Conferences of Romish Priest Fanatic Chaplin and English Divine, Dialogue 1

Conferences of Romish Priest Fanatic Chaplin and English Divine · Dialogue 1

p. 1First Conference, Concerning the sense of the Church of England, about the Idolatry of the Church of Rome.

Rom. P.

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

Fan. Ch.

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

R. P.

May I know what they are Sir?

F. C.

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

R. P.

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

F. C.

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

R. P.

Who are they who have written for it?

F. C.

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

R. P.

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

F. C.

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

R. P.

Whereabouts are they now in the Catalogue?

F. C.

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

p. 6R. P.

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

F. C.

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

R. P.

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

Pr. Div.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

Is there not a Catholick Church?

P. D.

Do you think I have forgotten my Creed?

p. 7R. P.

Which is that Catholick Church?

P. D.

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

R. P.

I mean the Church of Rome.

P. D.

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

R. P.

But the Roman Church is the Catholick Church.

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

p. 8R.P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

But S. Paul speaks of the Church of Rome.

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R.P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

F. C.

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

P. D.

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

R.P.

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

p. 13P.D.

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

R. P.

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

P.D.

If it be so, I cry T.G. mercy. For, I thought he designed to prove this charge of Idolatry not to be agreeable to the sense of the Church of England. But you say T. G. now denies it; and if I were as Dr. St. I would thank him for it. For, would any man say this, that thought it p. 16could ever be proved to be against the sense of the Church of England? And what could have been more material to his purpose than this, if it could have been done? Well fare T. G.'s ingenuity for once! that finding it impossible to be done, he now denies that he ever attempted the doing it. But the first question in a fray is, how fell they out? we shall better judge of T. G.'s design by the occasion of it. Dr. St. affirmed that in the charge of Idolatry he did not contradict the sense of the Church of England. Did he, or did he not? If he did not, Dr. St. was in the right: if he did, why did not T. G. shew it? But after this yielding up the main point in effect, it is easie to prove that T. G. did design to shew, as well as he could, that the charge of Idolatry was against the sense of the Church of England; but finding it would not do, he now disowns it. For (1.) Doth not T. G. appeal to the Articles of the Church of England for the most authentick declaration of her sense? and because the Church of Rome is not there charged with Idolatry, doth he not hence dispute ex professo, Cath. no Idol. p. 197.that it was against her sense? To what purpose was that ingenious Criticism, of being rather repugnant p. 17to the word of God; which he interprets as though the composers of our Articles had done their endeavour to find a command against the Worship of Images, but could not. What do you think of this argument? what did T. G. intend to prove by it? Is it not as clear as the Sun, that it was to shew that the charge of Idolatry was against the sense of the Church of England? Why then is T. G. ashamed now of it, and denies he had any such design? There must be some more than ordinary cause of a mans denying what he once so openly avowed to do. Nay, in these very Dialogues, after repeating his former words, T. G. saith,Dial. p. 62. Thus clearly hath T. G. evinced the sense of the Church of England in this matter. Say you so? and yet never designed to dispute ex professo, whether it were the sense of the Church of England or not? Who is it I pray hath the knack of saying, and unsaying; of affirming and denying the very same thing in a few leaves? or did T. G. never intend any such thing; but the Church of England of her own accord, knowing T. G.'s good affections to her, stept into the Court, and declared her sense? Have we not the best natured Church in the world that is so kind to her enemies, and p. 18expresseth her sense to be on their side, whether they will or not? Our Church then is like the Countrey mans River which comes without calling; alas! what need T. G. dispute ex professo, what her sense is; she offers her own Testimony, and desires to be heard in the dispute whether T. G. will or not. Let any man judge by these words what T. G.'s design was then, whatever he thinks fit to own now. (2.) He shews, that if it had been the sense of the Church of England in the Articles, Preface to Cath. no Idol.that the Church of Rome were guilty of Idolatry in the Worship of Images, Adoration of the Host, or Invocation of Saints, all those who denyed it, would have incurred excommunication ipso facto, as appears by the Canons. What was T. G.'s design in this, if it were not to prove the charge of Idolatry to be against the sense of the Church of England? Is this only to shew the Witnesses Dr. St. produced to be incompetent? What a benefit it is, for a man to forget what he hath no mind to remember! And then to deny as stoutly as if the thing had never been done. (3.) Is it not T. G. who in terms asserts that Dr. St. betrayed his Church in advancing such a medium, as contradicts the sense of that p. 19Church, (mark that.) It is true, he adds, if it be to be taken from the sentiments of those, who are esteemed her true and genuine Sons. Was it T. G.'s design then, not to dispute what was the sense of the Church of England; nor whether Dr. St. dissented from it? I will not meddle with that, whether T. G. be a competent judge who are the true and genuine Sons of the Church of England. No doubt in his opinion, those who come nearest the Church of Rome are such; and advance such speculations as lay the charge of Schism at her own door. But true Sons are no more for laying division to the charge of their Mother, than the true Mother was for dividing the Son. Those are certainly the most genuine Sons of our Church, who own her doctrine, defend her principles, conform to her Rules, and are most ready to maintain her Cause against all her enemies. And among these there is no difference, and there ought to be no distinction. But if any frame a Church of their own Heads, without any regard to the Articles, Homilies, and current doctrine of our Church, and yet will call that the Church of England, and themselves the only genuine Sons of it, I do not question T. G. and your Brethren would p. 20be glad to have them thought so, to lessen our number and impair our interest; but none that understand and value our Church, will endure such a pernicious discrimination among the Sons of the same Mother; as though some few were fatally determined to be the Sons of our Church, whatever their Works and Merits were; and others absolutely cast off, notwithstanding the greatest service. I should not mention this, but that I see T. G. insinuating all along such a distinction as this; and crying up some persons on purpose as the only genuine Sons of the Church of England, that he might cast reproach upon others; and thereby foment animosities among Brethren. But whose Children those are who do so, I leave T. G. to consider.

R. P.

Whatever T. G.'s intention was, yet you cannot deny that he hath proved two parts in three to be incompetent Witnesses according to his own Measures.

