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 FIRST DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

EVnomins declares his dis-satis∣faction witb the Charge of Ido∣latry, and D^r Stillingfleet's pre∣tending it to be the Sense of the Church of England. The Dr's Endeavours in that part shown to be Insufficient, particularly as to the Book of Homilies, and the Ru∣brick for kneeling at Communion. The sad account of History we are like to have from him when he denies Robere Abbot Bishop of Salisbury to have been ever till now suspected for a Puritan. His charge of Idolatry different from that of the true and Genuin Sons of the Church of England; divers of whom vindicate the Doctrine of the Second Council of Nice concerning the worship of Images, from the note of Idolatry. The true State of the Controversy concerning that Point.

EVNOMIVS. CATHARINVS.

EVnomius:

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

Cathar;

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

Eunom:

These I confess are but the too frequent Employments, rather than Recreations of the time. But do you ne∣ver spend an hour in reading a Play or a Romance?

Cathar:

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

Eunom.

But is there not something of picquant, as wel as dulce in his writings, which perhaps makes them rellish the better with you? What you have before you, seems to me, by the bulk and fas∣hion of the Book, to be his DEFENCE

of his Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome, in answer to T. Gs Book entituled, Catholicks no Idolaters.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

Every one, as Aristotle saith, iudgeth (as wel as tasteth) according as he is affected. I have met with some who have been delighted with it too, at the first reading, but as we use to be with the strange Adventures and Passages in Cassandra or the Grand Cyrus; in which Fiction and Truth are so artificially inter∣wouen, that men easily suffer themselues to be Surpriz'd, and then please them∣selues with the surprise. But Others there are, who look upon it, as an Apology rather for the Heathens, than a Convi∣ction of the Romanists. And Others again, considering the veneration given to Holy Things and Places in the Church of Eng∣land, and particularly to the Altar by Dr St. himself, are of opinion, that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Ido∣latry,

for giving an Honourary Res∣pect to the Images of Christ and his Saints, both himself and the Church of England must be in the same condemnation.

Cathar.

By this I see, that for a man to write any thing in this age, especialy Controversy, is but to ly down and hold his hand for Every one to Strike. And to say the truth, his Adversaries have not been sparing to take their turns, and lay on as hard as they could. But not∣withstanding all their Rage and ma∣lice, he sits down, he saith, with that * 1.1 contentment, that He has defended a Righteous cause, and, with an honest mind. And therefore I hope you make a more favorable Judgment of his Performance.

Eun:

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

Cathar.

I can not but wonder to hear this come from you, especially for what concerns the latter part of it, if you have

seriously considered the irrefragable Evidences, which D^r. St. produces, first in the Preface to his Roman Idolatry, and afterwards in his Generall Preface, (where he brings in the Knight himself encountring the Dragon) to prove it to be the sense of the Church of England. For although the Knight shew himself not inexpert in the Art of Chivalry, by the buckling on his Armour; mounting his Steed, and according to all ancient and Modern pictures of the Combat, directing his lance into the very mouth of the dragon, as Dr St: pleasantly describes him; yet the Weapon entred no further then the Teeth, and was there Shivered in a thousand peices. And for his char∣ging Dr St. with dissenting from the doctrin of the Church of England in accusing the Church of Rome of Idolatry, t'is so notorious a peice of disingenuous dealing in him, that the Dr desires the Reader by this one Instance to iudge, what Can∣dor * 1.2 and sincerity he is to expect in his Book.

Eun:

I have considered the Peices you mention over and over, and before I give you my thoughts of them, I must desire you, to consider me, as a Person perfect∣ly

of M^r Thorndike's Judgement in this matter, and so to look upon the Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome not only as groundless and Dangerous in it self, but Iniurious to the Church of England; and, consequently, what I shall say upon this subiect, shall either be from the said M^r Thorndike's own words, or what I conceive himself must and would have said in conformity to his Principles. This premised, I must desire you to reflect, how Dr St: in the Pre∣face to his Roman Idolatry, fearing the Censure of divers learned men of the Church of England, for charging so hor∣rid a crime upon the Mother Church of the English nation, iudged it stood him upon to order the matter so, that he might not be thought in so severe acensure, as that of Idolatry, to contradict the sense of the Church of England; (which he saith he hath so great aregard to.) And the way he takes to do it is to shew that this charge of Idolatry hath been managed against the Church of Rome, by the grea∣test and most learned defenders of it, ever since the Reformation, deeming those who excuse her from it, persons of more charity than Judgment in so doing,

and accordingly alledges in his behalf the Book of Homilies and the Testimo∣nies of seventeen severall Authors.

His Adversary T. G to show the Dr had not proceeded regularly in the proof of what he undertook, first demands, if he have such a regard, as he saith, for the Church of England, why he did not appeal to her 39 Articles? For, as Dr St. himself saith of the Sense of the Church of Rome that we are to appeal for it, not to the Testimonies of Particu∣lar * 1.3 Persons in that Church, but to the de∣crees of the Council of Trent. So in like manner, for the Sense of the Church of England (the same case, as himself saith, holding for Titius that doth for Sempronius) He ought to have appealed to the publickly authorized Articles of that Church. But in them the Church of England declares no such thing as shall be shewed hereafter.

2. As for the Book of Homilies, T. G. cited divers Eminent Divines of the Church of England as Bp Montague, Dr Heylin▪ and M^r Thorndike who do not allow that Book to contain in every part of it the publick dogmaticall doctrin of that Church; and the last of them M^r

Thorndike instances particularly in the very Homily against Peril of Idolatry; of which he saith, that in this particular he must have leave to think it fails, as it evidently doth in others.

3. He excepted against litle less than two parts of three, of the seventeen Au∣thors produced by Dr. St, as incompe∣tent Witnesses in the case, upon the ac∣count of being either Puritans, or Puri∣tanically inclined; And although Dr St. call this a frivolous exception, Yet to doe T. G. Justice, and free him from envy in this particular, He took this measure from Dr. St. himself, who to make the Testimony of Ar. Bp Whitgift valid in his own cause, gives this for the Reason, because none could be less suspe∣cted to be Puritanically inclin'd than He; which was to insinuate that even suspi∣tion of Puritanism was a sufficient exce∣ption in this case. And therefore in pur∣suance of this, T. G. shewd from the Testimonies not of Roman, but of Pro∣testant Authors, that Eleven of the Seventeen were accounted Puritans, or Puritanically inclin'd.

Cathar:

I took Good notice of that Reason of Dr. St. in his first Preface,

and how tenderly in his Generall Pre∣face he handled that Point, as willing ra∣ther to wave the exception by pretty fa∣cetious artifices of wit, then repell it from the Generality of those Eminent Persons by a Downright denyall, out of the affection I hope he bears still to the Cause which had been honoured by such learned and Godly Bps as Iewel, Down∣ham, Vsher, the two Abbots, Robert, and George, and Davenant: all which I find recorded among many others by my good frind the Patron Bonae sidei in the Catalogue he gives of Prelats in the * 1.4 Church of England, who have been Pu∣ritans, or Puritanically inclin'd. Dr. St. says indeed of Robert Abbot, that he was never till now suspected for a Puritan: but I understand him to speak with rela∣tion to his Adversary who had mistaken the one Brother for the Other, and so endeavoured to cast upon him the Suspi∣tion of Puritanism. But the Dr. has brought such a new recruit of Testi∣monies, to maintain his charge.—

Eunom:

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

4. For the other six remaining Au∣thors, cited by Dr. St. viz▪ D••. Jackson, Dr. Feild. Arch Bp Lau••▪ &c. T. G. evidenced from their very words alled∣ged, that they did not charge the Do∣ctrine of the Church of Rome in the Council of Trent, or the practice, as conformable to that Doctrine to be Idola∣try; but such things as they conceived to be great abuses in the practice of it; and con∣sequently * 1.5 that they differed only as more and lesse in the same kind, from th••se other Learned Protestants, of whom the Dr. Himself confesseth, that they excuse••h Church of Rome from Idolatry although not all who live in the Commu∣nion of it.

