Conferences of Romish Priest Fanatic Chaplin and English Divine, Dialogue 2

Conferences of Romish Priest Fanatic Chaplin and English Divine · Dialogue 2

p. 113THE Second Conference, About the consequences of the charge of Idolatry.

P. D.

HOw long have you been at the Auction?

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

p. 114P. D.

What reason can you give for that?

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

p. 120R. P.

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

P. D.

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

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

Yes, without doubt.

P. D.

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

R. P.

Yes, but what then?

P. D.

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

R. P.

What would you be at?

P. D.

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

R. P.

No certainly.

P. D.

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

R. P.

And what then?

P. D.

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

R. P.

Be it so.

P. D.

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

p. 127R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

No.

P. D.

Do you deny this power to be part of jurisdiction?

R. P.

No.

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

p. 128P. D.

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

R. P.

I do not understand you.

P. D.

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

R. P.

No.

P. D.

Is not that Power a part of Episcopal Authority?

R. P.

Yes.

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

p. 129P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P.D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

Yes; now you have hit upon his right meaning.

P. D.

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

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

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

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

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R.P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

That is as true as others of his suggestions. The Book was Printed while things were unsetled, and was intended to remove the violent prejudices of the dissenting party against Episcopal p. 150Government; and I have heard, did considerable service that way, at least in a Neighbour Kingdom, and it happened to be reprinted afterwards, with the same Title it had before. But what then? Do not Booksellers look on Books as their own, and do what they please with them, without the Authors consent or approbation? Hath he ever Preached or Written any Doctrine since, contrary to the sense of the Church of England? Hath he made any party or faction to the disturbance of the Peace of the Church? Hath he not conformed to its Rules, observed its Offices, obeyed his Superiours, and been ready to defend its Cause against Adversaries of all sorts? And can malice it self after all this fasten such a calumny upon him, that he is a secret enemy to the Church of England, and designs to ruine and destroy it? I remember a poor Englishman in Amboyna being cruelly tormented by the Dutch; and finding nothing he could say would perswade his Tormentors to release him (and he said any thing that he thought would prevail with them) at last he prayed God, that he might tell them Probable Lies. I would advise T. G. the next time he goes a Mole-catching, to p. 151find out Probable Plots, otherwise he will lose all the reputation of an Informer and Discoverer. But I can hardly tell, whether his Plot or his Proofs were the worse; for as there appears no likelihood in the Plot, so there is no evidence in the Proofs. There being nothing pretended since the Irenicum, but this charge of Idolatry, and that hath been sufficiently cleared already, by shewing that it doth not subvert the Authority of the Church of England.

R. P.

Let us now, if you please, proceed to the other dangerous consequences of this charge, as they are mustered up by T. G.: One is, That it overthrows the Article of the Holy Catholick Church.

P. D.

That is something indeed; what! doth it take away an Article of the Creed? Nay then, it is time to look about us. But how I pray?

R. P.

I will tell you how. If the Church hath been guilty of Idolatry, (1.) Then she hath required and enjoyned Idolatry, Dial. p. 66, 67.for many hundreds of years parallel to the Heathens. (2.) Then Mahomet had more wisdom and power to carry on his design than the Son of God, for his followers have been preserved from it by the grounds he laid above a thousand years. p. 152(3.) Then our Fore-fathers had better been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity as they were.

