Conferences of Romish Priest Fanatic Chaplin and English Divine, Dialogue 4 (3 of 3)

Conferences of Romish Priest Fanatic Chaplin and English Divine · Dialogue 4 (3 of 3)

p. 483R. P.

Hath God tyed us by his command to offer Sacrifice, or burn Incense, or make Vows to him? How then can he argue the Romanists guilty of Idolatry upon the account of giving Acts appropriated to God to others beside him, when himself if put to it, will deny that God hath commanded them to be done at all to him?

P. D.

To clear this matter a little more to you, you may consider two things concerning appropriate Acts of Divine Worship. 1. The general prohibition of giving Religious Worship to any thing besides God. Which our Saviour hath delivered in those words,Mat. 4.10.Matt 4:10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Which the Primitive Church took for their fundamental Rule of Worship; and understood it in this sense, That all Acts of Religious Worship were to be performed to God alone. And therefore of what kind soever the p. 484Acts were, whether we were tied to perform them to God or not, if they were looked on as Acts of Religious Worship given to any Creature, they utterly and peremptorily refused to do them, and rather chose to suffer Martyrdom; as was plain in the case of burning Incense to the Emperours Image. No Christians did then think that we were tied to offer incense to God, and yet they esteemed it Idolatry to offer incense to any Creature; therefore it is not necessary to the nature of Idolatry, that the Act of Worship be such as we are tied to give unto God; it being sufficient that it is an act of Religious Worship; and the giving of any such to a creature is Idolatry; and without this, it is impossible to defend the Martyrs of the Primitive Church; which all Christians are bound to do.

2. As to particular Acts of Divine Worship, though they are always unlawful to be given to any thing besides God, yet we are not tyed after the same manner to perform them to him. For (1.) Some Acts of Worship are natural and always equally agreeing to the Majesty of God; such as Prayer and Invocation; Dependence on his Goodness and Providence; Thanksgiving for Mercies received; and p. 485all internal Acts of Worship, which result from the relation we stand in to God, and the apprehensions we ought to have of his Perfections; as Fear from his Power, Submission from his Providence, Faith and Trust in him from his Truth and Wisdom, Love from his Goodness, &c. All these are necessary Acts of worship, and proper to God. (2.) Some Acts of worship are appropriated to him when they are due, but they are not alwayes due: such as making vows, and swearing by his name. Although we are not tied to perform these at any certain times, yet whenever they are done, they must be done to God alone. (3.) Some acts are not necessary to be done to God at all; and yet it is unlawful to do them to any other. And of this kind are the offering Sacrifices and burning Incense; which were strictly required under the Law, but that dispensation expiring after the coming of Christ, the obligation to those Acts was wholly taken away, and yet it was Idolatry to use them to any thing besides God; because they were Acts of Religious Worship, and therefore if to be performed at all, they were so due to him that they could not without Idolatry be applied to any besides him. And thus, I hope, I have a p. 486little helped your understanding about these appropriate Acts of Divine Worship.

R. P.

But the force of the ceremonial Law being taken away; Dial. p. 452.whatever is not obliging by the Law of Nature, or some express declaration of the will of Christ, is left at liberty for the Church to use conformably to the light of nature, and the design of Christs Doctrine.

P. D.

All this I yield. But that which I insist upon, is that fundamental precept of worship as declared by Christ, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve.

R. P.

But do you think that Christ hath made a re-establishment of those Acts in the new Law which were before peculiar to God, Dial. p. 454.as Sacrifice, Incense, &c. for then Christians will be as much bound by this precept to give them to God, as not to give them to any other. But if they are not re-established, how doth it follow, that because they were appropriated to God by the Law, therefore now that Law is taken away, they are forbidden to any other besides God?

P. D.

I do not say that Christ did intend a re-establishment of those Acts of Worship which were peculiar to the Law of Moses; but I do say, that Christ by this Precept as explained by himself, doth p. 487make it utterly unlawful to perform any act of Religious Worship to any but God alone. And if this be all you have to prove the Mass of Equivocations, False Suppositions, and Self-contradictions in Dr. St.'s Discourse of appropriate Acts of Divine Worship, it had been more for T. G.'s honour to have passed over this with as much silence as he did many other places which he found too hard for him.

R. P.

Suppose this argument were good, Dial. p. 455.it proves nothing against us, who neither give any act absolutely appropriated to God to any else besides him; nor any other in the manner it is appropriated to him.

P. D.

If you perform any act of Religious Worship either to Saints or Images, this Discourse must concern you; because the Law against the worship of Images is still in force among Christians; and our Saviours general Rule doth forbid all external Acts of Religious Worship being applied to any besides God.

R. P.

Nay, supposing those external acts of worship to be now due to God by his Law, Dial. p. 456.the giving them to any besides himself will not be to give to the creature the worship due to God, unless it be done with an intention p. 488to give them to a creature as esteemed worthy of Divine Honour. For that is the definition of real Idolatry.

P. D.

Then the Mandarins in China who performed all external acts of adoration in the Temple of the Tutelar Spirits secretly directing their intention to a Crucifix were not guilty of Idolatry; notwithstanding the Decree of the Congregation at Rome. For they did not perform those acts, with an intention to give the worship to the Tutelar Spirits as esteemed worthy of Divine Honour. Then the Thurificati of the Primitive Church who through fear offered incense, could not be charged with Idolatry; nor Marcellinus though he sacrificed in the Temple of Vesta, when he only complied with Dioclesian. But did not T. G. blame the Philosophers for an exteriour profession of Idolatry? What is that I beseech you? Is it Idolatry or not? Doth not T. G. grant, that there ought in reason to be some peculiar external acts appropriated to the worship of God as most agreeable to his incommunicable excellencie? Dial. p. 467.Why so I pray? Is it not, because Gods incommunicable excellency requires an external worship peculiar to it self? And if so, is it not to give the worship due to God to p. 489something else, to apply those acts which are peculiar to himself, to any thing besides him? This debate in truth comes to this point at last, whether there ought to be any such thing as a peculiar external worship of God or not? For, if external worship be due to him, and such worship be due to him alone for his incommunicable excellencie, then the giving external worship to a creature, must be giving to it what is due only to God. And to resolve the nature of Idolatry into the inward intention, is all one as if one should say, that Adultery were to lie with another mans Wife with an intention to cuckold her Husband; but if a man did it out of love to her Person, it were no adultery. Why is there not an external act of Idolatry, as well as of perjury, theft, murder and the like? Where doth the Scripture give the least intimation that the nature of Idolatry is to be taken from the inward intention, when the Law is express against the outward action: and all men are charged with Idolatry who were guilty of the external acts, without running into the thoughts and designs of their hearts? Nay, your own Authors cannot deny that there is an external Idolatry as well as internal; p. 490and where the outward acts are Idolatrous we ought to presume there was an implicit and indirect intention; and no more is necessary to make an act Idolatrous than a voluntary inclination to do it. This is therefore a meer subterfuge, and can never satisfie a mans Conscience, nor excuse the Roman Church from Idolatry.

R. P.

But T. G. grants that supposing such an appropriation of external acts to remain in force; Dial. p. 457.to apply such acts to a creature may and ought in reason to be interpreted to be real Idolatrous worship; because Idolatry is a sin directly opposite to Religion, as a false worship to a true one.

P. D.

What is it then but to cavil about words, to deny that to be real Idolatry which at the same time he confesses ought to be interpreted to be so? For since we cannot judge of mens intentions but by their actions, when we dispute about the Idolatry practised in any Church, we can be understood only of that which lies open to our judgement, and that can be only the external act. And since T. G. grants,Dial. p. 461. that the thing which the Dr. means is confessed by your selves to be inconsistent with salvation, there is nothing further necessary to be done, but to debate p. 491whether you are guilty of that sin or not, in applying appropriate acts of Divine Worship to a Creature.

R. P.

But doth not Dr. St. himself shew from Card. Tolet,Dial. p. 458. that Idolatry doth suppose an error in the mind, in judging that to deserve divine honour which doth not?