By all which it appears to me, that T. G. did not dispute exprofesso, whether it were the sense of the Church of Eng∣land, that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry, or no? Nor whether Dr. St. dissented from the sense of his Church? (as he calls it) but what he un∣dertook to show was no more than that two parts of the' Authors there cited by the Dr. were Puritans or Puritanically inclin'd, by the Confession of other Divines of the Church of England: and

that therefore according to Dr. Sts. owne measures (if they were good) their testimonies were to be looked on as incompetent to prove what he asserted; And for the other six; that what they charged with Idolatry, was not the do∣ctrine of the Church of Rome, but some things which they conceived to be great abuses in the practice of it.

This being the true state of that Con∣troversy between him and his Adversary in that place, what Ingenuity was it in the Dr. to tell his Reader in his Generall Preface (as you said even now,) that T. G. charged him with absolute Dissenting from the doctrin of the Church of England in accusing the Church of Rome of Idola∣try; and then desiring his Reader by this one Instance, to iudg what Candour and sincerity he is to expect from T. G. in his Book; where as what T. G. charged him with was only, that He had not proved in the very way himself made choice of (as the best to do it) his charge of Idolatry to be the receiu'd doctrine of the Church of England, if that were not to be taken (as the Dr. himself insinua∣ted) from such as were known Puritans or to be Puritanically inclin'd; and his

charge of Idolatry were not the same with that of the aforesaid six Authors in the places alledged by him; much less if it were to be taken from the sentiments of those who are esteem'd her true and Genuin sons; who excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry, although not all who live in the communion of it. And upon this account me thinks with all due respect to Dr. St. T. G. might much better desire his Reader by this one Instance to iudge what Candour and Sincerity he is to expect from him in his defence. For to me it seems not the Same, to tell a Person, who brings witnesses to attest his Innocency, that his Witnesses are ex∣ceptionable, upon the account of Friendship or Relation, &c. or that they speak not home to his purpose; And to charge him as Guilty. But by the way, I must tell you, I never thought it the greatest Sign of Innocency, for a Person to be over solicitous to prove himself not guilty.

Cathar:

I see very wel, that what T. G. aym'd at, was to shew the way the Dr. took to prove his charge of Idolatry to be the Sense of the Church of England, not to be Regular, because not from the

publikly authoriz'd Articles of that Church; and his Witnesses many of them to be incompetent by the Test the Dr Himself had given for the Tryal of them, as being Puritans or Puritanically inclin'd; and although I am satisfy'd my self that they were so, at least the most Eminent of them, yet I do not see, but as to any thing return'd by T. G. Dr. St. hath sufficiently removed that exception from them in his Generall Preface: and hath brought such Authentick Testimo∣nies from other publick Acts and Re∣cords as evidently prove it to be the Sense of the Church of England.

Eunom:

Nor can I see what necessity there is that T. G. should Engage him∣self farther in this argument, his inten∣tion being only (as I said) to shew, that Dr. St. had not sufficiently proued it to be the Sense of the Church of England, from the Testimonies he then produced, whateuer he might or could doe from other Acts or Authors of that Church, and so might leaue it to be disputed be∣tween him and his Church (if it be His) and hauing giuen that only as a P••••lu∣dium of the close arguing of his Aduersa∣ry, betake himself to his defence against

the Charge of Idolatry, whether it were the sense of the Church of England or no. But because I see you think, the Dr. has sufficiently acquitted himself, as to T. G. pray let me hear some of the Principall passages, in which you think he has done it; and I shall candidly giue you my sense of them, for hitherto, I confess I am not convinc'd that it is the Sense of the Church of England, nor can I wish it may be prou'd so, the Accu∣sation is so foul, so extravagant, and, as yet it appears to me, so vniust

Cathar:

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

Eun:

To the first part of this Viz; the Approba••ion of that Book T. G. in

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

As for the other Point of appealing to mens thoughts and Consciences in a matter of subscription, as he doth, when he saith he hopes, it doth not evince that the subscribers did not think the main do∣ctrine of any one Homily to be fals, it is a very hopefull Topick, if we consider

what hath been done and vndone in that Kind in the Reigns of Kg Henry 8. K. Edw. 6. Q. Mary and Q. Elizabeth, not to speak of later times. If this be all he hath to say for the Book of Homilies, Mr. Thorndike, whom himself confes∣seth to have been a Man of Excellent Learning and great Piety must in all like∣lyhood have subscribed the 39. Arti∣cles against his conscience, (which I shall never be brought to believe) when nevertheless he declared his Judgment to be, that the Homily against Peril of Idolatry failed in this particular. And till I hear him and his Fellows condemned for what they assert, I must have leave to think, that the bare alledging the Fact of Subscription to the 35. Article among the rest, is not sufficient proof, that the contrary to what they iudged is the dog∣maticall Sense of the Church of England, especially when speaking expressely in the 22. Article of the Romish doctrine concerning Worshipping and Adorae∣tion of Images, She gives it onely the name of a vain thing and a fond In∣vention.

Cathar.

But Dr. St. goes on; and shows the current doctrine of the Church ever

since the Reformation to have been agrea∣ble to this Homily of the Peril of Idolatry. from the Injunctions of K. Edw. 6. and Q. Elizabeth.

Eun:

This he saw very well might be looked upon, as an Effect of Heat at the first reformation, and whereas he will not have vs think it was only a sudden Heat. I shall give you an account of the pro∣gress of it out of Dr. Heylin. There was a time, saith he, when Q. Elizabeth be∣held * 1.6 the Pope as her greatest Enemy, in reference to her Mothers Marriage, her own Birth and consequently her Title to the Crown of England: and many of the Books which were printed in and about that time, were full of bitterness and revi∣lings against the Church of Rome it self, and all the divine Offices, ceremonies and Performances of it. But after the C••own was setled vpon K. James, whose Title was vnquestionable both at Rome and abroad; the dangerous consequences of the charge of Idolatry vpon the Church of Rome began to be more calmely and maturely considered; and were so tho∣roughly weighed in the time of K. Char∣les I. that as the same Heylin saith Arch. B. Laud with equal diligence endea∣voured

by his decree, to hinder the reprin∣ting of the said Books, as also of others containing Calvinian doctrines, that so the Church might rest in quiet, without any trouble or molestation ïn her self or giving offence to any other. Which evidently shows, that that Party never looked vpon the Expressions of Idolatry contained in those Iniunctions, as the Dogmaticall Sense of the Church of England.

Cathar:

I know the Heat of this charge began to grow cool in process of time, and together with it the fervour of the Reformation. But what can be said to the Rubrick in the 2d. Liturgy by Edw. 6. readmitted of late into the the Book of Communion: in which the Adoration of the Host is expressly called Idolatry? That very Rubrick of which T. G. (saith Dr. St.) according to his excellent Skil in the Offices of our Church, saith, it is not yet more than a dozen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book; which he might baue found aboue a 100. years before in the Book of E••w. 6. The words are these, that by kneeling at Communion no Adoration is intended or ought to be done

either vnto the Sacrament all Bread and wine, there bodily receiued; or any Cor∣poral Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Bloud: For the Sacramental Bread and wine remain stil in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be ador••d. For that were Idolatry to be ab∣horred of all Faithfull Christians. And now what can be more plain, then that the Adoration of the Host is here ex∣pressly condemned as Idolatry?

