Vnity, not, saith he, that we oblige any man to be­leeue them, but only not to oppose or con­tradict them. How farr this Answer may relish with you, Catharinus, as implying the Guilt of Schism to be on your side for denying Conformity to so moderate a condition, as non-contra­dicting only is, I leaue to your conside­ration. But the vse that T. G. makes of it, is to shew that Dr. St. was not wel advised vpon these Principles, to [Page 85] vndertake the charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome. In order to which he first lays down the Sense of what the Dr. affirms in these words. This saith he according to Dr. St. is the Basis and Foundation of the Pr [...]t [...]stant R [...]ligion, that no doctrine of the Protestant Reli­gion, as it differs from that of the Roman, is an Article of Faith; that is, that no Protestant belieues; or if he do, he ougbt not to belieue, as a matter of Faith, viz, that the Images of Christ and his Saints, are not to be honoured; that the Substance of the Bread is not changed in to the Body of Christ; that the Saints in heauen are not to be invoked to pray for vs. But all that he is obliged to by the Church of England, is not to oppose or contradict them. And then inferrs these Consequences from the Dr's Assertion.

1. That the Church of Rome accor­ding Cath. no Idol. p. 14. to him, doth not erre against any Article of Faith, because the Church of England, as he saith, makes no Articles of Faith, but such as are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self.

2. That himself doth not belieue any of the af [...]resaid Points as they are de­termined by the Church of England, [Page 86] to be Articles of Faith: because to be Articles of Faith with him they must haue the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages, and be acknowledged to be such by Rome it self; which certainly the English Articles concerning the worshipping of Images, the Adoration of the Host, and the Inuocation of Saints, are not,

3. That after all this bustle to make the Church of Rome guilty of Idolatry in these very Points, for ought any man knows, himself giues no Interiour Assent to any of the fore-mentioned Tenets (as determined by the Church of England) not euen as to Inferiour Truths, or Pious Opinions, because the Church of Eng­land doth not oblige any man to belieue them as such, but only not to oppose or con­tradict them: and it is not likely, saith T. G. he defers more to the Church of Eng­land, than She obliges him to (or than he conceiues She obliges him to.)

4. And lastly, that this Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome is vain and groundlesse; because Idolatry being an Errour against the most Fun­damentall Point of Faith, and the Church of Rome according to him, not [Page 87] erring against any Article of Faith, t'is euident, saith T. G. that to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry must ac­cording to his own Principles be the most groundless, vnreasonable, and contra­dictory proceeding in the world.

This done he desires euery indifferent Reader to reflect and iudge whether Dr. St. to render the doctrine of the 39 Arti­cles digestible (as he phrases it) to the most squeamish stomack of the Nicest Non-Conformist, haue not done a notable peice of Seruice to the Church of Eng­land in degrading so many of them, as are not ackno [...]ledged by the Church of Rome (although they be esteemed the distinctiue badge of the Purity of the Church of England) from the dignity of being Arti­cles of Faith, into a lower Class of Inf [...]riour Truths (as he calls them) such as neither himself, nor any body els knows, whe­ther they haue a grain of truth in them, or no; and consequently are not bound to belieue them? Nay, saith he, Doth he not vndermine the Church of England, both in her doctrine and Government? In her doctrine, by freeing her subiects from any obligation of interiour belieuing her Articles, so farr forth as they differ f [...]om [Page 88] thos [...] of the Church of Rome to be so much as inferiour Truth? In her Gouernment, by exposing h [...]r Ordination, (or Pu­blik Ministery) to be invaded without scruple, by such as in their hearts iudge it Anti-Christian, when he tells them, her Sense is to oblige them no fa [...]ther, than not to oppose or contradict it? In which by the way I think he dissents as much from the Sense of the Church of England, if that be to be taken from the publick Acts of her Convocat [...]ons, as in his charge of Idolatry. But to pro­ceed with T. G. Was it not worth the while, saith he, to rend asunder the peace of Christendome for a Company of Opinions, which (though Dr. Bram­hal call them Pious, yet (the greater part of Christians, both in the East and West for many Ages haue, and do con­demn for Impious and Blasphemous? Is not this, saith he, a very Rational, or rather (as Mr. I. S. expounds the word) a very Reasonable Account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion, and a rare way of Justifying her from the guilt of Schism? Surely he neuer thought of charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry, when he layd such sandy Prin­ciples [Page 89] of so brittle a Temper, that it was not possible they should bear so great a charge, without breaking and discharg­ing vpon himself.

This and much more to the same pur­pose (which I may haue occasion to mind you of hereafter, is vrged by T. G. and I could wish Dr. St. would haue d [...]gr [...]ssed so farr, as to shew the consistency of his Charge of Idolat [...]y with these Principles; though he had spared the giving vs a digression of neer two hundred Pages together in the first chapter of his defence about the wor­ship both of the Ancient and Modern Hea [...]hens; which when all is done signifies iust nothing to the making of a Paralell with that of the Church of Rome, as will be very easily made appear.

As for the digression (as you call it) it is not our concern at present to engage in it. It lyes at his Aduersa­ries door; and so doth the Imputation of Schism at the Church of Englands, on the same account, as on the Church of Rome's, while she imposes doubtful and Suspected Practices as condi [...]ons of her Communion. But for the conse­quences [Page 90] T. G. inferrs from the difference laid down by Dr. St. between the Church of England and that of Rome he hath sufficiently shown the vanity of one of them. viz. the 4^th in the last Chapter of his Defence, where 1^st he saith that to affirm that the Church of Rome doth not erre in any Fundamental Point of the Chrictian Faith, and yet may be guilty of Idolatry, hath no con­tradiction in it; f [...]r the notion of Idola­try, as applyed to the Church of Rome, is consistent wich it's owning the General Principles of Faith, as to the true God and Jesus-Christ, and giuing Souereign Worship to them. 2. Whereas T. G. saith, that Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamentall Point of Faith, Dr. St. replies that T. G. himself confesses the true Notion of Idolatry to be, the giving the worship due to God to a Creature: And so, if Dr. St. haue proued that the worship of Images in the Roman Church be the giuing the worship due only to God to a Creature, then although the Church of Rome may hold all the Essentials of Faith and be a true Church, yet may it be guilty of Idolatry without contradiction.

I was very well aware of this, but did not belieue your self would take it for an answer, especially seing he saith nothing at all to the Three first, which plainly euince he cannot maintain his charge of Idolatry without contradic­ting himself. And if this you alledge be all he hath to say to the 4^th I thinke he hath but spun a webb to entangle himself the more. For his Aduersaries will soon reply, that in prouing the Church of Rome to be guil [...]y of Idola­try he proues her at the same time to erre against a Fundamental Article of Faith: vnlesse he will deny, (which I am sure you will not) the doctrine of the 2^d Commandment to be a Funda­me [...]tal A [...]ticle, or that to teach the opposite to it, is not to erre against it.

But Dr. St. being, as he p. 7 [...]9. saith, afraid to be snap'd by such cunning S [...]phisters, hath therefore distinguished in time, viz. that to affirm a Church to hold any Idolatry lawfull, which it iud­ges to be Idolatry and not erre against a Fundamental Point, would be a con­tradiction. But to say, that it may en­tertain a false notion of Idolatry, or [Page 92] of that worship which is due only to God, and not erre against any Funda­mental, is none: for this false notion being receiued, men may really giue the worship that belongs only to God to his creatures. And this saith he, is the v [...]most errour necessa [...]y in this case.

This I take to be the vtmost, which Dr St. can say in this case: And when I consider the distinction he giues, methinkes I am more clearly conuinc'd of the truth of that Sage saying of his (though ill applied his Aduersary I. W. for his distinction of expressely or impl [...]citely,) viz that Mother-wit is much better than Scholastick Fooling. For if p. 791. my Mo [...]her-wit fail me not; to erre, in the strictest way of speaking, (though it be used also to signify any Opposition to Truth) is not so properly to oppos [...] the Truth, knowing it to be the Truth, as to teach that which is opposite to truth in reality, the Teacher not knowing it to be so. And if the Church of Rome erre in telling men, that the Honour She giues to the Images of Christ and his Saints is not a part of the Honour due to God, if in reality it be a part of his Honour, t'is [Page 93] Euident She erres against the 2^d Com­mandment, though she iudges she doth not. So that which way soeuer the Dr. turns himself, he cannot maintain the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry without erring against a Fundamental Po [...]t. And that this Errour is damnable, is avowed by himself in his very cha [...]ge, when he asserteth▪ that those who Com­municate with the Church of Rome, must by the terms of Communion with her be guilty either of Hypocrisy or Idolatry, either of which, saith he, are sins incon­sistent with saluation.

But still methinks you come not home to the Point. For what the Dr. fixes himself vpon p. 787. is that the Notion of Idolatry as applyed to the Church of Rome (mark that) is consi­stent with its owning the General Princi­ples of Faith, as to the true God and Jesus Christ, and giving Soueraign worship to them, that is, if I vnderstand him aright, that the C [...]urch of Rome may teach in the General that Soueraign worship is due only to the true God and Jesus Christ, and yet giue the real parts of worship due only to God to a meer [Page 94] creature, in worshipping him by an Ima­ge, (which is the notion of Idolatry he applyes to that Church) and yet again at the same time tell men, it is not a part of the Honour which is due to God, as not iudging it to be such.

Well, if this be the Point, I think I haue spoken sufficiently to it already. But to make it yet plainer, I must desire you to reflect, that the Con­trouersy here is not only vpon a General Thesis whether some Idolatrous Practice may not consist with owning the General Principles of Faith as to the true God and Jesus Christ, and giuing. Soue­raign worship to them (which yet I know not, how himself can maintain against I W's distinction of expressly or implicitely, when he supposes the Church of Rome to debauch the very p. 788. essential Principles of Faith by damna­ble errours, and to corrupt the worship of God by vertue of them) but vpon a particular Hypothesis, viz, whether the notion of Idolatry, as applyed to the Church of Rome.) 1. e. the worshipping of God by an Image) be consistent with, that is, be not an errour against the [Page 95] doctrine of the 2d Commandment, if that be, to forbid men to worship him by an Image? The Affirmatiue of this I think is too manifest to be denyed by any man that hath not lost his Mother-Wit. And therefore if it be a Funda­mental Point to belieue that to be Ido­latry, which God himself hath expressly f [...]rbidden in the law vnder the notion of Idolat [...]y and that be, the worshipping of him by an Image (as Dr. St. asserts) t'is cleer that the Church of Rome in telling men it is no [...] Idolatry (as not kno­wing it to be such) erres against a Fun­damentall Point; and he cannot accor­ding to his Principles maintain his charge of I [...]olatry without a Contra­diction. For if it be expressly reuealed in H. Scripture, that to worship God by an Image is Idolatry, it is an Article of Paith, and a Fundamental One too, and the Church of Rome in teaching men to do so, erres against it. And if Dr. St. with the Church of England make no Articles of Faith, but such as are aknowledged to be such by Rome it self (as this is not) according to him it is no Article of Faith at all, that God i [...] [Page 96] not to be w [...]r [...]hipped by an Image. This I take to be Contradiction enough, and the Dr. must clear himself from it as he can.

This is what a man gets by dropping, (as Dr. St. saith vpon this p. 785. occasion) some kind words towards them who whil be sure to make all possible ad­vantages from them, to ouerthrow the force of whateuer can be said afterwards against them. Had he not been so kind hearted as to allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and hold all the Essential Points of Christian Faith, but had stood firm to the Principles of our Party, who look vpon that Church, not as a true Church, but as the Syna­gogue of Antichrist, he had done the work throughly, and freed himself from the intangling Sophisms of these Scholastick Foolers.

I think you haue litle reason to esteem T. G. for one of them who make all possible aduantages from the Dr's kind words to ouerthrow the force of whateuer might or was, said afterwards against him, if you consider how exact he was after­wards in replying to all his arguments, [Page 97] whereas the Dr. in his Defence hath passed ouer many important things ob­iected by T. G. (as you haue heard) without taking notice at all of them. But in the main, I see by what you say, you agree so farr with me, that Dr. St. was not well-aduised to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry vpon his Principles. Nor am I less dissatisfied with his managing it, vpon some other Accounts, which I shall acquaint you with at our next meeting.

THE FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

I remember at the begin­ning of our discourse, you desir'd me to consider you vnder the quality of a Person perfectly of Mr. Thorndik's Judgment, as to the Charge of Idolatry [Page 99] vpon the Church of Rome: and that what you should produce vpon that account, should be either from his own words, or what you conceiued himself must and would haue said in conformity to his Principles, And I was willing to entertain this conceit of you; but cannot perswade my self, that so learned and Judicious a Man, as Mr. Thorndike is esteemed, would haue allowed so much partiality, as you haue shown in this cause both to T. G. and the Church of Rome.

This is what I expected all along to hear from you. And though I haue not the other works of that Learned Person by me, yet I may hope to acquit my self sufficiently of this Imputation with his Just weights and measures.

For first if the Question be of the charge it self of Idolatry, it is manifest that Mr. Tho [...]ndike excuses the Doctrine and Pr [...]fession of the Church of Rome (from whence we are to take the terms of Communion with it) from Idolatry, in all the three Points obiected by Dr. St. viz, The worshipping of Images, and the Adoration of the Host in the 19^th Chapter; and the Inuocation of Saints in the 16^th.

[Page 100] Of the first he saith, that to the Ima­ges of Saints there can be no Idolatry, so long as men take them for Saints, that is, Gods creatures; much lesse to the Images of our Lord, for it is the honour of our Lord and not of his Image. And although, saith he, the 2d Council of Nice acknowledges that the Image it self is ho [...]oured, by the honour giuen to that which it signifieth before the Image, yet it distinguisheth this honour from the honour of our Lord: and therefore teacheth not Idolatry, by teaching to honour Images, though it acknowledge that the Image it self is honoured, when it need not. Of the 2^d he affirmeth that the worship of the Host in the Papacy is not Idolatry, because those who worship the Host, do not belieue that the Ele­ments remain, but that our Lord Christ, the only true God is present there in a particular manner. For the 3d; though he seem more Scrupulous in that than the other two, because the same things he saith, are desired of the Saints, and in the same terms, in which they are desired of God, euen in the Holy Scripture, yet he acknowledges there is a Profession of that Church extant, which contradicts [Page 101] the proper sense of such prayers, and for­ces the Addressers of them, vnless they will contradict themselues, to expound them to signify no more, than obtaining that of God, which they are desired to grant of themselues. And this he implies to be sufficient to excuse them from Ido­latry, when he sayes, that were it not so, they could not be excused from it.

Again, if the Question be concerning the managing the Charge of Idolatry, supposing or granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church, as Dr. St. doth. Mr. Thorndik [...] expressly affirmeth in his 1. Chapter, that if the Pope be Antichrist, and the Papists Idol [...]ters the Church of Rome is no true Church; and if it be a true Church, that which it professeth, is not Idolatry, and therevpon giues this necessary caution to those who will proceed vpon that supposition, to prouide that they contradict not them­selues; which in his 2^d Chapter he saith they must doe, i. e. contradict themselues if they maintain it. 3^dly if the Question be of the Sense of the Church of Eng­land, Mr. Thorndike shews from the very fact of the Refo [...]mation, that i [...] was not the meaning of those who made the [Page 102] Change, to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, because that were to sup­pose it not to be a true Church, and the Church of England not to be the same Church with that which was: whereas the R [...]formation was not intended for the making a new Church, which was not before, but for the restoring a sick Church to its soundness, and a corrupted Church to it's Purity. Chapt. 1. and 3^d

4^thly if the Question be, on which side the crime of Schism lyes, he affirms in the same first Chapter, that they that separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters, are thereby Schismaticks be­fore God; and again, that in plain terms we make our selues Schismaticks, by grounding our Reformation vpon this pretence.

Lastly, he asserteth the Profession of one Visible Church, to oblige all to stand to those grounds and those terms, vpon which it is to be maintained (of which certainly with him the charge of Idola­try is none) and that he who takes the Pope for Antichrist, and the Papists for Idolaters, can neuer weigh by his own Weights, and mete by his own measures, till he hate Papists worse than [Page 103] I [...]ws or Mahumetans; ch. 2. These things being so, I hope you will absolue me from the Suspition of hauing aduan­ced any thing in this matter, but what Mr. Thorndike himself allows. The Reasons he brings for these Positions you may see your self at leasure in the Places I haue cited.

You haue sufficiently acquitted your self of the conceit I began to haue of you: and Dr. St. seems to haue ac­quitted himself also sufficiently, as to the respect due to the memory of so learned and Pious a Person (as himself acknowledges Mr. Thorndike to haue been) when he assures T. G. that if he could haue thought, what that Learned Def. p. 783. Man had said in this matter, to haue been agreable either to Scripture or Rea­son, or the sense of the Primitiue, or of the present Church of England, it might haue prevented his writing, by changing his Opinion; for he saith, he was no stranger to his writings or his arguments. By which you see, he came to them with a good will to be informed before he en­gaged in this cause and would not haue receded from his Opinion, could he haue adhered to it without violence to [Page 104] his Reason.