P. D.

Not deny it? I never saw any thing more weakly attempted to be proved, as Dr. St. hath shewed at large in his Preface. Bishop White being rejected as a Puritan, because condemned by that party. Bishop Jewel, because K. Charles said he was not infallible. Bishop Bilson, p. 21because of his errours about Civil Government, though a stout defender of the Church of England. Bishop Davenant, because he was none of the Fathers. Bishop Vsher, because his Adversary gives an ill character of him. By this you may judge, what powerful exceptions T. G. made against two parts in three of the Witnesses.

R. P.

T. G. saith, That Dr. St. rather waved the exceptions by pretty facetious artifices of Wit, Dial. p. 9.than repelled them by a downright denial, out of the affection Catharinus hopes he bears still to the Cause, which had been honoured by such learned and godly Bishops as Jewel, Downham, Usher, the two Abbots and Davenant: which are recorded among the Puritans by the Patronus bonae Fidei.

P. D.

You might as well have quoted Surius & Cochlaeus for your Church; as this Patronus bonae Fidei for ours. For he is an Historian much of their size and credit. But of him we shall have occasion to speak hereafter: T. G. filling page after page out of him. Let the Reader judge whether Dr. St. did not shew T. G.'s exceptions to be vain and srivolous, and consequently these remain substantial and competent Witnesses. And p. 22as to the cause of the Church of England, which these learned and pious Prelates defended and honoured, Dr. St. will rejoyce to be joyned with them, though it be in suffering reproach for the sake of it.

R. P.

Let us pass over these single Testimonies, and come to the most material proofs which Dr. St. used, and T. G. declares, he is not yet convinced by them; that the charge of Idolatry was the sense of the Church of England.

P. D.

With all my heart. The First was from the Book of Homilies, not barely allowed, but subscribed to, as containing godly and wholsome doctrine very necessary for these times; which owns this charge of Idolatry not in any doubtful, or single passage, but in an elaborate Discourse intended for the Teachers, as well as the People. To which he added, that the Doctrine of the Homilies is allowed in the thirty nine Articles; which were approved by the Queen; confirmed by the subscription of both Houses of Convocation, A. D. 1571. And therefore he desires T. G. to resolve him, whether men of any common understanding would have subscribed to the Book of Homilies in this manner, if they had believed the main doctrine and design p. 23of one of them had been false and pernicious? If, saith he, any of the Bishops had at that time thought the charge of Idolatry unjust, and that it had subverted the foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority, would they have inserted this into the Articles, when it was in their power to have left it out? and that the Homilies contained a wholesome and godly Doctrine, which in their consciences they believed to be false and pernicious? He might as well think, he saith, that the Council of Trent would have allowed Calvins Institutions, as containing a wholesome and godly Doctrine, as that men so perswaded would have allowed the Homily against the peril of Idolatry. And how is it possible to understand the sense of our Church better, than by such publick and authentick Acts of it, which all persons who are in any place of trust in the Church must subscribe and declare their approbation of? This Homily hath still continued the same, the Article the very same, and if so, they must acknowledge this hath been and is to this day the sense of our Church. And to what T. G. saith, that this doth not evince every particular doctrine contained in the Homilies to p. 24be godly and wholesome, because the whole Book is subscribed to as containing such doctrine; he answers, that there is a great deal of difference to be made between some particular passages and expressions in these Homilies, and the main doctrine and design of a whole Homily: and between subscribing to a whole Book as containing godly and wholsome doctrine, though men be not so certain of the Truth of every passage in it; and if they are convinced that any doctrine contained in it is false and pernicious. Now those who deny the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry do not only look on the charge as false, but as of dangerous consequence; and therefore such a subscription would be shuffling and dishonest. From these things laid together, in my mind Dr. St. hath not only clearly proved that the charge of Idolatry was not only owned by the composers of the Homilies, but by all who have honestly subscribed to the Articles from that time to our own. And I would be glad to hear what answer T. G. gives to all this.

R. P.

He answers, first by repeating what he said before; and then by shewing that subscription is no good argument, p. 25Dial. p. 15.considering what had been done and undone in that kind in the Reigns of K. Henry 8. Edw. 6. Q. Mary, and Q. Elizabeth, not to speak of latter times.

P. D.

What is this, but in plain terms to say the subscribers of our Articles were men of no honesty or conscience; but would say or unsay, subscribe one thing or another as it served their turn? If this be his way of defending our Church, we shall desire him to defend his own. But yet, this doth not reach home to the Doctors argument, which proceeded not meerly on their honesty, but their having common understanding. For here was no force or violence offered them, they had the full power to consider the Articles, and to compose the Homilies, and would men of common sense put in things against their own minds, and make and approve and recommend Homilies which they did not believe themselves? This evidently proves the composers of the Homilies and Convocation at that time, did approve the doctrine of these Homilies, for it was in their power not to have passed them. Thus far it is plain that was the doctrine of the Church then, and why should we suppose any subscribers to take them in any p. 26other sense, than the Church did then mean them? Nay, Dr. St. challenged him, to produce any one Divine of our Church, who through the long reign of Q. Elizabeth did so much as once question the truth of this charge. Doth T. G. upon so long consideration of this matter name any?

R. P.

Not any that I find.

P. D.

But that will be best seen by considering Dr. St.'s second Argument of the sense of the Church of England in this matter, viz. from the current Doctrine of the Church ever since the Reformation, the injunctions of Edw. 6. of Cranmer, of Q. Elizabeth; the Form of Thanksgiving, A. D. 1594.

R. P.

To this T. G. answers,Dial. p. 17. that this was a heat in the beginning of the Reformation; but after the Crown was settled upon K. James, whose title was unquestionable both at Rome, (at home I suppose he means) and abroad, the dangerous consequences of the charge of Idolatry, began to be more calmly and maturely considered; and were so throughly weighed in the time of K. Charles I. that as Heylin saith, Bishop Laud hindred the Reprinting the Books containing Calvinian Doctrines. Which evidently shews, saith he, that that party never p. 27looked upon the expressions of Idolatry contained in those injunctions as the dogmatical sense of the Church of England.