Eun:

To this I answer that the various Fate of this Rubrick, first in not being annexed to the Communion Book till the 2^d. Liturgy in the 5. of Edw. 6. and being cast out again in the year 1562. vn∣der Q. Elizabeth, and so remaining for almost a 100. years, and then re-ad∣mitted again, is no Eviction to mee, that Dr. St's. charge of Idolatry is the dogmaticall doctrine of the Church of England; which although she affirm (Art. 28.) that Transsubstantiation hath given occasion to many Superstitions, yet doth she not charge it with Idolatry. And what cōfirms me more in this Judg∣ment is that we know that Dr. Tay∣lor and Mr. Thorndike both main∣tain, that although they suppose those of

the church of Rome to be mistaken in their belief of the Elements being chan∣ged into the Body and Bloud of Christ; yet they deny it follows from thence, that they are Idolaters, because the Object of their Adoration is Christ the only true and Eternall God. And I never heard they were looked upon as Excom∣municated Persons for it, though they both lived a considerable time after this Rubrick was annexed, Dr Taylor being advanced to a Bishoprick and Mr. Thorndike publishing his Just Weights and Measures in the year 1662. that is, two years after the said Rubrick was in∣serted; in which Book he expressely main∣tains that the worship of the Host in the * 1.7 Papacy is not Idolatry. and gives this reason for it, because they that worship the Host do not beleeve that the Elements remain; but beleeve our Lord Christ, the only true God hypostatically vnited to our flesh and Bloud to be there pre∣sent in an especiall manner. And your friend the Patron Bonae Fidei declares his Judgment also to bee, that it is not so * 1.8 much madness in the Romanists to adore the Lord JESVS vnder the species of Bread and wine, as it is a gross Errour in

them to belieue that the Bread is chan∣ged into the Body of Christ. But then again, to tell you my own thoughts con∣cerning the Sense of this Rubrick, as it now stands, I take the meaning of it not to be, the denying Adoration to be due in regard of Christ's Body being present Spiritually but truly in the Sa∣crament, (for this is asserted by Bp An∣drews, Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram, Mr. Thorndike, and * 1.9 other learned men of the Church of Eng∣land) but only that no adoration ought to be done to any Corporal Presence of * 1.10 Christ's Natural Flesh and Bloud, as the word Corporal is taken by D^r Taylor in his Treatise of the Real Presence, and by other Protestant Divines, to signify the Natural. (or as Dr. Cosins cals it, Carnall) manner of a Body's being pre∣sent. And my Reasons are. First because the words in the 2^d, Liturgy of Edw. 6. (inserted by some of Calvins disciples then prevailing) No adoration ought to be done to any Real or Essential Being of Christ's natural Flesh and Bloud, are now changed in the present Communion-Book, into any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Bloud. For

either the Corporal Presence is here distin∣guished by them from the Real and Essential, or not. If not, why were the words changed? If it be, it is manifest that this last Edition of the Rubrick deter mins nothing expressly of the Real and Essential Being of Christ's Naturall Flesh and Bloud, nor of the Adora∣tion due to it, but rather intimates that Such a presence may be the Ground of Adoration: the word Corporal supposing only for the natural Presence after a gross and Carnal manner, as hath been said. And that the denying the Ceremony of kneeling at the participation of the Sacrament, to be done in regard of a••y Real and Essential Being of Christs natural Flesh and Bloud, being found in that Rubrick was one of the reasons, why the whole Rubrick was expunged by the Revisors of the Liturgy in the begin∣ning of Q. Elizabeth is expressly affir∣med by Dr H••ylin in his Ecclesia R••for∣mata, Q. Eliz pag. III. and that for this very reason, not to giue scandal or Off••nce to the Popish Party, who though they maintain the Body of Christ to be t••uly, realy and substantial∣ly present in the Eucharist, yet they de∣ny

it to be there Corporaliter, Corporal∣ly, as the word is understood to imply the Natural manner of a Body's Existen∣ce. 2ly. Because Dr. Taylor in his Real * 1.11 Presence p. 12. saith that when the word Real Presence is denyed by some Prote∣stants, it is taken for natural Presence, and not for Presence in rei veritate, which is at large declared by Bp. Cosins ch. 2. of his History of Transubstantiation (which at the Entreaty of Friends he permitted to be printed a litle before his death) to be the unanimous Beleif of all Protestants. Lastly had T. G. said it was not more then a Dozen years since this Rubrick was framed and deuised, Dr. St. had had some reason to tax his want of skill in the Offices of the Church of England, but saying only as he did that it was not more than a dozen years since it was inserted, I doe not conceiue it to be so improper a speech as to de∣serue the Ferula, being spoken of a thing, which had been cast out by publick Authority at the reviewing and cor∣recting the Liturgy in the year 1562. and had remaind so, for wel neer a 100. years, and then put in.

If the Explication I haue giuen of it's

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

Cathar.

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

Eun:

This was a terrible mistake in∣deed of one Bishop for another, both

Brothers and living at the Same time, as these Abbots were, and doubtlesse de∣serues such a Magisteriall Animadver∣sion aas the Dr. hath given vpon it, as tending to the confusion of all History; especially if He of Salisbury cited by Dr. St. were not also Puritanically in∣clined.

Cathar:

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

Eun.

And yet you cannot but know, that your friend the Patron bonae Fidei alledged euen now by your self recites the two Abbots, Robert and George, among those of the Hierarchy, whose names are in your Diptyeks; and his Book was published a year before Dr. St. printed his General Preface. But to passe this by: Let vs hear the account Dr. H••ylin giues of Dr Robert Abbot in his Cypria∣nus Anglious, when by the power and * 1.12 fauour of his Brother, then Bishop of London, he was preferr'd to the Place of his Maties Professor for Divinity; He was, saith he, a man of Eminent Lear∣ning, and a more moderate Calvinian

than either of his Predecessors in the matter of Predestination, but altogether depending on the will of his Brother, whom the Dr. cannot deny to have been Deep dy'd in the Doctrine of Geneua. The same Dr Heylin tells vs also a passage or two which sufficiently show the temper of this Dr. Abbot. For vpon occasion of Dr. Laud's touching in his Sermon vpon the Presbyterians and their proceedings, and vsing some words to this effect, viz, that the Presbyterians were as bad as the Papists; this being so di∣rectly contrary, saith Heylin to the Iudgment and opinion of this Dr. Ab∣bot who was then Vice-Chancellor, Laud was exposed by him (on the next occasion) to publick shame and Censure: as Howson and Corbet both of Christ's * 1.13 Church had been before by the same Dr. Abbot in the like case; the first hauing been suspended propter conciones minus Orthodoxas, for accusing the Geneua notes on the Bible of mis-inter∣pretation concerning Christ's Divinity and Messiah-ship. The Other soundly ratled by the Repetitioner, for grating vpon Calvin's manifest perverting the sense and meaning of the Article of

