A iust discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet's vnjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome with a discovery of the vanity of his late defence in his pretended answer to a book entituled, Catholicks no idolaters : by way of dialogue between Eunomius, a conformist, & Catharinus, a non-conformist : the first part : concerning the charge of idolatry, &c.

THE FIFTH DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

The Charge of Idolatry not maintai∣nable without subverting all lawful Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England. Dr. St's. Doctrine in his Ans∣wer to N. O. concerning the Power and Authority of the Church: He is left at liberty to chuse whether he will haue it be a Retractation or Contradiction of what he asserted in his Irenicum, set down in the 3^d Dialogue. His mistake of the Validity of Ordination for the lawful Authority to Exercise the Power con∣ferred by it, shown to be Inexcusable. A Recapitulation of what hath been dis∣coursed in this, and the fore-going Dialogues.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS

EVn:

Hitherto Catharinus I haue entertained you with some remar∣kable

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

Cathar.

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

Eun:

Whateuer it be, you shall

haue it in T. Gs. own words at the end of his Pr••f••ce to Catholicks no Idola∣ters, where hauing laid down this for his Position, that the Charge of Idola∣try subverts the very foundation of Ec∣clesiastical Authority in the Church of England, he proues it with this reason; because it being a receiued Maxime, and not deniable by any one of Common Sense, that no man can giue to another, that which he hath not himself, it lies open to the Conscience of Euery man, that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Heresy. much more if guilty of Idolat••y, it falls vnder the Apostle's Excommunication (Gal 1. 8) and so remains deprived of the lawful Authority to vse and exercise the power of Orders, and consequently the Authority of Gouerning, Preaching, and Administring Sacraments, which those of the Church of England chal∣lenge to themselues, as deriued from the Church of Rome, can be no true and lawful Jurifdiction, but vsurped and Antichristian. This you see bids very fair towards the subversion of all lawful Authority in the Church of England if the Church of Rome were guilty of Idolatry, when the Schism began;

because Excommunicated Persons, such as Idolaters are, being depriued of law∣full Authority themselues, can giue none to others; and if those others take any vpon them, it must be vsurped and vnlawful; no man can giue to ano∣ther what he hath not in himself: and vpon this Principle it is, that the Earl of Clarendon in his late Excellent Sur∣vey of Leviathan p. 40. 41. affirms, that this sole Proposition, that men cannot dispose of their own liues, hath been alwaies held as a manifest and vndenia∣ble Argument, that Soveraigns neuer had, nor can haue their power from the People; because it is without doubt, that no man is Dominus vitae suae and there∣fore cannot giue that to another, which he hath not in himself▪ And the Maxime holds no less in Spiritual than in Temporal Jurisdiction.

But then again, if we consider the time, when Dr. St. aduanced this charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, that is, after he had by a new Impression tendred his Irenicum in the year 1662. to Consideration. Viz, after that Episcopacy was resetled in the Church of England, we shall find the

Argument press much more home, For, maintaining as he does in that Book, that no particular Form of Church-Go∣vernment is de Jure Divino but mutable as the secular Magistrate, with the aduice of learned and Experienced Per∣sons, shall see convenient for State and Church; and particularly that the main ground for setling Episcopal Govern∣ment in this Nation, was not any pre∣tence of Divine Right, but Conveniency to the State and Condition of the Church at tbe time of it's Reformation, citing for it the Testimony of Arch Bp. Cranmer and others; This saith T. G. seems but too apparently to be a clinching of the Nail which he had driuen before to the head. For, if the Form of Church Government be mutable, as the Secular Power wel-advised shall see Reason, what greater Reason can there be, saith he, for the actual changing of Episcopacy, than the Nullity of it's Jurisdiction? And therefore wonders, how the Governours of tbe Church of England could see their Authority so closely attacqued (at least so manifestly betrayed) by their pre∣tended Champion, and not vindicate themselues and their Jurisdiction from

the foul stain of Antichristian, which necessarily follows, if the Church of Rome, as he pretends, be guilty of Ido∣latry, and they derive together with their Consecration, their Episcopal Juris∣diction from it.

Cathar.