P. D.

I grant it, but that only shews what practical judgement doth precede a voluntary act of Idolatry: as it is distinguished from an involuntary compliance. In this later case, persons are really guilty as to the external act; as a man that takes away his Neighbours goods out of fear of his own life is really guilty of theft, although the fear he was in may lessen the wilfulness of it: so in Idolatry when committed through the power of a sudden passion is a sin of the same kind with other Idolatry, but not so wilful and deliberate a sin. But in case of wilful Idolatry, there must be a practical judgement determining the will to the act of Idolatry. If you ask me what that judgement is, whether true, or erroneous; I say it is an erroneous judgement, for it determines the giving divine worship to that which doth not deserve it.Dial. p. 459. Not as though Idolatry implied the believing that to be truly and p. 492properly God which is not; (which T. G. would infer from thence) but it implies only the practical judgement determining the will to give Divine Worship to that which really deserves it not. As for instance; suppose an Image of our Lady to stand before two persons; the one declares against the Worship of it, though he may be forced to do it, he is guilty of real but involuntary Idolatry (taking involuntary as to the free inclination of the Will) the other readily and spontaneously falls down upon his knees before it, and says his prayers to the Image as gravely and devoutly as if the B. Virgin were present; both these do concur in the same external act of worship, but from a very different judgement; the one judges it fit to comply for his own safety; the other judges the thing fit to be done: but it is not necessary that he judges the Image to be the B. Virgin her self, but that he ought to give such worship to her Image; so that judging divine worship to belong to that which doth not really deserve it, is all the erroneous judgement necessary to a wilful act of Idolatry; and if this be any kindness to T. G. much good may it do him.

p. 493R. P.

But T. G. saith,Dial. p. 459. that from hence it follows, that it is not real Idolatry to worship an Image with divine worship unless it be done out of an erroneous judgement, as to a thing that deserves Divine Honour.

P. D.

No such matter; for from hence it only follows, that in a wilful act of Idolatry there must be a practical judgement determining the act of Divine Worship to an Image, though it deserves it not. So that this doth not refer to the manner of applying the external act to the object as deserving divine honour, but only the antecedent judgement that the act of divine worship be given to such an object.

R. P.

Again T. G. saith, that from hence it follows, that the case of the Heathens and ours is different, because their Idolatry proceeded upon an erroneous belief of a creatures deserving Divine Honour when it doth not; but we do no such thing.

P. D.

Cannot T. G. understand the difference between an erroneous belief and an erroneous practical judgement? I do not deny that the Heathens had a very erroneous belief in many particulars; and so have other Idolaters too. But the question now is, what error of judgement that is, which the wilful act of Idolatry p. 494doth suppose; and I say, it requires no more than an error in the practical judgement, determining the will to give Divine Worship to that which doth not deserve it. And herein I see no difference between the Heathens Idolatry and yours.

R. P.

Dial. p. 465.But let us now set aside the strict notion of Idolatry, and consider, whether the Church of Rome be guilty of damnable sin in the manner of their worship, which must either be in not giving to God the worship due to him, or by giving the worship due only to him to his Creatures.

P. D.

The later is that which Dr. St. chiefly insists upon, although, he saith, your Divines are to blame in the first particular,Defence, p. 204, &c. because they reserve no one act of external adoration as proper to God and to be performed by all Christians, and for this he quotes the resolution of Cardinal Lugo.

R. P.

I wonder you would mention that citation of Lugo, since T. G. saith the Dr. is so unhappy in his citations: and the Jesuits will say, Dial. p. 469.that he evidently abuses both his Authority and his Eminency.

p. 495P. D.

I have had so much experience of T. G.'s intolerable disingenuity in this matter, that I durst venture an even wager (which is the way T. G. proposes often in his Dialogues for ending such disputes) that Dr. St. hath not miscited Cardinal Lugo.

R. P.

T. G. saith, that Cardinal Lugo doth not deny sacrifice to be an external act of worship proper to God; for his words are, qui non potest offerri nisi soli Deo, as may not be offered but to God alone; but, he saith, that sacrifice is not properly an act of adoration in the strict sense, but of another kind distinct from it.

P. D.

Those are not Lugo's words, but licet non possit offerri nisi soli Deo; yet I shall not insist upon that. For that which sufficiently clears Dr. St. is, the consideration of his design in bringing those words of Lugo, which was to prove that there is no one external act of adoration which is proper to Latria, or the worship peculiar to God. And are not Lugo's words plain and full to this purpose?

R. P.

That cannot be denied, but he takes adoration in the stricter sense.

P. D.

Let him take it in what sense he will; doth he not speak of the adoration p. 496proper to Latria, or the worship peculiar to God? And doth not Latria take in any peculiar act of Divine Worship? And if there be no external act of adoration peculiar to God, doth it not follow, that there is no peculiar act whereby you express your inward submission to God in all things? for that, Lugo saith, is the strict sense of adoration he there means. And doth not this fully prove what Dr. St. brought this Testimony for?

R. P.

But the Church of Rome doth hold sacrifice to be peculiar to God.

P. D.

And doth not Dr. St. say as much?Dial. p. 217. For his words are, that you confess, that sacrifice is so peculiar to God that it ought not to be offered to any else; but not as an Act of Latria saith Cardinal Lugo, for there is no act of adoration that is so; but upon another account as it signifies Gods absolute Dominion over us as to life and death, and that we ought to lay down our own lives when he calls for them ▪ Which is to make sacrifice a significant ceremony peculiar to God expressing his Soveraignty, but not an immediate act of worship peculiar to him: for of that kind, he saith, there is none. And therefore according to him, your Church hath no p. 497one external act of Divine Worship so proper to God, that it may not be offered but to him alone. And from hence it appears that Lugo did not take adoration meerly for that act of Religious Worship which is performed by the motion of the Body, Dial. p. 468.as T. G. suggests; but for whatsoever act that may tend to express the submission of our souls to God; of which sort he denies any to be peculiar to Gods worship. And what can be more contrary to that which T. G. admits for a Law of Nature, viz. that man ought to use some external acts to testifie his submission to God, Dial. p. 467.and therefore there ought to be some peculiar external acts appropriated to the worship of God, as most agreeable to his incommunicable excellency? I could not but rejoyce to see T. G. own so reasonable a principle, and I desire no other, as to the meer light of Nature to prove your Idolatry. For, if this be a principle of Natural Religion; then Idolatry even by the light of Nature lies in applying appropriate acts of Divine Worship to any but to God himself; for since his excellency is incommunicable, and the submission we owe to God peculiar to him, and that submission ought to be expressed by external acts, all which T. G. grants; then all those who do use p. 498such acts to any besides God, are guilty of giving the worship due to God unto a Creature. For God hath not only a right to our inward submission, but to the acknowledgement of it, which cannot be done but by external acts: and which is observable as to this matter; the honour of God as to his incommunicable excellencies with respect to mankind as a body, doth not lie in the bare Acts of the Mind, but in the external performance of Religious Worship to him. For, if it be necessary that Gods Authority be owned in the world, it is necessary it be done by visible acts of Worship; which ought to be so appropriated to him, that any one who discerns them may see the difference put between God and all his Creatures. For herein lies the manifestation of that inward sense we have of Gods incommunicable excellencies, when we set apart times, and places, and offices of Religious Worship, by which we declare our submission to God, as our Creator and Governor of the World. And the confounding this distance between God and his Creatures is the great sin of Idolatry: from whence Aquinas and others conclude it to be a sin of the highest nature, Defence, p. 194, to 199.and including blasphemy in it, because it p. 499robs God of the honour due to him for his incommunicable excellencies.

R. P.

What do you mean by this appropriating acts of worship to God? Dial. p. 470.Do you mean all of them so absolutely appropriated to God, that it is not lawful upon any account to give them to any other? And then the Quakers will be the only good Christians in the world; or only some of them, and not others, as kneeling and prostrating, but not bowing; and then you must tell us what makes the discrimination.

P. D.

I mean that which all mankind meant, when they set apart times, and places, and offices for Divine Worship; and every man by the help of his mother wit knew the difference between going to serve God and going to Market. I say then as Dr. St. did, that the circumstances do sufficiently discriminate Acts of a Religious and of a Civil Nature.Defence, p. 192. Dial. p. 471.