Christ's descending into Hell. These are Historicall Passages, which discouer this Dr. Abbot not only to haue acted in fauour of Geneua, out of complyance with his Brother, but out of Opinion and Judgment. So doe the Praises he giues Mr. Perkins as a man well deseruing for his great trauail and pains for the furtherance of true Religion, and edi∣fying of the Church; as his Adversary Dr. Bishop cites the words in his Reproof pag. 48. and the same is con∣firmed by his last Swan-like song, as the English-Dutch-British Author of Herwologia Anglica calls it Cygnea cantio de gratia & perseverantia San∣ctorum, of the Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. And Dr. St. knows who they be, that hold no falling from Grace. By all which it appears, that Dr. St. himself was grossly mistaken in point of History, when he affirmed of Ro∣bert Abbot Bp. of Salisbury that he was neuer till now suspected for a Puritan, he being Brother to Arch Bp Abbot as wel in Judgment as Nature, with that difference only which the Poet obserues to be vsually found in the faces of such neer Relations, Facies non vna duobus

nec diversa tamen. And I thinke T. G. may with more reason return Dr. St's words vpon him, that he has a fa∣culty of doing greater wonders with seuen or eight words viz (Robert Abbot was neuer till now suspected for a Puritan) than changing a Bishop into an Arch Bp And that he may hope too, the Dr understands the Church he opposes, better than that he vndertakes to defend, otherwise wee are like to haue a sad ac∣count of history from him: for to me it seems a greater wonder to change a Pre∣latik into a Puritan than a Bishop, into an Arch Bp. And likely to bring greater confusion into History, to erre in the Quality of the Person, than to mistake him for his Brother they being as Like as Twins to each other. Had I any power with Dr. St. I would aduise him not to be so Tragical vpon such sleight occasions, The Reader may think ei∣ther that some secret Splinters of the Lance stick in the Dragons Iawes, which he cannot free himself from; or that he could find nothing of moment in his Adversary to exercise his Talent vpon; when he sees him fling and lay about him so vnreasonably for a thing of

nothing, and in which his own mistake was farr the greater, the quality or Judg∣ment of the Person being more to the purpose than his Individuality.

Cathar:

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

Eun:

What needed the words for meer shame, when T. G. did not charge the

aforesaid six Authors of being Puritans or Puritanically inclin'd? But the Gift must be kept in vre for fear of growing restiff. What T. G. answers (howeuer Dr. St. moulds it after his own fashion to make it appear ridiculous) is this, that whoeuer attentiuely considers but the very places cited by Dr. St. out of those Authors, shall find that they do not impugn the doctrine it self of the Church of Rome, or the practice con∣formable to that doctrine; but such things as they conceiued to be great Abuses in the practice of it, which by the way is all can be made out of the Drs new Testimony of Arch Bp. Bancroft w••en he charges the Papists, with I kn••w not what (they are his own words) intolerable superstition and Idolatry, And in this T. G. sayes, these Authors differ only as more or less in the same kind, from what M^r Thorndike, and other learned Protestants pre∣tend, when they reproue some practices, as Idolatrous, or at least in danger to be such, when neuerthelesse as Dr. St. Himself acknowledges in his first Pre∣face, they excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry, although not all who liue

in Communion of it. Now to me, I con∣fess it seems not to be the same, to accuse the Doctrine of a Church and the Practice conf••rmable to that doctrine, which is what Dr. St. doth in charging the Church of Rome as guil••y of Idolatry; and to reproue some abuses conceiued to be committed in the practice of it, which is what the aforesaid Authors doe. Again, it seems not to me to be the same, not to excuse all the persons who liue in the Communion of a Church from the guilt of Idolatry, which is what Mr. Thorn∣dike, and those other Learned Pr••∣testants doe; and to accuse the Church of Rome, f••r requiring by the termes of Communion with her, the committing Idolatry, paralel to that of the Hea∣thens, as Dr. St. does. These I take to be very different charges, and so did Dr. St. vnderstand them, when he said, that vpon the whole matter T. G. cannot produce any one Person of our Church that hath clearly and wholly (mark that) acquitted the Church of Rome f••om the charge of Idolatry. It was not then T. G's. denying (as Dr. St. represents it) that those of the Church of Rome de

commit Idolatry in the practices those Authors reproue, that acquits them, (though not in the whole, yet in part) of the charge of Idolatry, as it is aduan∣ced by Dr. St. but their own excusing, (as himself confesses) the Church of Rome from Idolatry, though not all who liue in the Cōmunion of it. From whence it followes that the case is not the same between them and Dr. St. who asserts, that all the Members of that Church inust by the terms of Communion with her be guilty of damnable hypo∣crisy or Idolatry. 1. c. if their practice be conformable to her doctrine, since the termes of Communion can oblige them to no more And now if thus be what he means by the Sense of the Church of England when he would not be thought to contradict it, I thinke he will neuer be able to make out that it is so; when that Church proposes no such thing in her Articles, and such Eminent Diuines of her Communion, as are farthest from the suspition of Puri∣tanism affirm the contrary. For what the Church of Rome requires of those of her Communion in the Point of Ima∣ges

(the grand contest at present between Dr. St. and his Adversary) as it is declared in the 2^d. Council of Nice (to which the Council of Trent refers, and to which, according to the Drs. own Rule we are to appeal for the Sense of that Church and not to the testimonies of particular persons) what I say the Church of Rome requires there of those of her Communion, is to salute and giue an honorary adoration (or respect as the term Adoration is there declared to mean) to the Images of Christ and his Saints, like as is giuen to the Figure of the Holy Crosse, to Chalices, to the Books of the Holy Gospels, and sucb like sacred vtensils: but not Latria which (as true Faith teacheth) is due only to God. And in this, as T. G. shewed (and it ought to be repeated because Dr. St. takes no notice of it in his De∣fence) the Council is vindicated from * 1.14 Idolatry by Eminent diuines, as I said, of the Church of England, as Mr. Thorndike, who freely confesses, that he must maintain as vnquestionable, * 1.15 that the Council of Nice enioyns no Idolatry, and Dr. Feild, who affirms

that the Nicen Fathers mean nothing els ••y adorati••n ••f Images, but embracing, kissing and rever••ntly vsing of them, like to the Honour, we (saith he) do the Books of ••oly Scripture: and Bp. Montague hauing laid down the do∣ctrine of the Church of Rome in these termes, you say the Pictures of Christ, the Bd. Virgin and Saints must not haue Latria; so Wee. You giue them Dulia: I quarrel not the term, saith he, * 1.16 though I could. There is a respect due vnto, and honour giuen relatiuely to them. If this you call Dulia, we giue it too. Let practice and Doctrine go together, we agree. So that it is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome (if truely stated out of the Decrees of her Councils) or pra∣ctice agreable to that doctrine, which these Divines impeach as Idolatrous; but the Opinions of some School Di∣uines, or Abuses they conceiu'd to be committed in the practice of it. And I think T. G. hath still good reason to desire the Reader to iudge, whether Dr. St. being (as he saith) by command pu∣blickely engaged in the defence of so Ex∣cellent

a cause, as that of the Church of England against the Church of Rome, haue not betrayd his Trust, and his Church too (if it be his) by aduancing such a Medium to iustify her separation, as contradicts the sense of that Church, if it be to be taken form the Sentiments of those who are esteem'd her true and Genuine sons: that is (as Dr. St. para∣phrases) the most remote from all suspi∣tion of disaffection to her, or Inclination to Puritanism (as these were) and in the Iudgment of Mr. Thorndike, makes her in plain termes to be Schismaticall. This T. G. Saith, will appear yet more clearly, if we consider how this charge of Idolatry, as maintained by Dr. St. subuerts the very foundation of Eccle∣siasticall Authority in the Church of England, of which I may haue occa∣sion to speak hereafter.