This I know is returned by Dr. St. in his late defence. p. 783. in answer to T. G. who vpon occasion of a discourse of Mr. Thorndike's, about the Sense of the 2^d Commandment, dia­metrically opposite to that which Dr. St. giues, had said, that he could not but look vpon it, as a kind of Prophetical Co [...]f [...]tation in the year 1662. of all whi [...]h the Dr. had produced in the yeare Cath. no Idol. p. 175. 1671. (when his Treatise of Roman Idolatry came forth) for the proof of h [...] charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the matter of Images. And how full of respect the Dr's answer is to the Memory of that excellent Person, your self will iudge, if you consider what an honour it is for Mr. Thorndike, for the world to hear it proclaimed from the mouth of Dr. St; that what he hath said in this matter is in his Judg­ment agreable neither to Scripture, nor Reason, nor the Sense of the Primitiue Church, nor of his own; and this after he had made himself no Stranger to his writings, or his Arguments. Do you not think that many will be apt to beleeue that there must be none of all [Page 105] these in [...]h [...]m, when such a Man as Dr. St. brought both wit and will to discouer them, but could not? But why did he not make it some part of his bu­siness to answer his A [...]guments, if he found them so void of Sense and Rea­son, at least those which T. G. vrged against him, and, because the Dr. left them vn-answered, said he must look vpon Mr. Thorndike's Book, as a Con­futation of his before it was written? Does not Mr. Thorndike himself in the 1. Chapter of his Just Weights and Mea­sures, speaking to those of Dr. St's Judgment, demand, if they can pre­tend so much charity to him, as to haue attempted the answering of his Reasons, and the rectifying of his mistakes? Or will they, saith he, shew me who hath answered them; and so, that they need not be troubled for me? And now, when Mr. Thorndike himself so charitably, and T. G so iustly called vpon Dr. St. to answer his arguments, was it enough for him to pass all this by with a deaf ear, and hauing professed himself no stranger to the writings, and arguments of that great Man, to tell vs with an Ipse dixit, that he could find neither [Page 106] Scripture nor Reason, nor the Sense of the Primitiue Church, nor of his own in what he had said in this mat [...]er? You may belieue as you please, but those of the Church of England haue a d [...]ffer [...]nt esteem for him, and for his writings. What if T. G. should answer Dr. St's defence in the same manner, and with the same words, would you take it for good payment? For my part I should be satisfied with neither, nor will your self be, I beleeue, for what concerns Mr. Thorndike, when you shall haue heard what T. G. alledged out of him, Pref. [...] Cath. no Idol. to show the crime of Schism to ly at their doors, who charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, and is left vn­touched by Dr. St. both in his General Preface, and late Defence. That this was Mr. Thorndike's Judgment as to the charge of Idolatry in general, is euident from what I haue cited aboue out of his First chapter; and for the worship of images in particular, in his 19^th Chapter he saith, It is manifest that the Church of God is tyed no farther than there can appear danger of Idola­try, which if it be so heightned, beyond appearance, as to involve the Church in [Page 107] the crime of it (i. e. Idolatry) chargeth the schism that may come by that meanes vpon them, that so inhanse it.

This is a thing which I haue often heard, and allwayes with wonder; nothing appearing to me so proper to iustify the Separation of the Church of England from that of Rome, as the charging that Church with Idolatry: for (as Dr. St. himself giues the reason Pref. to Rom. Id [...]l. in his Preface) whereas other things are subtle and nice, tedious and obscure, this lyes plain to the conscience of euery man: If the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry, our Separation can be no Schism, either before God or man, be­cause our Communion would be a Sin.

This wonder of yours proceeds from a mistake (as you heard before) that those who made the change in­tended a Separation; whereas Refor­mat [...]on is indeed, and allwaies was the thing intended. And for what you alledge from Dr. St. M. Thorndike confesses, this cause (i. e. Idolatry) Iust. vveight. ch. 1. would be more then sufficient to iustify se­paration, did it appear to be true: but then on the othe side, saith he, it charges the mischiefs of the Schism vpon those [Page 108] that proceed vpon it, before it be as euident as the mischief, are, which they run into vpon it. So that, should the Church of England declare that the Change, which we call Reformation is grounded vpon this supposition, I must then acknowledg saith he, that we are Schismaticks. For the cause not appear­ing to me (as hitherto it hath not, and I think will neuer be made to appear to me) the Separation, and the Mischiefs of it must be imputed to them that make the change. And therefore we (of the Church of England) in plain terms make our selues Schismaticks, by ground­ing our Reformation vpon this Pretence. This was returned by T. G. in his Pre­face, to Dr St. with this reflexion, that this Judgment of Mr. Thorndike, abetted by diuers of the most learned, and most Judicious Persons of the Church of England, will stand as a convincing Preiudice against him, and his charge, till he can make it as euident that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry, as the mischiefs are that haue ensued vpon it. And I can imagin no probable reason, why he should not haue endeavour'd at least, either in his General Preface, or [Page 109] in his Defence, to haue removed this Preiudice, but that he was so farr of Mr. Thorndike's mind in the matter, as to think it a task impossible to be per­formed. Otherwise surely he would not haue sate downe quietly with the Im­putation of so horrible a Sin, as Mr. Thorndike characters that of Schisin to be in the sight of God in his next Chap­ter, euen greater than that of Heresy Chap. 2. or Aposta [...]y. For an Heretick or an Apostate, saith he, in the sight of God destroys only [...] own soul. But he that causeth division in the Church, either peremptorily destroys, or probably hinders the Salvation of all who are parties to it. So the Authors of Schisin must answer for all the souls that perish by it. Add to this, the infinite Bloud. shed, the barba­rous Violences, the vncharitable slan­d [...]rs, the horrid perjuries, the vn­christian practices, the Antichristian doctrines, the hatred of our Fellow chri­stians worse than Iews and Ma­humetans, the reviling the first and grea­test of Patriarchs, (at least in Order and Dignity,) as the Man of sin; and rai­ling at that Church, which the Dr. him­self acknowledges to be a true Church, [Page 110] and to hold all the Essentials of Faith, as the Mistress of Idolatry, and the Whore of Babylon: besides the other mischi [...]f. and Miseries, which this division hath brought forth, part of which saith Dr. St. himself, if our ex­perience doth not tell vs of, yet our cons­ciences Iren. p. 62. may. Adde I say these things, which lye open to the eyes of men, to the hainousness of Schism in the sight of God, which, as Dr. Hammond tells us out of the Fathers, is as great if not greater than Sacriledg, Parricide or Ido­latry, not iustifyable by any pretence Of Schis. ch. 1. Sect. 6. 7. 8. whatsoeuer, nor expiable even by Mar­tyrdome it self, and you will see what reason there was, why Dr. St. should haue endeavourd at least the answering Mr. Thorndike's argument, least he might be thought by his silence to stand convicted of the consequence of it, (that is, the guilt of Schism) in his own Judg­ment.

These are terrible Bug­bears indeed to frighten vs from the Charge of Idolatry. But still our Plea is the same in order to the Church of England, With that of the Church of England to that of Rome; and whe­ther [Page 111] the charge be of Idolatry, as we will haue it, or only of Abuses and Su­perstitions as Mr. Thorndike calls them, the case of both is alike as to the Church of Rome: for both doe grant, that not those who separate, but those who cause the separation by imposing and requiring things vnlawful, as conditions of Communion, are Schismaticks before God; Only this aduantage they haue, who charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, that it lyes open to the Consci­ence of euery man, if that Church be guilty of it, our separation can be no Schism either before God or man, be­cause our Communion would be a sin, whereas other Pleas are subtle and Nice, tedious and obscure, as Dr St. saith.

But haue you proued the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry, or those things which the Church of En­gland requireth of you to be vnlawful, as euidently, as the Mischiefs are which haue Ensued vpon the Separation?

And haue you proued the things which the Church of England requireth, to be lawful; and the Abuses and Superstitions of the Church of Rome as Mr. Thornd. calls them, to be as eui­dently [Page 112] such, as the Mischiefs are which haue followed frō the imposing of them? The contest at the best stands yet sub Ju­dice as to both, and for what concerns the Church of Rome, those that Gouern that See (whom Mr. Thorndike esteems the Ch. 2 wisest people vpon earth) and all those, whom their wisdome carries along, deny what they require as terms of Communion with them, to be either abuses or Su­perstitions. And so T. G'^s. Argument, which you mentioned before, if it be good for any thing will haue equall force against the charge of Superstition, as of Idolatry, viz, that till the Accu­sation be made Good, and iudged so by some more competent Judge, than your selues, you stand arraigned of the Crime of Schism also for breaking Communion with the Church of Rome.

Forthat, we appeal, saith Dr. St. to the doctrine and Practice of the truly Catholick Church, in the matters Ansvv. 10 N. O. [...]. 180. of difference between us and the Church of Rome.

Very well: But then, you are bound I hope, as well as Dr. St. either to acknowledge the Roman to be that Church, and consequently to stand [Page 113] to her Judgement: or to assign some other Church distinct from the Roman, which Christ hath preserved free from those doctrines and Practices, which you call Abuses and Superstitions, unless you will be your own Judges. Which way you will take, I shall leaue to your conside­ration.

But for the Dr. me thinks you needed not to haue been so seuere vpon him, for not Answering Mr. Thorndike's Ar­guments; for although he thought it not fitting to combate him by name, whilst he was defending the cause of the Churc [...] of England, yet he hath Suffi­ciently proved his own Charge, both in his Treatise of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, and in his late Defence of it against the Cavils of T. G. first by shewing, that the Heathens were not iustly charged with Idolatry, if the Church of Rome be not guilty of it; and 2^dly that all worship of God by an Image is expressly forbidden vnder the notion of Idolatry in the 2^d Commandment. What need was there then of a particular answer?

This is a pretty kind of plausi­ble come off, but will not serve the turn, [Page 114] I know the word [sufficiently] confident­ly uttered can do wonders. The Oracles of General Councils are nothing to it, especially if added to a Text of Scri­pture though neuer so much wrested. But I am too well acquainted with it, to be imposed on by it. Nothing will be sufficient here, but what makes the Ido­latry of the Church of Rome, as Evi­dent as the mischiefs are, which haue ensued vpon the Separation; and your self I belieue will grant the first Proof from the practice of the Heathens not to be of that nature, when you shall haue considered, how expressly the Scri­pture taxes the Heathens of Polytheism and for worshipping their Idols as Gods; and the Obscurity and Contra­diction there is found in the manner of their worship even as it was explicated by the most learned of their Philosophers. I know very well that Dr St. in his defence strains all the Nerves of his wit, and the Texts, of many of those Fa­thers he cites to proue the Heathens supream God Jupiter, to be the Supream Being, Creator and Governour of the worl [...] ▪ by that means to dragg the wors­hip of the Heathens in to a Paral [...]l [Page 115] with that of the Church of Rome: but I neuer yet met with any man that be­lieued it was or is what he would haue it to be; and I haue that esteem for the deuotion of the Feminine Sex that did they belieue it, they would never be so Prophani, as to give the sacred name of Jupiter to their Dogs: But however that be (which we may haue occasion to Examin hereafter) t'is plain the Ar­gument can signify nothing to the pur­pose. For if the Heathens gaue not the same worship to their Images and In­feriour Deities which the Church of Rome doth to her Images and Saints, the Paralell is lost: And if they gaue the same which the Church of Rome allows, the manner of the Worship which he there insists vpon (howeuer they might be mistaken in the things or Persons) is excused from Idolatry by many Emin [...]nt diuines of the Church of England, as you heard before, and will neuer be proued by Dr. St. to be so. All then that such an Extrinsic Topick can do, is that it may serue to amuze the Ignorant but can neuer Satisfy a Judicious Reader.

As for the 2^d that God in the second [Page 116] Commandment hath expressly prohibi­ted the giuing any worship to himself by an Image, let vs first hear the Excep­tions which T G. layes against it, in p. 33. the 3^d Chapter of his Catholiks no Ido­laters, of which Dr St. takes not the least notice neither in his Defence.

‘What we are to consider in the first Cath. [...]o Idol. p. 33. place here, saith T. G. is what it is that Dr. St. will undertake to prove: and it is this; that God in the 2^d Command­ment hath expressly prohibited the gi­ving any worship to himself by an Ima­ge. This is what vpon Second thoughts (for the term expressly was not in his first Answer) he undertakes to prove: And I cannot but wonder, saith he, to see it drop now from his Pen, who on the other side asserts Scripture (doubt­lesse Express Scripture) to be his most certain Rule of Faith, and on the other side denies, (as hath been shewed aboue) any thing to be an Article of Faith which is not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self. What may the meaning of this be? If it be express­ly revealed in Scripture that God is not to be worshipped by an Image, it is an Article of Faith, If it be not acknow­ledged [Page 117] to be such by Rome it self, it is no Article of Faith but (as he calls it) an Inferiour Truth or Pious Opinion, yet such as neither himself, nor any man else according to his Principles ought to belieue there is a Iot of Truth in it. Here vpon he calls vpon the Dr. to speak out. Is it, or is it not an Article of Faith? If it be an Article of Faith, t'is false what he asserts so stiffly in his Rational Account p. 54. that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, but what are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self. If it be not an Article of Faith, t'is false what he affirms so positiuely here, that God hath expressly prohibited it in the 2^d Com­mandment. And which side soeuer he takes, tis manifest he contradicts himself. Here was Prouocation enough for Dr. St. to cleer himself. But T. G. pro­ceeds.’

‘Perhaps his meaning is, saith he, that what at one time is but an Inferiour Truth, must at another time be an Arti­cle of Faith, according as it may serue to the different ends and purposes he hath designed to himself. And here, if I mis­take not, saith T. G. lies the Knack, or [Page 118] (if you will giue it so venerable a name) the Mystery of the business. When the Hedge of the Church of England (viz, Suscription to her 39. Articles) must be broken down for the Good Brethren the Non-Conformists (pray pardon me, if I repeat his words) to enter in and ravage without scruple her Rights and Reuenues, so many of the said Articles, as are not owned by Rome it self, must pass for a company of Inferiour Truths, or Pious Opinions, not, to be assented to, but not to be opposed for Unitie's sake. But when the Church of Rome is to be charged with Idolatry (the Pre­tence, saith Mr. Thorndike, with which Ignorant Preachers driue their factions) then they are no more Infe­riour Truths, but Articles of Faith ex­pressly reuealed in Holy Scripture. Now would an Impartial Reader (to use Dr. Taylor's expression vpon another occasion) say vpon his Conscience, that this was not kindly done, to make vse of the Authority of the Church of Rome, to vnhallow so many of the 39. Articles, as are not owned by her, and cast them down into the class of Inferiour Truths, to stich vp the Rent [Page 119] made by the Non-Conformists from the Church of England: And then to consecrate them again so easily by ver­tue of that one Definitiue word [express­ly] into diuine Reuelations, against the Church of Rome, to make the Breach of the Church of England from her, yet wider. But what cannot an Ireni­cal complyance with one Party; and a Polemical Animosity, or (as Mr. Thorndike calls it Faction) against another doe? when the same Proposi­tion, as it respects the former shall be ranked only amongst Inferiour Truths, which none are obliged to assent to; and as it may serue to oppugn the lat­ter, shal be raised to an Article of Faith, which all are bound to belieue. Here then saith he, lyes the Mystery, that the same Proposition, viz that God is not to be worshiped by an Image, taken Irenically and in its Pacifick temper, is but an Inferiour Truth, because not owned to be an Article of Faith by the Church of Rome: but taken Pole­mically, and in its warlike Humour, it must be an Article of Faith, because expressly (as Dr. St. saith) revealed in scripture. Thus T. G.’

This is meer Scholastick Fooling indeed, and would you haue Dr. St. trouble himself with such stuff as this? What he would haue said, could he haue spoken to it, (for I confess the Point is nice in his circumstances) I shal not vndertake to Divine. T'is wisdome you know to be in vt [...]um (que) pa­ratus yet I was alwaies of Opinion, that if he would haue no Articles of Faith, but what are acknowledged for such by Rome it self; he ought to haue excepted tbis at least of not giving any wor [...]hip to God himself by an Image, this seeming to me so plainly and expressly deliuered in the 2^d Commandment, That if Scrip­ture be the Rule of our Faith, I see not how any point can be an Article of Faith, if this be not.

I see you are no Friend to School-distinctions; (though Dr. St. himself as you know is sometimes fain to make vse of them) and much lesse to the way of making men contradict themselues. But then it is necessary, especially for Controvertists to prouide they do not do it. T'is necessary as Mr. Thorndike sayes, that they vnderstand themselues, whether they admit the con­sequence [Page 121] of their own supposition, or not: which I think Dr. St. did not consider, when he advanced this Proposition, that God in the 2^d Commandment hath expressly prohibited the giuing any wor­ship to himself by an Image. For (as T. G. discourses vpon it) It were well he Cath [...]. no. Idol. p. 36. would tell vs first, what he vnderstands by the term [Expressly.] ‘For if he call Li de Vnit. Eccl. c. 19. that (for example) an express Text, which of it self is absolutely cleer and manifest, and therefore as St. Austin saith, Non eget Interpre [...]e, needs no Interpreter, Mr. Thorndike (and those other learned men of the Church of England who see no better than He) haue reason to lament the loss of their Eye-sight. But if he mean no more, but that it is cleer and manifest to himself, they may hope they see as well as their Neighbours, though they see the quite contrary; vnless they will suffer them­selues to be wrought vpon by his stout asserting it to be cleer and manifest as the Travellers were by Polus, (in Eras­mus his Exorcismus) when pretending that he saw a huge Dragon with fiery horns in the sky, by auouching it strong­ly, and pointing expressly to the Place, [Page 122] he forced them (out of shame not to see so conspicuous a thing) to confess, that they saw it also. Now that it is not absolutely cleer and manifest of it self, the pains and ways he takes to find it out sufficiently evince, And whether it be cleer and manifest euen to himself, we haue cause to doubt; because the Proposition in debate, viz, That God hath prohibited the giving any wor­ship to himself by an Image, not being acknowledged by the Church of Rome for an Article of Faith, the Church of England, according to himself, obliges no man to assent to it, but only not to oppose it; and yet on the other side Euery man is bound to assent to that, which he sees to be clear and manifest. Such frequent self-contradictions, saith T. G. are the natural consequences of a discourse not grounded vpon Truth.’

This is iust what Dr. St. saith of I. W: that he makes him pile Con­tradictions vpon Contradictions, as Def. p. 785. Children do cards one vpon another, and then he comes and cunningly steals away one of the Supporters, and down all the rest fall in great disorder and confusion.