R. P.

May not the Churches declaration, that such acts are intended only for inferiour Worship towards Images or Saints, make a sufficient discrimination between such acts, and those which are appropriated to God?

P. D.

If you suppose the whole power of determining Acts of Divine Worship to lie in your Churches Breast, you had p. 500asked a very material question; but in this case, there is a Law of God antecedently prohibiting such acts being given to any besides God himself; and this Law was so understood by the Christian Church when the Christian Religion put men upon suffering Martyrdom on that principle, that all Religious Worship was appropriated to God: because Christ had said, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve.

R. P.

Dial. p. 472.Who is so blind as not to see, that this prohibition fell upon the external act as determined to be a sign of Religious Worship by the circumstances in which it was required?

P. D.

And what then, I pray? for doth it not equally fall upon all external acts where the circumstances do determine them to be signs of Religious Worship? Which is all I desire.

R. P.

Dial. p. 473.Doth not this justifie the Quakers in denying to give any external honour to a Creature?

P. D.

So far from it, that it shews the folly of their doctrine, which arose from not being able to distinguish acts of Religious and Civil Worship.

R. P.

But Dr. St. allows some kind of Religious Worship to be given to a Creature.

p. 501P. D.

Not any which is Religious in its nature or by circumstances; but that which might be so called being required by the Rule of Religion, as civil worship is.

R. P.

But he allows religious respect to places, and religious honour to Saints, Dial. p. 474.and then why not those acts we give to Images and Saints on the same accounts?

P. D.

Because the circumstances do declare those are not acts of religious worship; but those you give to Images and Saints are.

R. P.

I see the weight of this whole debate lies at last upon this determination of circumstances; Dial. p. 479.but how comes the Dr. after all the great bustle he makes about Gods appropriating external acts of worship to himself, to put the trial of his cause at last upon the determination of circumstances?

P. D.

What other way should the difference of moral actions be tried? What incongruity is there between Gods appropriating acts of religious worship to himself, and the finding out what those acts are by the circumstances? Is it not thus in the other Commandments? God in general forbids Murder, Theft and Adultery; but are not those prohibited acts to be judged by the circumstances? For, there is the same substance of the act in p. 502and unlawful actions. If a man kills another by chance, or out of malice; if a man takes away another mans goods with his consent or without; it is the same act as to its substance; and what discrimination can be made but by the circumstances? and therefore I cannot but wonder to hear you object against this, or think it any repugnancy to Gods appropriating acts of Divine Worship to himself.

R. P.

Dial. p. 479.How can the nature of such acts be determined wholly by circumstances, unless the appropriation of them be taken away? for if that continues, the Law determines the nature of the acts.

P. D.

Do you not apprehend the difference between the discrimination of acts of civil and religious worship, and the appropriation of the latter to God by his Law? I say the Law makes them peculiar to God when they are found to be acts of religious worship, but the circumstances are to determine whether they are civil or religious acts. As all acts of murder are forbidden by Gods Law, but whether such an act be murder or no, is to be judged by circumstances.

R. P.

But then if the external acts of worship given to Creatures in the Church of p. 503Rome chance to prove accompanied with such circumstances, by which they may and generally are understood not to be acts of Divine Worship but of inferiour veneration, then they are acquitted from the guilt of Idolatry according to the Dr.'s own principles.

P. D.

No such matter; unless we suppose those acts to be wholly indifferent and left free by any Divine Law: and that it is in the Churches Power to declare what is to pass for divine worship, and what for inferiour worship. But no particular circumstances can make an act lawful, which the Law of God hath made unlawful. As suppose the Spartan Common-wealth allow pilfering or taking away Goods from each other without consent of the owners, here is one circumstance which goes a great way towards the altering the nature of such actions; but if there be an antecedent Law of God which makes such acts unlawful, they remain so still notwithstanding the declaration of the Spartan State. Just thus it is in the present case, your Church declares such Acts of Worship may be lawfully applied to Images and Saints; but what then? hath your Church the Power to repeal the Law of God? if not, the acts remain as unlawful p. 504as ever, notwithstanding the circumstance of such a declaration.

R. P.

But T. G. saith, all Dr. St.'s discourse about discrimination of acts of civil and religious worship by circumstances, Dial. p. 481.is only a popular discourse, and upon enquiry will be found as incoherent and weak as an adversary could wish.

P. D.

I shall not take T. G.'s judgement in this matter; for I have not found him so impartial and just, that I should submit to his arbitration. If you have any thing to object against that discourse, I do not question we shall hear of it.

R. P.

P. 482.First, Acts take their nature from the formal reason or account upon which they tend to their objects, and from thence they become either civil or religious, though they may receive another denomination from the circumstances which do accompany them.

P. D.

I pray consider; the thing we enquire after, is the difference between Acts of Civil and Religious Worship; which Dr. St. saith is to be taken from the circumstances, no, say you, it must be taken from the formal reason, or account on which they tend to their objects: but the formal reason of acts being secret and invisible, the question is whether that be p. 505sufficient to put a discrimination between Acts of an external and visible nature, as those of civil and religious worship are. I will make this plain to you by a noted instance: While the Christian Emperors required no more than meer civil worship, the Christians made no scruple of giving it to them in the same postures which were used in divine worship; but when they suspected that divine worship was required, they utterly refused it: here we have the same acts as to the substance of them in both cases; and yet the Christians could easily discern which did belong to civil and which to religious worship; was it from such a reason and intention of the persons which none could know but the doers? or else from the circumstances which did make it appear that more than civil worship was required? And yet this worship which the Heathens gave to their Emperours was only an inferiour sort of divine worship, and so understood by the general consent of the Heathens themselves; from whence we gather (1.) That the discrimination of acts of civil and divine worship do not depend upon the intention of the Doer, but the outward circumstances of them. For, if it had depended on the p. 506inward intention of the person, the Christians might have saved their lives and honours by doing the external acts with a different intention; and that which was divine worship in him that designed it for such, were but civil worship in him that intended no more. (2.) That the declaration of an inferiour sort of divine worship doth not make it lawful. For it could be no otherwise understood by the Christians, and yet they refused it as Idolatrous Worship.

R. P.

(2.) If the circumstances of time, and place, and such like do so restrain and limit the signification of external acts, that it is easie to discern one worship from another, how can you make it out that the people did not give religious worship to David when in a most solemn act of devotion, it is said, that the people worshipped the Lord and the King? where we see the same act at the same time, a time of solemn devotion given to God and the King, and the People never charged for giving religious worship to the King.

P. D.

T.G. need not have gone so far back for such an argument. For the Kings Chaplains in a sacred place and at a solemn time of devotion, do bow three times to the King, when they enter into the Pulpit; and p. 507yet who is there imagines they give him divine worship? It is not therefore the circumstance of time and place alone, which Dr. St. makes to discriminate civil and religious worship; but the concurrence of all circumstances together. If I bowed to a Friend at Church, is any man so senseless to take this for Idolatry? Where there is an antecedent ground for civil worship and respect, which is well known and understood among men, there is nothing like Idolatry, although we do use the same external acts towards men which we use towards God himself. As among the Israelites no man doubted that their bowing to the King was upon a quite different account, from their bowing to God; although they bowed to the King in a place dedicated to divine worship. And where the reason of worship is so well understood to be of a quite different nature from that of religious worship, that very reason makes a discrimination besides the circumstances of time and place. Which I shall make appear from the case of Naaman the Syrian; whose bowing in the house of Rimmon was therefore free from Idolatry because of the known custom of paying civil respect every where else to his Prince in that p. 508manner, and by his publick protestatition against the Idolatrous worship there performed, as T. G. shews at large from Dr. H. T. G. therefore very much mistakes Dr. St.'s meaning,Dial. p. 486, &c. if he thinks he assigned the discrimination of acts of religious and civil worship barely to the circumstances of time and place without taking in the object and reason of worship.