P. D.

A very likely story! that our Church should vary in its doctrine, because K. James his title to the Crown was unquestionable. It seems before, the Church of Rome was guilty of Idolatry, because Q. Elizabeths title was not owned by the Pope. What a fine insinuation is couched under all this? viz. that our Church depended wholly on the Queens pleasure, and fitted her doctrines to serve her Turn; and when that was over, the Tide turned, and that was pernicious doctrine now, which was wholesome before; and wholesome now, which was pernicious before; and yet there were the same Articles, the same Homilies, the same subscriptions which were before.

R. P.

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

P. D.

P. Heylin speaks not one word in that place of the charge of Idolatry; Cypr. Anglic. p 364. 1 Ed.(although T. G. seems to represent it so) but of those who reviled the Church of Rome it self, and all the Divine Offices, Ceremonies and performances of it. Which it is plain he there speaks of the Genevian p. 28party; for but just before he mentions the Geneva Bible, and the dangerous positions contained in the Annotations printed with it. Now these persons whom he there speaks of, looked upon the Church of Rome as a meer Synagogue of Satan and no true Church; and all the Offices and Ceremonies of it to be so defiled, that no use could be made of them; and on that account they rejected our Liturgie and Ceremonies as taken from the Church of Rome. Although therefore, saith he, Q. Elizabeth might suffer such things to be printed in her time, yet B. Laud would not allow the Reprinting of them; because Q. Elizabeth might out of State policy suffer the violent transports of irregular zeal, by reason of her personal quarrels with the Pope; yet now those reasons being over, B. Laud would not suffer them to come abroad again. But that this expression cannot be understood of the charge of Idolatry, I prove by these arguments. (1.) Pet. Heylin himself preaching before K. Charles I. and Archbishop Laud, did in plain terms charge the Worship of Images with most gross Idolatry: as appears by the words cited at large in Dr. St.'s general preface. What saith T. G. to this?

p. 29R. P.

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

P. D.

That cannot be, for Pet. Heylin goes farther; saying, that they who observe the manner of their Worship of Images, with what Pilgrimages, Processions, Offerings, with what affections, prayers, and humble bendings of the body, they have been and are Worshipped in the Church of Rome, might very easily conceive that she was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism.

R. P.

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

P. D.

This is very subtle, and like T. G. himself. But I pray observe, P. Heylin when he gives an account of the Worship of Images, saith, when the Doctrine, which first began in the Schools came to its growth, what fruits could it bear, but most gross Idolatry, greater than which, was never known among the Gentiles? Mark that for your satisfaction. What fruit could the doctrine bear, and that after it came out of the Schools to its growth. And when he saith, they might conceive p. 30that Rome was once again relapsed into her ancient Paganism; the meaning is, Those that saw their Worship of Images in modern Rome, and compared it with what was done in old Rome, would see no difference; the Idolatry was so gross in both, that if there were nothing else to make a distinction, a man might easily conceive Rome was relapsed into her ancient Paganism.

R. P.

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

P. D.

Because in his Introduction he owns the doctrine of the Homilies as to this point of Idolatry; and that the compilers of the Homilies were the more earnest in this point of removing or excluding Images, Necessary Introd to the History of B. Laud. p. 14.the better to wean the people from the sin of Idolatry, in which they had been trained up from their very infancy. And after, he adds, the people of this last Age, being sufficiently instructed in the unlawfulness of worshipping such painted Images, they may be lawfully used in Churches, without fear of Idolatry. What can this signifie, if he did not take the Worship of Images to be Idolatry? and therefore he could not look upon this as a heat in the beginning of the Reformation; and which p. 31was quite spent in the time of B. Laud; since not only P. Heylin, but the Arch-Bishop himself saith,Conference with Fisher. p. 277. that the Modern Church of Rome is too like Paganism in the Worship of Images, and driven to scarce intelligible subtilties, in her servants writings that defend it; and this without any care had of millions of souls unable to understand her subtilties or shun her practice. And in his defence against the charge of the Commons, he said,History of his Tryal. p. 472. that he had written against the adoration and superstitious use of Images as fully as any man whatsoever. What think you now Sir? was this a heat in the beginning of the Reformation; and when men in Archbishop Lauds time, more duly weighed the consequences of this charge, they grew both cooler and wiser? what evidence doth T. G. produce for this? When the very person he produces for it, is so far from it, that he saith the contrary; and are we not like to meet with very hopeful Demonstrations in the scientifical way from him? But I have one argument yet more, to prove there was no such change as to this matter, in Archbishop Lauds time; which is from the Convocation, A. D. 1640. wherein no one questions the influence and direction of Archbishop Laud, p. 32and the concurrence of those of his Party, as T. G. calls them; and yet in that very Book of Pet. Heylins, Cypr. Angl. p. 435·he might have seen that Canon, wherein they acknowledge the Idolatry of the Mass; and T. G. could not pretend any ignorance of this; for Dr. St. had quoted this very Canon to this purpose, to shew that this was the sense of Archbishops, Bishops and Clergy in Convocation so lately; and so long after the first heats of the Reformation. But what answer doth T. G. give to this, which is so material a Testimony, and so destructive to all he saith, upon this matter?

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

p. 33R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P.D.

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

p. 34R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

F.C.

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

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

P. D.

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

F. C.

I hope you will not interrupt me.

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

P. D.

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

p. 36F. C.

Why, have I not told you already?

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

P. D.

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

F. C.

Kneeling at the Sacrament.

P. D.

For what reason?

F. C.

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

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

To Worship the Bread is Idolatry;

But to kneel at the Sacrament is to Worship the Bread.

Ergo.

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

p. 39That which you kneel before and look towards, when you worship, you do give the worship to:

But you kneel before and look towards the bread when you worship.

Ergo.

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

P. D.

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

F. C.

I think not.

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

p. 481. That it is Idolatry to give adoration to the elements remaining in their natural substances.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

Yes, but we believe it is not the bread.

p. 50P. D.

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

R. P.

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

p. 51P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

However we have the Authority of our Church for it.

p. 55P. D.

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

R. P.

When you are gotten to this point of transubstantiation, it is hard to get you off. It is the sore place of our Church, and you are like Flyes in Summer, alwayes busie about it. I pray return to your Rubrick, for you seem to have forgotten it.

P. D.

No, I have been pursuing it hitherto.

R. P.

But what say you to T. G.'s reasons, why this must be understood of a corporeal presence of Christs natural Body, because you else overthrow the doctrine of a real presence which hath been accounted the doctrine of the Church of England.