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

Eun:

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

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

2^dly Concerning the Authority of ma∣king Rules and Canons about matters of Order and Decency in the Church, I freely grant saith he, not only that such an Authority is in its self reasonable and Iust; but that in such matters requi••ed by a lawful Authority, (such as tha•• of our Church is) there is an advantage on the side of Authority, against a Scru∣pulous Conscience, which ought t•• ouer∣rule the practice of such who are the

members of that Church.

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

4^thly Concerning Subscription, he acknowledgeth that the Synod or Con∣uocation in the present circumstances hath the power and Authority within it self to declare what Errours and Abuses are crept into Religion and Doctrine, Which they iudg fit to reform, and to require a consent to such Propositions as are agreed vpon for that end, of those who are to enioy the Publick Offices of teach∣ing and instructing others, and not to allow any Persons to preach and Offi∣ciate in the Church, in a way contrary to the design of such a Reformation Which I take to be the same with what

the Author of the Reply to the Naked Truth, pag. 6. asserteth, when he saith, that the Church is so iust to her self as to exact for the security of her own peace, that all whom she trusts with teaching others, or whom she recommends to the world with Vniversity-Degrees shall subscribe to the 39. Articles, as their own Opinions, and what they belieue as convinced in their ••wn Judgments that they are true, what do you think of this, Catharinus? Is this a Retractation or no?

Cathar.

I think there is a great deal of difference between changing Opinion, and changing the Person. That Dr. St. speaks there in the Person of the Church of England to stop the mouth of an Im∣portune Adversary (N. O.) who would haue no Authority left in the Guides of the Church, if I••fallible direction were taken from them; is manifest from the Design of his discourse. But nothing I suppose of a Retractation, because I neuer heard he made any Recantation-Sermon, for what he had writen either in his Irenicum, or Rational Account, or other writings; or any other publick Profession of retracting or condemning his former Opinions. Nay do you not

see, how careful he is not to be thought to retract, when hauing giuen Authori∣ty to the Synod to require a consent to the Propositions agreed vpon; he present∣ly takes it away again, by telling vs, that Persons may not be allowed to preach and Officiate in the Church in a way con∣trary to the design of the Reformation? Which I take to be the same with his former Assertion, that what is required of them is no more than not to oppose or contradict them.

Eun:

This kind of dealing is I assure you an Argument to me, that the Reasons for these new Assertions did not appear Satisfactory to him, because I belieue what he protests concerning his charge of Idolatry at the end of his defence p. 877. viz that if the subtilties of T. G. could haue satisfied him or any other Argument he had met with, he would as f••eely haue retracted his Charge of Idolatry, as he euer made it; to be altogether as true here; that is, had he met with any Arguments which could haue satisfied him of the Erroneousness of his former Opinions, he would as willingly have retracted th••m as euer he advanc'd them. The distinction you

make of changing the Person, not the Opinion, is very subtil: But he hath Cunning Sophisters, as you know, to deal with; and if it pass not for a Retracta∣tion, they will be ready to say that he contradicts himself; and so raise vp a new Pile or rather Pyramid of Con∣tradictions, for him to pluck down.

Cathar.

I hate this piling of Contra∣dictions with all my heart. And there∣fore pray return to the Terrible Blow.

Eun.

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

Cathar:

This it is, as Dr. St. Saith, to charge home, and so Farewel to the Church of England, if the Church of Rome were not more kind in this case, than T. G. is. Hitherto we haue seen his Skil in the affairs of our Church, and now saith the Dr. we shall see iust as much in the Doctrine of his own. For doth not the Council of Trent make Or∣ders a Sacrament? And one of those

which do imprint an indelible Charac∣ter? And doth not that Council pro∣nounce an Anathema against those that denied the validity of the Sacrament administred by one in mortal sin, in case he obserues the Essentials of it. How then can T. G. escape Excommunica∣tion from his own Church, who denies the validity of the Sacrament of Orders, in case of the sin of the Giuers of it? And then after this he proceeds to proue his Assertion for no less than 16. Pages to∣gether, viz. that a Bishop who is in mortal sin, or an Heretick, may validly ordain a Bishop or a Priest, with a cloud of Testimonies both out of the Ancient Fathers, and Modern Doctors of the Church of Rome as Vasquez, Estius, Aquinas, Bonaventure, &c. as also from the Practice both of the Ancient and Modern Church, in this case. Doe you not think the B••ew sufficiently warded off, and deseruedly retorted vpon the head of T. G.