R. P.

Dial. p. 484.But from hence it appears, that bowing in the House and Presence of an Idol and in the very time of worship, is not Idolatry: For then Naaman could not be excused.

P. D.

Where the worship is known to be given not to the Idol, but to the Prince to whom it is acknowledged to be due elsewhere; Dr. St. never supposed such an act of worship though done in an Idol-temple to be Idolatry.

R. P.

Dial. p. 483.But suppose men should ask a Bishop blessing in a Church and at Prayer-time, this is not civil worship, and is this Idolatry.

P. D.

Worship may be said to be civil two wayes;

1. When it is performed on a meer civil account, as it is to Magistrates and Parents.

p. 5092. When it is performed on the account of a spiritual relation, as in the respect shewed to Bishops as spiritual Fathers. The worship is of the same kind with that which is shewed to natural Parents, but the relation is of another kind; on which account it may be called Spiritual Respect; but it is in it self an act of civil worship arising upon a moral relation, which being of a different nature from that which is between Princes and Subjects, and Parents and Children; and being founded upon Religious Grounds may be said to be Religious or Spiritual Respect rather than Worship.

R. P.

If the first Christians had upon their knees in time of prayer begged S. James his benediction, had this been an unlawful Act of Worship?

P. D.

If they were upon their knees in prayer to God, I think it was a very unseasonable time to ask their Bishop blessing; although the act in it self were lawful.

R. P.

But is not this an act of the same kind with that of invocation of Saints in times and places of Divine Worship, when we only pray to them to pray for us?

P. D.

I say again, that is not all You do; for you own their Patronage, Protection p. 510and Power to help you in your necessities; and your Prayers must be understood according to your Doctrines. But suppose you did only pray to them to pray for you, yet (1.) You do it with all the solemnity of Divine Worship in the publick Litanies of the Church, when you are in the posture of your greatest Devotion. And the Angel rebuked no less man than St. John, for using the posture of Divine Adoration to him. (2.) In kneeling to a Bishop to pray for us we suppose nothing that encroaches upon the Divine excellencies; for we are certain he hears and understands us, and we desire nothing from him, but what is in his power to do, and is very fitting for us to request from him. But when you pray to Saints, you can have no possible assurance that they do or can hear what you say to them; and so it is a foolish and unreasonable worship: and when you do it with the same external Acts of Devotion which you use to the Divine Majesty, you take away that peculiarity of Divine Worship which is due to God by reason of his incommunicable excellencies; and so it is superstitious and idolatrous Worship, these two wayes,

p. 511(1.) As it supposes as great excellencies in Creatures as those did who for that reason were charged with Idolatry. I do not meddle with the possibility of an intelligent being disunited from matter's hearing at such a distance as the Saints are supposed to be from us, nor whether God may not communicate such knowledge to them; but that which I insist on is this, I find those charged with Idolatry not only in Scripture and the Fathers, but by the Church of Rome it self, who professed to worship some inferiour Spirits as Mediators between God and men; and such Mediators as were never imagined to be Mediators of Redemption but barely of Intercession, as being believed to carry up the prayers of men and to bring down help from above. Now here is no Omnisciency, or Omnipotency, or other incommunicable excellency attributed to these Spirits; and all the addresses made to them was under the notion of Mediators to intercede for them, i. e. to pray to them to pray for them; and yet these were charged with flat Idolatry. It were easie to make it appear from unquestionable testimonies, that the Heathen Idolaters did worship inferiour spirits only as Mediators, (as Apuleius p. 512expresses it, inter caelicolas terricolas que vectores hinc preeum inde donorum, wherein he only interprets Plato's sense) and that this was one of the most common and universal kinds of Idolatry; and therefore I would fain know why they must be charged with Idolatry, and you escape? Either be just to them, and vindicate the Heathen Worship, or else you must condemn your own.

Dial. p. 467.(2.) T. G. confesses, that by the Law of Nature there ought to be some peculiar external Acts appropriated to the worship of God as most agreeable to his incommunicable excellency: now among all mankind no one external Act of Worship hath been supposed more peculiar to the Divine Nature than solemn Invocation in places and times appropriated to Divine Worship; but the Invocation practised in the Roman Church hath all the solemnity and circumstances of Divine Worship, and therefore it is robbing God of the peculiar Acts of his Worship which is Idolatry. And he must be very dull indeed, who cannot distinguish this Invocation from a casual or accidental meeting with a Bishop at Church and kissing the hem of his Garment, or asking his Benediction on ones knees.

p. 513R. P.

But where there are different objects in themselves, and a publick profession and consent that those acts are applyed to those objects upon different accounts; Dial. p. 485, &c.it is intolerable impertinency to understand such Acts as are in themselves equivocal in any other sense than the Church declares, viz. as applyed to Saints or Images, P. 490.the outward Acts of Worship, as bowing, kneeling, &c. are used only as tokens, or expressions of an inferiour respect and Veneration.

P. D.

If this be all you have to say for your selves, the Heathens must be excused from Idolatry as well as You. For they acknowledged by common consent and publick profession a difference between the supreme God and inferiour Spirits; they allowed of different degrees of Worship; and without all question did not look on their Emperours, as the Supreme Deity that made and governs the world; and yet I hope the primitive Christians were not guilty of intolerable impertinency in charging them with Idolatry. But it seems the holy Angel was guilty of the same intolerable impertinency in so rashly rebuking the Apostle for falling down to Worship him, for this was an equivocal Act, and in all probability was p. 514intended only as a token of respect and Veneration inferiour to what was thought due to God over all, Blessed for evermore. But those Acts of Divine Worship which by the Law of God become due only to himself, can by no consent or declaration of a Church be made lawful to be given to any creature, however they may call them Acts of inferiour respect and Veneration; as long as they are of the same nature with those which were condemned both by the Scripture and Fathers as Idolatrous Worship.

R. P.

Doth not Dr. Hammond say that Naaman the Syrian was excused from Idolatry, because of the publick profession he made, Dial. p. 486, &c.that he intended not the Worship to the Idol, but to his Master? And will not the same plea hold for us who declare we do not give Soveraign Worship to any Creatures, but only inferiour Worship?

P. D.

If Naaman had desired leave to worship Rimmon or Saturn with an inferiour Worship, declaring that he did not take Saturn for the true and Supreme God, but the God of Israel; and therefore he might apply the same Act after a different manner, and the Prophet had then bid him Go in Peace, You had some reason for your parallel. But as long as Naamans p. 515question only related to the performing an act of Civil Worship to his Prince in the House of Rimmon, what colour can be hence taken for giving any kind of Religious Worship to Saints or Images in places and at times set apart for Divine Worship?

R. P.

But Monsieur Daillé saith, Dial. p. 488.that external signs whether of nature or Religion are to be interpreted by the publick and common practice of those who use them, and not by the secret and particular intentions of this, or that Person.

P. D.

And what then I beseech you? Monsieur Daillé discourses against those who would use all the external Acts of adoration of the Host which others did, but with a different intention, and hoped this would excuse them from Idolatry. Now in this case he saith, that signs of Religious Worship, as uncovering the Head, kneeling or prostrating the body at the sound of a little bell, and such other actions are the plain and ordinary signs of the adoration of the Host; and are so appointed by the Church of Rome, and so understood by those who generally practise it; therefore, saith he, those who do use these outward signs are to be understood to give adoration to the Host. From whence it follows, p. 516that men cannot comply with others in the Acts of adoration of the Host without hypocrisie or Idolatry: which it was Mons. Daillé's design to prove. But what is all this to the proving that inferiour worship is not Idolatry? we desire that these signs of Worship may be interpreted according to the common and publick practice of those who use them; by which we say, it is as truly Religious Worship, as the Nations used, which all Christians do charge with Idolatry. But if your meaning be, that your actions are to be interpreted in your own sense, it will come to this at last, that You are not guilty of Idolatry, because you declare you are not guilty of it; And whoever condemned themselves for it by publick declarations? unless it were when they repented of it as a great sin, which I do not find you are yet willing to do. I pray remember this saying of Daille's, when you think to justifie giving acts of Divine Worship to a Creature, by your secret intention; for he saith, and you seem to approve his saying, that such Acts when they are of the nature of Religious Worship, are to be interpreted by the common and publick practice, and not by particular intentions; if therefore the p. 517Acts of Worship be such, as by the Scriptures, and sense of the Primitive Church belong only to God, no intention of yours of applying them after an inferiour manner can excuse you from giving adoration to a Creature, Especially, if they be such Acts which God hath appropriated to himself, as the six mentioned by Dr. St. for who dares alter what God himself hath appointed?