This is pleasantly enough said, and may serue to entertain drollish wit, though I understand not well what he means by his Aduersary's Stealing aw [...]y one of the Supporters. If this piling of contradictions be like that of Cards, me thinks it should be Dr. St's. part to steal away one of the supporters, that the Falrick may fall to the ground; for whilst both stand the Contradiction will remain. But this cannot be done with­out renouncing one of his Principles, viz, either that he makes no Articles of Faith but what are acknowledged f [...]r such by Rome it self, or that it is expressly revealed in Scripture (the Rule of Faith) that God is not to be worshipped by an Image. Otherwise it is not the puff of a Iest that will blow down the building. And therefore T. G. adds, that although the Reader may think, (as I perceiue you do) he takes a delight to discover such frequent Contradictions in his Ad­versary, yet I can assure him, saith he, t'it a much greater Grief to me, to see so subtil a wit so often intangled in them. The fault is in the Cause, (I suppose he means the charge of Idolatry) which cannot be managed without falling [Page 124] into them. But as St Austin saith. Quis coegit eos malam causam habere; Who compelled him and his Partizans to en­gage themselues in a bad Cause? No­thing of Faith, if that be true, which he ells us in his Rational Account. Nothing ^tf Reason, as will be shewed in the exa­mination of his Proofs. Now if after all this, you still persist in the same mind you were of, that the prohibition of giving any worship to God himself by an Image, is so cleerly and expressly de­livered in tho 2^d Commandment, that if Scripture be the Rule of Faith, no­thing can be an Rule of Faith, if that be not; let me desire you to consider farther what T. G. hath reply'd in par­ticular, to Dr. Sts first way of finding out the Sense of the Law, viz, from the Terms in which the Law is expressod. Gathar. no Idol. p. 38. Exod 20. 4. Thou shalt not make vnto thee any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing &c. Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them, nor serve them. ‘These are the Terms, in which the Law is expressed according to the Transla­tion used in the Church of England: and [...]here, I pray, saith T. G. is it ex­pressed here that we may not giue any [Page 125] worship to God himself by an Image? The first part touches not the worship of Images, or of God himself by them, but only the making them, and giues matter to Divines to dispute, whether it be forbidden by this Commandment to make any Image or any likeness at all; a thing in which Protestants are con­cerned, as well as Catholicks. The second forbids indeed in express terms to bow our selues down to the Images them­selues (as the Heathens did) but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or vn­law [...]ulness of worshipping God himself by them. So that if to treat a matter expressly, be not the same in other words, as not to speak of it at all, it is manifest, that to worship God himself before or by an Image, is not expressly prohibited by this Commandment This T. G. desires his Protestant Rea­der (he should haue said Puritan) to consider well, and not suffer Puritan) to be deluded wish the sound of words. Is it all, one, saith he to bow our selues down to the Images themselues without any Relation to God, and to worship God himself by bowing before an Ima­ge? The difference is too palpable not [Page 126] to be seen by any one who hath not the natural Conceptions of his mind cor­rupted by an ouer eager desire to pursue at any rate so vniust and vncharitable a charge, as that of Idolatry. The Iews we know gaue worship to God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubins, and yet they did not wor­ship them instead of God: And if Dr. St. will needs contend, that this was a par­ticular dispensation to the Iews, that they might lawfully bow down to or before the Ark and Cherubins to give worship to God, he must acknowledg the Precept (if it were so) as to that part, viz, of not worshipping God by bowing before an Image, not to haue been Natural, for then God had dis­pensed with them to commit Real Ido­latry; but Ceremonial only, and so not to oblige Christians, vnless he wil en­gage them also in the observance of all the Ceremonial part of the Law of Moses. Taking then the Terms of the Law, and that in the most favourable Translation to the Dr's Cause, tis euident that to worship God himself by an Image is not expressly prohibited in it.’ And the Euidence of this is so great, [Page 127] that although Dr. St. in his late D [...]f [...]nce spend aboue a 100. Pages about the Sense of the Second Commandment, yet he neither endeavours to remove the Contradictions,, nor answer the Argu­ments of T. G. His whole business there is to Criticize vpon the Exceptions which T. G. had made to the several Methods he proposed for the finding out, the Sense of the Law. A very pleasant diversion if you consider it well. I pro­posed, P. 720. saith he, several Methods for the finding out the Sense of the Law. The first whereof was from the Ge­neral terms in which the Law was Ex­pressed (viz the terms, Image, and Simi­litude.) And that we might be sure to take notice of it he gives us the same Item when he comes to the Second: The second way, saith he, I proposed to find P. 73 [...]. out the sense of the Commandment was from the Reason of it. And so when he comes to the Third. The last way, P. 747. I proposed to find out the sense of the Law, was from the Judgment of the Law-giver in the Case of the Golden Calf. And who can chuse but wonder to see so many ways and Methods pur­sued, so much pains and labour spent [Page 120] (not to say lost) to seek out what was Express in the Text and plain to be seen without more ado? What need such beating the Hedges and Bushes to find out the Game, if it show it self fairly in the Open Feild? Hunters sometimes will pass by a Hare in the Form, and let the [...]ounds loose to find her out by the Sent. But these are such as hunt more for their Pleasure and Exercise, than for the Game.

And why may not Dr. St. course it somerimes in like manner in Controversy. T'is mean and clownish to knock the Point presently on the head, where as she pursuing new ways and Methods to find it out affords great matter both of pleasure and Exercise of Wit.

But whilst the Dr. hunts thus for his pleasure, may he not be in danger to lose the Prey?

No fear at all of that. The very Charge of Idolatry secures it to him: For (as my good Friend, Patronus bo­nae Spec. p. 44. Fidei observes) The Puritans (who ground themselues upon that charge) do not so easily become Papists, as those of the Church of England who take [Page 129] other ways; whose consanguinity (as he calls it) in life and discipline with the Pa­pists carries them ouer to them upon the least impulse, as might be insta [...]'d in many, whose names you may find in a litle Book called Legenda lignea: Whereas on the contrary, the l [...]f [...], the doctrine and discipline of th [...] P [...]ritans, as approaehing nearer to the Apostolick, make them more averse and [...] against the Papists, and very hardly or never to pass over to them.

This is a notable Observation indeed, and perhaps may hold better, for the [...]anaticks or the Turks, than the Puritans. But Mr. Thorndike had a different esteem of the matter, when weighing in his Ju [...]t Weight ch. 2. what we get [...] the Cha [...]ge of Idolatry and Antichrist, he app [...]als to the Judg­ment of men of discretion, Wh [...]ther This be not the rea [...]on of that which wise men haue observed, that the passage from the one Extream to the other is more easy and frequent among us, than from the mean to the Extream. For when a No­vice, saith he, grounded upon this Sup­position is forced from his Ground upon Remonstrance of such Reasons (as may [Page 130] be and are produced against it) how rea­dy is He to fall into the Snare of the Missionaries. And there upon it is, that he advises them not to lead the People by the Nose; to belieue, they can proue their Supposition, when They cannot; and then expect that it be maintained by Those that own the Church of Rome for a true Church, ond therefore must con­tradict themselues, if they maintain it. What Dr. St. should haue done was to remove the Contradictions, objected to him, and answer the Arguments of T. G. and not go a coursing for his pleasure with new ways and Methods to find out that which himself affirms to be so cleer­ly Expressed in the Second Command­ment, that it cannot enter into his mind, how God should haue forbidden it by more express and Emphatical words, Rom. Idel p. [...]8. than he hath done. But of this I may haue occasion to speak again here after. Let us now, if you please, adjourn till another time.

THE FIFTH DIALOGVE.

Hitherto Catharinus I haue entertained you with some remar­kable [Page 132] Omissions of Dr. St. to the Ex­ceptions made by T. G. to his Charge of Idolatry; and although perhaps you will not esteem them so muc [...] as Venial sins, and much less his Silence to be a yeilding of the Caus [...]; yet some of them are of that Importanc [...] that the whole weight of the matter in debatelies vpon them. As for the faults of Commission, where He thought fit to break Silence, and speak to his Adversary's Arguments, some of them also may chance to come in our way before we end: At present I shall only giue you one for a Tast, by which you may iudge, not only what Candour, and S [...]n [...]rity, but what skill also in Church-affairs you are to expect in the rest. It is that of the Subversion of Ecclesiasticall Authority in the Church of England which T. G. con­tends to follow from the Charge of Ido­latry against the Church of Rome.

This is what I haue long ex­pected, and would gladly see. And surely, it must be no less, than another Thunder-shower with a terrible crack, it has made such a rumbling in the ayr P. 273. before it breaks.

Whateuer it be, you shall [Page 133] haue it in T. Gs. own words at the end of his Pr [...]f [...]ce to Catholicks no Idola­ters, where hauing laid down this for his Position, that the Charge of Idola­try subverts the very foundation of Ec­clesiastical Authority in the Church of England, he proues it with this reason; because it being a receiued Maxime, and not deniable by any one of Common Sense, that no man can giue to another, that which he hath not himself, it lies open to the Conscience of Euery man, that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy. much more if guilty of Idolat [...]y, it falls vnder the Apostle's Excommunication (Gal 1. 8) and so remains deprived of the lawful Authority to vse and exercise the power of Orders, and consequently the Authority of Gouerning, Preaching, and Administring Sacraments, which those of the Church of England chal­lenge to themselues, as deriued from the Church of Rome, can be no true and lawful Jurifdiction, but vsurped and Antichristian. This you see bids very 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; [Page 134] because Excommunicated Persons, such as Idolaters are, being depriued of law­full Authority themselues, can giue none to others; and if those others take any vpon them, it must be vsurped and vnlawful; no man can giue to ano­ther what he hath not in himself: and vpon this Principle it is, that the Earl of Clarendon in his late Excellent Sur­vey of Leviathan p. 40. 41. affirms, that this sole Proposition, that men cannot dispose of their own liues, hath been alwaies held as a manifest and vndenia­ble Argument, that Soveraigns neuer had, nor can haue their power from the People; because it is without doubt, that no man is Dominus vitae suae and there­fore cannot giue that to another, which he hath not in himself▪ And the Maxime holds no less in Spiritual than in Temporal Jurisdiction.

But then again, if we consider the time, when Dr. St. aduanced this charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, that is, after he had by a new Impression tendred his Irenicum in the year 1662. to Consideration. Viz, after that Episcopacy was resetled in the Church of England, we shall find the [Page 135] Argument press much more home, For, maintaining as he does in that Book, that no particular Form of Church-Go­vernment is de Jure Divino but mutable as the secular Magistrate, with the aduice of learned and Experienced Per­sons, shall see convenient for State and Church; and particularly that the main ground for setling Episcopal Govern­ment in this Nation, was not any pre­tence of Divine Right, but Conveniency to the State and Condition of the Church at tbe time of it's Reformation, citing for it the Testimony of Arch Bp. Cranmer and others; This saith T. G. seems but too apparently to be a clinching of the Nail which he had driuen before to the head. For, if the Form of Church Government be mutable, as the Secular Power wel-advised shall see Reason, what greater Reason can there be, saith he, for the actual changing of Episcopacy, than the Nullity of it's Jurisdiction? And therefore wonders, how the Governours of tbe Church of England could see their Authority so closely attacqued (at least so manifestly betrayed) by their pre­tended Champion, and not vindicate themselues and their Jurisdiction from [Page 136] the foul stain of Antichristian, which necessarily follows, if the Church of Rome, as he pretends, be guilty of Ido­latry, and they derive together with their Consecration, their Episcopal Juris­diction from it.

This is a terrible Bl [...]w indeed, as Dr. St. calls it in his General Preface, and had he not sufficiently warded it off, others perhaps might haue been sollici­tous for it. But I still hope with my good Friend Patronus bonae fidei, that what Defens. verit. p. 1 [...]. things were formerly said by Dr. St. in a lower fortune and station, concerning the Irregular and Exorbitant Power of the English Episcopacy (of which there is no appearance in the Primitive Church) viz that one Pastor should be over many fix'd Congregations of Christians; as also concerning the discipline of the Pres­byterians, more neerly approaching to the Apostolick Form, than that of the Hierarchicks, and more fitly agreing with the light of Nature; my hope is, I say, that now he sits high among the Hierarchicks, and is in the way to rise higher, He will not retract and cōdemn his former Assertions, making his Opinion turn and vere about with the wind of honour.

I told you before, I shall not concern my self in the M [...]tives of the change. They better become (or [...]f you will, come better from) your Friend, the Patron bonae sidei, as you call him. But how farr the Dr. St. hath proceeded in changing his Opinions (if they were as you say) your self will iudge when you shall hear what he saith in the first Part of his Answer to N. O.

First concerning Episcopacy. We defend, saith he, the Government of the p. 181. Church by Bishops to be the most ancient and Apostolical Government, and that no Person can haue sufficient reason to cast that off, which hath been so vni­uersally received in all Ages since the Apostle's times.

2^dly Concerning the Authority of ma­king Rules and Canons about matters of Order and Decency in the Church, I freely grant saith he, not only that such p. 26 [...]. an Authority is in its self reasonable and Iust; but that in such matters requi [...]ed by a lawful Authority, (such as tha [...] of our Church is) there is an advantage on the side of Authority, against a Scru­pulous Conscience, which ought t [...] ouer­rule the practice of such who are the [Page 138] members of that Church.

3^dly Concerning the Authority of proposing even matters of Faith, and p. 269. directing men in Religion, which he saith, is the proper Authority of Teachers, and Guides, and Instructers of others, he affirmeth that those who are duely ap­pointed for this work, and ordained by those whose Office is to ordain, viz, the Bishops, haue an Authority to declare what the mind and will of God is, con­tained in Scripture in order to the Sal­vation and edification of the souls of Men.

4^thly Concerning Subscription, he acknowledgeth that the Synod or Con­uocation in the present circumstances hath the power and Authority within it self to declare what Errours and Abuses are crept into Religion and Doctrine, Which they iudg fit to reform, and to require a consent to such Propositions as are agreed vpon for that end, of those who are to enioy the Publick Offices of teach­ing and instructing others, and not to allow any Persons to preach and Offi­ciate in the Church, in a way contrary to the design of such a Reformation Which I take to be the same with what [Page 139] the Author of the Reply to the Naked Truth, pag. 6. asserteth, when he saith, that the Church is so iust to her self as to exact for the security of her own peace, that all whom she trusts with teaching others, or whom she recommends to the world with Vniversity-Degrees shall subscribe to the 39. Articles, as their own Opinions, and what they belieue as convinced in their [...]wn Judgments that they are true, what do you think of this, Catharinus? Is this a Retractation or no?

I think there is a great deal of difference between changing Opinion, and changing the Person. That Dr. St. speaks there in the Person of the Church of England to stop the mouth of an Im­portune Adversary (N. O.) who would haue no Authority left in the Guides of the Church, if I [...]fallible direction were taken from them; is manifest from the Design of his discourse. But nothing I suppose of a Retractation, because I neuer heard he made any Recantation-Sermon, for what he had writen either in his Irenicum, or Rational Account, or other writings; or any other publick Profession of retracting or condemning his former Opinions. Nay do you not [Page 140] see, how careful he is not to be thought to retract, when hauing giuen Authori­ty to the Synod to require a consent to the Propositions agreed vpon; he present­ly takes it away again, by telling vs, that Persons may not be allowed to preach and Officiate in the Church in a way con­trary to the design of the Reformation? Which I take to be the same with his former Assertion, that what is required of them is no more than not to oppose or contradict them.

This kind of dealing is I assure you an Argument to me, that the Reasons for these new Assertions did not appear Satisfactory to him, because I belieue what he protests concerning his charge of Idolatry at the end of his defence p. 877. viz that if the subtilties of T. G. could haue satisfied him or any other Argument he had met with, he would as f [...]eely haue retracted his Charge of Idolatry, as he euer made it; to be altogether as true here; that is, had he met with any Arguments which could haue satisfied him of the Erroneousness of his former Opinions, he would as willingly have retracted th [...]m as euer he advanc'd them. The distinction you [Page 141] make of changing the Person, not the Opinion, is very subtil: But he hath Cunning Sophisters, as you know, to deal with; and if it pass not for a Retracta­tion, they will be ready to say that he contradicts himself; and so raise vp a new Pile or rather Pyramid of Con­tradictions, for him to pluck down.

I hate this piling of Contra­dictions with all my heart. And there­fore pray return to the Terrible Blow.

I shall. And it is if you remem­ber that if the first Ordainers of the English Bishops were Idolaters, they were depriued themselues of lawful Au­thority to ordain, because they fell vnder the Apostles Excommunication, and so could giue none to those whom they or­dained? What can be said to this?

This it is, as Dr. St. Saith, to charge home, and so Farewel to the Church of England, if the Church of Rome were not more kind in this case, than T. G. is. Hitherto we haue seen his Skil in the affairs of our Church, and now saith the Dr. we shall see iust as much in the Doctrine of his own. For doth not the Council of Trent make Or­ders a Sacrament? And one of those [Page 142] which do imprint an indelible Charac­ter? And doth not that Council pro­nounce an Anathema against those that denied the validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin, in case he obserues the Essentials of it. How then can T. G. escape Excommunica­tion from his own Church, who denies the validity of the Sacrament of Orders, in case of the sin of the Giuers of it? And then after this he proceeds to proue his Assertion for no less than 16. Pages to­gether, viz. that a Bishop who is in mortal sin, or an Heretick, may validly ordain a Bishop or a Priest, with a cloud of Testimonies both out of the Ancient Fathers, and Modern Doctors of the Church of Rome as Vasquez, Estius, Aquinas, Bonaventure, &c. as also from the Practice both of the Ancient and Modern Church, in this case. Doe you not think the B [...]ew sufficiently warded off, and deseruedly retorted vpon the head of T. G.

This indeed may be called an Ans­wer with a Witness. But what if the Wit­nesses speak not at all to the case in deba­te, or if they do, it is for T. G. Does T. G. any where denie the Validity of the Sa­crament [Page 143] of Orders in case of the Sin of the Giuers of it? Consider the argument again▪ and you will not find so much as one word that sounds to that purpose. The Consequence T. G. draws from Dr. Sts charge of Idolatry, was not to dis­prove the Validity of the Ordination of the Protestant Bishops, but the law­fulness of their Authority to vse and exe [...]cise the power of Orders, which he did by showing, that the Ordainers hauing lost the lawful exercise of their Orders by falling into Idolatry, (though we should suppose the Protestant Bis­hops, to haue been validly ordained by them,) yet could they not receiue any lawful Authority or Jurisdiction from them; it being an vndeniable Maxime, that nothing can giue to another what it hath not it self. Now that a Man may truely and validly haue the Order of a Bishop or Priest conferr'd vpon him, and yet not haue lawful Authority to exercise what belongs to that Order, is out of question, from the acknowledg­ment and practice both of the Church of Rome and that of England, which for certain crimes, as Heresy, Murder, Apostasy, and the like, suspend and [Page 144] Excommunicate the Offenders. And it is agreed on both sides, that Persons so suspended and Excommunicated can­not lawfully exercise the Functions belonging to those Orders. Hence it is, that a Minister Silenc'd and Suspended by his Bishop, though he retain the character of his Order, that is, remain still a Minister, yet cannot he lawfully preach or administer the Sacraments. The same is also of a Bishop, if he be suspended or Excommunicated for here­sy or the like, he cannot lawfully con­fer Orders, nor giue that Jurisdic­tion to another, of which he is depriued himself. And in case he should, the Person so receiving them, would in that case remain suspended as well as the Bishop. This then is what T. G. in­sisted vpon, that the First Ordainers, who were of the Roman Communion, hauing lost by the supposed crime of Idolatry, the lawful Authority of exercising their Orders, could not com­municat▪ any such Authority to those whom they Ordained; and consequent­ly there could be no such Authority in the Pr [...]testant Bishops, if the Church of Rome, as Dr. St. pretends, were [Page 145] guilty of Idolatry, and they derive toge­ther with their Consecration their Epis­copal Jurisdiction from it.