What I obserue at present is, that how couragiously soeuer He charges the Church of Rome with Idolatry, yet he Seldome or but Obiter only speaks of the Images of Christ and his Saints, which are the only subiect of the Decree of the Council of Trent, and conse∣quently

ought to be the chief if not only argument of his Book; but the main of his discourse is of the Image of God, which Bellarmin tells vs belongs not to Faith, but stands vnder Opinion: * 1.17 and thereupon taxes Calvin of extraor∣dinary fraud and craft, who after he had proued, that Images of God are not to be made, as being incongruous to the diuine nature, runs out into Amplifica∣tions (in which he is followed and at last out-run by Dr. St.) and sings Io trium∣phe in so merry a t••ne, as if he had proued it vnlan f••ll to m••k•• or worsh••p any Image at all. And vpon this acount, I confess I thinke T. G. might haue spared his Book, till the Dr. had thought fit to speak to this Essentiall Question, Whether it be Idolatry for a Christian to giue, not Latria, which is due only to God, but a honourary respect and Vene∣ration, to the Images of Christ and his Saints; such as is giuen to the Books of the Holy Gospells, to the Sacraments, and such like sacred Things? This being as much as the Church of Rome requires by the terms of Communion with her. If Dr. St. can proue this to be Idolatry, the

Knight must vnbuckle his Armour, descend from his steed, and yeild vp his Lance. But if Declining this, he will set himself to combate the Opinions of school men concerning the nature of the worship, some of them contending that the worship, due to Holy Image•• in ge∣neral is Religious, and to ••hat of Christ Latria, &c. Howeuer it may serue him to his purpose (which himself knows best what it is, and others are not w••olly ignorant of,) it will be nothing to the Question; since none of those expres∣sions are found in their Pr••f••ssion of Faith, or the Decree•• of their Councils, from whence we are to take the terms of Communion with that Church. And as Mr. Thorndike well obserueth. (Iust weights. ch. 1.) we are not to forsake it for the actions of particular persons con∣trary to that which they publickly prof••ss. For my part as I told you I am of the same Mr. Thorndik'es mind, when he saith, that f••r any to cha••ge the Pope to be Antichrist, and the Papists Idola∣ters, is to lead the P••ple by the Nose, to belieue that they can proue th••ir Sup∣position, when they cannot; but much

more as it is managed by Dr. Sr. for which I shall give you my reasons to morrow, if you can be at leisure.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

Til then Farewel.

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

A Farther Declaration of the Sense of the Church of England concer∣ning the Charge of Idolatry, in answer to what Dr. St. urges from the Testi∣mony of Arch Bishop Whitgift, and the 39. Articles. The Lambeth Arti∣cles suppressed by Q. Eliz. And reje∣cted by K. James: The Dr. desired to reconcile the doctrine of his Irenicum, viz, that nothing is lawfull in the wor∣ship of Godbut what he hath expressly commanded; with that in his Answer to N. O. that All things are lawfull which are not forbidd••n. The true meaning of the 22^th. Article concerning the worship∣ping and Adoration of Images asserted.

CATHARINVS EVNOMIVS.

Cathar.

What you discoursed yesterday concerning the sense of

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

Eun.

I cannot easily belieue, that any

thing Material in that matter hath escaped your diligence. But if you think them so, I pray propose them.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

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

Cathar.

Why must He, Saith Dr. St. be thrown away to the Puritans? (I could quarrel the expression, but that I suppose him to speak his Adversary's mind, not his own) why must He be thrown away (saith he) to the Puritans, when all the world knows he was a great Aduersary to T. C. on the very account of the Pu∣ritan cause? But he is known also, saith T. G. to haue consented to the fra∣ming of the Lambeth Articles, and sen∣ding them to the Diuines of Cambridge. And what then? Are the Dominicans

Puritans, and no Papists? If the Church of Rome may haue liberty not to deter∣min those nice Points, why may not the Church of England? And so both par∣ties remain of it, as long as they contra∣dict no receiued Artticles among vs? But then again the Lambeth Articles were neuer intended for any more, then as Responsa Prudentum to silence dis∣putes in the Vniversity. And I beleeue none of the Puritan Party after that took Arch Bp. Whitgift to be a Patron of the Cause.

Eun.

Admitting all this to be as you say, yet I see not but Arch Bp Whitgift by this f••ct of his, brought himself at least vnder the Suspition of being Puri∣tanically inclin'd, which was all that T. G. aimed at to show, in opposition to what Dr. St. himself had asserted, that of all persons of that Age none could be less suspected to be Puritanically incli∣ned than Arch Bp. Whitgift. Now that there was ground at least of Suspi∣tion of it in this fact, (howeuer he de∣fended the Cburch of England against T. C.) appears first because Whitaker and Perk••ns, both Caluinists, saith Dr. * 1.18 Heylin and both of them Supralap∣sarians,

were the chief Promoters and sollicitors for the making those Articles, among which the 5^th carries that very stamp vpon it which Dr. St. giues for a mark of Puritanism, that there is no falling from Grace. 2^dly because the Arch Bp. himself consented to the fra∣ming of those Articles, and proposed them to the Divines of Cambridge for regulating disputations in those Points of Controuersy. And though they were not intended as Articles determin'd by the Church but as Responsa Prudentum (not so much to silence, as to regulate disputes) yet the Arch Bp. it seems thought it prudent by this proceeding to countenance the maintaining of them. 3^dly because the news of these proceedings being brought to the Queen, she was so offended, that onee she was at a point to haue them all endited of a Praemunire, had not the high esteem she had for Whitgift, whom she commonly called her Black Husband, reprieued all the rest from the danger of it. And her Of∣fence proceeded not only from their intrenchment vpon her Prerogatiue in making such a declaration without her Authority; but ftom the Information

she had how litle those Articles agreed * 1.19 with the Practice of Piety and Obedience to all Gouernment: whereupon such a strict cours was taken for the suppressing of them, that a Copy of them was not to be found in Cambridge for a long time after, though after the Queen's death they began to peep abroad again.

4^thly Because K. James was no better conceited of them, than Q. Elizabeth was; for when it was moued by Dr. Rey∣nolds, at Hamptoncourt that the nine Orthodoxall Assertions (as He pleased to call them) which were concluded on at Lambeth, might be admitted into the Confession of the Church of England, the King so much disliked the motion, that it was presently reiected without more adoe. This is the account which Dr. Heylin giues of this matter in his Cy∣prianus Angl. p. 193. 194. And I desire any indifferent Person to consider whe∣ther the Arch Bp's consenting to the framing these Articles, and sending them to Cambridge, and thereby coun∣tenancing the maintaining of them, were not sufficient to bring him at least vnder the Suspition of being Puritanically in∣clined, and consequently ground enough

for T. G. to lay this Exception against him. What esteem the Puritan Party had for him after it I know not. If they did not look vpon him as a Patron, they had reason I am sure to think him a Favourer. Fot my part I should not stick to hold that Dominican to be no true Papist, but a Patron of the cause. who should doe but the half of what Arch Bp. Whitgift did.

Cathar:

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

Eun.

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

Cathar.

Marry, that there are three kinds of Idolatry The one is, when the true God is worshipped by other means and wayes, than he hath prescribed, or would be worshipped. The other is when

the true God is worshiped with f••ls Gods: the third is when we worship fals Gods, and altogesher forget the worship of the true God. And although, he saith he cannot see or learn, that the Papists are in this third kind of Ido∣latry yet he condemns them as guilty of the two former: which is enough and too much for any Christians.

Euno.