R. P.

I think you are turning Quaker, Dial. p. 492.for this is their principle, do not they alledge Christs precept against swearing, and then say who dares alter what God himself hath appointed?

P. D.

I may as well fear you are renouncing Christianity; for what Christian ever said or thought otherwise, than that it is not in the power of men to alter the Laws of Christ? If Christs precept were to be understood of all kind of swearing, do you really think it would be lawful to swear at all? I am ashamed of this loose, not to say, profane way of talking about the obligation of Divine Laws.

R. P.

I only mentioned this by the by, to let you see what kind of principles the Dr. makes use of to combate the Church of Rome.

p. 518P. D.

Just such principles as all Christians own; and are bound so to do by their being Christians. But do you think in earnest, that it is in the power of men to alter the Laws of God?

R. P.

No. But T. G. means, that there is now no Law of God binding men concerning these external Acts of worship, and therefore it is in the Power of the Church to appoint these as well as other Rites and Ceremonies, Dial. p, 493.and to determine the signification of them.

P. D.

If this be his meaning, it is very ill expressed. But I say, that our Saviour hath declared the immutable obligation of that Law concerning applying all Acts of Religious worship only to God; and that the Vniversal Church of Christ in the first Ages so understood it; as appears not barely by their words, but by the greatest testimony of their Actions: when such multitudes laid down their lives upon this Principle. Therefore I say again, You must call in question their Title to Martyrdom, or you must own this for a true Christian Principle.

R. P.

But we declare our meaning in those which Dr. St. calls appropriate Acts of Divine worship, when we apply them p. 519to any creatures, Dial. p, 494, &c.to be only to use them as tokens of inferiour respect and Veneration: as Invocation, Building of Temples and Altars, burning of Incense, making of Vows, &c. But that which God hath forbidden is, P. 497.that we shall not use them to any besides himself, as tokens of that inward submission of our souls which is proper to him.

P. D.

Did not you say,Dial. p. 493. that the Appropriation of these Acts by the Law of Moses, being taken away by the ceasing of that Law, they are now to be looked on as indifferent Rites and Ceremonies?

R. P.

And what then?

P. D.

Did that Law cease at the coming of Christ, that those Acts were to be used only to God as tokens of that inward submission which is proper to him?

R. P.

No; that doth never cease.

P. D.

But this you say was the sense in which God did appropriate them to himself; and therefore the Appropriation doth still continue.

R. P.

I suppose T. G.'s meaning is, that the appropriation before extended to them as tokens of inferiour respect p. 520and veneration, which Law ceasing, it is now lawful to use them in that sense.

P. D.

Then these Acts under the Law, were forbidden in that sense, whatsoever profession or declaration were made by those that used them. As suppose that the Jews had invocated Saints and Angels in their Temple or Synagogues and worshipped Images just as you do, and made the same professions of their meanings and intentions as your Church doth; this had been Idolatry in them, but not in you. Is this his meaning?

R. P.

I suppose it must be.

P. D.

Then inferiour Religious worship was once Idolatry, but it ceased to be so at the coming of Christ. Is not this a rare invention? And by this means Christ destroyed Idolatry, not by rooting it out, but by making that not to be Idolatry which was so before: and so he might take away all other sins by making those breaches of the other nine Commandments not to be sins to Christians which were so to the Jews. But we have not only the express words of Christ, making all Religious worship of a Creature unlawful, against this invention, but the Doctrine of the Apostles p. 521who charged the Gentiles with Idolatry without regarding this distinction, who were not under the Law of Moses; and the Consent of the Christian Church which judged this inferiour Religious Worship to be Idolatry still. And if this be all you have to say, it is impossible to clear your selves from the charge of Idolatry, notwithstanding all your meanings and intentions.

R. P.

I have one thing yet more to say,Dial. p. 498. viz. that Christ appropriates the Titles of Good, Father, and Master to God, and yet we apply them to men in a different sense, and why may we not do the same in equivocal Acts of Worship?

P. D.

Our Saviour's design was to deter men from assuming or affecting such titles of excellency, superiority, or Authority over others in teaching, as seemed to encroach too much on the divine perfections: but this holds much more against the pretence of infallibility in any person, than for the lawfulness of inferiour Religious worship. For Christ never forbids the common use of those titles among men, when they have no respect to Divine Matters; no more than he doth the Acts of Civil worship in p. 522men towards Magistrates or Parents; and thus far the parallel is good, as to Words and Actions: but as Christ doth forbid the affectation of Infallibility though of an inferiour sort under the titles of Rabbi, Father, and Master; so he doth likewise all inferiour sort of Religious worship when he saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. And therefore the equivocation which lyes in mens power to determine, is not that of the degrees of Religious worship, but of the acts of Civil and Religious worship. But if it be lawful to apply the signification of external Acts of worship to higher or lower degrees, why may ye not do the same as to Sacrifice, as well as Invocation, &c.

R. P.

This is a scruple which hath troubled the Doctours notions from the beginning; But T. G. gives two answers to it.Dial. p. 500, 502. 1. That Sacrifice in general is both by the custom of the Church and the consent of all mankind (as S. Augustine teaches) appropriated to signifie the absolute worship due only to God. 2. For the particular sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, the nature and dignity thereof p. 523requireth that it be offered to God alone.

P. D.

I am sorry to see you dissemble the force of the Doctours argument, when you pretend to give an answer to it. For he saith,Defence, p. 225. that S. Augustine joyns adoration and Sacrifice together, as appropriated to signifie the worship peculiar to God. How then, saith Dr. St. comes S. Augustines Authority to be quitted for the one, and so greedily embraced for the other? What doth T. G. answer to that?

R. P.

I do not find he takes notice of S. Augustine for any thing more than the consent of mankind about Sacrifice.

P. D.

Was it not wisely done? and then to talk a great deal about the remainder of the Doctours Discourse, whether sacrifice of it self doth signifie absolute worship more than adoration, without taking notice that S. Augustine joyned them together, though the Church of Rome separates them. And T. G. gives no manner of reason why the antecedent consent of mankind as to one of these should not prevail in your Church as well as in the other: p. 524which is the main ground according to T. G. why sacrifice ought still to be appropriated to the peculiar Worship of God.Dial. p. 508.

R. P.

What advantage doth the Doctor get, by insisting so much on that question, why Sacrifice may not be offered to Creatures as well as other external Acts of Worship, Dial. p. 501.for he can only infer from thence that in such case the Church of Rome might possibly have no external act of Worship appropriated to God, if she have none but Sacrifice; but whilest she hath no such custom de facto as offering Sacrifice to Saints and Images, 'tis manifest he cannot accuse them in that point of having no external Act of Worship proper to God, or of giving it to any besides him.