P. D.

To this I answer, (1.) The Rubrick saith expresly, that it is against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one. It doth not say against the corporeal presence of his natural Body, but the truth of it; from whence it follows, that our Church believes the true natural body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the Cross, and ascended into Heaven, can be but in one place; which is declared p. 56in the foregoing words, And the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here: i. e. in Heaven exclusively from being in the Sacrament. Which are not true, if the same natural Body of Christ could be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host.

R. P.

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

P. D.

You had heard if you had staid till I came to my second Answer, which is, that notwithstanding this, our Church doth hold, that after Consecration, the Elements do become the Body and Blood of Christ, and so there is a real presence of Christs Body; but not of his natural, but of a mystical Body. I will endeavour to make this out to you, because you look strangely upon me, as if I were big of some mighty paradox. When Paschasius Radbertus did first broach the modern doctrine of the Roman Church about the same body of Christ being in the Sacrament, which was born of the B. Virgin, in the Western Church, he met with great opposition therein from the most learned Divines of that Age; among the rest, there lived then in the Court of Carolus Calvus a man very eminent for his Learning, p. 57called Joh. Scotus, or Erigena. This man at the request of Carolus Calvus delivered his opinion directly contrary to Paschasius; for whereas he asserted, that the very same Body of Christ which was born of the B. Virgin, was invisibly present under the accidents of Bread and Wine, Scotus denyed, that the Elements were in any real sense after consecration the Body and Blood of Christ, the Sacrament being only a bare commemoration, or figurative representation of the Body and Blood of Christ. Hincmar. de praedest. c. 31. Lanfranc. de Corp. & Sang. Christ. c. 4.So Hincmarus who lived in that Age delivers his opinion; which was afterwards taken up by Berengarius, as appears by Lanfrank's answer to him. And Ascelinus in his Epistle to Berengarius shews that Joh. Scotus out of opposition to Paschasius, set himself to prove from the Fathers, that what was consecrated on the Altar was not truly and really the Body and Blood of Christ. These two opposite doctrines being thus dispersed, and a Schism being likely to break out upon it, as appears both by Ratramnus, and the Anonymous Authour, published by Cellotius, (and extant in MS in the Cotton Library) Carolus Calvus sends to Ratramnus (an eminent Divine of that Age, being imployed by the Gallican p. 58Church to defend the Latins against the Greeks) to know his judgement in this matter. He, (who is better known by the name of Bertram) gives, in his Preface, an Account to his Prince of both these opinions, and rejects them both, as against the sense of the Fathers and Doctrine of the Church. In the first part of his Book, he disputes against Scotus who would allow no Mysterie, and in the second against Paschasius who contended that the same Body of Christ was in the Sacrament, which was born of the B. Virgin: this, he saith, was the state of the second Question, whether that very Body of Christ which sits at the right hand of God, be re…eived by believers in the Sacramental Mysterie? And he proves the Negative at large from the Testimonies of the Fathers; shewing, that they did put a difference between that Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin, and suffered on the Cross, and that true but mystical body of Christ on the Altar; and so, from the Testimonies of S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Hierom, Fulgentius; from the Scriptures; and from the Offices of the Church, he concludes point-blank against Paschasius, that it was not the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin. But then p. 59against the opinion of Scotus, he delivers his mind fully in answer to the first Question, saying, If there were nothing in the Sacrament but what appeared to the senses, it was unfitly called a Mysterie; and there would be no exercise for faith; no change at all wrought in the Elements; the Sacrament would fall short of Baptism and the Manna in the Wilderness: and lastly, to what purpose did Christ promise his Flesh to be the Food of his People, which being not to be understood carnally and literally must have a spiritual signification; so that, though as to their outward appearance the Sacramental Elements are Figures, yet according to the invisible Power and Efficacy they are the Body and Blood of Christ. And this he shews, to have been the sense of the Fathers and Christian Church. This opinion of Ratramnus, Paschasius in his Epistle to Frudegardus, calls the doctrine of those who deny the presence of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament; but do hold an invisible power and efficacy in and with the Elements; because, say they, there is no body but what is visible and palpable. And whoever will read that Epistle of Paschasius will find the expressions, he answers, the very same that yet occur in the Book of Bertram. Of the same opinion with Ratramnus p. 60in this matter, was Rabanus Maurus, the greatest Divine accounted of his Age, who wrote his Epistle to Egilo against them, who had lately broached that doctrine (mark that) that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, was the very same which was born of the B. Virgin, and suffered on the Cross and rose from the dead. And this appears from his Epistle to Heribaldus still extant; wherein he saith, he declared in what sense the Sacrament was the Body of Christ. Besides, the Anonymus Authour published by Cellotius, (the only person about that time who appeared in behalf of the doctrine of Paschasius, and very inconsiderable in comparison of his Adversaries) confesseth the opposition made to Paschasius by Rabanus and Ratramnus, and endeavours to excuse his simplicity in asserting that the same flesh of Christ was upon the Altar, which was born of the Virgin, by a new and extravagant supposition of the Sacrament being the medium of uniting two real bodies of Christ; viz. of his flesh and of his Church, and therefore that must be a real body of Christ too; which is so remote from justifying Paschasius his doctrine, that Cellotius himself is ashamed of him. This same doctrine of Rabanus and Ratramnus is expresly owned by the p. 61Saxon Homilies, which deny the Sacrament to be a meer commemoration according to the opinion of Joh. Erigena, but say that after consecration the bread becomes the Body of Christ after a spiritual and mystical manner; and in the Saxon Code of Canons it is expresly determined, not to be that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. And this I assert to be the very same doctrine which the Church of England embraced upon the Reformation; as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers; which although it doth declare against the natural Body of Christ, being in more places than one, even that Body of Christ which is in heaven, yet in the Articles it declares, that the body of Christ is given, taken and eaten, so that to the faithful receivers the Bread consecrated and broken becomes the Communion of the Body of Christ, and the cup of blessing the communion of the Blood of Christ. And so in the Catechism, it is said, that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper; i. e. that after consecration such a divine power and efficacy doth accompany the Holy Sacrament as makes the elements to become the Spiritual and mystical Body of Christ; as the Church is really but mystically p. 62the Body of Christ, because of his Spirit dwelling in them. So the Apology of our Church saith, that in the Lords Supper there is truly exhibited the Body and Blood of Christ, because that is the proper food of our souls, as Bread and Wine tends to the nourishment of our Bodiess And if the time would permit, I could not only more largely prove this to be the sense of our Church, but that it is the true and genuine sense of the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church. And thus I hope, I have done that which T. G. thought so impossible a thing, viz. to explain this Rubrick, so as not to undermine the doctrine of the real presence asserted by the Church of England, nor to leave nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it.