P. D.

I deny every one of these consequences. For our present dispute is only about the Church of Romes being guilty of Idolatry; and from thence (1.) it doth not follow, that the whole Christian Church must require Idolatry, if that doth; unless T. G. had proved, that all other Churches are equally involved in the same guilt, which he never attempted. (2.) It doth not follow that Mahomet was wiser than Christ; for if you compare the grounds laid for Divine Worship by Christ and Mahomet; I say that Christ did shew infinitely more Wisdom in them, than so vile an Impostor; and it is a shame for any Christian to suggest the contrary: but if T. G. speaks of Power to carry on his design; then it must suppose that Mahomets Power hath preserved the Mahumetan Religion so long free from Idolatry, although Christ hath not; which must imply the greatness of Mahomets Power in Heaven; and so it borders upon blasphemy. (3.) It doth not follow that our Fore-fathers had better been converted to Judaism or Turcism than to Christianity. For they had incomparably p. 153greater advantages towards their salvation than either Turks or Pagans; and such circumstances might accompany their practice of Idolatry, as might make it not to hinder their salvation. But I shall give you a full answer to this in the words of Bishop Sanderson, (who is another competent witness, if any more were needful, that Dr. St. doth not in the charge of Idolatry contradict the sense of the Church of England.) We have much reason to conceive good hope of the salvation of many of our Fore-fathers: who,B. Sanderson Gen. 20.6. n. 17.Gen 20:6 led away with the common superstitions of those blind times, might yet by those general truths, which by the mercy of God were preserved among the foulest over-spreadings of Popery, agreeable to the Word of God (though clogged with an addition of many superstitions and Antichristian Inventions withal) be brought to true faith in the Son of God; unfeigned Repentance from dead Works; and a sincere desire and endeavour of new and holy Obedience. This was the Religion that brought them to Heaven, even Faith and Repentance, and Obedience. This is the true, and the Old and the Catholick p. 154Religion: and this is our Religion, in which we hope to find salvation; and if ever any of you that miscall your selves Catholicks come to Heaven, it is this Religion must carry you thither. If together with this true Religion of Faith, Repentance, and Obedience, they embraced also your additions, as their blind Guides then led them; prayed to our Lady, kneeled to an Image, crept to a Cross, flocked to a Mass as you now do: these were their spots and their blemishes; these were their hay and stubble; these were their errours, and their Ignorances. And I doubt not, but as S. Paul for his blasphemies and persecutions, so they obtained mercy for these sins, because they did them ignorantly in misbelief. And upon the same ground we have cause also to hope charitably of many thousand poor souls in Italy, Spain and other parts of the Christian world at this day, that by the same blessed means they may attain mercy and salvation in the end, although in the mean time through ignorance they defile themselves with much foul Idolatry, and many gross superstitions.

Obj. But the Ignorance which excuseth p. 155from sin, is Ignorantia facti, according to that hath been already declared; but theirs was Ignorantia juris, which excuseth not. And besides, as they lived in the practice of that Worship which we call Idolatry, so they dyed in the same without repentance; and so their case is not the same with S. Pauls, who saw those sins and sorrowed for them, and forsook them; but how can Idolaters, living and dying so without repentance, be saved?

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

R. P.

But hath not Christ promised that p. 157the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against his Church?

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

p. 161R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

I perceive you begin to be out of patience.

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

F. C.

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

R. P.

What is it? if we may ask you.

F. C.

It is no comfort either to you, or me.

R. P.

If I be concerned, I pray let me know.

F. C.

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

R. P.

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

F. C.

Who doubts of that?

P. D.

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

F. C.

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

p. 169P. D.

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

F. C.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

p. 170R. P.

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

P. D.

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

p. 171F. C.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

Therefore the Church of Rome is not guilty of Idolatry.

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

What! would you have a man do nothing to fill up a Book, and make it carry something of the Port of an Answer; especially to a thick Book of between 800 and 900 pages?

P. D.

If this be your design, go on: but I will make my answers as short as I can; for methinks T. G. seems to have lost that spirit and briskness he had before; for then he talked like a man that p. 174had a mind to keep close to the point; but now he flags and draws heavily on: For he repeats what he had said before for some pages, and then quotes out of Dr. St.'s other Books for several pages more, and at last it comes to no more than this, Dr. St. doth in some places of his Writings seem to favour the Dissenters. I am quite tired with this impertinency: yet I would fain see an end of these things, that we might come close to the business of Idolatry which I long to be at.

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

To please you I will bring this charge as near to the point of Idolatry as I can; the substance of it is this, Dr. St. saith, the Church of England doth not look on her Articles as Articles of Faith, Dial. p. 84, &c.but as inferiour Truths; from thence T. G. infers, (1.) The Church of Rome doth not err against any Articles of Faith. (2.) Dr. St. doth not believe the thirty nine Articles to be Articles of Faith. (3.) Then this charge of Idolatry is vain and groundless, because Idolatry is an error p. 175against a Fundamental point of Faith.

P. D.

Here is not one word new in all this long charge, but a tedious repetition of what T. G. had said before. It consists of two points. 1. The charge upon Dr. St. for undermining the Church of England. 2. The unreasonableness of the charge of Idolatry upon his own supposition. Because T. G. seems to think there is something in this business which touched Dr. St. to the quick, and therefore he declined giving any answer to the First Part of it, I will undertake to do it for him. Dr. St. doth indeed say that the Church of England doth not make her Articles Articles of Faith, as the Church of Rome doth the Articles of Pope Pius the fourth his Creed. And did ever any Divine of the Church of England say otherwise? It is true the Church of Rome from her insolent pretence of Infallibility, doth make all things proposed by the Church of equal necessity to Salvation; because the ground of Faith is the Churches Authority in proposing things to be believed. But doth the Church of England challenge any such Infallibility to her self? No. She utterly disowns it, in her very Articles; therefore she must leave matters of p. 176Faith, as she found them; i. e. she receives all the Creeds into her Articles and Offices, but makes no additions to them of her own; and therefore Dr. St. did with great reason say, that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world and of all Ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self: from whence he doth justly magnifie the moderation of this Church in comparison with the Church of Rome.