P. D.

It was to very good purpose that he insisted on that question, on these accounts. 1. Because either it is in the power of the Church to appoint appropriate Acts of Divine Worship, or it is not. If it be in the Churches Power, then sacrifice may be as lawfully offered to the B. Virgin, if the Church think fit, as prayers and invocations, notwithstanding the general consent of mankind in appropriating p. 525Sacrifice to God. If not, then there is some antecedent reason why some external Acts of Worship are appropriated to the absolute worship of God; if so, then all such Acts are appropriated where the same reason holds; whether it be Divine Institution, or the consent of mankind in general, or of the Fathers of the Christian Church: and consequently, though the Church of Rome may reserve Sacrifice to God as peculiar to him, yet they may give other acts of Divine worship to his Creatures, which have the same reason to be appropriated which Sacrifice it self hath. 2. Because though in words they seem to appropriate Sacrifice to God as a peculiar act of external worship, yet they do in effect overthrow it by these two assertions. (1.) That its peculiarity is not as being an Act of Adoration, but upon another account as a significant Ceremony of our total subjection to God. And this was that which Dr. St. charged your Divines with, that they reserve no one Act of external adoration as proper to God; and that they say,Defence, p. 204. that Sacrifice doth not naturally signifie any worship of God, p. 226.but only by the p. 526imposition of men. So that your Divines confess there is no natural Act of Divine worship, no external Act of Adoration which is reserved as peculiar to God; but only an outward Ceremony which doth not of it self signifie the worship of God, nor our subjection to him. But solemn Prayers and Praises do of themselves signifie our dependence on God, and therefore have an antecedent reason to the consent of mankind, why they should be appropriated to the worship of God. (2.) That even Sacrifice is allowed by the Roman Church to be offered for the honour of Creatures: which Dr. St. saith, is joyning Creatures together with God in the honour of Sacrifice: Defence, p. 220, 222.and if Sacrifice be so appropriate to the honour of God that it cannot signifie any thing else, then it is nonsense to sacrifice to God for the honour of another; if it may signifie any thing else, and be so used in the Church of Rome, then you do not reserve so much as sacrifice for an appropriate sign of the absolute Worship of God.

R. P.

To what miserable shifts, Dial. p. 519.saith T. G. are men put when they would have p. 527such trivial kind of arguing as this to pass for solid reasoning: and it must be a hard world when a man of the Doctours abilities must be forced to feign that he doth not know how the same Sacrifice may be a propitiation for sins and a thanksgiving for benefits, especially the Sacrifice of the Altar being the same with that of the Cross, in which all the differences of the legal Sacrifices were fulfilled.

P. D.

It is a hard world indeed, when such stuff as this must pass for answering. Dr. St. never denyed that thanksgivings might be offered to God in the time of most solemn Worship for the Graces of his Saints; nor that the circumstances of Divine worship might redound to their Honour, as the Primitive Christians offering up their devotions to God at their Sepulchres: but the question is, whether it be consistent with the appropriation of Sacrifice to the Honour of God, to offer it up for the Honour of his Creatures; especially the Sacrifice of the Altar, i. e. the Son of God, as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead?

R. P.

Why may not we say, Dial. p. 521.We offer this Sacrifice to God in the honour of p. 528S. Michael, to testifie our application of it in thanksgiving for the favours and Graces bestowed on him?

P. D.

I pray consider, (1.) You say, that Sacrifice in your Church is appropriated to the Honour of God; (2.) That Sacrifice doth not signifie the Worship of God of it self, but by institution or consent of mankind. (3.) Then the intention of Sacrifice is to signifie that Honour which is peculiar to God. Now how can it signifie the Honour due only to God, if it may signifie the honour due to his Creatures?

R. P.

Dial. p. 522.Is it not for the honour of a Person to praise God for him? and Sacrificing being the offer of a present in token of gratitude, doth that diminish or add to the Act of thanksgiving? And if it be a greater declaration of thanksgiving, it must consequently be a greater declaration also of the honour of the Person for whom it is offered.

P. D.

It is one thing to make the Graces of Saints an occasion of Thanksgiving to God, and another to offer up a Sacrifice for the honour of the Saints, as it is expressed in the Offertory. In the former case there is no question but p. 529the Honour is designed wholly to God as the Giver of those Graces, although a consequential Honour doth redound thereby to the Saints themselves; but in the latter case the intended and designed Honour of the very Act it self is declared to be to the Saints as well as to God himself. If a Courtier gives the King solemn thanks for great kindness shewed to one of his Subjects, the honour of the Action belongs wholly to the King, although occasionally and consequentially it redound to the reputation of the Person for whom it is done: but if a Courtier on New years day should make a present to the King upon his Knees, and say, I offer this New years gift to your Majesty in honour of your Majesty and of the Groom of your Stole, or Chamberlain of your Houshold, &c. how do you think this would be taken at Court? And yet this is just the Form of the Offertory in your Missal. We make this Oblation to thee O Holy Trinity, and for the honour of the Blessed Virgin and all Saints; can any one say that this is not the designed and intended honour which belongs to the Act it self, and not meerly that which is occasional and consequential? If those p. 530who offered Cakes to the B. Virgin, had said, We offer these Cakes to the honour of the Blessed Trinity and the Virgin Mary, had not this been joyning them together in the honour of those oblations? And is it not the same case here? Besides, you are guilty of a greater absurdity, for those might be only Eucharistical oblations, but in your Sacrifice of the Mass, you pretend to make a present you say to God; but what is it? nothing less than his own Son; if your doctrine be true. And for what end? to be a propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead. And is this indeed the present you make to Almighty God in honour of his Saints? I cannot with patience think of the absurdities which follow from hence. For how came you to make a Present to God of his own Son? When we make a Present to any one, it is understood to be of something in our power to bestow, and which we are willing to part with, for his sake to whom we offer it. Do you indeed in this sense make a Present of the Son of God to the Father? Have you the power of bestowing him in your hands? And are you willing p. 531to part with your whole right and interest in him? You are excellent Christians the mean while. Nay, no Sacrifice was truly and properly offered by any person, wherein he did not abandon his right in that which was Sacrificed. And therefore you see upon what terms, you make such a present to God by a proper Sacrifice of his Son to him. But suppose the Son of God were to be made a true and proper Sacrifice for sins on the Altar, How comes it into your hands to offer him up to the Father, since the great Sacrifice of propitiation was not to be offered by any ordinary Priests, but by the High-Priest himself, who was to carry the Blood into the Holy of Holies, and there to make intercession for the People? Are you the High-Priests of the Gospel to offer unto God the great Sacrifice of Atonement? Is not the great High-Priest of our profession entred within the Vail, and is there making intercession by vertue of his Sacrifice on the Cross? What need then of your Offering him up again for propitiation, who Offered himself once on the Cross for a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world? p. 532We have all the reason in the World to commemorate with great thankfulness and devotion that invaluable Sacrifice of the Cross, and if you will call the Whole Eucharistical Office a commemorative Sacrifice as the Ancients did, I shall never quarrel with you about it. But how the Sacrifice of the Mass comes to be propitiatory as the Sacrifice on the Cross was, I understand not; nor how it should be the same with the Sacrifice of the Cross, and yet of so much less value than it, the one being said by you to be infinite and the other finite; nor how the destruction of his Sacramental and of his Natural Being should be the same thing; nor how this Sacrifice should be propitiatory only for one sort of sins and not for another; nor how the Son of God can be made a true and proper Sacrifice for Sin under the Species of Bread and Wine; nor, what consumptive change that is in him, which according to your selves is necessary to make him such a Sacrifice. Is he slain again in the Mass? If he be, I can tell who is the Judas that betrays him, and who are the Jews that Crucifie him. If not, how comes a propitiatory Sacrifice without p. 533shedding of Blood? If the consumptive change be only in the Elements, then the Elements are Sacrificed, and not Christ. If it be only a Sacramental change, what is that to a Sacrifice of propitiation? And suppose all the other absurdities to be removed, and that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a true, real, proper and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Son of God Body and Soul upon the Altar, yet how at last comes this to be giving God thanks for the Graces of his Saints? I thought such a Sacrifice had been much rather for the expiation of their sins.

R. P.

I pray Sir forbear; I have no longer patience to hear you talk at this rate against the Sacrifice of the Mass; for if you destroy that, we are all undone. Methinks as T. G. saith,Dial. p. 511. Dr. St.'s arguments against it, might have been expected from the pen of a Crellius.

P. D.

Of a Crellius? Why so I pray? He wrote against Christs propitiatory Sacrifice on the Cross; and as I remember, Dr. St. hath answered his arguments; how comes he then, of all men, to argue like Crellius?

R. P.

Because his Reasons against the Sacrifice of the Mass will hold against that of the Cross.

p. 534P. D.

That would be strange; but let us hear them first and then judge.

R. P.

Why, he looks upon it, as a monstrous absurdity for us to pretend, first to make our God with speaking five words, then to offer up God himself unto God as a Sacrifice and consequently to suppose him destroyed, and this all to testifie our submission to God.