I consess, you haue giuen me a new prospect of T. G's. drift and meaning in this Argument, which I neuer discern'd till new, nor do I belieue Dr. St. took it so. Otherwise, (I haue that esteem for his Sincerity) he would not hauespent so much pains, and so many Pages to proue what was quite beside the intent of his Adversary, and neuer denied by him, viz that the Sacrament of Orders is validly conferred, though the Person conferring chance to be in mortal sin, or Excommunicated.

Be it as you belieue; yet Dr. St I think had litle reason to charge T. G. with Ignorance in Church affairs, when himself mistook so grossly in them, as to vnderstand his Adversary to speak of the Invalidity of Orders in case of the sin of the Giuers, when his whole discourse tended only to show the want of due Authority to exercise them, in case the Ordainers had none to giue t [...]em. But I fear there is but too much reason to belieue that Dr St. vnderstood all this well enough: and my Grounds [Page 146] are these. 1^st because there is nothing more visible (nor more complain'd of by those of your Party) in the practice of the C [...]urch of England, than the Silencing and suspending factious Prea [...]h­ers from the Office of Preaching: and Dr. St. himself supposes it iust and law­full, when he saith as you heard before, that Persons are not to be allowed to preach and Officiate in the Ch [...]rch, in a way cont [...]ary to the design of the Refor­mation. They must then be Silenced and Suspended from the Exercise of their Function; but are not thereby depriued of the Order of their Ministery, as might be instanced in many cases both A [...]cient and Mo [...]ern, wel known to Dr. St. in which the Persons were Restored to the exercise of their Order, (whether Episcopal or Minister [...]al) not by a new Ordination, but by taking off the Suspension 2^dly. Because himself could not but take no [...]ice of the Distinc­tion between O [...]din [...]tio and Jurisdictior, laid down by some of the Roman Doctors cited by himself, as E [...]tius and Bonaventure. Th [...] former of which, saith he, affi [...]meth, that no Crime or General [...]face, Censure how heauy soeuer, can hinder [Page 147] the validity of Ordination by a Bis­hop, although it be of those who are not Subiect to his Jurisdiction, in case he observe the Essentials of the Sacrament; and that we might not doubt but he took good notice of what he said, he puts in a distinct character, that it was for this reason. Because Ordina­tion saith Estius belongs to the Power of Order, which being once received can neuer be lost, but those things which be­long [...]o Jurisdiction, as Absolution and Excommunication, haue no Effect where that Jurisdiction is taken away. And the l [...]t [...]er viz, B [...]naventure saith, that in the matter of Ordination, the Power of Orders can [...]o more be taken way, than the Character it self; but whateuer is founded vpon Jurisdiction, as the Power of Excommuni [...]ation and Ab [...]olution, may be taken away. Do you st [...]ll belieue, that Dr St. had not gro [...]nd enough to make him consider, whether his Ad­versary spoke of Ordination or Jurisdic­tio [...]? That which follows will put the matter quite out of doubt; Because 3.^dly. T. G. exp [...]e [...]sly declares himself all along to speak, of the lawfull Au­thority to vse and exercise the Power of [Page 148] Orders, and in his last words cleerly distinguishes Jurisdiction from Consecra­tion when he saith. If the B [...]hops toge­ther with th [...]ir C [...]ns [...]cration, deriue their Episcopal Juris [...]iction f [...]om the Church of Rome. By which it is plain to any one of Common sense, that his Int [...]ntion in that place, was not to attacque the Consecrat [...]on of the Engil [...]h B [...]hops, but rather supposing that in the present case, (as not to his purpose,) to shew from Dr. Sts. charge of Idolatry vpon their first Ordainers, their want of lawf [...]l Iuris­diction. What then can be said here, but that Dr. St. could not but [...] the mean­ing and force of T. Gs. Argument; but not being able to ward off the blow, resolued to cast a blind before his Rea­ders eyes, by impugning T. G as if he had denied the validity of Ordination in case [...]f he sin of the Giuers of it, And to make the m [...]st the darker he heaps a whole Shower of reproaches upon him, as the veryest Ignoramus, that euer set pen to paper. Hi [...]he [...]to, saith he, we haue seen his skill in the affairs of our Church, and now wee shal see iust as much in the doctrine of his o [...]n. How can be escape Excommunication f [...]om his own Church, who denies the validity [Page 149] of the Sacrament of Orders in case of the sin of the Giuers of it? Methinks if he had f [...]rgotten the doctrine of the Council of Trent, he might haue looked into some one or other of their own Au­thors, to haue informed himself be [...]ter of their doctrine in this matter. By this we may indge of the lear [...]ing and skill of T. G. in the doctrine of his own Church. But if he would not look into the Controuersial writers of their Church, yet if he had b [...]t [...]earched into the prac­tice of the Church, either in Ancient or Modern times, he would haue been A­shamed to haue made vse of such an Argu­ment to overthr [...]w all Ecclesiastical Au­thority among vs. What do you think of this, Catharinus? do you not belieue the Dr. was put hard to it to keep his Countenance for 16. Pages together; but that he must laugh at least through his fingers to see what a fourb he had put vpon his Readers. First by imposing falsly vpon T. G. that he denied the va­lidity of Ordination in case of the sin of the Giuers of it, and then treating him like a Dolt, and most triumphantly telling him, he might haue been A­shamed to make vse of such an Argument? [Page 150] Is this it he means, when he so piously protests, that he loues not to repre [...]ent others worse than they are? He may, if he can, Sit down with that contentment which he proposes to himself as his last resort, that he h [...]s defended a Righteous Ep. D [...] ­dic. to his De­fence. cause, and with an honest mind. But if he can do it upon no better an account, himself is like to reap but litle comfort from it; and the Church of England will I fear soon haue cause enough to be ashamed of such a Champion. For my part, I shall neuer iudge worse hereafter of any Aduersary, for being reproached by Dr. St. but s [...]sp [...]ct his own want of Ingenuity, or of an Answer, rather than his Adversary's deficiency either in Wit or Learning. And to tell you my Ap­prehensions, I begin already to questio [...], whether T. G. euer asserted, the Heathens to be Idolaters only for giuing diuine honour to the Diuel: and much less whe­ther the Apostles and Fath [...]rs euer preach­ed to the world, that the Heathen's I [...]piter was the only true G [...]d. The no­ble P [...]neg [...]rick he makes of that King of Gods and Men in the first Chapter of his Defence, out of the Poets, Ora­tors, Philosophers and Fathers, hath [Page 151] but litle Influence vpon me row (though before it had a great deal) to make me alter my Creed, and say, I belieue in one God Jupiter, the Father Almighty, maker of H [...]auen and Earth, &c,

You are too seuere Eunomius, in your censure; for although Dr. St. could not be ignorant, that a man may haue the [...]wer of Orders and yet not haue lawful Authority to vse them, yet it being the Common Objection of those of the Church of R [...]me, that the Bish­ops of England neuer had any valid Ordination, he might not reflect vpon the Nic [...]ty of the dist [...]nction, but sup­pose his Adversary proceeded in the same strain with his felloows.

An excellent defence indeed for a writer of Controversy. But what if Dr. St haue been publickly reproued for this mistake, (as you wil haue it;) as he is by E. W. (Mr Edward Worstl [...]y) in his Treatise of the Infallibility of the Roman-Catholick Church, printed at Antwerp 1674. and yet after that, shall take no not [...]ce of it, but go on, as he does in his late Defence, to confirm his former Answer with n [...]w Proofs and Testimonies, that Bishops ordain'd by [Page 152] Idolaters, were esteemed validly ordai­ned; and not speak one word in Answer to what was objected by T. G. viz that the English Bishps must want lawful A [...]thority to exercise the Power of Or­ders, if their first Ordainers were Ido­laters?

To this I know not well what can be replied; vnless perhaps it may be said, that the B [...]ok you speak of neuer came to Dr. Stills kn [...]wledg. You know how difficult a thing it is to import Books, especially of that nature printed beyond sea, into England, and how much more Dangerous to disperse them.

How euer, it cannot be doubted, but one of them came to Dr. St's. hands, before he published his late defence, for p. 785. he cites the said Treatise, setting down the very year when it was printed and calls the Author, in his En­comiastick way of speaking. That migh­ty man at Ecclesiastical Fencing E. W.

I remember now who you mean, The renowned Champion, as the Dr. goes on, of our Lady of Loreto, and the miraculous Translation of her Chappel; of whom, he saith, he must [Page 153] haue litle care of himself, if he euer more come near the Clutches of such a Giant, who seems to write with a Beetle instead of a Pen; and therefore resolues to let him lye quietly in his shades, and snore on to dooms-day for him, vnless he see further rea [...]on of disturbing his repose, than at present he does.

This is indeed the Character, which Dr. St. is pleas'd to giue of that Person, whom I haue heard much esteem'd for his Learning. And al­though he meant it for an Irony, yet it expresses wel the nature of the Blows, which E. W. giues; and the Dr's Re­solution thereupon, never more to disturb his repose: there being as litle fencing I suppose against a Beetle, as a Flail. And I pray see how close the Dr. has stuck to this Resolution, in the passage we are now vpon concerning T. G.

‘I cannot but reflect, saith E. W. (p. 87. of the fore-mentioned Treatise) vpon another intolerable mistake of Dr St. that whereas T. G. had said in his Preface, that, it is a known Maxim, that none can giue to another that which he hath not himself; and there­fore if the Church of Rome be guilty of [Page 154] Heresy, much more of Idolatry, it fall [...] vnder the Apostles Excommunication, and so remains depriued of lawfull Authority (mark the words, saith he,) to vse and excercise the power of Orders, and consequently the Autho­rity of Gouerning, preaching, and ad­ministring Sacraments, which those of the Church of England challenge to themselues, as deriued from the Church of Rome, can be no true and lawful Jurisdiction but vsurped and Antichris­tian. The plain and ob [...]ions sense of which words saith he, is that He who hath no Jurisdiction, but is depriued of it by the Church's Censures, cannot giue it to anot [...]er. Neither can He that hath no lawful Authority to ordain, lawfully ordain any, or giue Authority lawfully to ordain others. Now comes Dr. St. in his General Preface to ward off this blow, but never man did it less dexterously, and we must wholly attri­bute it to his litle Skil in fencing He tells vs that the Council of Trent pro­nounces Anathema a [...]ainst those that deny the validity (observe here also, sai [...]h he the word Validity) of the Sa­crament administred by one in mor­tal sin, in case he observes the Essentials [Page 155] of it; and in this gross errour he runs on for 9. or 10. Pages, (he might have said almost as many leaves) citing Au­thor after Author to prove that the Sacrament of Order is validly given by one in mortal sin or Excommunicated. But what is all this, Saith E. W. to T. Gs. most true Assertion? that none guil­ty of Idolatry, or Heresy can give Ju­risdiction to any of the Church of Eng­land (which they must have from Ca­tholick Bishops, or wholly want it,) or impower them to ordain others law­fully, when they are deprived them selves, of all lawful Authority to use or exercise the power of Orders? Hence you se [...], saith he, Dr. Sts. blindness, who argues from the validity of giving Or­ders, to the lawful giving them, &c.’ Thus E. W. And such a publick rebuke one would think, had been sufficient to make Dr. St. open his Eyes, and consi­der what it was that his Adversary ob­jected; if he intended ever more to speak to this Argument. But as if he were wholly insensible of the gross and intolerable errour E. W. taxed him with, (whether stun'd with the blow of the Beetle, or not hauing any thing else to [Page 156] answer, he runs again into the same shameful mistake, and instead of defend­ing that the first Bishops of the Church of England receiued lawful Authority to vse and exercise the Power of O [...]ders which T. G. denied they could, in case their Ordainers were guilty of Idolatry, he falls vpon him afresh in his late de­fence, as if he demed the validity of Orders giuen by a Bishop in case of Idola­try. And that his Reader may see, he was resolued notwithstanding the Rebukes of E. W. to goe on in the same track still, he tells him pag. 795. that hauing formerly showed, in his General Preface, that no Act of Ordination is invalid in case of any Heresy or crime of the Giuer, and that the contrary Doctrine is con­demned for Heresy by the Church, he shall now particularly shew, that the Power of giuing Orders is not taken away by the guilt of Idolatry; which he there proceeds to proue from the case of the▪ Arian Bishops; And if I can make it appear saith he, that the Arian Ordina­tions were allowed, I shall put this matter beyond dispute, that the Charge of Idolatry doth not null the Ordinations of our Church, as being derived from [Page 157] tho [...]e who were guilty of Idolatry. Thus Dr. St. after he had been publickly told of his mistake. And what is this but to tell vs, that howeuer E. W. and T. G, vrge him, the o [...]e with a Pen, the [...]ther with a B [...]etle to shew how the sirst Pro­testant Bishops could haue any lawf [...]l Jurisdiction or Authority to exercise the p [...]we [...] of Orders, in case heir Ordai­ners were guilty of Idolat [...]y, he is re­solued neuertheless to take no notice at all of that (which was the onely thing in disput [...]) but will fight on stil couragiously against a Shad [...]w of his own making, and put it beyond dispute, that the Act it se [...]f of Ordinat [...]on is not inval [...]d in case of the I [...]ol [...]try of [...] G [...]uers, which was neuer denied by his A [...]ve [...]sary. What shall I say here? Are the Pow [...]r of giuing Orders, and lawful Autho [...]ity to giue them, so [...]ssentially linked to each other, that they cannot be separa­ted? May not a Bishop or P [...]est remain­ing so, be deprived of all lawful Au­thority to exercise their Functions, for hauing fallen into Heresy or Idolatry? And if they haue non [...] t [...]emselues, can they giue it to others? does not Estius cited by the Dr, affirm, that no crime or [Page 158] Censure how h [...]a [...]y [...]o [...]uer can hinder the validity of O [...]dination by a Bishop although it be of those who are not s [...]b­iect to his Jurisdictio [...]? &c. By which it is manifest the Power of Ordination may haue its effect, where there is no lawf [...]l Authority to exercise it? And does not the Church of England suspend her B [...]shops and Priests in case of those or the lik [...] crimes, and vpon their repen­tance admit them again without [...]? And if the Protestant Bishops neither haue nor could haue any law­ful Jurisdiction derived vpon them, in case their first O [...]dainer▪ were guilty of Idolatry and so could giue none is there not all the rea [...]on in the world accor­ding to t [...]e Dr's Irenicall Principle of the mutabili [...]y of Chu [...]ch-Gouernment, to take away Episcopacy, and Substiti [...]te some other in it [...]s Place? These are the Points, which Dr. St: should haue spoken to, to an [...]w [...] his Adversarys ar­gument; but instead of doing that, to mo [...]k his Reader, and lavish away time and paper, as he does, to proue the va­lidity of Ordination in case of the Here­sy or Idolat [...]y of the giuer, (a po [...]nt well known to T. G. before Dr. St took [Page 159] vpon him to teach him) is the greatest sign of Tergiversation, to say no worse, Jeuer yet met with.

Here I confess was ground enough, and Provocation enough for Dr. St to see what it was his Adversary droue at, and speak to the Point if he had thought fit. Why he did it not I doe not vnderstand, but rather w [...]nde he should take such pains to proue that the Power of giving Orders is not taken a [...]ay by the guilt of Idolatry. Yet I obserue that he does not positively as­sert th [...] as his own Opinon, but layes it down rather as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, to shew the litle Skill which T. G hath in his own Church's affairs: And I should wonder more, were it otherwise, when Dr. Wille [...] contr. 16. qu. 2. de ord. part 4 (as I find him cited by my Friend Patronus bonae fi­dei. p. 47) expressly affirmeth, that Ministers ordained in the Roman Chu [...]ch, are not true Presbyters, because th [...] Bishops of that Church are not the Minist [...]s of Christ but of Antichrist.

This would be to make the force of T. Gs. Argument yet stronger, which it may be is what you would be [Page 160] at. For if the first Ordainers were no true Bishops, those whom they ordai­ned could be none, and much less could they receiue la [...]ful Authority from them to make others. But how wary soever the Dr. be in expressing his thoughts, yet I doe not find, he any were denies the Bishops of the Church of Rome to be true B [...]hops: nor does T. G. concern himself to disproue the validity of the Ordination of the Bis­hops of the Church of E [...]gland; but only to show it to be a consequence of Dr. St's charge of Idolatry, that they could haue [...]o lawful Authority to exer­cise the power of Orders, in case their first O [...]ainers were Idolaters. And methinks T. G's. Civility in this Point, in wauing the Q [...]est on of the validity of their Ordination (a Topick vehe­mently insisted on by those of his Party) ought to haue preuailed with Dr. St. to haue treated him with more Modera­tion; and yet the Impor [...]ance of the Ar­gument [...]aue induced him not to leaue it vnspok [...]n to, in its full f [...]rce and vtmost consequence; which was no less than the actual ch [...]nge of Epis [...]opal Govern­ment in England, according to his Prin­ciples. [Page 161] Ordinary Readers, if Impartial, will be at a loss what to think of this; but those of better capacity wil be apt to suspect, (what it may be you hope) there was something in the bottome, which made him so careful not to touch this Point; and so much the more, if they shall but res [...]ect with themselues, how things haue been managed by him in relation to it from the beginning, as.