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

A man had need look to his words, when Heresies are so common, and buz so about a mans ears. And some think they confute a man with a vengeance, if they can find out some Heresie with a hard name to fasten upon him. But if you did know wherein the heresie of Impanation lay, you would never charge this doctrine of our Church with it. For I find two distinct wayes of Impanation, and this doctrine is lyable to neither of them. 1. By union of the Bread to the Body of Christ, and by that to the Divinity, which was the way of Joh. Parisiensis. 2. By an immediate conjunction of the Divine Nature to the Bread; not meerly by divine efficacy and power, but by an Hypostatical Vnion: which is the opinion not without ground, attributed to Rupertus Tuitiensis; and is lyable to this great absurdity, that all that befals the Bread may be attributed to the person of Christ, which Bellarmine saith, it is blasphemy to imagine. And then it might be said, that the bread is God, that the Word is made Bread, and that God is p. 66both bread and wine. But all which the doctrine of our Church implyes is only a real presence of Christs invisible power and Grace so in and with the Elements, as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men: As the Bodies assumed by Angels might be called their Bodies, while they assumed them; or rather as the Church is the Body of Christ, because of his spirit quickning and enlivening the Souls of Believers: so the bread and wine after consecration are the real but the spiritual and Mystical body of Christ. If any one yet thinks, that some at least of our Divines have gone farther than this, let them know, it is the Doctrine of our Church I am to defend, and not of every particular Divine in it; and if any do seem to speak of the presence of the very same Body which is in Heaven, I desire them in the first place to reconcile that doctrine with this dogmatical assertion at the end of this Rubrick; that it is against the Truth of Christs natural Body, (not against the corporal presence of it) to be at one time in more places than one. Let men imagine what kind of presence they please of the same body, I only desire to know, whether to be in Heaven, and to be in the Sacrament, be to be p. 67in the same or distinct places? If the places be distinct, as no doubt Heaven and Earth are, then our Church declares that it is contrary to the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be in more places than one at one time.

R. P.

But cannot God annihilate that Cylinder of air between the Body of Christ in Heaven, and the Sacrament on the Altar, and so make them both to be in one place?

P. D.

This is a very idle and extravagant question; because, if it be granted, it only proves that there is nothing between Christs Body in Heaven, and the Host, but it doth not prove the Host to be that Body of Christ; and withal, since so many thousand Hosts are consecrated in a Day, you must suppose so much air annihilated as lies between Christs Body and all those Hosts; but can any man imagine God should annihilate so much air every time a Priest Consecrates? and I remember a good saying of Cajetan, Cajet. in Aquin. 3. p. q. 75. art. 1. & 2. & ….Non est disputandum de divina potentia ubi de Sacramentis tractatur; we must not dispute of Gods absolute power about the matter of Sacraments; because these are so often celebrated, that we are to suppose no more than an ordinary power to p. 68be imployed about them. And suppose we should grant a thing possible by Gods absolute power, he saith, it is folly to assert all that to be in the Sacrament which God can do. However, this doth not reach this Rubrick, which supposes distinct places, and saith, it is contrary to the truth of Christs natural Body to be in more places than one at one time.

R. P.

But may not all this be understood, as T. G. suggests, of the natural manner of a bodies being present in more places than one; viz. that it is repugnant to the Truth of Christs natural Body to be naturally present or in a corporeal manner in more places than one; but it may be naturally present but in one place; i. e. by way of extension or quantity; but it may be present in more places after another manner?