P. D.

And do not you think these horrible absurdities, and such as can never enter into any mans head that is not first resolved to part with his understanding?

R. P.

And do not you think these expressions highly injurious to that inestimable Sacrifice which Christ himself Offered upon the Cross?Dial. p. 509.

P. D.

Not at all. For, do we believe, that the Jews made an ordinary man to be the Eternal Son of God by speaking five words over him? And that the Jews then slew him and offered up God, as a Sacrifice to God for the expiation of sins; and all this, as an act of gratitude to God for the Graces of his Saints? If not, what colour or pretence is there, that the laying open the absurdity of your Sacrifice of the Mass, should derogate from the Sacrifice of the Cross?

p. 535R. P.

Were not the Jews scandalized at that most in the Sacrifice of the Cross, viz. the Offering of God to God?

P. D.

A crucified Saviour, or a suffering Messias, was to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness. But what do you mean by the offering up of God to God, do you think the Divinity was the Sacrifice? or the Blood of Christ, which he being the Eternal Son of God did offer up to his Father, as a propitiation for the sins of Mankind?

R. P.

Might not he be said, to offer up God himself to God as a Sacrifice?

P. D.

Then you must make the Divinity the Sacrifice; and how can that be a Sacrifice which is capable of no change? But suppose Christ as God and man be said to offer up at least a Divine Sacrifice; what is all this to your Offering up the Son of God as a Sacrifice to God for the sins of the World?

R. P.

Might not those, as T. G. saith, who were at the foot of the Cross, Dial. p. 511.offer up the Son of God on the Cross to the Father?

P. D.

This is a piece of New Divinity; and far enough I dare say from arguing like Crellius. Who ever thought, that the Jews had the same power to p. 536offer up the Blood of Christ as a propitiatory Sacrifice, which himself had who had power over his own life? If T. G. argues at this rate, none would imagine he hath ever considered the Nature of Christs Sacrifice, since he talks so unskilfully about these matters.

R. P.

But what doth Dr. St. talk of our making and destroying God in the Mass, since we believe that the same Christ who is in Heaven is whole under either species; Dial. p. 510.and his Blood to be separated from his Body not really, but Mystically only and in representation.

P. D.

Do you believe a true, proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass, or not?

R. P.

Do not you know the Council of Trent hath expresly defined it,Sess. 22. c. 1.2. can. 1.3. and anathematized all those who say the contrary?

P. D.

Is there any true, proper propitiatory Sacrifice, where there is not a consumptive change of that which is Sacrificed? And what is that which is Sacrificed in the Mass? not the Elements, but Christ under them, you say; If Christ be the Sacrifice he must be slain again at every Mass, as he was once on the p. 537Cross; or you can assign no destruction, which you say is necessary to such a true and proper Sacrifice.

R. P.

Do not you observe T. G.'s words, that Christ is whole under either species, and his Blood separated from his Body not really, but Mystically only, and in representation?

P. D.

How is that? Whole Christ under the bread, and whole Christ under the wine; and the blood separated from the Body not really, but mystically only, and by representation. This is admirable stuff, and true Mystical Divinity. If the body of Christ doth remain whole and entire, where is the true proper Sacrifice? where is the change made, if not in the Body of Christ? if that be uncapable of a change, how can it be a true and proper Sacrifice? If the blood be not really separated from the Body, where is the mactation, which must be in a propitiatory Sacrifice? If Christ do remain whole and entire after all the Sacrificial Acts, where I say is the true and proper Sacrifice? T. G. had far better said, and more agreeably to Scripture, Antiquity, and Reason, that there is no real and proper sacrifice on the Altar, but only mystical and by representation.

p. 538R. P.

But T. G. saith, that Religion which admits no external visible Sacrifice, Dial. p. 512.must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the publick worship of God.

P. D.

I pray remember, it is an external and visible Sacrifice which you contend for, and now tell me where it is in your Church. Doth it lye in the mimical gestures of the Priest at the Altar in imitation of Christ on the Cross? If that be it, the necessary consumption of the Sacrifice will be no comfortable doctrine to the Priest. Doth it lye in the consecration of the Elements which are visible? But you say, the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the change; and we can see no visible change made in them, and therefore there is no external and visible Sacrifice. Besides, if the Sacrifice did lye in the change of the Elements after Consecration into the Body of Christ, then the Elements are the thing sacrificed and not the Body of Christ, for the destructive change is as to the elements, and not as to the Body of Christ. Or doth it lye in the swallowing down, and consumption of the species after Consecration by the Priest? But here likewise the change is in the accidents and not in the Body of Christ, which remains whole and p. 539entire though the species be consumed; and I think there is some difference between changing ones seat and being sacrificed. For all that the Body of Christ is pretended to be changed in, is only its being no longer under the species, but T. G. I suppose will allow it to be whole and entire still. Doth it then lye in pronouncing the words of consecration upon which the Body of Christ is under the species of Bread, and the Blood under that of Wine, and so separated from the Body? But this can least of all be, since T. G. assures us that whole Christ is under the Bread as well as under the Wine; and so there cannot be so much as a moment of real separation between them; and we know how necessary for other purposes the doctrine of Concomitancy is. Tell me then where is your external and visible Sacrifice which you boast so much of; since according to your own principles there is nothing that belongs to the essence of a sacrifice is external and visible, and consequently your own Church labours under the defect T. G. complains of.

R. P.

But what makes Dr. St. so bitter against the Sacrifice of the Altar, since the most true and genuine Sons of the Church p. 540of England do allow it; Dial. p. 513, &c.as Mr. Thorndike, Dr. Heylin, and Bishop Andrews? and doth not this rather look like betraying the Church of England than defending it?

P. D.

I see now you are wheeling about to your first Post, and therefore it is time to give you a space of breathing. Your great business is to set us at variance among our selves, but you have hitherto failed in your attempts, and I hope will do. I do not think any two or three men, though never so learned make the Church of England; her sense is to be seen in the Publick Acts and Offices belonging to it. And in the Articles to which T. G. sometimes appeals,Articl. 31. your Sacrifices on the Altar are called blasphemous Figments, and dangerous Impostures. But as to these three persons I answer thus;

1. Mr. Thorndike, as I have shewed already,P. 87, 88. declares against the true proper Sacrifice defined by the Council of Trent as an innovation and a contradiction. And that which he pleads for, is, that the Eucharist is a commemorative and representative Sacrifice, about which Dr. St. would never contend with him or any one else: and immediately after the words cited p. 541by T. G. he adds these;Laws of the Church. p. 40. It is therefore enough, that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, as the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is represented, renewed, revived, and restored by it, and as every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth.

2. Pet. Heylins words are expresly only for a commemorative Sacrifice, Heylins Introd. n. 24.as T. G. himself produces them; and therefore I wonder what T. G. meant in citing them at large: For he quotes the English Liturgie for the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving; and S. Chrysostom calling it the remembrance of a Sacrifice; and many of our learned Writers, a Commemorative sacrifice. What is there in all this in the least repugnant to what Dr. St. had delivered?

R. P.

But he quotes Bishop Andrews, saying, Take from the Mass your Transubstantiation, and we will have no difference with you about the sacrfiice.

P. D.

Bishop Andrews calls the Eucharist a commemorative sacrifice, Ad Bell. Apol. Resp. p. 184.and he saith, it was properly Eucharistical, or of the nature of peace-offerings, concerning which the Law was, that he that offered should partake of them; and a little after p. 542follow those words you mention: to which he adds, We yield you that there is a remembrance of Christs sacrifice; but we shall never yield that your Christ being made of Bread is there sacrificed. Which is the very thing, that T. G. is so angry with Dr. St. about. And have not you bravely proved that Dr. St. hath herein gone against the sense of the genuine Sons of the Church of England? If you have any thing yet left which you think material I pray let us have it now, for fear lest T. G. make use of it to stuff out another Book.

R. P.

I think we are near the Bottom.

P. D.

So I imagine by the dregs which came last.