R. P.

But T. G. saith, That he hath degraded the Articles of the Church of England from being Articles of Faith, into a lower Classe of inferiour Truths.

P. D.

I perceive plainly T. G. doth not know what an Article of Faith means according to the sense of the Church of England. He looks on all propositions made by the Church as necessary Articles of Faith, which is the Roman sense, and founded on the doctrine of Infallibility; but where the Churches Infallibility is rejected, Articles of Faith are such as have been thought necessary to Salvation by the consent of the Christian world, which consent is seen in the Ancient Creeds. And whatever p. 177doctrine is not contained therein though it be received as Truth, and agreeable to the Word of God, yet is not accounted an Article of Faith: i. e. not immediately necessary to Salvation as a point of Faith, But because of the dissentions of the Christian world in matters of Religion, a particular Church may for the preservation of her own peace declare her sense as to the Truth and Falshood of some controverted points of Religion, and require from all persons who are intrusted in the Offices of that Church a subscription to those Articles, which doth imply that they agree with the sense of that Church about them.

R. P.

But Dr. St. saith from Arch-bishop Bramhall, that the Church doth not oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them, and upon this T. G. triumphs over Dr. St. as undermining the Doctrine and Government of the Church of England.

P. D.

Why not over Arch-Bishop Bramhall, whose words Dr. St. cites? And was he a favourer of Dissenters, and an underminer of the Church of England? Yet Dr. St. himself in that place owns a subscription to them as necessary; and what doth subscription imply less than p. 178agreeing with the sense of the Church? So that he saith more than Arch-Bishop Bramhall doth. And I do not see how his words can pass, but with this construction, that when he saith, we do not oblige any man to believe them, he means as Articles of Faith, of which he speaks just before. But I do freely yield that the Church of England doth require assent to the truth of those propositions which are contained in the thirty nine Articles: and so doth Dr. St. when he saith, the Church requires subscription to them as inferiour Truths, i. e. owning them to be true propositions, though not as Articles of Faith, but Articles of Religion, as our Church calls them.

R. P.

If they are but inferiour Truths, saith T. G. was it worth the while to rend asunder the Peace of Christendom for them? Is not this a very reasonable account, as I. S. calls it, of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion, and a rare way of justifying her from the guilt of Schism?

P. D.

T. G. mistakes the matter. It was not our imposing negative points on others; but the Church of Romes imposing false and absurd doctrines for necessary Articles of Faith, which did break the Peace of Christendom. We could p. 179have no communion with the Church of Rome unless we owned her Supremacy, her Canon of Scripture, her Rule of Faith, or the equality of Tradition and Scripture, her doctrines of Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images, Transubstantiation, &c. and we were required not only to own them as true, which we know to be false; but as necessary to Salvation, which we look on as great hinderances to it. What was to be done in this case? Communion could not be held on other terms, than declaring false opinions to be true, and dangerous Doctrines to be necessary to Salvation. On such terms as these we must renounce our Christianity, to declare that we believed falshoods for truths, and not barely as truths, but as necessary Articles of Faith. Therefore what Schism there was, the Church of Rome must thank her self for. And when this breach happened, our Church thought it necessary to express her sense of these Doctrines, that they were so far from being Articles of Faith, that they were false and erroneous, having no foundation either in Scripture or Antiquity: and required a subscription to this declaration, from such as are admitted to p. 180teach and instruct others. How could our Church do less than she did in this matter, if she would declare her sense to the World, or take care of her own security? And is this making Negative Articles of Faith; about which T. G. and E. W. and others, have made such senseless clamours? when we only declare those things they would impose upon us to be so far from being Articles of Faith, that they are erroneous Doctrines, and therefore are rejected by us. And this I take to be a Reasonable Account of the Potestant Religion; which is more than I. S. hath given to those of his own Church of his Demonstrations.

R. P.

But since Dr. St. grants the Church of Rome to hold all the essential points of Faith, how can he charge her with Idolatry, since Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith? I pray answer to this, for this comes home to the business.

P. D.

I am glad to see you but coming that way. To this Dr. St. hath already given a full and clear answer, in his late Defence.Defence, p. 187, &c.