Eun:

This indeed may be called an Ans∣wer with a Witness. But what if the Wit∣nesses speak not at all to the case in deba∣te, or if they do, it is for T. G. Does T. G. any where denie the Validity of the Sa∣crament

of Orders in case of the Sin of the Giuers of it? Consider the argument again▪ and you will not find so much as one word that sounds to that purpose. The Consequence T. G. draws from Dr. Sts charge of Idolatry, was not to dis∣prove the Validity of the Ordination of the Protestant Bishops, but the law∣fulness of their Authority to vse and exe••cise the power of Orders, which he did by showing, that the Ordainers hauing lost the lawful exercise of their Orders by falling into Idolatry, (though we should suppose the Protestant Bis∣hops, to haue been validly ordained by them,) yet could they not receiue any lawful Authority or Jurisdiction from them; it being an vndeniable Maxime, that nothing can giue to another what it hath not it self. Now that a Man may truely and validly haue the Order of a Bishop or Priest conferr'd vpon him, and yet not haue lawful Authority to exercise what belongs to that Order, is out of question, from the acknowledg∣ment and practice both of the Church of Rome and that of England, which for certain crimes, as Heresy, Murder, Apostasy, and the like, suspend and

Excommunicate the Offenders. And it is agreed on both sides, that Persons so suspended and Excommunicated can∣not lawfully exercise the Functions belonging to those Orders. Hence it is, that a Minister Silenc'd and Suspended by his Bishop, though he retain the character of his Order, that is, remain still a Minister, yet cannot he lawfully preach or administer the Sacraments. The same is also of a Bishop, if he be suspended or Excommunicated for here∣sy or the like, he cannot lawfully con∣fer Orders, nor giue that Jurisdic∣tion to another, of which he is depriued himself. And in case he should, the Person so receiving them, would in that case remain suspended as well as the Bishop. This then is what T. G. in∣sisted vpon, that the First Ordainers, who were of the Roman Communion, hauing lost by the supposed crime of Idolatry, the lawful Authority of exercising their Orders, could not com∣municat▪ any such Authority to those whom they Ordained; and consequent∣ly there could be no such Authority in the Pr••testant Bishops, if the Church of Rome, as Dr. St. pretends, were

guilty of Idolatry, and they derive toge∣ther with their Consecration their Epis∣copal Jurisdiction from it.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

Be it as you belieue; yet Dr. St I think had litle reason to charge T. G. with Ignorance in Church affairs, when himself mistook so grossly in them, as to vnderstand his Adversary to speak of the Invalidity of Orders in case of the sin of the Giuers, when his whole discourse tended only to show the want of due Authority to exercise them, in case the Ordainers had none to giue t••em. But I fear there is but too much reason to belieue that Dr St. vnderstood all this well enough: and my Grounds

are these. 1^st because there is nothing more visible (nor more complain'd of by those of your Party) in the practice of the C••urch of England, than the Silencing and suspending factious Prea••h∣ers from the Office of Preaching: and Dr. St. himself supposes it iust and law∣full, when he saith as you heard before, that Persons are not to be allowed to preach and Officiate in the Ch••rch, in a way cont••ary to the design of the Refor∣mation. They must then be Silenced and Suspended from the Exercise of their Function; but are not thereby depriued of the Order of their Ministery, as might be instanced in many cases both A••cient and Mo••ern, wel known to Dr. St. in which the Persons were Restored to the exercise of their Order, (whether Episcopal or Minister••al) not by a new Ordination, but by taking off the Suspension 2^dly. Because himself could not but take no••ice of the Distinc∣tion between O••din••tio and Jurisdictior, laid down by some of the Roman Doctors cited by himself, as E••tius and Bonaventure. Th•• former of which, saith he, affi••meth, that no Crime or Censure how heauy soeuer, can hinder