P. D.

I think you have strained for this, and it is your last effort: to which I answer. (1.) It yields no advantage to T. G. for supposing that some of our Divines did hold it possible, that the same body might be present in several places after a different manner, yet how doth it hence follow, that the Rubrick doth not charge them who worship the substance of Bread and Wine with Idolatry? (2.) Supposing p. 69the Church did fix this charge upon those who worship the Body of Christ as present, I desire to know whether another kind of presence would excuse from Idolatry? i. e. supposing that to worship Christs Body as corporeally present be Idolatry, it would not be Idolatry to worship the very same Body as present after another manner? Which is all one, as to ask, whether if it be Idolatry to worship a man with his cloaths on, it be likewise Idolatry to worship him with his cloaths off? If it be, the very same body, let the manner of its being present be the same or different, it doth not alter the nature or reason of worship. Only of the two, it seems more unreasonable to worship an invisible Body than a visible one; for in a visible body, he that worships is sure of something that he sees, but when he fancies an invisible Body present, he fancies something which if it were, must be seen, and yet though he cannot see it, he resolves to worship it. (3.) It is altogether as unreasonable to believe that a Body may be present in several places after a different manner, as after the same manner. For whereever a Body is really present, let it be with extension or without, it is so in that place as not to be in another; i. e. the p. 70Body of Christ being in the Host on the Altar, is so there, as not to be on the floor, or any other place about it; for otherwise, it could not be said to be only under the accidents: I then ask, on what account the same body cannot be present in two places at once after the same manner, and yet may be after a different manner? Aquinas saith,Aq. 4. dist. 44. q. 2. ar. 2. it doth imply a contradiction for the same Body to be in several places at once after the same manner, i. e. by way of extension or quantity; because, it is necessary for the same thing to be undivided from it self, but that which is in several places must be divided from it self. But as Conink well observes, this argument proves it as impossible for the same body to be in several places after a different manner, Conink de sacr. qu. 75. art. 3.for it is never the less divided from it self by being in one place after another manner than in the other: yea it will be more divided, because it will be after two several wayes repugnant to each other. And it is much more easie to conceive that a Body should be in two several places after a natural manner, than to be so in one place; and in another, after such a spiritual manner as is very hard to be understood. Maerat. de sacr. disp. 24. sect. 1.It is much more repugnant, saith Maeratius, for the same Body to be extended and not extended, than to have a double extension. p. 71If it be repugnant to the finite nature of a body, to be in more places than one, because then it might be present in all places; this, saith Lugo, Lugo de Sacram. disp. 5. §. 1.will hold against a Sacramental Presence; for that comes nearer to a Divine immensity for a Body to be in more places without quantity, than with it. Suarez and Gamachaeus say,Suarez in 3. p. disp. 48. art. 1▪ §. 4. Gamach. i… 3. p. qu. 76. c. 4. this comes nearer to ubiquity, because a Sacramental presence supposes the Body to be whole in every part, which a natural doth not. And they grant, that all the contradictions which follow upon being present in several places after a natural manner, will hold if the one be natural and the other not: i. e. that the same Body may be above it self and below it self, within it self and without it self; and may move with two contrary motions upwards and downwards, forwards and backwards; it may be hot in one place and cold in another; it may be alive in one place and dead in another; and which is the highest contradiction, one would think, by force of this principle, a man may be damned in one place and saved in another. And no less a man than Ysambertus hath defended the possibility of this, upon this principle; for, Ysambert. qu. 75. disp. 3. art. 8.saith he, a man as in one place may be killed in a mortal sin, and so be damned; whereas in p. 72another place he may have contrition (and absolution) and so be saved. But Vasquez asks an untoward Question,Vasq. in 3. p. disp. 109. c. 4. art. 6. p. 28. suppose such a man be reduced to one place, whether shall he be saved or damned? for he cannot then be both; and there is no more reason he should be put out of the state of Grace by the state of sin, than out of the state of sin by the state of Grace. Such horrible contradictions do men run into rather than let go an absurd hypothesis; and Suarez confesseth, that a Sacramental Presence, is liable to the same contradictions, because that supposeth a capacity for Acts of the Mind under it. (4.) I say, that asserting a Body to be present naturally in one place, and spiritually and indivisibly in more, doth involve more contradictions in it, than to be present in several places after a natural manner. For the very manner of a bodies being present indivisibly carries contradictions along with it peculiar to it self. For whereever there is a body, there must be quantity, and whereever there is quantity there must be divisibility; how then can a divisible body be indivisibly present? If they say, it is after the manner of a Spirit, that doth by no means salve the contradiction; for how can a body be after the manner of a Spirit? and if it p. 73can, how can the notion of Body and Spirit be differenced from each other? If actual extension may be separated from a Body, why not quantity it self? why may not divisibility be separated from a line? and two and two not make actually four, supposing that they retain their intrinsick aptitude to do it? What becomes of the differences of greater and less, since that which is greater may be contained under the less; and so the very same thing will be greater or less, greater and not greater than it self? What notion can we have of distance, since here a Body is supposed to have all its organical parts, head, breast, legs and feet; and yet no local distance between Head and Feet?

R. P.

I see it is a dangerous thing to give you but a hint about transubstantiation; if you but once take the scent, you run on so fast that it is a very hard matter to take you off. I did not think this Rubrick could have held us thus long; but I see you were resolved to have two or three throws at transubstantiation in passing, though I warned you before about it.

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

F. C.

Only a Nod or two; I hearkened a while, but I found you were about hard and unsavoury notions; truly it was to me no awakening discourse.

R. P.

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

F. C.

Ay, Ay, there is some life in that.

R. P.

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

F. C.

What! a Bishop a Puritan! a good one I warrant you: a Puritan in Lawn sleeves! a Puritan with Cross and Surplice! You know well what belongs to a Puritan, do you not? I tell you, there never was a true Puritan but abhorred these things with all his heart. What do you tell me of a Bishop of Salisbury for a Puritan? I say again, if he had been so, he would have taken his Lawn sleeves and thrown them into the Fire.

p. 75P. D.

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

R. P.

I will tell you; Among other Divines produced by Dr. St. to prove the charge of Idolatry maintained against the Church of Rome in K. James his time, one was Bishop Abbot in his answer to Bishop. T. G. takes this to be Archbishop Abbot, and excepts against him as an abettor of the Puritan party, and tells from Dr. Heylin, that on that account it was thought necessary to suspend him from his Metropolitical Visitation; Dr. St. makes sport with his Suspending a Bishop of Salisbury from Metropolitical jurisdiction, and tells what strange things those of the Church of Rome can do with five words; and upbraids T. G. with Ignorance of our Church; and in truth, is too Tragical upon such a slight occasion. Now T. G. proves, that it was only a mistake of the person, and not of his quality, although Dr. St. saith, that he was never till now suspected for a Puritan.

P. D.

Are you sure of that?

R. P.

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

P. D.

However it is good to be sure. These are Dr. St.'s words. The two first he excepts against, are the two Archbishops, p. 76Whitgift and Abbot as Puritanically inclined; but as it unhappily falls out, one of them was never mentioned by me, and the other never till now suspected for a Puritan. I pray advise T. G. to read a little more carefully, before he confutes: Is it not plain, that he means, Archbishop Abbot was never mentioned by him, and Archbishop Whitgift was never till now suspected for a Puritan? It could be no want of understanding in T. G. to make him thus misconstrue his words.

R. P.

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

P. D.

How doth he prove that?

R. P.

From Dr. Heylin, whose Histories serve us to many a good purpose; for he saith, he was a Calvinian though a moderate one; that he was an enemy to Bishop Laud in the Vniversity, that he commends Mr. Perkins, and wrote his last Book of Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

Not a word that I can find.

P. D.

Let us then see what he doth take notice of.

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

But T. G. saith, they only reprove some practices as Idolatrous, or at least in danger to be such, but Dr. St. acknowledges that they excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry although not all who live in the communion of it.

P. D.

Doth he indeed say so? or is this another piece of T. G.'s fineness? His words are these: And although it may be only an excess of charity in some few learned persons to excuse that Church from Idolatry, although not all who live in p. 84the Communion of it: and then produces the seventeen Testimonies to shew he did not differ from the sense of the Church of England, or the eminent defenders of it ever since the Reformation; and do you think that among his Testimonies, he would produce any, whom he thought to free the Church of Rome from Idolatry? no certainly; but I suppose that clause referred to Mr. Thorndike and some few others; and as to Mr. Thorndike he afterwards produced the passage before mentioned out of some papers written by him a little before his death. What saith T. G. to that?