(1.) He saith, by the Church of Romes holding all essential points of Faith no more is meant than that she owns and receives all the Ancient Creeds.

p. 181(2.) T. G. grants, that Idolatry is giving the Worship due to God to a Creature; If therefore a Church holding the essential points of faith may give the Worship due to God to a Creature, then there is no contradiction between saying the Church of Rome holds all the essential points of faith, and yet charging it with Idolatry. Because Idolatry is a practical Errour, and therefore may be consistent with holding all the doctrinal points of Faith; no more being necessary to it, as Dr. St. proves, than entertaining a false notion of Divine Worship, by which means it may really give Gods worship to a Creature, and yet be very Orthodox in holding that Gods Worship ought not to be given to a Creature.

R. P.

T. G. was aware of this Answer, and thus he takes it off. To err, he saith,Dial. p. 92. strictly speaking, is to teach that which is opposite to Truth; but if the Church of Rome teaches that the Worship she gives to Saints and Images is not a part of the Honour due to God, and yet it is; then she errs against the second Commandment, though she judges she doth not.

P. D.

What is this to the purpose? the question is not whether Idolatry doth not imply a practical errour against the second p. 182Commandment; but whether it be consistent with the doctrinal points of Faith, such as are essential to the Being of a Church? For of this sort of Errours, all the dispute was, as is plain from Dr St.'s words, which gave occasion to this objection.

R. P.

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

P. D.

If it be, The more care had they need to have who put it out of their Books, that it may not fly in their Faces. But who ever reckoned the Commandments among the Articles of Faith? I do not deny it to be a very dangerous practical Errour to destroy the doctrine of the second Commandment; or rather to take away the whole force of the precept; but I say, this is none of those essential points of Faith, which Dr. St. spake of, and therefore this is no answer to him.

R. P.

Therefore T. G. adds, that this doth not proceed upon a general Thesis, Dial. p. 94.whether some Idolatrous practice may not consist with owning the general principles of Faith; but upon a particular Hypothesis, whether the Worship of God by an Image, be not an errour against the doctrine of the second Commandment, if that be to forbid men p. 183to worship him by an Image? And therefore if it be a Fundamental point to believe that to be Idolatry which God hath expresly forbidden in the Law under the notion of Idolatry, and that be the worshipping of him by an Image, as Dr. St. asserts; 'tis clear that the Church of Rome in telling men it is not Idolatry, errs against a Fundamental point, and he cannot according to his principles maintain his charge of Idolatry without a contradiction.

P. D.

This is then the thing to be tryed; and therefore we must judge of it by what Dr. St. said, to which this is supposed to be a Contradiction. Did he ever say that the Church of Rome did not erre against the doctrine of the second commandment? Nay, he hath invincibly proved it hath. I say invincibly, since T. G. gives it up in these Dialogues; spending so many pages upon the repetition of his old arguments, and passing over all that elaborate discourse of Dr. St. about the sense of the second Commandment, on which the hinge of the Controversie depends. If then Dr. St. doth charge them with a very dangerous and pernicious errour in respect of this Commandment, that could not be the Fundamental errour he cleared the Church of Rome from, when p. 184he said, she held all essential points of Faith, (mark that) and he explained himself purposely to prevent such a mistake, to mean such doctrinal points of Faith as are essential to the constitution of a Church and the true Form of Baptism; now the question is, whether it be a contradiction for a man to say, that the Church of Rome doth hold all these essential points of faith, and yet is guilty of Idolatry? And how after all, hath T. G. proved it? It is a fundamental point, saith he, to believe that to be Idolatry which God hath forbidden as Idolatry; and so it is to believe that to be Perjury, and Theft and Adultery, which God hath forbidden under their notion. But will any man say the true notion of Adultery is a doctrinal point of Faith? Although therefore it be granted that the Church of Rome do err fundamentally against the second Commandment; yet that doth not prove Dr. St. guilty of a contradiction, because he spake not of practical errours, but of the Doctrinal and essential points of Faith. And now I hope we have done with all these preliminaries, and may come to the point of Idolatry it self.

R. P.

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

p. 185P. D.

What is that?

R. P.

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

P. D.

To what end should you repeat all that? I begin to think you were not in jest, when you said T. G. put in some things to fill up his Book. Dr. St. had before declared the great esteem he had for Mr. Thorndikes Learning and Piety; but in this particular, he declared, that he saw no reason to recede from the common doctrine of the Church of England, on the account of Mr. Thorndikes Authority, or Arguments. And I have already given you such an account of his opinion with respect to the Church of Rome, as I hope will take off Mr. Thorndikes Testimonies being so often alledged against us by T. G. and his Brethren. If T. G. had not purposely declined the main matters in debate between Dr. St. and him, he would never have stuffed out so much of his Book with things so little material to that which ought to have been the main design of it.