the validity of Ordination by a Bis∣hop, although it be of those who are not Subiect to his Jurisdiction, in case he observe the Essentials of the Sacrament; and that we might not doubt but he took good notice of what he said, he puts in a distinct character, that it was for this reason. Because Ordina∣tion saith Estius belongs to the Power of Order, which being once received can neuer be lost, but those things which be∣long ••o Jurisdiction, as Absolution and Excommunication, haue no Effect where that Jurisdiction is taken away. And the l••t••er viz, B••naventure saith, that in the matter of Ordination, the Power of Orders can ••o more be taken way, than the Character it self; but whateuer is founded vpon Jurisdiction, as the Power of Excommuni••ation and Ab••olution, may be taken away. Do you st••ll belieue, that Dr St. had not gro••nd enough to make him consider, whether his Ad∣versary spoke of Ordination or Jurisdic∣tio••? That which follows will put the matter quite out of doubt; Because 3.^dly. T. G. exp••e••sly declares himself all along to speak, of the lawfull Au∣thority to vse and exercise the Power of

Orders, and in his last words cleerly distinguishes Jurisdiction from Consecra∣tion when he saith. If the B••••hops toge∣ther with th••ir C••ns••cration, deriue their Episcopal Juris••iction f••om the Church of Rome. By which it is plain to any one of Common sense, that his Int••ntion in that place, was not to attacque the Consecrat••on of the Engil••h B••••hops, but rather supposing that in the present case, (as not to his purpose,) to shew from Dr. Sts. charge of Idolatry vpon their first Ordainers, their want of lawf••l Iuris∣diction. What then can be said here, but that Dr. St. could not but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the mean∣ing and force of T. Gs. Argument; but not being able to ward off the blow, resolued to cast a blind before his Rea∣ders eyes, by impugning T. G as if he had denied the validity of Ordination in case ••f he sin of the Giuers of it, And to make the m••st the darker he heaps a whole Shower of reproaches upon him, as the veryest Ignoramus, that euer set pen to paper. Hi••he••to, saith he, we haue seen his skill in the affairs of our Church, and now wee shal see iust as much in the doctrine of his o••n. How can be escape Excommunication f••om his own Church, who denies the validity

of the Sacrament of Orders in case of the sin of the Giuers of it? Methinks if he had f••rgotten the doctrine of the Council of Trent, he might haue looked into some one or other of their own Au∣thors, to haue informed himself be••ter of their doctrine in this matter. By this we may indge of the lear••ing and skill of T. G. in the doctrine of his own Church. But if he would not look into the Controuersial writers of their Church, yet if he had b••t ••earched into the prac∣tice of the Church, either in Ancient or Modern times, he would haue been A∣shamed to haue made vse of such an Argu∣ment to overthr••w all Ecclesiastical Au∣thority among vs. What do you think of this, Catharinus? do you not belieue the Dr. was put hard to it to keep his Countenance for 16. Pages together; but that he must laugh at least through his fingers to see what a fourb he had put vpon his Readers. First by imposing falsly vpon T. G. that he denied the va∣lidity of Ordination in case of the sin of the Giuers of it, and then treating him like a Dolt, and most triumphantly telling him, he might haue been A∣shamed to make vse of such an Argument?

Is this it he means, when he so piously protests, that he loues not to repre••ent others worse than they are? He may, if he can, Sit down with that contentment which he proposes to himself as his last resort, that he h••s defended a Righteous cause, and with an honest mind. But if he can do it upon no better an account, himself is like to reap but litle comfort from it; and the Church of England will I fear soon haue cause enough to be ashamed of such a Champion. For my part, I shall neuer iudge worse hereafter of any Aduersary, for being reproached by Dr. St. but s••sp••ct his own want of Ingenuity, or of an Answer, rather than his Adversary's deficiency either in Wit or Learning. And to tell you my Ap∣prehensions, I begin already to questio••, whether T. G. euer asserted, the Heathens to be Idolaters only for giuing diuine honour to the Diuel: and much less whe∣ther the Apostles and Fath••rs euer preach∣ed to the world, that the Heathen's I••piter was the only true G••d. The no∣ble P••neg••rick he makes of that King of Gods and Men in the first Chapter of his Defence, out of the Poets, Ora∣tors, Philosophers and Fathers, hath

but litle Influence vpon me row (though before it had a great deal) to make me alter my Creed, and say, I belieue in one God Jupiter, the Father Almighty, maker of H••auen and Earth, &c,

Cathar.