R. P.

Not a word more, but I find he makes use of Mr. Thorndikes name on all occasions, as if he favoured our side against the Church of England and Dr. St. And the man who manageth the Dialogue against him is brought in as one of Mr. Thorndikes principles. I pray tell me was not he a man in his heart of our Church, and only lived in the external communion of yours?

P. D.

D. St. hath given a just character of him, when he calls him a man of excellent Learning and great Piety; and since so ill use is made of his name in these disputes and such dishonour p. 85done to his memory, I shall but do him right, to let you understand what his judgement was of the Church of Rome: which he delivered in a paper to a Lady a little before his death, from whom it came immediately to my Hands, and is the same paper Dr. St. doth refer to.

1. The truth of the Christian Religion, and of the Scripture is presupposed to the Being of a Church, And therefore cannot depend upon the Authority of it.

2. The Church of Rome maintains the Decrees of the present Church to be Infallible, which is false, and yet concerns the salvation of all that believe it, Therefore no man can submit to the Authority of it.

3. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time, did not make void the baptism of those Sects which did not baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,

But that Baptism is void and true baptism necessary to salvation.

Therefore the Church of Rome may err in matters of salvation.

4. The Church of Rome may err in Schism, following the wrong cause. If you except only things necessary to salvation p. 86to be believed. This shews that infallibility only in things necessary to salvation is not enough. It is destructive to salvation to follow the wrong cause in Schism. Instance. The Schism with the Greek Church for appeals to Rome. For there is evident Tradition to the contrary.

5. The Church of Rome enjoyns Apocryphal Scriptures to be esteemed Canonical Scriptures. But this injunction is contrary to Tradition and Truth, and concerns the salvation of all that receive it.

6. The Church of Rome in S. Jeroms time did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews for Canonical Scripture, as now it doth, and as in truth it is, Therefore the Church of Rome may err in declaring the Authority of Scripture.

7. The Church of Rome doth err in teaching that attrition is turned into contrition by submitting to the power of the Keys;

But this errour is destructive to the salvation of all that believe it.

Therefore it may err in matters necessary to salvation.

p. 87That it is an errour. Because of the condition of remission of sins, which is before the being of a Church; and therefore cannot depend on the Authority of the Church.

8. The Church of Rome injoyneth to believe Transubstantiation, and to profess that which is false. For there is Scripture and Tradition for the presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist; but neither Scripture, nor Tradition for transubstantiation, viz. for abolishing the Elements,

But the Church of Rome injoyns to believe it.

Therefore it enjoyns to believe that for which there is neither Tradition nor Scripture. Witness the Fathers that own the Elements after Consecration.

9. The Council of Trent enjoyneth to believe that Christ instituted a new Passeover to be sacrificed as well as represented, commemorated, and offered in the Eucharist, de Sacrific. Missae, cap. 1. which is false,

For the Sacrifice of Christs Cross is commemorated, represented and offered as ready to be slain in and by the Eucharist; but not slain, and therefore p. 88not sacrificed in it and by celebrating it.

And therefore when it is said there, c. 11. quod in Missa Christus incruentè immolatur, if it be meant properly, it is a contradiction; for that which hath blood is not sacrificed but by shedding the blood of it; if figuratively, it signifies no more than that which I have said, that it is represented, commemorated and offered as slain.

And therefore all parts agreeing to this, the Church of Rome requiring more is guilty of the Schism, that comes by refusing it. For the propitiation of the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the propitiation of Christs Cross purchased for them that are qualifi'd.

10. The Council of Trent commends the Mass without the Communion, cap. 6. wherein it erreth, For the Communion being the restoring of the Covenant of Baptism after sin▪ the want of it without the desire of it is to be lamented not commended, as destructive of the means of salvation.

11. There is neither Scripture nor Tradition for praying to Saints departed, or p. 89any evidence that they hear our prayers.

Therefore it evidences a carnal hope that God will abate of the Covenant of our Baptism, which is the condition of our salvation, for their sakes.

12. To pray to them for those things which only God can give (as all Papists do) is by the proper sense of their words downright Idolatry. If they say their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God; How dare any Christian trust his soul with that Church, which teaches that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not the Figure?

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

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

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

And this doctrine is not only false, but in my opinion properly Heresie, yet practised by so many Popes.

The Church may be divided, that salvation may be had on both sides.

Instances. The Schisms of the Popes. The Schism of Acacius. The Schism between the Greeks and the Latins.

I hold the Schism for the Reformation to be of this kind.

But I do not allow Salvation to any that shall change having these reasons before him; though I allow the Reformation not to be perfect in some points of less moment, as p. 91prayer for the dead, and others.

Remember alwayes that the Popish Church of England can never be Canonically governed being immediately under the Pope.

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

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

p. 98P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

And what then?