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

Cathar.

I know Dr. St. saith his meaning is, when God is worshipped against his express Command: but the words to me seem not so much to con∣demn of Idolatry the giuing that wors∣hip to God, which he hath expressly forbidden; as the giving him any wor∣ship, which he hath not expres••ly com∣manded.

And this appears euident to me from the Application the Arch Bp. makes, of what he had said, to the Pa∣pists, viz, that they worhip God other wise than his will is, and otherwise than he hath prescribed i. e. by means and wayes, which he hath not commanded; and then, that they also giue to the crea∣ture that which is due to the Creator, and sin against the first Table. i. e. against his express Prohibition in the 2^d Commandment.

Eun.

This I should also take with Dr. St's. leaue to be the meaning of his words. And now I beseech you to con∣sider if this do not involue him more deeply yet in the suspition of Puritanism. For although I do not make the charg∣ing the Papists to be Idolaters to be a distinctive signe of Puritanism, yet Dr. St. himself in his answer to N. O. p. 181. doth; when he saith that those who separate from the Church of England make this their Fundamentall Principle as to worship, (wherein the difference lyes) that nothing is lawfull in the wor∣ship of God, but what he hath expressly commanded: We say all things are lawful which are not forbidden: and vpon this

single Point saith he the whole Contro∣versy of separation stands as to the Con∣stitutiō of our Church. Now if this single Point be, as Dr. St. saith, the Cri∣terium between a Protestant and a Pu∣ritan, that the former says all things are lawf••ll in the worship of God which are not forbidden; and the latter, that nothing is lawfull but what he hath ex∣pressly commanded; And Arch Bp. Whitgif•• haue carried his charge so farr, as to make it Idolatry, not only to worship God against his express command but by other means and ways than he hath commanded, it is plain that ac∣cording to Dr. St. himself, he takes part with the Puritans in that very Point, vpon which the whole Contro∣versy of the Separation stands as to them.

Cathar.

This is one of those which they call Argumenta ad hominem. And I cannot but wonder Dr. St. would lay himself open to it by varying so much from his Old Principles so firmly setled by him in his Irenicum, where page 6. he teacheth, that in those things which are therefore only Good because com∣manded, a command is necessary to make

them lawfull, as in immediate positiue Asts of worship towards God; in which nothing is lawfull any further, than it is founded vpon a Divine Command. I Speak not, saith he, of Circumstances belonging to the acts of Worship, but whateuer is looked vpon, as a part of Diuine Worship, if it be not command∣ed by God himself, it is no ways accep∣table to him, and theref••re not lawfull. And then a litle after. Although euen here we may say too, that it is not meerly the want of a D••vine Precept, which makes any part of Divine Worship vn∣commanded by God vnlawfull, but the General Prohibition, that nothing should be done in the immediate Worship of God, but what we haue a Divine Command for,

Eun.

This is a Wonder indeed; and must be attributed to those men, who as Dr. St. saith, haue a facul••y of doing greater wonders wich five words, than changing a Bishop into an Arch. Bishop: for if they are not the cause, they haue been at least the occation of this great change in him, viz that whereas before he asserted with those of your Party, that nothing is lawfull in the immediate

worship of God, but what is commanded: he affirms now with the Church of Eng∣land, that all things are lawfull which are not forbidden; vnless we may impute it to a greater light of the Spirit, which I am sure you will not. For other con∣siderations which your friend Patronus * 1.20 bonae fidei would haue thought to be the Motiues of this Change, I shall not concern my self with them.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

Whether it were heat of dispu∣tation, or con••escendence to free him∣self from a troublesome Adversary, who had taxed him for hauing spok•• some∣thing in b••half of the Papists (of which * 1.21 there is some appearance in his words cited by the Dr) yet his charge as you

see, so farr forth as it makes the giuing to God any worship which he hath not commanded, to be Idolatry, is groun∣ded vpon the very Fundamental Prin∣ciple, which according to Dr. St. dis∣tinguishes the Puritan Party, from those of the Church of England; and so can be no Proof that it is the Sense of that Church. And for the 2^d part of it, viz that the Papists giue to the Creature that which is due to the Creator, we may consider the time when he liued, in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth, of which you haue heard what Dr. Heylin saith. How euer, methinks Dr. St. ought not to assert this Charge of Idolatry to be the Sense of the Church of Eng∣land, but might haue been content to haue it pass for one of those nice Points, of which, himself saith, that the Church may haue liberty not to determin, when the Church herself (as I said before) in her 39. Articles reiects the Romish doctrine concerning worshipping and Adoration of Images, not as Ido∣latry, but as a fond thing vainly inven∣ted, and grounded vpon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God. And therefore that he

exceeded the bounds, which he ought to haue observed as the Champion of the Church of England, in making it to be her Sense to charge that with Idolatry, which the Compilers of the Articles call only a fond thing vainly invented; and in positively defining that to be ex∣pressly prohibited in the 2^d Command∣ment, which they, after their best in∣quiry, pronounce Problematically only as rather repugnant to the word of God, than agreable to it.

Cathar.

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

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

But T. G. and all others of their

Divines, yeild that Adoration of Ima∣ges, which our Church chargeth them with Art. 22. (viz, not barely worship∣ping, but Adoration of Images) to be Idolatry. Therefore they must grant it to be her sense to charge them with Idolatry.

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

The Romish doctrine (mark that) concerning the worshipping and Ado∣ration * 1.22 of Images &c. is a f••nd thing, vainly inuented, and grounded vpon no warranty of scripture, but rather re∣pugnant to the word of God.

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

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

Eun.

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

Cathar.

But I haue a way to avoid all

that in the present case, by telling you, that, the Romish doctrine concerning Adoration of Images, is as if one should say, the Adoration of Images taught in the Church of Rome.

Eun.

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

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

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

Doe you not see how if the First Proposition be true, the second is false? For who euer heard that T. G. or any other of the Divines of the Church of Rome, held the doctrine taught in that C••urch, concerning the Adoration of Images to be Idolatry? And consequent∣ly

to vse a simile suitable to the Dr's Genius, the Teeth of this dragon like those▪ of that other sown by Cadmus, come vp like armed Souldiers, but fight and Destroy each other. For if T. G. and all others of their Diuines do not yeild the Adoration of Images taught in the Church of Rome to be Idolatry (as cer∣tainly they doe not) tis manifest that they do not yeild that Adoration of Images to be Idolatry, which the Church of England chargeth them with; if she charge the very doctrine of that Church.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

I say that by the words, Romish doctrine concerning Adoration of Ima∣ges, may be vnderstood, either the do∣ct••ine taught in her Schools, which being but the Opinions of Particular Persons, no man is bound to follow: or the Doctrine taught in her Councils, to which all those of her Communion are bound to submit by the terms of Com∣munion with her. And if the Doctrine which the Church of England here

chargeth, be that which is taught in the Church of Rome by some of her School-Diuines (which I take indeed to be her true meaning) this also is denyed (at least by those very Diuines who teach it,) to be Idolatry: and comes not home to the charge aduanced by Dr. St. viz that what she requires by the termes of her Communion is Idolatry. And so the first argument falls to the ground. But if you will haue the Church of England to lay her charge against the Doctrine of the Church of Rom in her Councils concerning worship∣ping and Adoration of Images; herein She is vindicated from the note of Idolatry by Eminent Divines, and such as haue alwaies been esteemed the true and Ge∣nuine Sons of the Church of England, as you heard before. And so the second goes after the first. For were this her Sense, those Divines had not escaped without some note, if not incurred the censure of excommunication for maintai∣ning the contrary. In a word, which way soeuer you vnderstand the words, Romish Doctrine concerning Adoration of Images, all that the Church of Eng∣land chargeth it with, is that it is a

fond thing, vainly inuented and rather rep••gnant to the word of God, but not that is Idolatry.