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

Eun:

An excellent defence indeed for a writer of Controversy. But what if Dr. St haue been publickly reproued for this mistake, (as you wil haue it;) as he is by E. W. (Mr Edward Worstl••y) in his Treatise of the Infallibility of the Roman-Catholick Church, printed at Antwerp 1674. and yet after that, shall take no not••ce of it, but go on, as he does in his late Defence, to confirm his former Answer with n••w Proofs and Testimonies, that Bishops ordain'd by

Idolaters, were esteemed validly ordai∣ned; and not speak one word in Answer to what was objected by T. G. viz that the English Bishps must want lawful A••thority to exercise the Power of Or∣ders, if their first Ordainers were Ido∣laters?

Cathar.

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

Eun.

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

Cathar.

I remember now who you mean, The renowned Champion, as the Dr. goes on, of our Lady of Loreto, and the miraculous Translation of her Chappel; of whom, he saith, he must

haue litle care of himself, if he euer more come near the Clutches of such a Giant, who seems to write with a Beetle instead of a Pen; and therefore resolues to let him lye quietly in his shades, and snore on to dooms-day for him, vnless he see further rea••on of disturbing his repose, than at present he does.

Eun:

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

I cannot but reflect, saith E. W. (p. 87. of the fore-mentioned Treatise) vpon another intolerable mistake of Dr St. that whereas T. G. had said in his Preface, that, it is a known Maxim, that none can giue to another that which he hath not himself; and there∣fore if the Church of Rome be guilty of

Heresy, much more of Idolatry, it fall•• vnder the Apostles Excommunication, and so remains depriued of lawfull Authority (mark the words, saith he,) to vse and excercise the power of Orders, and consequently the Autho∣rity of Gouerning, preaching, and ad∣ministring Sacraments, which those of the Church of England challenge to themselues, as deriued from the Church of Rome, can be no true and lawful Jurisdiction but vsurped and Antichris∣tian. The plain and ob••ions sense of which words saith he, is that He who hath no Jurisdiction, but is depriued of it by the Church's Censures, cannot giue it to anot••er. Neither can He that hath no lawful Authority to ordain, lawfully ordain any, or giue Authority lawfully to ordain others. Now comes Dr. St. in his General Preface to ward off this blow, but never man did it less dexterously, and we must wholly attri∣bute it to his litle Skil in fencing He tells vs that the Council of Trent pro∣nounces Anathema a••ainst those that deny the validity (observe here also, sai••h he the word Validity) of the Sa∣crament administred by one in mor∣tal sin, in case he observes the Essentials

of it; and in this gross errour he runs on for 9. or 10. Pages, (he might have said almost as many leaves) citing Au∣thor after Author to prove that the Sacrament of Order is validly given by one in mortal sin or Excommunicated. But what is all this, Saith E. W. to T. Gs. most true Assertion? that none guil∣ty of Idolatry, or Heresy can give Ju∣risdiction to any of the Church of Eng∣land (which they must have from Ca∣tholick Bishops, or wholly want it,) or impower them to ordain others law∣fully, when they are deprived them selves, of all lawful Authority to use or exercise the power of Orders? Hence you se••, saith he, Dr. Sts. blindness, who argues from the validity of giving Or∣ders, to the lawful giving them, &c.

Thus E. W. And such a publick rebuke one would think, had been sufficient to make Dr. St. open his Eyes, and consi∣der what it was that his Adversary ob∣jected; if he intended ever more to speak to this Argument. But as if he were wholly insensible of the gross and intolerable errour E. W. taxed him with, (whether stun'd with the blow of the Beetle, or not hauing any thing else to