1. His publishing of the doctrine of the Mutability of Church-Government as the secular Magistrate shall see rea [...]on, laid down by him at large in his Ire­nicum.

2. His re-printing that Book after the Bishops were re-established by law, and humbly tendring it to Consideration.

3. His cajolling the very Bishops them­selues in his Preface; with what a rare example of self-denyal, and of the high­est Christian Prudence it would be in them, to reduce the form of Church Go­vernment in England to its Primitiue state and Order by retrenching all Exor­bitances of Power, (mark that) and res­toring those Presbyteries, which no law hath forbidden, but only through disuse haue been laid aside.

[Page 162] 4^ly when this would not take with them to make them divest themselues of what they thought to be their Just Power, his putting forth a Treatise to charge the Church of R [...]me with Idolatry, when neither of the two Questions proposed to him and his Adversary requir'd it: and endeavouring to fasten that charge vpon the Church of England as her Sense, and so make her contribute to the sub­version of her own Authority. 5.^ly when T G. vrged vpon him, the want of lawf [...]l Jurisdiction as the consequence of this cha [...]g [...], and consequently that in his Principles there was reason enough for the State to think fit to take away Episcopa [...]y; His passing this by, as if he saw it not and trifling with his Adversa­ry, about the validity of Ordination in case of Heresy. And, lastly, when [...] put him in mind of his duty, as the Champion of the Church of England; and in such a manner as would provoke a man of more Phlegm, than Dr. St shows himself to be; His still letting it alone and running a new descant vpon the old mistake, viz, the validity of Ordination in case of the Idolatry of the Givers of it: neither retracting his [Page 163] Principles, nor speaking to the Point, but leaving Episcopacy, as it is establish­ed in the Church of England, vnder the s [...]okes of the B [...]tle to shift for it's­self, as it can. And what was this I pray (if you will not call it attacquing) but to betray at least the cause of the Church of England as T. G. saith, whilst he pretends to d [...]f [...]nd it?

What my sentiment is in this matter, I need not tell you. But I must needs tell you, I am [...]o at all [...]atisfied with the Surmis [...] you cast into the Readers mind of Dr St's ma [...]aging this cha [...]ge of Idolat [...]y vpon some desi [...]n against the Episcopall G [...]u [...]rnment esta­blished in this land. This is a great Secre [...] indeed, and transcends the pow­er of the Iudge of controversies, much more of any privaete man to dive into it.

But you haue heard I hope of some f [...]mous P [...]ophetick pict [...]r [...]s pretend­ing to represent the f [...]te of England, in which the chief thing observable (in se­veral of them) is a Mo [...]e, a creature blind and busy smooth and deceitfull, conti­nually working vnder ground, but now and th [...]n to be discerned by the distur­bance it makes in the surface of the Earth.

I remember very well that Dr. St begins his Epistle Dedicatory before his defence with this passage, as so natural a description of a restless party among vs, that w [...] need no Judge of controversies to inter [...]ret the meaning of it. But what do you infer from that Prophetick Emblem?

Nothing, but that we may see by the casting vp of the little Hills, which way the Mole works; and the Church of England may iudge, by the Drs. aforesa [...]d managing of the charge of Idolatry, to whom the description more naturally belongs, without either the help of the Judge of controversies, or the light of the Private spirit.

Well then, leaving these things, as T. G. does in his Preface to those whom they concern; as I haue giuen you hitherto the Satisfaction at least of a fair hearing, whilst you represented the Motives of your dissatisfaction with the charge of Idolatry, as managed by Dr. St, so now I expect you'l be so kind, as to giue me your Opinion of the Book you found me vpon at your first visit, viz. Dr. St's late Defence of his Roman Idolatry in answer to T. G. For although you haue occasionally [Page 165] touch'd vpon some passages of it in our former discourses, yet I would willingly hear what you think of the whole.

This then (if you will needs haue it) shall be the subiect of another Conference. Only I shall leaue you a short Memorial to consider on, of the matters we haue hitherto discoursed, and it is this: that Dr. St. (as hath been shown) cannot maintain his charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome. 1. without dissenting from the Judg­ment of the true and Genuine sons of Dial. 1. the Church of England. 2^ly not with­out Dial. 2. offering violence to the 39. Arti­cles. 3^ly not without denying or assigning Dial. 3. a Church in all ages distinct from all Conuenticles of Hercticks and Schisma­ticks, with which Christians were bound to ioyn in Communion. 4^ly not without granting the Church of Rome to err against a Fundamentall Point of Faith. 5^ly not without bringing the guilt and Mischeifs of the Schism vpon the Dial. 4. Maintainer. 6ly not without quitting that grand supporter of the Cause the words, Expressly prohibited in the se­cond Commandment. 7^ly not without frequent and manifest Self-Contradic­tions. Dial. 3. 4. [Page 166] Lastly not without subverting all [...]īal. 5. lawful Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England.

And if these things cannot be cleared (as hitherto by Dr Sts. behauiour it doth not appear to me they ca [...]) That must stand good which T. G asserts, as the consequence of th [...]m, viz that the Charge of Idolatry (especially as D. St. hath managed it) is the most g [...]oundless, vnreasonable, and cont [...]adictory pro­ceeding in the world. And with this I take leaue at present.

THE FIRST DIALOGVE.

What Judgment to make of the Memorial you left me, I cannot easily determin. If the Conse­quences contained in it be false, (as I hope they are) I cannot but wonder Dr. St. in his Defence should take so litle [Page 168] notice of them? And if they be true I wonder as much, he should take so much pains to maintain the Charge; vn­less it be to keep vp the Cry against Po­pery, by exposing the Papists, as Ido­laters, to the hatred of all Good Chris­tians. Other Pretences may fail; but this will be sure to take place, as they find by the success.

The Bulk of a Book too, as you know, may conduce much to make the Cry the Louder. But were the [...]oise a litle ouer, that men could hear one another speak, I am of Opinion there would not be many found of such aukward Intellectuals; as to belieue it to be Idolatry, to kiss or put off our hats, or kneel before an Image or Picture of Christ, with Intention by those out­ward Acts to shew the respect we haue for his Person; which is what Dr. St. obliges himself to maintain when he asserts the making and bowing b [...]f [...]re an Rom. Idol. p. 60. 62. Image with respect to the worship of God to be forbidden under the notion of I [...]o­latry: But doth it in such a manner, that I haue heard some Learned men say, they could look vpon his Performance in this Point, no otherwise than as an [Page 169] Essay of his Wit, like that of Erasmus, when he vndertook to write a Book in Commendatien of Folly; but with this difference, that Erasmus foresaw no harm like to ensue from his Panegyrick to the world; for none wete likely to be more in loue withit for his Praises, nor to suffer more for it, than if he had said nothing. But Dr St. could not but haue a Prospect at least of much. Mis­chief likely to f [...]llow to his Fellow-subjects from his Idle Charge of Idola­try, as Mr. Thorndike call'd it a litle before his death.

How euer others may look vpon his Performance, For my parr I think I haue reason to hope (as he doth himself) of his D [...]fence, that it will be a Prophetical Confutation of all that T. G. will euer be able to say vpon this subject. Although (if it be true w [...]at the Dr. saih of him in his Epist. De­dicat.) H [...] hath [...]aid as much in def [...]nce of the Romam cause, as wit and subtilty could invent; But withall he wish­es he could speak as freely of his Fair-dealing and ing [...]nuity.

Egr [...]g [...]am sane laudem. a very ample Enco [...]mium no doubt as to the [Page 170] first part of it, and such a one as addes no small glory to the Dr's Triumph, to drag such an Adversary after the wheels of his Chariot. But if you take it together with the 2^d part, I. can by no means allow it to be a good definition, as being such a Collection of Properties, as is found with more advantage in a Subject much neerer home. Witness the Tast I haue given you even now of the Dr's own [...]air-dealing and Ingenui­ty; and of which I may have occasion to give you farther Instances before we end.

These are such Complements as pass between Adversaries when each hopes and defigns to lay the other in the dust. But to come to the Point we were entring upon, and which you promised to speak to at our last parting. Haue you not read the Dr's Defence.

Yes I have, but to deal inge­nuously with you, not with that plea­sure and Satisfaction, you express'd, at the beginning of our discourse, to see that the Heathens could not be iustly charged with Idolatry, but the Papists must be so too. For naturally I loue not to see People represented worse than they [Page 171] are; and though Dr. St. Professe he [...], yet his Readers will iu [...]g [...] as they find cause Besides, I euer­more [...] a great [...] vpon one Subiect, as supposing much time must be [...] in reading many t [...]ings which are crowded in [...] to the purpose: However like tho [...], w [...]o put them­selu [...]s (as we say) into t [...]e S [...]ock▪ to comply with the [...], I resolved as I saw others do, to [...] vpon it; And to tell you the truth, I had scarcely gotten ouer half a score Leaues, when I found my self in the case of the vn­fortunate Laconian in Boccalini.

And what was that I pray?

Why, this it was. The poor Man for having deliuered that in three words, which might haue been said in two, after eight month's imprisonment, was condemned to read ouer the Warr of Pisa written by Guicciardine. So horri­bly tedious did that rabble of discourse appear to him, that after he had read ouer the first leaf with much agony, he earnestly intreated the Judges to reuerse the Sentence, and condemn him rather to row in the Gallies all his life. What other Sentiment could I haue of my [Page 172] Condition, than that of this vnhappy Laconian, to see my self condemned, (for what fault of mine I know not) by that Tyrant custome, to read ouer Dr. St's endless discourses? First a hun­dred and fourscore and three Pages, Of T. G [...]. notion of Idolatry. Then a hundred and threescore and four Pages, Of the Nature of divino Worship. Then a hundred and fourty Pages, Of the State of the Controuersy about the worship of Images between Christians and Hea­thens. After that a hundred and four­score and odd Pages, Of the State of the Controuersy about Images in the Christian Church. Then a hundred and thirteen Pages, Of the sense of the second Commandment. And lastly Fourscore and thirteen Pages more, In answer to the Instances and some other. Passages of T. G. However, I resolued (as I said) to read them over; but all the while I was doing it, I could not but think, had the Book been brought before the Iudges of Parnass [...]s, what punishment they would or could haue inflicted suitable to the delict, viz, for a man of Dr. Sts. parts to spend neer nine hundred Pages (if you take in the [Page 173] Epistle dedicatory and the Preface) in deliuering that, which might haue been expressed sufficienthy for what concerns T. G in nine or ten lines.

You amaze me with this discourse; and I shall look vpon it, as no ot [...]er than a dream vpon Par­nass [...], vnless you give me good reason for it.

Content; but then you must haue patience, whilst I giue you the rea [...]on: and this it is: Had Dr. St. ac­cording to the Method vsed by the Mathematicians, but laid down these f [...]w Points as Postulatas, viz. 1. That Idolatry may consist with the acknow­ledgment of one Supream Being, which is the subiect of his first Chapter. 2. That God ought to be worshipped accor­ding to his own appointment; or that those external acts of worship, which God hath appropriated to himself, cannot, while that appropriation remains, be given to another, which is what he ayms at in his second. 3. That the Wiser Heathens pretended, they did not look vpon their Images as Gods, but as Symbols of that Being to which they gaue divine worship, which is the Scope [Page 174] of his T [...]ird. And 4. That f [...]r the four first Centuries there was litle or no use of Imag [...]s in [...]he Temples and Oratories of Christians; but that the use and Veneration of them came in afterwards by degrees, which is the subi [...]ct of his Fou [...]th. Had the Dr. I say laid these Po [...]t [...]ons [...] P [...]stulatas, he might (if I understand T. G. aright) haue saued himself the pains of writing, and his Readers the t [...]o [...]ble of reading more than two third Parts of his Book which are spent vpon them.

For as for the I That Idolatry may consist w [...]th the acknowledgment of one Supream Being, at least as Idolatry is taken by Dr. St. for the giving Exter­nal Acts of worship due only to God, to a Creature, and Was sussicient as it was practis'd by his Wiser Heathens, for the Fathers to charge them with Idolatry; it is plainly acknowledged by T. G. Page 23 of his first Paper where speak­ing of those, of whom S. Paul saith, that though they knew God, they did not glorify him as God. T. G. saith, they changed his glory into an Image made like to corruptible man, by adoring and offering sacr [...]fice due to God alone [Page 175] to the Statues themselues, or the deities they s [...]pposed to dwell in them: and the same he repeats again Pag 97. and other Places of his Book.

For the 2. That God is to be worshipped with external Acts according to his own appointment &c. This is no where denied by T. G. but is supposed by him Pag. 29. where he saith, that if God haue forbidden himself to be wor­shipped after such a manner, the giving him such worship will be a dishonouring him, t [...]ough the Giuer intend it neuer so much for his honour, much more then, the giuing acts of worship appropriated to him to another.

The 3 also concerning the Practice of the Wiser Heathens is admitted by T. G. for the Dr. to make his best of it, when he saith p. 107. 108. that howeuer they pretended through the Images to worship the true deitie, yet they were to blame in two things. 1. Because the Ima­ges being instituted by publick Authority for the worship of false Gods they concur­red (as Dr. St. himself acknowledges) with the vulgar in all the External practices of their Idolatry. 2. Because, though in the schools they denied them [Page 176] to be Gods neuertheless they gaue honour to them so farr, as to lead the People into errour by their Example.

And for the 4 the l [...]tle or no use of Images in Churches for the sirst four hundred years▪ it was not looked upon by T G. as any Prejudic [...] to his cause although it had been much longer before the use and Venerat [...]on of them were brought in, as he sufficiently declares (p. 171.) where he answers in Mr. Thorndikes words, that fo [...] the first h [...]e [...] or four Centuries, ther [...] might be Ieaiousy of Offence in hauing Images in Churches, bef [...]re Idolatry was quite rooted out, of which afterwards there might be no appearance. And therefore they were afterwards admitted all ouer, for it is manif [...]st, saith he the Church is tied no farther, than there can appear dan­ger of Idolatry. And again, p. 173. What furniture and Ceremonies the Churches of Christians, and the pu­blick worship of God in them may require, now all the world professes Christianity, this, saith he, the Church is at freedome to determin by the word of God expounded according to the best agreement of Chris­tians. And whilst the Church is acknow­ledged [Page 177] to haue such a Power in de­creeing Rites and Ceremonies (of which nature the use of Images is) as ought to ouer-rule a scrupulous Conscience, what the Dr. obiects against Mr. Thorn­dikes reason concerning the danger of Idolatry in after times, comes not Home to the purpose; Fot t'is not his scrupulous Conscience, but the Church that must be the Iudge. What need was there then to lauish away six hundred and seuenty Pages, to proue those things which were either granted or giuen as granted by T. G.?

But then again for the 5. Chapter, Of the sense Of the seco [...]d Command­m [...]nt, if God haue there expresly pro­hibit [...]d [...]he giuing any wors [...]ip [...]o himself by an Image, as Dr. St. affirms, there needed no more than to expose the Law, as in a Table, printed in Legis latiue 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 euery one that runs to read them: the thing being so plain, that himself con­fesses, it cannot enter into his mind, how Roman Idol. p. 59. God should haue forbidden it by more express and Emphatical words than he [Page 178] hath done. If this be so, then certainly it was a needless and strange Extrava­gance, to spend a hundred and thirteen Pages to speak that in less Express and Emphatical terms, (that is to say, more obscurely) what God had already spoken in a few words more cl [...]rly; and in criticizing as he doth vpon the words, Idol, Image, Similitude &c. and drawing arguments 1. from t [...]e Terms of the law, 2. from the Reason annexed to it, and 3. from the Judg­ment of the Lawgiuer, to find out what himself cannot conceiue how God should haue expressed it in clearer terms. For my part, I belieue, that God can express himself much clearer than Man: Catb. no Idol. p. 50. and yet I must be of T. G's. mind in this case, that had the Law been deliuered in Dr. Sts. own words (Rom: Idol p. 60. viz that any Image or similitude is for­bidden to be made with respect to the wor­ship of God,) they had been much more express and Emphatical to his purpose, than those in which God himself did deliuer it. For these we see require much criticizing and many arguments to make the sense be, what Dr. St. would haue it; where as those are so [Page 179] plain, that euery one that reads, vn­derstands their meaning at the first sight It was well for T. G. that God himself was pleased to write the Com­mandment with his own finger. For had Dr. St been trusted with the penning of it, he would no doubt, (if it be true what he says) haue out-done God himself, though he had done his best.

As for the last Chapter, where Dr. St. sets himself to show the dif­f [...]rence between the Instances brought by T. G. viz, the Reverence shewd to the G [...]ound by Moses and Joshua, the bowing at the name of Jesus, and towards the Altar, vsed by the Church of England on the one side, and the vespect and Veneration given to Images by those of the Church of Rome on the other: (the most material thing in that Chapter) I think there needed no more than to say, as he doth in two lines p 869. that the Church of England doth not allow any worship to be giuen to the Altar: meaning thereby, as I suppose, that the Church of England intends not by the [...]xter­nal Act of Bowing to she any Reve­rence to the Altar. This you see is a [Page 180] very compendious, and yet clear de­cifion of the case; and there needed no more, to defeat the other Instances also brought by T. G. For if he speak consequently, the same must hold with him for them too. But then on the other side, you must giue me leaue to tell you, that I doe not see how this Assertion of Dr. St. agrees either with the sense of the Church of Eng­land in the Canon he appeals to for it▪ or with what himself affirms but three leaues before. For the Canon saith no more (and I cannot but wonder why he caused it to be printed in great Characters for the world to take notice of his fair dealing) than that their In­tent on in doing Reverence and Obei­sance at the coming in or going out of the Church or Chancel, is no [...] to ex­hibite any Religious worship othe Com­munion Table &c. in which they agree with Aquinas and other Divines of the Church of Rome; but no where deny they intend not to giue any worship at all to it, as the Dr. glosses it. Nor does it agree with what him­self had affirmed but three leaues be­fore p. 863. that there is a Reverence [Page 181] left to be shewed to Sacred Places, on the account of their discrimination from o [...]her places, and separation for Sacred vses.

But the Dr. you know distinguishes between Reverence and Worship; and it is this latter, which he charges with Idolatry, as it is an Expression of our submission to a meer inanimate thing.