Cathar.

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

Eun,

I hope I may suppose the Church of England, to be as litle in loue with wrangling about words, as Dr. St. professes himself to be▪ You haue heard Mr. Thorndike and others affirm, that the word Adoration is or may be in des∣pite of our hearts Equiuocall, that is sometimes signify one kind of honour, sometimes another, And if it be taken, not for Latria, which is due to God, but to signify an Honoura••y ••espect and Venera••ion (as they confess it is vsed in the 2^d Council of Nice) they main∣tain it is not Idolatry: which they could not haue done without a Reproof were it the Sense of the Church of Eng∣land, that it is Idolatry. As for the Compilers of the Articles, I do not take

them to be so Senseless, as not to think Idolatry repugnant to Scripture, but had they thought it to be Idolatry, thay had been Senseless indeed to reiect it only as being rather repugnant to the word of God.

Cathar.

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

Eun.

And what of this for the loue of Grammar? Would the Dr. haue the word rather to be of so vehement an affirmation▪ as to aff••ct the words that follow, and affirm it to be absolutely repugnant ••o the word of God? This were to make the Compilers no wiser Gram∣marians, than He would haue them thought to be Diuines, and to send the Church of England to School to learn her Accidence. Or would he haue it only to be a more vehement Affirma∣tion of what went before, that is, that they looked upon the worshipping of

Images, not only as grounded upon no warranty of scripture, but of the two to be rather repugnant, than agreable to the word of God? This is what was urgedby T. G. against him to shew his Confidence in peremptorily fixing vpon the Church of England a sense which she durst not own. Haue but a litle patience and I shall giue you the very words of T. G. which had the Dr. set down, this notable Criticism of his had been vtterly lost.

As for any Command, saith he, of God forbiding to honour the Images * 1.23 of Christ and his Saints, besides that I haue shown that Assertion to be in every respect groundless, yet for the satisfaction of the true Protestant Rea∣der I shall adde one Observation more upon that subject. And it is this, that the Compilers of the 39. Articles (in Which is contained the doctrine of the Church of England) sufficiently insi∣nuate they could sind no such cōmand, when they rejected the Adoration of Images, not as Idolatry (as the Dr. doth) but only as a Fond thing, vainly invented; nor as repugnant to the plain

words of Scripture (as they profess very roundly Artic. 28. though without ground, when they speak of Transub∣stantiation) but as being rather repug∣nant to the word of God: Which Qua∣lification of theirs plainly giues us to understand. That they had done their endeavours to find a Command, but could meet with none; For had they made any such discovery either in the Second Commandment, or els where in the Word of God, they would not haues pared to tell us of it, and haue cry'd it down for flat Idolatry, as the Dr. does. In the mean time, saith he, it is pleasant (I should have said Sad) to see what Veneration this Champion of the Church of England, hath either for the compilers of those Articles, or for the Articles themselues, when what they call only a Fond thing, a vain Invention; he condemns as Idolatry, most damnable Idolatry; and Magiste∣rially declares it to be expressly prohi∣bited in the second Commandment, when they after the best Inquiry they could make, pronounce only Proble∣matically, that in their Iudgment, they

thought it to be rather repugnant, than conformable to the word of God. Thus cleerly hath T. G. evinced the sense of the Church of England in this matter.

And although he had not only that re∣gard to her as to repel the odious char∣ge of Idolatry (which Dr. St. would have fixed vpon her) by shewing he had not proved what he vndertook; but that Civility also for the Dr. himself, as not to charge him with downright contra∣dicting the sense of that Church which he was engaged to defend, I think it my part to speak my mind more freely, and affirm as I may do from what I have here alledged, that t'is plain he dissents from the sense of the Church of Eng∣land: while he endeauours to make that worsh••pping and Adoration of Images which the Church of Rome tea∣cheth in her Councils, and requires sub∣mission to by the terms of Communion with her, to be I••olatry. I shall proceed, if you give leaue, in our next Confe∣rence to lay downe the dangerous and detestable consequences, vrged by T. G. as following from the charge of Idolatry and particularly that of the Subversion

of all Ecclesiasticall Authority in the Church of England; to all which Dr. St. hath either returned nothing at all, or such an answer as is worth iust no∣thing.

Cathar.

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

THE THIRD DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

SEverall important Consequences, urged by T. G. as following from the charge of Idolatry, which the Dr. pas∣ses by in silence. His obligation either to deny, or assign a distinct Church in all Ages, preserved from Heresy and Ido∣latry, with which Christians were bound to ioyn in Communion. T. G's Arguments to shew the Roman Church to be that Church, not answered by the Dr. nor the Question proposed by T. G. concer∣ning the necessily of ioining with the Church of England. His Irenicall Do∣ctrine; Of the lawfulness of Non-Commu∣nion with any Church, that imposeth doubtfull or suspected Practices. The charge of Idolatry not maintainable upon the Dr's Principles without gross self-contradiction.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

CAthar.

You promised at our last parting to let me see I know not what dangerous and detestable conse∣quences, which T. G. vrged as follow∣ing from the charge of Idolatry, and to which you say Dr. St. hath either re∣turned nothing at all in answer, or such an answer as is worth iust nothing. And I cannot but wonder they should be of any importance, when Dr. St. at the end of his defence saith, he hath gone through all the material points in T. Gs * 1.24 Book, which relate to the General nature of Idolatry; and diligently weighed and considered euery thing that lookod like a difficulty in the Controversy about the worship of Images.

Eun.

How Dr. St. hath performed this, his Readers will iudge. But there are other material Difficulties relating to the Charge of Idolatry (be it's nature what it will, of which we may speak here aster) which he hath either not weighed or considered at all, or not in their Iust weights and measures. For as * 1.25 Mr. Thorndike well obserues; To charge

the Church of Rome with Idolatry, it is Necessary to provide that we contradict not our selues. It is necessary also to consider the importance and consequence of it; Whether tbe reason of the di∣stance amount to so heauy a charge or not. It is necessary that we vnderstand our selues, whether we admit the conse∣quence of our own Supposition or not. And to let you see that Dr. St. hath not considered nor prouided for these things, and consequently failed in his Defence, I shall desire you to consider in the first place that whoeuer will vndertake to maintain this charge, must at the same time profess, that Christ, who comman∣ded vs vnder pain of damnation to hear his Church, hath permitted Her to re∣quire and enioyn her Children for many hundreds of years together, to commit Idolatry paralel (as Dr. St contends) to that of the Heathens.

2^dly. That Mahomet (that Grand Impostor) whose Followers haue been preserued by the grounds he layd, for aboue a thousand years from falling into Idolatry, had more wisdome and Power to contriue and carry on his design, than the Son of God. And 3^dly. that our Fore-Fathers in this Land, had better haut

been converted to Judaism or Turcism, than to Christianity as they were. These are things which must needs strike hor∣rour into the Soul of any Christian as often as he repeats those words of his Creed, I beleeue the Holy Catholick Church, if he consider what he sayes; and firmly beleeues that Christ himself hath promised to be with his disciples al∣waies euen to the end of the world: and send the Holy Ghost, to guide them into all truth, and that the Gates of Hell shall neuer preuail against his Church; and being laid down by T. G in his Epistle Dedicatory as following from the cbarge of Idolatry, ought not Dr. St. when he vndertakes to maintain it, to haue remoued them in the first place, and not passed them ouer in silence? What can such a Silence argue, but that he declined them as too true to be refu∣ted? And now please your self if you can in the charge of Idolat••y.