R. P.

There is one thing yet left for a close:Dial. p. 523. which is, Dr. St. saith, supposing this sacrifice were allowed, yet this doth not prove that we reserve any external Act of worship belonging to all Christians, because this sacrifice belongs to the Priests only to offer.

P. D.

And what answer doth T. G. give to that?

R. P.

He saith, that nothing is more notorious than that those of the Church of p. 543Rome, are bound on every Sunday and Holy Day to hear Mass.

P. D.

To hear Mass! A very Christian duty no doubt, especially if they understand never a word of it,Dian. Sum. p. 446. and as Diana saith, a man is not bound to hear a word that is said: But what then?

R. P.

By this external Act, he saith,Dial. p. 524. they testifie the uniting their intention with the Priest as the publick Officer of the Church in the Oblation of the sacrifice.

P. D.

I have often heard of the skill you have of directing intentions, but I never knew of this knack of uniting Intentions before. I know how necessary the Priests intention is in your Church, but what if the People should fail of uniting their intention with his, (as they often think and talk of other things at hearing Mass) would it not be a sacrifice without the Vnion of their Intentions? Suppose the Priests Intention should wander, what would the Peoples uniting their intentions signifie towards the Sacrifice? You will not say, they have any power to offer the sacrifice; therefore the Act of sacrificing belongs only to the Priest, whether the Peoples intentions be united or not. If the People first offered that p. 544which was to be sacrificed, to the Priest, and then he sacrificed it in their name (as among the Jews) they might be said to have a share in the sacrifice; but when the sacrifice is supposed to come down from Heaven upon the Priests words, and he doth not represent the People but Christ in the Act of sacrificing, What doth the Peoples uniting their intentions signifie to the sacrifice? I pray tell me in whose name doth the Priest pretend to the power of offering up the Body of Christ in Sacrifice on the Altar, the Peoples, or Christs?

R. P.

In the name of Christ doubtless, for the People have no power to do it.

P. D.

If they have no power to do it, and all the Authority be supposed to be derived from Christ for doing it, what doth the uniting the Peoples intentions with the Priests signifie as to the offering up the sacrifice? You might as well say, that the Jews under the Cross might unite their intentions to Christs in offering himself on the Cross to the Father, and so it might become their Act as well as Christ's. But in my mind your phrase of hearing and seeing Mass is much more proper (if men were bound either p. 545to hear or see, which your Casuists say, they are not) than this of uniting their intentions with the Priest, which is absurd and ridiculous. Doth T. G. so little consider the honour of the Priestly Office as to talk of the Peoples uniting their intentions with the Priests in the oblation of the Sacrifice? The next step may be, that the sacrificing may depend on the Peoples Intentions as well as the Priests; and what a case are you in then? Aquinas and Cajetan were much wiser than T. G. in this matter, for they both declare that this sacrifice belongs only to the Priests and not to the People; Defence, p. 205.as Dr. St. told T. G.

R. P.

T. G. saith, he cannot find the Citation in the place quoted by him; but he dares affirm that Cajetan was not so silly a Divine as to deny it to belong to the People to offer the sacrifice by and with the Priest.Dial. p. 525.

P. D.

And I dare affirm Cajetan was much wiser than to say, that the offering the sacrifice did in any sense belong to the People; and so much T. G. might have found in the place cited by the Doctour, only qu. 86. was put for q. 85. and not as Cajetans bare opinion, Cajet. 2.2. qu. 85. art. 4.but as the judgement of Aquinas too. He saith indeed, p. 546that the Priests do offer the sacrifice for themselves and others; but he was not so silly to imagine that they were to unite their intentions with the Priests in the oblation; but that expression only shews for whose sake and not in whose name the sacrifice was offered. For there are other sacrifices, saith he, which every one may offer for himself, and those, saith Cajetan, are spiritual sacrifices of Devotion and Vertue; but for the sacrifice of the Altar, that belongs only to the Priests and Officers of the Church.

R. P.

But the very Mass-Book calls it meum ac vestrum sacrificium; and desires God to accept it for all those pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium.

P. D.

I will tell you the mysterie of this business, and so put an end to this long Conference. It was the ancient custom of the Roman Church as well as others for the Communicants to make an oblation of the Bread and Wine at the Altar, of which they were afterwards to partake. This I prove from the Sacramentary of S. Gregory published by Pamelius, Liturg. Lat. …0.2. p. 178.where it is said, while the Offertory is singing; i. e. the Anthem then used, the p. 547oblations are made by the People and laid upon the Altar that they might be consecrated. And the Ordo Romanus declares these oblations to be the Bread and Wine: of which, it adds,Cassandr. Liturg. c. 27. that the Arch-deacon took as much and laid upon the Altar, as would serve for the people that were to communicate. These oblations continued in the Church a long time,Concil. Matis. c. 50. and were inforced by Canons and Constitutions when the people began to slacken in their devotion. Capit. Car. M. l. 6. c. 162.Upon which the Church of Rome thought fit to bring in the use of Wafers instead of common bread, and so these oblations grew into disuse, or were turned into offerings of money instead of them. Sirmondus and Card.Sirmond. de Azym. c. 2. Bona de r… bus Liturg. l. 2. c. 8. §. 8. Bona have proved beyond all dispute, that the ancient Latin Church did use common and leavened Bread in the Eucharist that was offered by the people till a thousand years after Christ. But then the doctrine of Transubstantiation coming into the Roman Church, it was no longer thought fit that the Bread which was to be turned into the Son of God should be made after a common manner, or with the unsanctified hands of the Laity, but by those who did attend upon the Altar: remembring what the good p. 548woman told Gregory I. that she wondred that the Bread which she made with her own hands should be called the Body of Jesus Christ; Joh. Diac. in vit. Greg. c. 41.which the people had more reason to do, when they came to define the manner of the presence, as they did about this time; although it were not made an Article of Faith till afterwards. From hence the dispute began between the Greeks and Latins about unleavened bread; and from henceforward the custom of oblations for the service of the Altar declined and is only kept up on some particular solemnities, as Canonization of Saints, Inauguration of Princes, Consecration of Bishops, Marriages and Funerals; however the same form of words continues still in the Offices, as if the oblations of Bread and Wine were still made by the People; Sirm. de Azy. c. 1. Bona de reb. Liturg. l. 1. c. 23. §. 3.and so Sirmondus and Bona both say those expressions of the Mass-Book, you mention, are to be understood of these oblations of the People, and not of the Sacrifice of Christs Body. And that these oblations were called sacrifices appears by the known passages of S. Cyprian, Cypr. de Opere & Eleemosyn.Locuples & dives es & Dominicum celebrare te credis, quae in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis, quae partem de sacrificio p. 549quod pauper obtulit sumis? In which he blames the rich women that came without an Oblation, which he calls a sacrifice, and did partake of that which the poor offered; which S. Augustin calls de aliena oblatione communicare; Aug. Serm. 215. de temp.and therefore he bids all Communicants to make their own oblations at the Altar. But suppose these expressions were not to be understood of the oblations of the people (as it is certain the prayers called Secretae and the first part of the Canon of the Mass are) yet it was not fairly done of T. G. to leave out a very significant word which immediately followed, viz. laudis, qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis. If the People be allowed their share in the Eucharistical Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving, what is this to their offering up the proper propitiatory sacrifice of the Body of Christ? I do not deny that the People had a share in the sacrifice according to the sense of Antiquity; not only from their oblations, but because as Cassander well observes,Cassand. consult. de Sacrif. Corp. & Sang. Christi. the Ancients did call the whole Eucharistical Office, as it took in the Peoples part as well as the Priests, by the name of a sacrifice; and so the Oblations, Prayers, Thanksgivings, p. 550Consecration, Commemoration, Distribution, Participation did all belong to the sacrifice. But since you restrain the true and proper sacrifice to the oblation of the Body of Christ to God by the Priest, Dr. St. had reason to say, that the sacrifice among you belongs to the Priests, and is not an external Act of Worship common to all. And so according to the sense you put on the Mass-Book, you leave no one Act of peculiar external worship appropriated to God which is to be performed by all Christians; which was the thing to be proved.

THE END.