But if those of the Church of Rome by the word Worship in the case of Images declare, they require no more by the terms of Communion wi [...]h her, but Reverence, or (as they call it) a honourary respect and V [...]neration, the Dr. must either lay down his [...]harge of Idolatry against the Church of R [...]me, or if he wil maintain a Reverence due to sacred Places and things, he must put himself in, and the Church of Eng­land too (if it be her cause) for com­pany.

This I confess hath stuck long in my thoughs; and to tell you the t [...]uth, (now that you vrge it a second time) I was never throughly satisfied either [...]ith Dr. Sts. practice or defence in this Point; For though [Page 182] I hope well still of his Affection to the Cause, yet it cannot be denied, but his bending complyance in this particular of bowing to the Altar, hath giuen but too much advantage to his Adversaries, and too much Offence to the Godly: whose sense I shall giue you in the words of my good Friend Patronus bonae Fi­dei, with relation to the Dr. The dis­course is somewhat of the longest, but I hope you will haue patience to hear it. Thus then He in his Prodromus p 76.

Quicquid Clarissimus Stillingfleet Delinitus & occoecatus &c. ‘How­euer the most Renowned Stilling­fleet wheadled and blinded with [...] ▪ (I dare say no more for fear of a Re­buke) endeauour in his most learned and accurate work to dawb and smo [...]th ouer (and that but sleigh [...]ly neither) this kind of Adoration, with intention to vindicate it from the crime of Idola­try, lest himself amidst the crowd of those who bow down before the Altar be deem'd guilty of a crime, which none hath thrown with more strength vpon the Ro­manists, than He; yet I doubt not▪ saith he, to affirm, that this Bowing out vies the Idolatry both of the Egyptians and [Page 183] Romanists, not only in horrible iniquity and enormitis, but in madness and folly.’

Hauing laid down this for his Posi­tion, he proceeds to proue it in this manner. ‘And first for the Romanists; It is not saith he, so much Madness in them to adore the Lord Jesus vnder the species of Bread, as it is a gross Errour in the ground of the thing, viz, their belieuing the Bread to be in very deed Transubstantiated, as they call it, into the Body of Christ. But it is no o [...]her than the dotage of Hypochon­driacks, and a meer giddy-brain'd stu­pidity for men to perform their Adora­tions towards that place, where Christ is no more present, than any where else, and where neither the Table nor the Altar, nor any thing that is set vpon the Table (vnless perchance a clean Towell, 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, as he calls it, without any Obiect.’

2. ‘For the Aegyptians; They, saith [Page 184] he, pretended some colour for their Ido­latry, as that an Ape, a cat, a Wolf a Ball, an Ibis, were things endowed with that Principle of life, with that ayr and participation of the divinity, by which the worsbippers were carried to God, whom alone they made the Obiect of their Adoration; denying any thing to be worshipped by them hut with re­lation to God, as we learn from Origen against Celsus, and Augustin vpon the 96. Psalm. where this latter farther adds, that the Heathens pretended they did not worship any corporeal Representation (and that it was a meercalumny impu­ted to them by the Christians) but the divinity, which was represented and expressed by such an Effigies. So that now Those who bow down to a logge, a Stock, and a Trunk, such as is a Woodden Table out of the use for which it is ordained, are Themselues stocks, and render themselues guilty of a farr more greiuous crime, Jam sure, of a farr more giddy-brain'd Madness, than either the Aegyptians or the Romanists. For what Dr. Stillingfleet saith, that this worship is perfo [...]med only in the coming in, and going out of the Temple, [Page 185] takes not away the crime of Idolatry, as more or lesse changes not the kind: Nor doth it agree with Truth &c.’

This done and hauing very fitly applied to them for their frequent and p [...]ofound Adorations (so low that they almost knock saith he, the pauement with their Fore-heads) those words of Persius.

O curuae in terras Animae, & coele­stium inanes!

‘He goes on saying, that this Fana­ticisin is the more gross and blockish, in that the Altar or Table it self are not so much worshipped, as the Place for it's rich Furniture in which they are set. For let them be remoued but neuer so litle from the Wall, and placed with out the Rails: Let but the Eucharistical decking be taken away, and they left naked, and transferred to some other part of the Temple, no man thinks them worthy of Adoration; no man b [...]ws down (vnless perchance to the East.) A madness Paralel to that of tbe Roma­nists, who haue a Reverence and Vene­ration for their Images, while they are set vp in high Places, and so much the more as they are more richly attired and [Page 186] adorned, but being taken from thence, or laid vpon the ground or broken, no one thinks them worthy to be look'd on.’

‘Nor is this all. He affirms yet far­ther, that this Bowing to the Altar, doth not only out-vy in its Enormity the Idolatry both of the Aegyptians and Romanists, but, although we had neuer heard, saith he, of their Idolatry; yet this is such, that it fights against Reason it self, and that Analogy or Relat^on there is between an Altar and it's Cor­relate, (i. ē. a Sacrifice) for which reason, the old English Superstition vnder Popery in the Book of Windsor, did with much congruity command the Adoration to be performed Deo & Altati, to God and to the Altar, or Host, in wh [...]h the true Body of Christ was belieued to be. But for as much as the Altar we speak of at present, hath no such Host apon it, no, not so much as the Bread; for any one to bow down to it, it can be iudged no other, than Irrational and Absurd, because there is no true Altar without an Host.’

Lastly (not to exercise your patience too too much) he concludes with a [Page 187] Consideration, which, he saith, shows this Rite of bowing to the Altar, to be the Symptom of a mind perfectly mad, viz, because no Ado [...]ation was euer made, nor ought to be made by those who wor­ship God rightly, but with eyes and mind fixed and intent vpon and towards the Propitiatory or Mercy-Seat; which is no other than Christ reconciling Sinners to God, and He sitting at the right hand of his Father; not standing in that place, where the Romanists Altar was placed.

This is a discourse which shows the Author to be a Son of Thun­der indeed. May I not know what other name he hath?

He wanted neither courage nor zeal I can assure you, to haue put it to his Book; and there was much ado to perswade him not to do it. But at length he suffered himself to be pre­vailed with, licèt aegrè, (as he saith in his Admonition to the Reader) by the importunity of a F [...]iend to leaue out his name, out of a true Christian Charity, as I take it, not to stirr vp the B [...]le of the Hierarchicks too much. Moreouer also, not to hazard the [Page 188] losing so worthy a Member as Dr. Stil­lingfleet by some free Reflections (as he calls them) vpon his complyance, he was contented, after his Book was finished, in a leaf printed apart to be inserted towards the latter end of it to set Dr. Stillingfleet's name in the middle, between G [...]urnall and Conant, on the one side, and Meriton and Neston on the other, and so represent them all together, as Men who vpon the change of affairs, had ioined them­selues to the Hierarchicks, not out of hope of Lucre or a more plentifull for­tune, but out of the dictamen of Conscience, holding fast, saith he, to that Principle, that separation is not to be made from the Publick Ministery, but for very weighty causes, yet not so, as that th [...] laid aside their former more fauoura­ble Inclinations to the Puritans.

This by your leaue seems to me to be nothing, but plain dawhing with that vntempered Morter, of which the Prophet Ezechiel speakethin his 13^tly Cha­pter. For what can be more inconsistent, than to make the publick Ministery Ido­latrous, as your Friend doth, and then acknowledge, they ioin in it for Con­science [Page 189] sake? T. G. himself (the man of Intentions) acknowledges that be the Intention neuer so good, yet if the Act be forbidden, the doing it will be vnlawfull. And which way soeuer the Dr. turn him, he will find himself, if I be not deceiued in a case of much Perplexity. For if he maintain a Re­verence to be shewed to the Altar, he puts himself in for company with the Romanists, and must either acquit them, or incurr himself the guilt of Idolatry. And if he deny any to be giuen, yet he stands condemned of Idolatry, worfe than that of the Aegyptians or Roma­uists by your Friend the Patron, for performing the external act of worship towards the Altar; and very agreeably, to I take it, to his Principles, who asserts the External act to be forbidden, Idolatrous in the second Commandment, whereas the only external act expressly there forbidden, is that of B [...]wing, Thou shalt not bow down to them. But these things require a larger discus­sion. What I intended at present, was not to engage in a particular dispute, but to let you see, (as I said at first) that what Dr. St. hath with much [Page 190] labour to himself, and pain to his Readers delivered in nine hundred Pa­ges might haue been done sufficiently (so far forth, as it relates to the Con­test between him and T. G.) in nine or ten lines; For there needed no more, than to put down in Gothick Chara­cter, the Four Postulat's aboue men­tioned; The words of the Sccond Com­mandment; and his own Excellent Gloss of the Canon of the Church of England. For the Postulata's were granted, or giuen for granted, before hand, by T. G. The words of the Command­ment, are according to him so Express and Emphatical, that it cannot enter his mind how God should haue made them more, and therefore they needed not the Explication of man. And lastly his Gloss of the Canon, that it allows no worship to be giuen to the Altar, su­persedes all trouble of showing any farther difference between the Cere­mony of bowing to the Altar, and the other Instances produced by T. G. on the one side and to that of Bowing before an Image on the other.

By this I see, you think the Dr. might haue spared all his long [Page 191] and elaborate discourses vpon these subiects, as vnnecessary, and conse­quently his whole Book excepting nine or ten lines. This doubtlesse would haue been a great Contentment to T. G.

I, and to many others besides him, who would haue been glad to haue saued both their money and Time.

But what is it then you iudge necessary the Dr. should haue done?

That if you please shall be the Subiect of our next Conference.

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

You promised. Eunomius, to tell me at our next meeting, [Page 193] what it was the Dr. ought to haue done, but hath not done to maintain his charge of Idolatry. And I pray let me know, what it is without suspending my longing with another Preamble like that of the unfortunate Laconian.

I shall do my endeavour to comply with your desire both in the one and the other. Nature and Art, you know, both tell us, that the first thing to be done in a Dispute (if the disco­very of Truth and satisfact on of the Reader be intended) is to settle the State of the Controversy vpon its right Grounds. And that nothing tends more effectually to the doing of it, than to lay down the true Notion of the matter in debate; without which though much Wit perhaps may be shown, and much Reading too, yet All to litle purpose. What therefore I think Dr. St. ought to haue done, had his businesse been to manage his Charge of Idolatry so as not to amuze, but satisfy his Reader, was in the First place to haue given us the true notion of Idolatry in the na­ture of the thing; and then in the se­cond place to haue shown that Notion to haue agreed to the Honour and Ve­neration, [Page 194] which the Church of Rome in her Councils declares may be given to the Images of Christ and the Saints. This had been to set the matter in it's true light; But he chose rather to dazle the eyes of the Reader with the false lights of meer External Acts, the obs­cure practice euen of the Wiser Hea­thens, and the clashing of School-di­vines.

Euery one you know, Eu­nomius, is at liberty, especially the Accuser, to lay and manage his Charge in the Method and way he deems best for his cause. And al though Dr. St. haue drawn in these Auxiliaries to his As­sistance, and insist very much vpon them; yet methinks you are much mistaken when you say he hath omitted those things, which you iudge to be the only necessary ones. And for the first of them I cannot but wonder, how you could forget, that the first thing he aduances, in the uery first Page of his Defence, to make good his Charge of Idolatry, is to lay down the right Notion of it. ‘J begin, saith he, with the consideration of the nature of Idolatry, not only be­cause my Adversary calls me to it in these [Page 195] words, [Here the Axe is laid to the Catho. no Idol. p. 203. Root, and if euer the Dr. will speak home to the purpose, it must be vpon this Point: He must speak to the Na­ture of the thing &c.]’ But because the weight of the whole matter depends vpon it. And then hauing refuted T. Gs. no­tion of Idolatry at large in his first Chapter he lays down the Notion of Divine worship in the Second. What could haue been done more Methodi­cally by the best School-Divine of them all?

This was a fair Beginning in­deed, had he gone on to pursue it in the sense it was proposed by his Adver­sary, but like a Preacher, that has patch'd vp a Sermon out of his note-Book, he names the Text, and then takes his leaue of it. What his Adversary call'd him to in that place, was to speak to the Notion of Idolatry in the Nature of the thing, independently of any Posi­tive law. ‘For speaking there of the Reverence shown by Moses and Jo­shua to the G [...]ound by putting of their shoes, he saith, If it were Idolatry in the nature of the thing to put off their shoes in Reverence to the Ground, God's [Page 196] command could not make it to be otherwise, And if it were nor Idolatry in it self to do it, neither is it to giue a like honour to the Image of Christ. From whence it followeth, to the v [...]ter ruine of all the Dr hath ar­gued f [...]om his pretended Prohibition, that as no command of God can make that to be not Idolatry, which is so in the nature of the thing: so no Prohibition (if there were any) could make that to be Idola­try, which hath not in it the true and Real nature of Idolatry. This done he tells the Dr. Here it is the Axe is laid to the Ro [...]t, and if euer he will speak home to the purpose, it must be vpon this Point. He must speak to the nature of the thing.’ This is what T. G. call'd him to: and I saw very plainly there must be such a thing as. Idolatry independently of any Positive law of God; and that Dr. St. by the manner of his Procedure was engaged to speak to it: because other­wise the Heathens (of whom he makes so much vpon all occasions) before that Law was made, and afterwards also, if not promulgated to them▪ could not haue been iustly charged with Idolatry. This therefore I carried along with me in my mind, whilst I read ouer his [Page 197] discourses. But after I had tired my self with seeking for it in his first Part consisting of three hundred and forty seuen Pages, in which he pretends to con­sider the nature of Idolatry, I found that in the sirst Chapter he imposed a fallacious Notion of the Heathens Ido­latry vpon T. G. for himself to triumph in impugning it, viz that the particu­lar Idolatry of the Heathens consisted in giuing Divine worship to the Diuel, as if T. G. had asserted them to be Idola­ters vpon no other account: And in the Second he giues no other notion of it himself, but that of an External Act of worship standing vnder a supposed (but not proved) Prohibition. For al­though he assure T. G. vpon his word, p. 269. that he meant very Real Idola­try, yet he immediately adds that it was vpon this Reason, because it be­longs (saith he) to God to appropriate Acts of worship to himself, and that hauing appropriated them, they become only due to him. And after a long dis­course to the same purpose, (though nothing to the purpose) he tells vs over again p 275. for fear we should mistake him, that the meaning of it [Page 198] all is no more, than to show that Ado­ration of Images is Idolatry by vertue of that Commandment. And by the way is in such a chafe with T. G. for offe­ring to vnderstand some words of his to imply Real Idolatry antecedently to any Prohibition, that he compares the attempt to a Thunder-Shower full of sulphur and darkness with a terrible Crack, and looks vpon Gun-powder, as a needless Invention to blow a Man vp in comparison of a Train of Conse­quences f [...]om his own words, let but T. G. haue the laying of it. Nothing then can be more euident, than that the Dr. notwithstanding his fair proposal, meant not to speak to the nature of Idolatry in it't self, which his Adversary call'd him to, and vpon which the weight of the whole matter in debate depends; parti­cularly that which concerns the Hea­thens, as I said before; and which for the want of it must needs fall to the ground. For if by very Real Idolatry he mean no more, than that to giue any worship to God by an Image is such only vpon the account of being forbidden by a Positiue Law, viz, the 2^d Command­ment, all the arguments, he draws from [Page 199] the supposed Practice of the Heathens, as worshipping the true God by their Images (which make vp well neer one half of his Book) are blown vp with this rare Invention of his, and made of no use either to himself or his cause; because the Law not being giuen or pro­mulgated to them, they can be no far­ther concerned in what is forbidden by it, than as it is evil in its self antecedently to any such Positiue Prohibition.

But, as Dr. St. saith very well, p. 263. What notion of Idolatry could the Heathens haue, bu [...] what was the same the Jews had from the Law of Moses? The notion of Idolatry was a new thing among them, who knew no harm at all in giuing Divine honour to Crea­tures. From whence should they vnder­stand the sinfulness and the nature of it, if not from some Law of God?

This was kindly done of the Dr. to make this Apology for the poor Heathens, who had stood him in so much stead. But had not his kindness made him forget what S. Paul saith Rom. 2. that when the Gentiles who haue not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, these hauing not the Law [Page 200] are a Law vnto themselues, [...]ho shew the wo [...]k [...] of the Law written in their hearts, their Conscience bearing witness, and their though [...]s between themselues accusing or else excusing one another? And how by vertue of this Law, which was written in their hearts, and not of the Law of Moses, the same Apostle in the Precedent Chapter declared them inexcusable for giuing divine honour to Creatures; because that which may be k [...]own of God, was manifest in them: for God, saith he, manifested it to them, in as much as the Invisible things of him, euen his Eternal Power and divinity are seen from the Creation of the world, being vnderstood by the things tbat are made. Here you see S. Paul plainly as­serts a Law written in their hearts by which they might and ought to haue vnderstood the natur [...] and sinfullness of Idolatry. And if their hearts were so blinded with the loue of the Creatures, as not to know any harm at all in giuing them divine honour, yet this hinders not but that there was harm in it, and that it was sinfull in its own nature an­tecedently to the Law, as Concupiscence was, although the Apostle saith he [Page 201] knew it not to be sin, but by the Law. Here then it was that the Dr. should haue laid the Axe to the Root, and added a 7^th Chapter to show wherein the de­ordination or sinfulness of Idolatry con­sists antecedently to any Positive Prohi­bition; and till this be done, you must giue me leaue to say of the other six, what Virgil said of the walls of Carthage, when left vnfinished.

Mu [...]orum Ingentes. Twas necessary for him to haue setled the notion of Ido­latry in the nature of the thing; and not after a mighty Bravado, as if he meant nothing less than to do it, to divert and amuze his Reader with a tedious discour­se of External Acts of worship, as stan­ding vnder a Positiue Prohibition, though to the vtter ruin of the aid he proposed to his cause from the Paralel he draws from the supposed practicae of the Hea­thens, who were not under the Law, and therefore if they were Idolaters, it must be vpon some other account abstracting from the Law. But this it is to be a Dragon at Controversy.