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

For the malicious suggestions of so wretched a calumniator, as the Patronus bonae Fidei appears to be throughout that Book, they are not worth taking notice of by any one that doth not search p. 100for dunghils. It is Dr. St.'s honour to be reproached by a man who hath made it his business to reproach the best Church in Christendome, and to undermine all Churches, above thirty years; and yet the ungrateful creature hath in some measure lived upon the Revenues of that Church himself, which he hath so shamefully reviled; being in great part supported by the Bounty of a very worthy and learned Church-man who is nearly related to him. But as to the contradiction charged on Dr. St. I begin to suspect T. G. more than ever I did. For doth not Dr. St. in that place distinguish between immediate Acts and parts of Worship, and circumstances belonging to those Acts, even in the very words alledged by T. G.? And doth not he say expresly, that he doth not speak of these, B. Andrews Resp. ad Apolog. Bell. p. 37. compared with Bur…il. De…ens. Respons. ad Apolog. c. 6. q. 21. B. Sanders. Preface to his Serm. §. 15. De obligat. cons. prael. 4. §. 33.but of the former? And is not the very same distinction used by Bishop Andrews, Bishop Sanderson, and the most zealous defenders of the Rites of our Church? Why then must he be supposed to have changed his mind as to this principle, when he said no more at that time, than what the most genuine Sons of our Church have asserted, among whom I do not question Bishop Andrews and Bishop Sanderson p. 101will be allowed to pass. And they distinguish after the same manner, between the necessary parts of Worship, for which they suppose a command necessary, as well as Dr. St.: and the accidental and mutable circumstances attending the same for order, comeliness, and edifications sake, which are lawful if not contrary to Gods command. And doth not Dr. St. say the very same thing? viz. that in matters of meer decency and order in the Church of God, it is enough to make things lawful if they are not forbidden. Let us now compare this saying with what he calls the Fundamental principle of Separation; that nothing is lawful in the Worship of God, but what he hath expresly commanded: and can any thing be more contradictory to this, than what Dr. St. layes down as a principle in that very page of his Irenicum? that an express positive command is not necessary to make a thing lawful, but a non-prohibition by a Law is sufficient for that. Where then lay T. G.'s understanding or ingenuity, when he mentions such a great change in the Dr. as to this principle, when he owned the very same principle, even in that Book, and that very page, he quotes to the contrary? T. G. doth presume good Catholick p. 102Readers will take his word without looking farther: and I scarce ever knew a Writer who stands more in need of the good opinion of his Reader in this kind, than T. G. doth. As I shall make it fully appear, if you hold on this discourse with me; for I have taken some pains to consider T. G.'s manner of dealing with his Adversary. But this is too gross a way of imposing upon the credulity of Readers: yet this is their common method of dealing with Dr. St. When they intend to write against him; then, have you Dr. St.'s Irenicum? hoping to find matter there to expose him to the hatred of the Bishops, and to represent him as unfit to defend the Church of England. If this takes not, then they pick sentences and half-sentences from the series of the discourse, and laying these together, cry, Look ye here, is this a man fit to defend your Church, that so contradicts himself thus, and thus? when any common understanding by comparing the places, will find them either falsely represented, or easily reconciled. In truth Sir, I think you have shewed as little learning, or skill, or ingenuity in answering him, as any one Adversary that ever appeared against your Church: p. 103and especially, when T. G. goes about to prove that he contradicts himself, or the sense of the Church of England.

R. P.

But I pray tell me, if this charge of Idolatry were agreeable to the sense of the Church of England, why the Articles of the Church do only reject the Romish Doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration of Images, not as Idolatry, but as a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God? For,Dial. p. 51, &c. I perceive this sticks much with T. G. and from hence he concludes Dr. St. to contradict the sense of it,P. 63. who is the Champion of the Church of England.

P. D.

I perceive T. G. kept this for a parting blow, after which he thought fit to breath a while, having spent so many spirits in this encounter; but methinks, his arm grows feeble, and although his fury be as great as ever, yet his strength is decayed. And in my mind it doth not become a man of his Chivalry, so often to leave his Lance, and to run with open mouth upon his Adversary, and to bite till his Teeth meet. For what mean the unhandsome reflections he makes on all occasions,Dial. p. 52. upon his being the Champion of the Church of England; and the p. 104Church of Englands having cause to be ashamed of such a Champion; P. 160. P. 162.and of his putting him in mind of his duty as the Champion of the Church, not to betray the Church he pretends to defend? Where doth he ever assume any such title to himself? or ever entred the lists, but on the account of obedience, or upon great provocation? The name of Champion savours too much of vanity and ostentation, whereas he only shewed how easily the Cause could be defended, when his superiours first commanded such a stripling, as he then was, to undertake the defence of it. But I shall set aside these reflections, and come to the point of our Articles; and therein consider, 1. What T. G. objects. 2. What Dr. St. answered. 3. Which way the sense of the Articles is to be interpreted. T. G. looks upon it as a notable observation, that the Compilers of the 39 Articles (in which is contained the doctrine of the Church of England) sufficiently insinuate that they could find no such command forbidding the Worship of Images, when they rejected the adoration of Images, not as Idolatry, but only as a fond thing vainly invented, nor as repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, but as rather repugnant to the word of God; p. 105which qualification of theirs gives us plainly to understand, that they had done their endeavours to find such a command, but could meet with none. To which Dr. St. gives this answer, that the force of all he saith lyes upon the words of the English translation, whereas if he had looked on the Latin, wherein they give account of their doctrine to foreign Churches, this Criticism had been lost, the words being immo verbo Dei contradicit; whereby it appears that rather is not used as a term of diminution, but of a more vehement affirmation. And what saith T. G. I pray to this?

R. P.

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

P. D.

But what is all this to the Latin Articles which Dr. St. appealed to, for explication of the English? And for the Love of Grammar, let T. G. tell us whether there be not a more vehement affirmation in those words, immo verbo Dei contradicit. Either T. G. should never have mentioned this more, or have said something more to the purpose. For doth he think our Bishops and Clergy p. 106were not careful that their true sense were set forth in the Latin Articles? And their sense being so peremptory herein and contrary to T.G. is there not all the reason in the world to explain the English Articles by the Latin, since we are sure they had not two meanings? This is so plain, I am ashamed to say a word more to it.

R. P.

But T. G. is very pleasant in describing the arguments Dr. St. brings to prove the Articles to make the worship of Images Idolatry, because it is called Adoration of Images, and said to be the Romish Doctrine about adoration. But after the Cat hath plaid with the Mouse as long as he thinks fit, leaping and frisking with him in his claws, at last he falls on him with his Teeth, and hardly leaves a bone behind him.Dial. p. 53, 54. After he hath muster'd his arguments, and drawn them out in rank and file, and made one charge upon another, for the pleasure of the Reader, he then gives him a plain and solid answer;P. 56. viz. by the words Romish doctrine concerning adoration of Images may be understood either the Doctrine taught in her Schools, which being but the opinions of particular persons, no man is bound to follow, or the doctrine taught in her Councils which all those of her communion are bound to submit p. 107to. If the Doctrine which the Church of England chargeth be that which is taught by some of her School Divines (which he takes to be her true meaning) this is also denyed (at least by those very Divines who teach it) to be Idolatry. If by the Romish Doctrine be meant the Doctrine of Councils owned by the Church of Rome concerning worshipping and adoration of Images, then herein she is vindicated from Idolatry by Eminent Divines that have been esteemed true and genuine Sons of the Church of England.

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

R. P.

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

The end of the first Conference.