answer, he runs again into the same shameful mistake, and instead of defend∣ing that the first Bishops of the Church of England receiued lawful Authority to vse and exercise the Power of O••ders which T. G. denied they could, in case their Ordainers were guilty of Idolatry, he falls vpon him afresh in his late de∣fence, as if he demed the validity of Orders giuen by a Bishop in case of Idola∣try. And that his Reader may see, he was resolued notwithstanding the Rebukes of E. W. to goe on in the same track still, he tells him pag. 795. that hauing formerly showed, in his General Preface, that no Act of Ordination is invalid in case of any Heresy or crime of the Giuer, and that the contrary Doctrine is con∣demned for Heresy by the Church, he shall now particularly shew, that the Power of giuing Orders is not taken away by the guilt of Idolatry; which he there proceeds to proue from the case of the▪ Arian Bishops; And if I can make it appear saith he, that the Arian Ordina∣tions were allowed, I shall put this matter beyond dispute, that the Charge of Idolatry doth not null the Ordinations of our Church, as being derived from

tho••e who were guilty of Idolatry. Thus Dr. St. after he had been publickly told of his mistake. And what is this but to tell vs, that howeuer E. W. and T. G, vrge him, the o••e with a Pen, the ••ther with a B••etle to shew how the sirst Pro∣testant Bishops could haue any lawf••l Jurisdiction or Authority to exercise the p••we•• of Orders, in case heir Ordai∣ners were guilty of Idolat••y, he is re∣solued neuertheless to take no notice at all of that (which was the onely thing in disput••) but will fight on stil couragiously against a Shad••w of his own making, and put it beyond dispute, that the Act it se••f of Ordinat••on is not inval••d in case of the I••ol••try of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 G••uers, which was neuer denied by his A••ve••sary. What shall I say here? Are the Pow••r of giuing Orders, and lawful Autho••ity to giue them, so ••ssentially linked to each other, that they cannot be separa∣ted? May not a Bishop or P••••est remain∣ing so, be deprived of all lawful Au∣thority to exercise their Functions, for hauing fallen into Heresy or Idolatry? And if they haue non•• t••emselues, can they giue it to others? does not Estius cited by the Dr, affirm, that no crime or

Censure how h••a••y ••o••uer can hinder the validity of O••dination by a Bishop although it be of those who are not s••b∣iect to his Jurisdictio••? &c. By which it is manifest the Power of Ordination may haue its effect, where there is no lawf••l Authority to exercise it? And does not the Church of England suspend her B••shops and Priests in case of those or the lik•• crimes, and vpon their repen∣tance admit them again without 〈◊〉〈◊〉? And if the Protestant Bishops neither haue nor could haue any law∣ful Jurisdiction derived vpon them, in case their first O••dainer▪ were guilty of Idolatry and so could giue none is there not all the rea••on in the world accor∣ding to t••e Dr's Irenicall Principle of the mutabili••y of Chu••ch-Gouernment, to take away Episcopacy, and Substiti••te some other in it••s Place? These are the Points, which Dr. St: should haue spoken to, to an••w•••• his Adversarys ar∣gument; but instead of doing that, to mo••k his Reader, and lavish away time and paper, as he does, to proue the va∣lidity of Ordination in case of the Here∣sy or Idolat••y of the giuer, (a po••nt well known to T. G. before Dr. St took

vpon him to teach him) is the greatest sign of Tergiversation, to say no worse, Jeuer yet met with.

Cathar.

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

Eun:

This would be to make the force of T. Gs. Argument yet stronger, which it may be is what you would be

at. For if the first Ordainers were no true Bishops, those whom they ordai∣ned could be none, and much less could they receiue la••ful Authority from them to make others. But how wary soever the Dr. be in expressing his thoughts, yet I doe not find, he any were denies the Bishops of the Church of Rome to be true B••••hops: nor does T. G. concern himself to disproue the validity of the Ordination of the Bis∣hops of the Church of E••gland; but only to show it to be a consequence of Dr. St's charge of Idolatry, that they could haue ••o lawful Authority to exer∣cise the power of Orders, in case their first O••••ainers were Idolaters. And methinks T. G's. Civility in this Point, in wauing the Q••est on of the validity of their Ordination (a Topick vehe∣mently insisted on by those of his Party) ought to haue preuailed with Dr. St. to haue treated him with more Modera∣tion; and yet the Impor••ance of the Ar∣gument ••aue induced him not to leaue it vnspok••n to, in its full f••rce and vtmost consequence; which was no less than the actual ch••nge of Epis••opal Govern∣ment in England, according to his Prin∣ciples.