R. P.

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

P. D.

I am glad to hear it; I hope then he takes off the force of what Dr. St. had said in his late Defence about it. For I assure you it was much expected from him.

R. P.

What would you have a man do?Dial. from p. 116. to 120. p. 121, 122. p. 127. he produces at least four leaves of what he had said before: and then a little after, near two leaves more: and within a few pages, above two leaves again out of his old Book; and then tells how Dr. St. spends above an hundred pages about the sense of the second Commandment, whereas he neither removes the contradictions, nor answers the arguments of T. G. but criticizeth upon the exceptions of T. G. to the several methods for finding out the sense of the Law; but, saith he, what need so much pains and labour be taken, if the Law be express; and do not you think this enough about the second Commandment?

P. D.

No truly. Nor you neither, upon any consideration. For the Dr. in his Discourse upon the second Commandment,Defence, from p. 673. to p. 692. (1.) hath manifestly overthrown T. G.'s notion of an Idol, viz. of a figment set up for Worship, by such clear p. 187and convincing arguments, that if T. G· had any thing to have said in defence of it, he would never have let it escaped thus. (2.) (*)(*)From p. 692. to p. 698.He hath proved the sense he gives of the Commandment to be the same which the Fathers gave of it. (3.) (†)(†)From p. 702. to p. 717.He takes off T. G.'s instances of worshipping before the Ark and the Cherubims; and (*)(*)From p. 717. to p. 720.the Testimony of S. Austin. (4.) (†)(†)From p. 720. to p. 784.He answers T. G.'s objections and clears the sense of the Law by all the means a Law can be well understood. And is all this, do you think, answered by T. G.'s repeating what he had said before; or blown down by a puff or two of Wit? I do not know what T. G. thinks of it, but I do not find any understanding man takes this for an answer, but a meer put-off. So that I may well say, Dr. St.'s proofs are invincible, when T. G. so shamefully retreats out of the Field, and sculks under some hedges and thorns which he had planted before, for a shelter in time of need.

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

Bu… T. G. will think them unanswerable, p. 188till he receive satisfaction concerning them.

P. D.

That it may be is impossible to give a man, that hath no mind to receive it; but if you please, let me hear the strength of what T. G. lays such weight upon, that he may have no such pretence for the future; and lest the third time we meet with the same Coleworts.

R. P.

Dial. p. 116, 117.Doth not Dr. St. make express Scripture his most certain rule of Faith? Doth not he on the other side deny any thing to be an Article of Faith, which is not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self. Then if God hath expresly forbidden the worship of himself by an Image, it is an Article of Faith that he ought not to be worshipped by an Image; and since Rome doth not acknowledge it, it is not an Article of Faith. Therefore T. G. calls upon the Dr. to speak out. Is it, or is it not an Article of Faith? But T. G. saith, he hath found out the Mysterie of the business (for he can find out Mysteries, I assure you, as well as discover plots, and catch Moles) to gratifie the Non-conformists, the Articles of the Church of England must pass only for inferiour truths; but when the Church of p. 189Rome is to be charged with Idolatry, then they are Articles of Faith: so that, as T. G. pleasantly saith, the same proposition taken Irenically is an inferiour Truth, but taken Polemically it must be an Article of Faith, because expresly revealed in Scripture.

P. D.

Is this it which T. G. thought worth repeating at large? surely it was for the sake of the Clinch of Irenically and Polemically, and not for any shew of difficulty in the thing. For all the Mist is easily scattered by observing a very plain distinction of an Article of faith; which is either taken, 1. For an essential point of faith, such as is antecedently necessary to the Being of a Christian Church; and so the Creed is said to contain the Articles of our Faith, and in this sense Dr. St. said the Church of Rome did hold all the essential points of faith which we did. 2. For any doctrine plainly revealed in Scripture which is our Rule of faith. And did Dr. St. ever deny that the Church of Rome opposed some things clearly revealed in Scripture? nay, it is the design of his Books to prove it doth. And if every doctrine which can be deduced from a plain command of Scripture, is to be looked on as an Article p. 190of Faith, then that the Cup is to be given to those who partake of the Bread, that Prayers are to be in a known Tongue, will become Articles of Faith, and do you think Dr. St. either Irenically or Polemically, did ever yield that the Church of Rome did not oppose these? If T. G. lays so much weight on such slight things as these, I must tell you he is not the man I took him for: and I believe it was only civility in Dr. St. to pass such things by.

R.P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

P. D.

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

R. P.

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

F. C.

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