Yet when all is done, Eu­nomius, you must giue me leaue to tell [Page 202] you, that the securest way to settle the Notion of Idolatry, must be from such a Prohibition. For, abstracting from that, in comes the distinction of Abso­lute and Relative Worship; and I do not see, but by vertue of that, if it be admitted, Men may worship the sun, the starrs, the Earth, or any other creature, with the same kind of worship that they doe an Image, and be no more guilty of Idolatry in the one than in the other. And in what will this differ from the practice of the Heathens?

This is a thing frequently and Roman Idol. p. [...]29. mightily objected by Dr. St. and the Consequence, as the world goes, seems not much vnlike to that of the Im­prouem [...]nt [...] of the Speaking-Trumpet fancied by a late Virtuoso, as being made capable to carry the voice, if a league off. then eight mile about, if eight mile about, then round a whole County: If round a whole County, then why not from one Nation to another, there being no stop in Art? And so there will need saith he, but one Pa [...]son to preach to a whole County, from the most Eminent place in it; and Princes may convers and treat without the great charge and [Page 203] trouble of Embassadors.

This is a Fancy you haue met with in some Idle Poet or other; but nothing suitable to the present pur­pose, since Art may stretch Nature too farr, and render it vnserviceable to its designs. But the Consequence we speak of is admitted very seriously by some of the Roman Divines; and Vasques in particular, a man of a searching wit, not only grants but contends for it in a set disputation, wherein he proues very well from the Principles of worship al­lowed in the Roman Church, that God may be adored in any other Beings, Ra­tional or Irrational, as well as in an Image; provided the mind do not rest in the Creature, but be terminated vpon God.

For the Fancy as you call it, it matters not much where I had it: T'is the Conformity we are to mind between it, and the Extension you vrge of the worship giuen to an Image, to any other creature. For what euer the consequence of this latter may be as to Speculation, yet for the Practicablenesse of it, I think, as matters now stand with mankind af­ter the fall of Adam, it will find as great [Page 204] a stop in nature, as the Speaking Trum­pet; the creatures euer since Sense pre­vailed against reason, being become like stumbling-blocks to the souls of men, and a snare to the feet of the vnwise, to allure and draw them to the worship of them. And therefore those very Divines of the Church of Rome, who admit the Con­sequence in speculation, and do not con­demn the Practice of it in Philosophical and Contemplatiue men, who consider the Creatures purely as the works of God, and as it were behold him present in them; do notwithstanding vtterly condemn the common and promiscuous vse 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. And that this was the case of the Heathens, at least the Ge­nerality of them, is expresly asserted by Vossius in his first Preface, Where he Voss. d [...] Idol. Praef. 1. saith that the Gentils did not distinguish the Divine Power, which is from God, from that other which is in God, and there­fore from the wonderful things of nature, concluded nature it self to be God, and the parts of it also to be deities. And this [Page 205] he affirmeth to be one of the reasons which mov'd him to lay open the admi­rable vertue and power of the Creatures in a Treatise of Idolatry, that we may know saith he, what compelled the Gen­tils to forsake God, and stay in the worship of Nature. This is the account which Vossius giues of the prastice of the Heathens (vt relicto Deo in naturae veneratione consisterent) and it is no other than that which the Scripture and the Fathers giue of it, as I could shew at large, if need were. As for the sup­posed Practice of the Wiser Heathens, I haue shown the Arguments which the Dr. draws from thence to support his charge, to be insignificant and vseless, both in this and the 4^th Dialogue. Part. 1. p 114. 115.

This defence of yours, though brought in with a speaking-Trumpet comes at last I see to be the same in sub­stance with that of T. G. viz, that the Creatures subsisting in them selues, and Cath. no Idol. p. 93. being eviden [...]ly the causes of many great Benesits to mankind, the danger is greater of terminating worship vpon them, than vpon an Image, whose formal Being con­sisting only in representation connaturally carries our thoughts and Affections to the [Page 206] Person represented by it: And the danger is so much the greater, in that the Crea­tures, he saith, represent God rudely, remotely, darkly, and imperfectly. An excellent Paraphrase no doubt, as Dr. St. observes, on the words of the Psal­mist. The Heavens declare the Glory of Def. p. 805. God, and the Firmament sheweth his handy-worke. O how much the skill of a Painter exceeds the Power of God?

This was a nicking remark in­deed, and not to be omitted. But then you are to consider that T. G. speaks there of the Creatures comparatively to Images, viz that though they carry in them the marks and tokens of an Infinite Wisdom, Power, and Goodness, yet they are not so apparently representative of God, that vpon the sig [...]t of them, our thoughts are presently and effectually carried to him, as they are vpon the sight of an Image to the Person repre­sented by it, but that there is need of a great deal of discourse to discouer the Analogy they bear to the Creator, and the dependance they haue of him for their very Being, yet so that from the great­ness and beau [...]y of the Creatures, the Ma­ker of them may proportionably be seen▪ [Page 207] And this, I hope, is no incongruous Pa­raphrase of the words of the Psalmist, The Heavens declare the Glory of God, and the Firmament sheweth his handy-work. If Dr. St. haue the eye of his vn­derstanding so elevated and penetrating, that vpon the sight of them, his mind is as presently and effectually carried to God, as from the sight of an Image to the Prototype, I belieue he is one of the most admirable Persons in the Melete­tiques, (as the same Author calls them) in the whole world.

The Meletetiques? What mean you by that? some new Science invented of late by the Vertuosi?

I mean the Excellent Art of Re­flexion and Meditation vpon the Crea­tures: which as it is vsed by the Vertuosi for the benefit of Mankind, or their own Curiosity, may go for a part of na­tural Philosophy: But applied to devo­tion, in the manner it is by Dr. St. I take it to be that part of Mystical Theology, which so in-essences the soul with God, as to make it see great Evidences of his Rom. Idol. p. 69. Power, and Wisdome, and Goodness in an Ant or a Fly, which may suggest ve­nerable Apprehensions of him to the [Page 208] mind; when it can see nothing in any Ar­tificial Image (though of God Incarnate dying for our sakes vpon the Cross) worthy admiration, but the skill of the Painter or Artificer; nor any thing that can warm or inflame ones devotion com­parably to the Sun. Petrus Viretus must doubtless haue been well advanc'd in this Science, when, as the Lutherans report of him he wrote, that Cbrist Cru­cified was represented b [...]tter by a Cow than In Collo. Mompel­gart. by any Image either painted or graven. And Beza yet more, when he profess'd that from his heart he detested the Image of Christ crucified: as being an Image Ibid. of the Cruelty of the Iews towards him, and therefore could not endure it. What a p [...]escinding faculty was this, to see in a C [...]ucifix the Cruelty of the Iews to detest it, and not see the loue of a dying God to admire it? But euery one has not made so great a progress in this kind of Meletetiques, as these men, or as the Dr himself has done. And yet I can­not but wonder how He comes to be so Excellent in it, while he affirms the Creatures can giue no greater than Mo­ral Rat. Acc. p. 178. 286. &c. certainty of the Being of God himself, which seems to me to be no such great [Page 209] Incentive to Devotion, if according to him it admit a possibility of being other­wise.

yet I am sure He lays down Rom. Idol. p. 560. this for one of his Principles, that what. ever God reveals to man is infallibly true, and may be certainly known to be his Will. And again that all supernatural Revelation must suppose (not only the moral certainty, but) the Tru [...]h of Na­tural Religion: for unless We be saith he, antecedently certain that there is a God, it is impossible to be certain that God hath revealed his Will to us.

I know very well the Dr. can say and unsay without retracting with as much Art and Ease as any man I ever read. But if you ask him, whether the Creatures afford any such Evidence of the Existence of a deity, as can inf [...]lli­bly convince it to be absolutely true and so impossible to be false! He will tell you, The nature of the thing will not beare it; and consequently for any thing He or any one according to him, can certainly know from the Creatures, possibly there may be no such thing as a God. A much rarer Paraphrase no doubt than T. Gs. was on the same words of [Page 210] the Psalmist, The Heavens declare the G [...]o [...]y of God, and the Firmament shew­eth hi [...] handy-work. And of those other words also of S. Paul, The Invisible things of God, even his Eternal Power and Divinity, are clearly seen, being vnderstood by the things that are made. O how much a resolute perswasion that there is a God, notwithstanding a known Possibility of Falshood, exceeds the Cer­tainty of a Demonstration, to raise and warm one's devot [...]on towards him! T'was for this I suppose that Dr. St. represents the Heathens (who neither had nor could haue according to him any Infal­lible certainty of the Being of God) so piously wary not to let their worship stay in the Creatures, but to transfort it to God; and Christians who profess to haue such certainty of his Being from the works of the Creation, so inconsi­derately apt to terminate their worship vpon an Image. If this admirable way of inflaming Affections be well improu'd, who knows but Ignorance at length may come indeed to be the Mother of devo­tion. But to return from whence you haue made me digress, if I haue not for­gotten it.

I shall giue you time to call vpon yout me mory till to morrow. For I must now go to another meeting.

But I pray do not you in the mean time forget that whilst the Dr. giues us no other Notion of Idolatry than that of External Acts of worship standing under a positive Prohibition, he cannot make the Heathens to be Ido­laters, at least before the Law was giuen; and so ruins the great support of his cause from their practice. And if [...] were Idolaters without the Law, as S. Paul saith they were, he hath failed to giue us the true and proper N [...]tion of Idola­try; which was the first thing I said was necessary for him to haue done. The se­cond now comes to my mind, but I shall reserve it for to morrow.

THE THIRD DIALOGVE.

The Second Thing I iudg'd necessary for the Dr. to haue done was after he had setled the true Notion [Page 213] of Idolatry, to shew how it agreed to the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils; since t'is from them we are to take the terms of Communion with her.

And I wonder yet more, how you should think him defective in this, when he hath treated so largely of the doctrine both of that Wise Synod of Nice, and of that wary Council of Trent, as he calls them.

And what is it He finds in their Decrees that he can fix the notion of Idolatry vpon, without returning it vpon himself, and the Church of England? And first for the Council of Nice. The doctrine of that Council concern [...]ng the Images of Christ and the Saints was no more, but that a honourary adoration be given them, like as is giuen to the Figure of the Holy Cross, to Chalices, to the Books of the Gospels and such like sa­cred Vtensils. This was the doctrine of the Council of Nice: and how it is freed in this from the note of Idolatry by Eminent Divines of the Church of England, you haue heard before in our first Conference. What the Dr. himself saith of it in his Defence is. 1. that the [Page 214] Council required true and real worship p. 575. to be giuen to Images. 2. that it was an Inferiour worship, and not Latria. And supposing this to be as he would haue it, can any thing be clearer, than that the worship or respect which the Council required to be given to Images, was n [...]t the Worship due to God, and conse­quently the Church of Rome not char­geable with Idolatry for any thing con­tained in that decree.

But still the worship, saith he, Def. p. 600. 601. required is higher than meer Reverence, due to Holy places and things; which is but a different vsage and regard from other things; as the Vessels of the Church, or the Chalices are not to be vsed for common drinking. And is there no diffe­rence think you between a Religious respect (if I may so call it) [...]o sacred places and things; and all the most solemn Acts of Adoration, which were euer giuen to p. 603. Images by the grossest and most sottish Idolaters; such as kneelings before them, prostrations, praying with their eyes fixed vpon them, as though they were speaking to them, burning Incense and lights be­fore them?

If Dr. St. will be so liberal as to [Page 215] giue it the title of Religious respect to Holy Places and Things, t'is more than those of the Church of Rome are bound to do by the terms of Communion with her; for there is no such Expression in the Decrees of her Councils. But then again, if the degree of respect or honour to be shewed to them, be only a diffe­rent vsage and regard from other things, as that the Vessels of the Church, or Cha­lices are not to be vsed for common drink­ing, what means the Church of Eng­land by bowing before the Altar? Is not the Altar sufficiently garded by being set with in Rails, and regard sufficiently shewd to it by keeping it clean, and de­cently couered, and not permitting it to be vsed for common eating? Why then must the Ministers bow down before it, as often as they goe in and out of the Chancel, which if the Altar had any sense would think were done to it? as I haue for certain been informed of a Countrey-fellow (something of kin as I suppose to him, who found out the brave Covie of one Partridge) who being got neer the Altar in his Ma^ties Chappel thought all the Congies had been made to him, and so as in Courtship bound [...] [Page 222] [...] [Page 223] [Page 216] fell to making of legs after his Fashion to answer the great Civilities that were done him. On the other side, If the Church of England mean by this Action to shew, what the Dr. saith may be called a Religious respect, to the Altar; on the account of its being Sacred to God, why may not the Church of Rome do the same to the Images of Christ and the Saints? And if Bowing, which is an Act appropriated to God (and reckoned as such by Dr. St. himself to­gether with consecrating, kneeling, &c. p. 861.) may be vsed for that end, why not kneeling, or prostration, or fixing of eyes in time of prayer, or burning In­cense, or lights? What makes the discri­mination between these Acts, if they be all appropriated to God? And if there be none made, and any of them may be vsed, is not the Church at liberty to de­termine which or how many of them she will make vse of? However Those of the Church of Rome to purge them­selues from Idolatry in bowing &c. be­fore the Images of Christ and the Saints may pretend that they intend not to giue to them, the honour due to God; and those of the Church of England, that [Page 217] they intend not to exhibite any Reli­gious worship to the Communion. Table; yet I see not how Dr. St. can purge himself or the Church of England (if it be his) from that crime, when he asserts, that any Image being made so farr the Obiect of Divine worship, that Men do bow down before it (and I suppose the same holds with him for any other crea­ture) it doth thereby become an Idol, and on that account is forbidden in the 2^d Commandment.

But this Act of Bowing is not vsed in the Church of England, as Dr. St. Def. p. 86. 863. saith, with any submission of the mind towards the Altar; as it is in the Church of Rome towards Images; And herein I conceiue he makes the main point of the difference to consist.

This is to give a new turn to the Business. For by this it should seem, that t'is not now the doing an External act appropriated to God, to the Altar, or an Image, which makes it Idolatry, but the intention of the mind with which it is done: And so the Dr. must renounce his old notion of Idolatry, and giue us a new one. But where does he read in the Decree of the Council, that it requires [Page 218] submission of mind to the Images them­selues? What the Council requires is that the Faithful salute them, and exhibite (honorariam Adorationem) a certain worship of honour to them; and whether you will call it Salutation or Adoration, Epiphanius there declares it will be the same thing, so doth the Patriarch Ta­rasius also (Ep. ad Imperator.) when he saith, that the Adoration here meant is no other than a saluting, or if you had rather call it so, Embracing of them. And accordingly the Anathema at the end of the Council runs thus; Si quis non salu­taverit, if any one shall not salute in the name of our Lord and his Saints their sacred Images, &c.

Here I confess the Fathers of that Council showed themselues wary as well as Wise: Notwithanding it is the Def. p. [...]9 [...]. Judgment of many of the most learned and Eminent Divines of the Roman Church, that by the Decree of the Ni­cene Council such true and real worship is to be giuen to Images, as is terminated vpon the Images themselues And amongst the rest Cardinal Lugo saith, that to the worship of Images, it is not only necessary, that the External Act be performed to [Page 219] the Image, viz of kissing or bowing &c. but there must be an inward Affection too which implyes submission. For, saith he, worship, as all agree, is an Expression of submission to the thing worshipped. And it would be ridiculous to say that Peter is worshipped by that token of submission which J shew to Paul. Therefore to the worship of the Image, the outward Act must express the inward submission of the mind to it; or else we must deny the Com­mon definition of Adoration, and make a new one. And this he afterwards proues to haue been the definition of the Se­cond Council of Nice, who did decree that true and real worship is to be giuen to Images, as they are distinct from the Exemplar according euery thing that is required to the nature of worship.

supposing this to be as Dr. St. represents, it is but the Ratiocination of a Divine, endeauouring to shew his Opinion conformable to the words of the Council. But what if the Dr. haue strained the words and sense of the Car­dinal beyond, and besides, if not against his meaning? T [...]is none of the [...]audable vertues of a Contrevertist to do so; yet being a thing so frequently in use among [Page 220] them, I could not hauing the Book by me, but indulge so farr to my Curiosity, as to look into the place cited by the Dr. viz de myst, I nearn. disp. 36. sect. 3. n. 37. And first I found a strange want of exactness as to the words: for what the Cardinal there saith is this.

3. Ponendum est, non it a ferri ad ima­ginem solum actum externum osculi aut genuflexionis &c. ut non feratur etiam ad illam aliquis affectus internus, qui etiam potest dici affectus aliquis summissionis. That is, in the third place it is to be sup­posed, that the sole external Act of kis­sing or bowing &c. is not so carried to the Image, that some inward affection (ali­quis internus affectus, mark that) is not also carried to it, which may be also cal­led (potest dici, mark that also) some, or a certain kind (affectus aliquis) of submission. Now comes Dr. St. and tells us very roundly that Cardinal Lugo saith, that to the worship of Images, it is not only necessary, that the External Act be performed to the Image, of kissing or bowing &c. but there must be an in­ward affection which implies submission. Where, (not to quarrel the words neces­sary and must put into the Text,) I [Page 221] noted that those qualifying or dimini­shing expressions of aliquis and potest dici, were left out by the Dr. and the Sense by so doing rendred Absolute; This I liked so much the worse, for that he had prepared his Reader before hand to entertain this conceit of it, by telling him that Cardinal Lugo saith of the Def. p. 186. word cultus, that in approued Authors he finds it alwaies applied to signify Reve­rence towards Superiours; which ioined to the otherwords, as translated by him, must needs breed an Impression in the Reader, that the inward affection the Cardinal required, was of giving sub­mission to an Image as Superior. This excited me to look into the two fore­going Positions, laid down by the Car­dinal: where I found the first (which he asserts as most certain) to be, that when we worship an Image, the inward affection is not carried to the Image, after the same manner it is to the Prototype. For we worship, saith he, the Prototype absolutely, that is, for it's own proper Excellency; but the Image only with a Relative worship, cultu solum respecti­vo, that is for the Excellency, not of the Image it self, but of the Prototype, [Page 222] which kind of worship (cultus) he affirms to be farr Inferiour to that other, which is Absolute. Again we worship the Proto­type, saith he, as that to which we owe that worship, and to which we pay it as a debt, and in order to which it is an act of Justice. But we do not worship the Image so, but as the term of that worship which we owe to another, that is, the Prototype.