Ordinary Readers, if Impartial, will be at a loss what to think of this; but those of better capacity wil be apt to suspect, (what it may be you hope) there was something in the bottome, which made him so careful not to touch this Point; and so much the more, if they shall but res••ect with themselues, how things haue been managed by him in relation to it from the beginning, as.

1. His publishing of the doctrine of the Mutability of Church-Government as the secular Magistrate shall see rea••on, laid down by him at large in his Ire∣nicum.

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

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

4^ly when this would not take with them to make them divest themselues of what they thought to be their Just Power, his putting forth a Treatise to charge the Church of R••me with Idolatry, when neither of the two Questions proposed to him and his Adversary requir'd it: and endeavouring to fasten that charge vpon the Church of England as her Sense, and so make her contribute to the sub∣version of her own Authority. 5.^ly when T G. vrged vpon him, the want of lawf••l Jurisdiction as the consequence of this cha••g••, and consequently that in his Principles there was reason enough for the State to think fit to take away Episcopa••y; His passing this by, as if he saw it not and trifling with his Adversa∣ry, about the validity of Ordination in case of Heresy. And, lastly, when 〈◊〉〈◊〉 put him in mind of his duty, as the Champion of the Church of England; and in such a manner as would provoke a man of more Phlegm, than Dr. St shows himself to be; His still letting it alone and running a new descant vpon the old mistake, viz, the validity of Ordination in case of the Idolatry of the Givers of it: neither retracting his

Principles, nor speaking to the Point, but leaving Episcopacy, as it is establish∣ed in the Church of England, vnder the s••••okes of the B••••tle to shift for it's∣self, as it can. And what was this I pray (if you will not call it attacquing) but to betray at least the cause of the Church of England as T. G. saith, whilst he pretends to d••f••nd it?

Catha••▪

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

E••n:

But you haue heard I hope of some f••mous P••ophetick pict••r••s pretend∣ing to represent the f••te of England, in which the chief thing observable (in se∣veral of them) is a Mo••e, a creature blind and busy smooth and deceitfull, conti∣nually working vnder ground, but now and th••n to be discerned by the distur∣bance it makes in the surface of the Earth.

Cath

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

Eun:

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

Cathar.

Well then, leaving these things, as T. G. does in his Preface to those whom they concern; as I haue giuen you hitherto the Satisfaction at least of a fair hearing, whilst you represented the Motives of your dissatisfaction with the charge of Idolatry, as managed by Dr. St, so now I expect you'l be so kind, as to giue me your Opinion of the Book you found me vpon at your first visit, viz. Dr. St's late Defence of his Roman Idolatry in answer to T. G. For although you haue occasionally

touch'd vpon some passages of it in our former discourses, yet I would willingly hear what you think of the whole.

Eunom.

This then (if you will needs haue it) shall be the subiect of another Conference. Only I shall leaue you a short Memorial to consider on, of the matters we haue hitherto discoursed, and it is this: that Dr. St. (as hath been shown) cannot maintain his charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome. 1. without dissenting from the Judg∣ment of the true and Genuine sons of the Church of England. 2^ly not with∣out offering violence to the 39. Arti∣cles. 3^ly not without denying or assigning a Church in all ages distinct from all Conuenticles of Hercticks and Schisma∣ticks, with which Christians were bound to ioyn in Communion. 4^ly not without granting the Church of Rome to err against a Fundamentall Point of Faith. 5^ly not without bringing the guilt and Mischeifs of the Schism vpon the Maintainer. 6ly not without quitting that grand supporter of the Cause the words, Expressly prohibited in the se∣cond Commandment. 7^ly not without frequent and manifest Self-Contradic∣tions.

Lastly not without subverting all lawful Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England.

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

The End of the First Part.

Notes

• P. 273.
• Defens. verit. p. 1••.
• p. 181.
• p. 26••.
• p. 269.
• General ••••••face,
• Ep. D••∣dic. to his De∣fence.
• Dial. 1.
• Dial. 2.
• Dial. 3.
• Dial. 4.
• Dial. 3. 4.
• ••īal. 5.