His 2^d Position is, that we haue not the same inward submission towards the Image, which we haue towards the Pro­totype. For we submit ourselues to the Pro­totype, acknowledging it to be more excel­lent than ourselues, and superior to us; which kind of submission we cannot pru­dently conceiue to belong to an Image, nor indeed any at all, by which we submit our selues to it, preferring it before us. For this would be a foolish lye &c. No man therefore can say that the worship of an Image includes such an Internal submis­sion, nor can there be in reason any Con­troversy about it.

Hauing laid down these two Positions n. 35. 36. so directly contrary to the Im­pression which Dr. St. had giuen his Reader by his dexterity in the Art of [Page 223] reporting faithfully, (as he promised) the words and sense of the Authors cited by him, he immediately adds in the 3^d place, n. 37. the passage alledged by the Dr. viz that the sole external act of kis­sing or bowing, is not so carried to the I­mage, but that some inward affection also goes along with it, which he saith may be called also (aliquis affectus) some kind of affection of submission. Here vpon I was drawn yet farther to seek what k [...]nd of submission this was, and n. 39. I found him to mean by it an affection of submit­ting our selues outwardly to the Image: for as much as the act of the will from which it proceeds is an affection of per­f [...]rming those acts about their Images, which we are wont to exercise towards our superiors. And then declares himself far­ther in these words. J truly yeild, saith he, in point of external honour to an I­mage, giuing it a better and higher place, treating it honorably, and the like; but this which J do exteriourly, J do not only interiourly will, but intend also to signify that J haue an intention of per­forming all these things, for the word Adoro, or J worship, signifies saith he, this affection of the mind towards Holy [Page 224] Images; Therefore J signify some inward purpose of yeilding and submitting my self as to my outward deportment, to the Image. And this very purpose or affection is that saith he which we call Internall submission. For we intend neither to say, that we esteem it interiorly to be more perfect than our selues, or that it is superior to us, nor to haue any dominion ouer us, for which we ought to serue it. Who can say this? But only that we haue interiourly an intention of performing outwardly towards an Image for the excellency of the Prototype who is represented by it, those acts of external submission, which we are wont to perform towards those who are more excellent, and haue dominion ouer us; because all this honour is due to the Prototype also in his Image, which in reality, saith he, Sect. 4. n. 49. is no other than to say, that the Prototype in it self deserues to be treated honourably, not only in it self, but in all things which haue connexion with it, as its Image or Garment or the like. This is the Expli­cation the Cardinal himself giues, of what he saith may be called affectus ali­quis submissionis, some kind of affection of submission.

[Page 225] And now I pray consider what a different face of things here is, from what they were represented by Dr. St. and how farr the Cardinal is from ac­knowledging any submission of mind to an Image, as Superior, which is the Impression the Dr. gaue his Reader by forestalling his Judgment, with those other words of the Cardinal, viz, that he had found the word worship in ap­proued Authors to be alwaies applied to signify Reverence towards Superiors, which may be done, by performing ex­ternal acts of honour to them either in themselues, or in such things as haue connexion with them: and then endea­uouring to fix it deeper by leauing out in the passage translated by him, the words Aliquis, and potest dici, vsed on purpose by the Cardinal to qualify the term submission, as applicable to an Image in the manner you haue heard. Had T. G. whom the Dr. calls a man of Tricks, play'd such a trick of leger de­main as this, what sad complaints should we haue had of his want of Candour and Sincerity? What hearty wishes of his fair-dealing and Ingenuity? And afte [...] all, what a Thundershower full of Sul­phur, [Page 226] and Nitre and darkness with a terrible Crack to his credit neuer to be repaired? What think you of this Ca­tharinus?

I cannot say, that this was very fairly done, if it be as you say; And I think if men will cite Authors, they ought to do it in their own words, at least according to their own mea­ning: Or else to what purpose is it done?

To a great deal of purpose I can assure you. For first, it serves to breed a high conceit of the learning and knowledge of the Alledger, especially if the Citations be many and long, and out of Authors of all Nations, and all languages, and all ages, and all Reli­gions. 2^dly It serues to captivate the as­sent of partial Readers, and to suspend at least the Judgment of such as are Im­partial, till they haue examined the Testimonies, which in all likelyhood will be neuer. 3^dly It serues to engage the Respondent (if he haue no more wit) to write a Volume in answer to them as bigg as a Church-Bible, or Foxe's Acts and Monuments, if any considerable part of them should chance to be like [Page 227] this out of Cardinal Lugo: and so the Book to be look'd vpon as not answered, till that be done.

Not so neither, Eunomius, as you put the case. But if four of fiue of them be discovered to be faulty, it will serue to crack the credit, as you say, of all the rest.

This possibly may come to be the Result after a litle time; For I durst my self undertake to shew half a score considerable faults of this nature, in that first glorious Chapter of the Drs. Defence wherein he cites so many Au­thors both ancient and Modern, to proue the Heathens Jupiter to be the one true Supream God, and make their worship and that of the Arians paralel to that of the Church of Rome. And now because the Arians are come in my way, in whose aid the Dr. places so great confidence, I shall giue you ano­ther instance of his sincerity in their very case, both to confirm what I haue ad­vanced with a double witness and to let you see the vanity of the Drs. Argument from the practice of the Arians.

This I should be sorry to hear for the Drs. and the Cause's sake. But [Page 228] for this of Cardinal Lugo though there be stretching in the case, yet I cannot belieue it was done out of design: And after all, I see very well, that he requires some inward affection of submission to an Image, which is sufficient in the pre­sent case to make the difference wide enough between him and the Dr.

The Cardinal saith it may be called so, in regard the External Act of bowing proceeds, as he saith, from an Intention to deferr to the Image an ex­ternal honour not for it's self, but for the Prototype's sake; but yet in reality, he sa [...]th, it amounts to no more, but that the Prototype by reason of it's Excellency deserues to be treated honourably not only in its self, but in all things which haue connexion with it, as an Image or the like. And if this be the Sense of the Council, as the Cardinal endeauours to proue, however Dr. St. may quarrel with him about the words, viz, whether it may be called a certain kind of Affection of submission to the Image, or no? yet I do not see but he perfectly agrees with him in the thing: when he affirms, that al­though Def. p. 600. 601 no irrational or inanimate Being be capable of that real Excellency to [Page 229] deserue any honour f [...]om us for it's own sake (as Aquinas, saith he, determines, and he might haue said, Cardinal Lugo too) yet such things saith he, may haue a Relation to matters of so high a nature, as to deserue a different usage and regard from other things: which is I suppose what he afterwards means by the Reve­rence he saith there is left to be shewed to p. 862. sacred Places, and with an (if I may so call it, iust like the Cardinal) a Re­ligious respect to sacred Places and p. 603. Things. For if these things, vpon ac­count of the Relation they haue to some thing of an higher nature, deserue Re­verence and Respect from us, there must be some Intention of the mind to express it towards them, as is granted by the Dr. himself. p. 862. And if the outward Act to be giuen, be of Bowing which is a Token or Expression of submission, there must be a proportionable Affection of the mind to perform it, for example, towards the Altar. Otherwise the out­ward Act will be false and Hypocry­tical, and no more honour will be done to the Altar, than to another Table by kneeling before it. Whether the Dr. will think fit to call this inward Act of [Page 230] the mind, affectus aliquis submissionis, as the Cardinal thinks it may be called, (potest dici) I should advise him to dis­pute it with him, but that he pro­fesses so sincerely, he loues not to wrangle about words. But whilst he bows towards the Altar with intention to show that Reverence and Respect, which it deserues for the Relation it hath to God, he doth in reality all that to the Altar, which the Cardinal re­quires to be done to an Image. So that if the one be Idolatry, the other must be so too; and if either be more than other, the disadvantage is on the Dr's side, at least as to the manner of Ex­pression; First, because the Cardinal places the desert for which this exter­nal deference is performed towards an Image, in the Prototype; This, saith he, in reality is no more than to say, that the Prototype deserues to be treated honou­rably, not only in it self, but in all things which haue connexion w [...]th it: But Dr. St. places it in the things themselues, which he saith may deserue to haue such Reverence expressed to them for the Re­lation they haue to God. 2^dly Because the Sect. 5. [...]. 62. Cardinal makes the same Reverence in [Page 231] substance, which is terminated on the Prototype to fall after an Inf [...]rior manner on the Image for his sake. But Dr. St. will haue the Reverence shown to sa­cred D [...]s. p. 861. 862. Places and things, (for example to the Altar) together with the Intention to express such outward Reverence to them on the account of their being sacred to God, to be distinct from the Reverence that is due to God: which is the very thing, Vasquez charges with Idolatry, if the Reverence shewn be a token or Expression of submission, as B [...]wing is: so hard a thing is it for him to meddle with those sharp-edged Tools, call'd school-distinctions, without hazarding to cut some thing more than his own fin­gers with them, I mean the very throac of his cause.

This I suppose was the Reason why my Friend the Patron Bonae Fidei, said of him, that he had endeauoured to da [...]b and smooth ouer this kind of Adoration, but levi brachio, as he ex­presses it.

And in that I think he had rea­son: For he that can see the difference between bowing towards an Image as maintained by the Cardinal, and bowing [Page 232] towards the Altar as defended by Dr. St. except in words, must haue his sight sharp enough to discern Invisibles: As he on the other side must haue litle or none left him, that cannot see the diffe­rence between the practice of the Ar­rians, towards Christ, and that of the Chur [...]h of Rome towards the Saints.

This puts me in mind of the other Instance you promised, to confirm what you had said of the Dr's misrepre­senting the Authors he cites. And I pray what was it?

These are some months past, since I took notice of it: But I will look it out against our next meeting. In the mean time you may ruminate vpon his kind usage of the Cardinal.

It hath made too great an Im­pression vpon me to be easily forgotten.

THE FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

Well, Eunomius, haue you found the other Instance you pro­mised to giue me in the case of the Arians, of the Drs. mis-representing (as you call it) the Authors he cites?

I haue, and it is this. Among other Testimonies brought by him with a greal deal of Pomp to shew that the A­rians were charged with Idolatry for the wor [...]h [...]p they gaue to Christ, whom They acknowledged to be a Creature, from thence to paralel their worship with that of the Church of Rome to the Saints, he cites the words of S. Greg. Nyssen Def. p 170. Orat. de laudibus Basilij, viz, that the Denil by the means of Arianism brought Idolatry again insensibly into the world, persuading men to return to the worship of the creature by his sophistry, and that Arius, Eunomius, Eudoxius, and Aerius were his instruments in restoring Idolatry under a pr [...]tence of Christianity. This is what he tells us that Father said, and as to the general truly enough. But was there no more requisite to be done in [Page 235] the case? Doth not S. Greg. tell us in that very place, what kind of worship it was, which the Arians gaue to Christ, and for which he charges them with Idola­try? yes he does. And his words are these, viz, that the deuil under a pre­tence of Christianity brought Idolatry again insensibly into the world, persua­ding men, saith he, not to recede from the Creature, but to adore and worship it, and think a creature to be God hauing giuen it the name of the Son; and although it were of a different nature from God, not to regard that, but placing the name of Christ vpon a Creature, to worship and seru [...] it, and also to fix hopes of sal­vation in it, and expect Judgment from it. Thus doth S. Greg. lay forth the na­ture of the worship which the Arians gaue to Christ. And then come in these other words, uiz, that Arius, Eudo­xius and the rest were the Devil's Instru­ments in the restoring Idolatry. And now I pray tell me, was it not neatly done of the Dr. to wrap vp all this in those short words. The deuil perswaded men to return to the worship of the Creature? Had he made use of this kind of La­conism in those frequent Amplifications, [Page 236] where he dilates himself usque ad nau­seam in things Indifferent, and I may say, Impertinent to the Question, it had been agreat Ease to his Reader, and no Prejudice to his cause. But here to sup­press the nature of the worship giuen by the Arians to Christ, from whence the Paralel was to be made with that which the Church of Rome allows to the Saints was but to cast a mist before his Readers eyes with that General, (and as Mr. Thorndike calls it) equivocal term of worship to a Creature. But then again the setting down the words, as they are in S. Greg [...]ry, would haue been a great prejudice to his Cause indeed, because the world would haue clearly seen, how different the worship, which the Church of Rome giues to the Saints, is from that which the Arians gaue to Christ, ac­knowledging him to be a Creature. For those of the Church of Rome publickly profess that they look not vpon the Saints as Gods, but as the Servants of God; nor as Mediators of Redemption, in whom they put the Trust of their Salvation, and from whom they expect the final reward of their labours; not worship and serue them with Latria, a [...] [Page 237] the Arians did the Son, though they belieued belieued him to be a Creature; but that they humbly begg the prayers of those Just persons, which they know to be available with God, as a means to ob­tain these and other benefits from him (the sole Author of them) by his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, whom they acknowledge to be their only Redeemer and Sauiour. What the Dr. obiects con­cerning the Phrase suppliciter invocare Def. p. 293. used by the Council of Trent is so fri­volous and school-boy-like, (not to say childish, as he does to T. G.) that a man must haue very litle to do to set his wit against it. Euery child knows how to begg his Father's prayers in a sup­pliant manner without making him a God. And for that farther Obiection, p. 294. which, he saith, puts the matter out of dispute with all who do not willfully blind themselues, viz, that the Council of Trent commends the making recourse not only to the Prayers of the Saints, but to their Ayd and Assistance, this pretious Obiection had been quite lost, had he but set down the end for which their ayd and assistance is there required, viz, ob beneficia impetranda a Deo per Fi­lium [Page 238] ejus &c. For the obtaining benefits from God, (the word impetrare signi­fies to obtain by request) through his Son our Lord Iesus Christ. And if the Dr. will needs haue ayd and assistance to be taken as distinct from prayers; A man doth, J suppose answer the signifi­cation of that Phrase by desiring the Saints to employ the Fauour they haue with God, as Iust Persons, for the ob­taining of them from God, without ma­king recourse to them as to the Authors of those Blessings. He that cannot see the difference of these things (as the Dr. Def. p. 861. saith else where) hath some Cataracts before his eyes, which need couching: And I know none fitter to make the Operation in the present Circumstance, than the same S. Gregory in the Ora­tion he made vpon the Great and Holy Martyr S. Theodore, which is not questioned euen by Rivetus himself that Caprichious Fanatick in Criticism, to be the Genuine work of that Father.

In the beginning of that Oration S. Gregory hauing commended his Au­ditors for their devotion to the Mar­tyrs, which he there calleth, [...] a pure worship; and minded [Page 239] them, from the deliverance they had re­ceived the year before from the fury of the Barbarous Scythians by that Glorious souldier of Ch [...]ist S. Theo [...]o [...]e (ut cre­dimus, as we belieue, saith he) to con­sider how great a thing a Iust man is, and how many rewards he is made wo [...]thy of, even in the things of this world, and be­longing to us; He first describes the Ma­gnificent Structure of the Temple, with the great concourse of people from other Cities and Countries to it, the curious peices of Sculpture that were in it in wood, stone, and siluer: and aboue all the Picture of rhe Martyr in the seve­ral Stages of his combat, and that of Christ our Lord assisting him in them drawn with such exquisite Art, that it caused both delight and Benefit in the Spectators to behold them. Then de­scending to the Shrine, where the Body of the Martyr was kept, he sets forth the great esteem the Faithful made of the very dust of the Place, and the ear­nest desire they had to touch the Sacred Reliques, which, he saith, was deemed a great Happiness [...] for any to be permit­ted to do; And in case it were obtained, They embrace, saith he, the Body as if [Page 240] they beheld it yet aliue, app [...]ying it first to their eyes, mouth, eares, and other Instruments of sense; and then pow [...]ing forth tears of duty and Affection vpon the Martyr, as if he were whole before them, sollicite his Supplication and Inter­cession, beseeching him as a Champion of God, and Invocating him, as one that could obtain Blessings, when he would, for them. After this, he dilates himself vpon the valour and Constancy of the Martyr in his Confession and sufferings, with his consummation and passage to Heaven by Fire. Then puts his Audi­tors again in mind of the great benefits received by him, in convocating Assem­blies, instructing the Church, driving away devils, bringing back the Angels of Peace, begging of God profitable things for them, and making the very place where his Body rested, a Store-house of Remedies for manifold diseases; a Har­bour for those who are tost with the Tem­pest of Afflictions, a Plent [...]full Treasury for the Poor, a quiet Receptable for Tra­vellers, and a Glorious Station for such as meet to celebrate his Feast, whom there he calls the Ministers of his Ho­nour. Having thus erected and inflamed [Page 241] their minds with hope of Ayd and As­sistance from the Martyr in their pre­sent necessities, he addresses himself to him at the end of the Oration, in these words. We stand in need of many bene­fits, do Thou intercede and deprecate with our Common King and Lord for thy Country. We liue in continual fear of dan­gers. The Cruel Scythians are not farr off ready to invade us. Do thou as a souldier fight in our defence, and as a Martyr speak with freedome in b [...]half of thy fellow-servants. Though Th [...]u hast ouercome the world, yet thou k [...]o [...]est the Affections and necessities of our humane condition. Begg for Peace that these pub­lick Assemblies be not interrupted by [...]he Incursion of the Barbarians. That we haue been preserved hitherto from their Fury; we acknowledge as a benefit recei­ved from thee. We desire also security for the time to come. And in case there be need of greater Intercession, call an Assembly of thy Brother-Martyrs; Let the prayers of many Iust Persons expiate the sins of Multitudes of Offenders. Ad­monish Peter, excite Paul, and Iohn also the Beloued Disciple, to be solicitous for the Churches they haue founded, and [Page 242] for which they haue suffered Imprison­ments and death; that Idolatry may not lift vp it's head; that Heresies like Thorns may not ouer grow the Vineyard, nor Tares choke vp the wheat &c. But by the vertue, ( [...] by the power) of thine and thy Fellow's Intercession, O admirable Man, and Eminent among Martyrs, the Christian Church may be a plentiful Feild of Harvest, yeilding alwaies fruit of Euerlasting life confer­red vpon us by our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the H. Ghost be Glory, dominion and Honour now and for euermore.