Cathar.

Perhaps these things appear not such horrible Bugbears to all, as you would make them. We know that excel∣lent Seruant of God Caluin (as the Dr. represents him in his Irenicum) maintains in the Preface to his Institutions, that * 1.26

God had suffered men for their unthank∣fulness to be dro••••ned in deep darkness, so that there was no Face of the true Church to be seer. And et is no new thing to find * 1.27 among vs Godly Persons who (as your Peter H••ylin obserues) look vpon the R••lig••on of Rome, as worse than that of the Turk•• and Moors, and hold con∣formity to them in Rites and Ceremonies 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tolerable than to those of Rome. But how fart this Silence of Dr. Sts. argues his consent to these Points, I cannot de∣termin. I wonder he should neither grant nor deny them, yet now I think on't, I remember that in his Defence he doth deny it follows from the charge of * 1.28 I••olatry, that the Gates of Hell haue preuaild against the Church, when he askes T. G. upon his obiecting it to him, Against what Church? the whole Chri∣stian Church? Whoeuer said they could, o•• low doth that follow? which I take to be the same as to deny it doth or can follow.

Eun.

And so do I too. But then, if it be as you say, that Dr. St. denyes it to follow from the charge of Idolatry that the Gates of Hell haue prevailed against the whole Christian Church, ought he not to haue assigned vs some Church,

distinct in all Ages from all Hereticall and Idolatrous Congregations, which Christ hath preserued allwaies from he∣resy and Idolatry?

Cathar.

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

Eun.

But what if Dr. St. assert (as he doth in his Roman Idolatry) that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is * 1.29 bound to ioyn insome Church or Congre∣gation of Christians, doth it not follow, that the••e must be such a Church at all times to joyn with? And that those who in any time did not ioyn with it, acted against their very Christianity, by vertue of which they were bound to do it? Let him then assign vs such a Church in the world before Luther, to which all Christians by vertue of their being so, were bound to ioyn in Communion; or els he must grant that the Gates of Hell had then preuailed against the whole Christian Church.

Cathar.

This Principle of the Drs. viz that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to ioyn in some Church

or Congregation of Christians, I con∣fess, hath always seem'd odd to me. But I am very well assured, he will not assign the Roman to be that Chu••ch, be∣cause in that very place he expressly affirms, that the Gates of Hell do cer∣tainly * 1.30 preuail against the Church of Rome, if it doth vn-church all other Christians that are not of it's Commu∣nion: as certainly it doth.

Eun.

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

Cathar.

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

Eun.

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

Cathar.

Whateuer he can or may do in this matter, (and I see by his Prin∣ciples he is bound to doe it) I am very much pleased with a Qu••stion, which I remember he often requested, and insi∣sted vpon so earnestly as to coniure the Lady whose satisfaction he end eavou∣red, to intercede if n••t fo•• her own sake, yet for his, to procure of T. G. that he might k••ow one reason at least, why the Beleeving all the Ancient C••eeds, and leading a Good life, may not be sufficient

to saluation, vnless one be of the Com∣munion of the Church of Rome?

Eun.

I beleeue I ghess the reason why you are so pleased with this Question: as supposing there lyes at the bottome of it, that the Beleeuing the Ancient Creeds, and Leading a Good life, may be sufficient to salvation without com∣municating with any Church at all. But I know not whether you will be as much pleased with the Answer. For whereas Dr. St. had reproached T. G. * 1.31 that he had often requested an answer to this Question, but could not procure it T. G. tells him, that had he pleased to haue taken notice of it, he had done it in his first paper, as farr as was pertinent to the present purpose (that is in hand∣ling the 2d Question, where it came in order) where Dr. St. grants, that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to ioyn in some Church and to chuse the Communion of the Purest. Where vpon saith T. G. I subioyned, that that Church was to be iudged the purest, which had the strongest Motives for it, and then laid down a Catalogue of such weighty motiues for the Roman. Catho∣lick, allowed by Dr. Taylor (lib. of

Proph. Sect. 20). that neither Dr. St. in his Defence, nor Dr. Taylor himself when he had a mind to invalidate them, produ∣ced any thing to weigh against them, but a few Tinsel-words, and one Scripture-Testimony, interpreted by and according to their own fancy. But then again, be∣cause Dr. St. passed this Answer by, as not worth his taking notice of, T. G. not to be wanting to so earnest a Request, proceeded to adde three rea∣sons more to the former to proue the Roman Church to be that, with which all are bound by vertue of their Chris∣tianity to ioyn in communion: And I shall giue you them in order as they lye.

1. There was in the world before Lu∣ther a distinct Church, whose Commu∣nion was necessary to Saluation; but this was not the Protestant; Therefore it was the Roman. The Maior, saith he, is euident from Dr. St's. own Conf••ssion, that a Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to ioyn in some Church; which is not possible, if there be not such a Church to ioyn with. The Minor also, that this was not the Protestant, is ma∣nifest, because before Luther there was

no such Church in the world distinct from the Roman. It follows therefore, saith he (the Q••estion between Dr. St. and him, being supposed to be of the necessi∣ty of Communion either with the Roman, or wih the Protestant) that of the two the Roman Church was, and still is (as remaining still the same) that Church, whose Communion is necessary to saluation.

2. Again, saith he; taking the term Roman-Church, not only for the Par∣ticular Diocess of Rome, but for the Churches also in Communion with it, as the Head, (as it is generally taken in this Controversy) nothing can render her Communion not necessary to salvation, but either Heresy, that is, an adhesion to some private or singular Opinion or Er∣rour in Faith; Or Schism, that is sepa∣ration from former Ecclesiasticall vnity. For the first, he saith, that Dr. St. himself (Rat. Aecount, p. 54) acknow∣ledges the Church of Rome to beleiue all the same Articles of Faith with the Protestant; and that the Points in which the Protestant differs from the Roman, are not Articles of Faith. Consequently the Opposite Tenets to them can be no

Errours in Faith with him. And for the second, if he will make the Cburch of Rome guilty of Schism, he must assign some other distinct Church, (then at least in being) from whose vnity She departed: which T. G. thinkes he saith, was neuer pretended, and mak••s him∣self sure can neuer be performed.

Cathar:

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

Eun.

This Obiection T. G. foresaw, and three things he saith to it. 1. that this is the Common Plea of all Separa∣tists, viz to charge those from whom they separated with bringing in new do∣ctrines. 2. that it implyes an acknowledg∣ment of the Fact of Schism, that is, of breaking Church-Vnity to be on the Protestants side. 3. that this being so, the Protestants stand arraigned of the crime of Schism also, for breaking Com∣munion

with the Church of Rome, vn∣till the Accusation be made good, and iudged to be so, by some other more com∣petent Judge than themselues in their own cause.

3. The third and last argument pres∣sed * 1.32 by T. G. why the beleiuing all the Ancient creeds, and leading a good life, may not be sufficient to saluat on, vnless one be of the Communion of the Church of Rome is this A Christian by vertue of his being so, is bound to be of the Communion of that Church, which eui∣dently was the t••ue one, and the purest; vntill it be as euidently at least (if not more euidently) proued not to be so; for otherwise he wrongs both his Reason and conscience, if he leaue a greater euidence and adhere to a lesser. But the Roman Church, as comprehending all those in Communion with her by the Testi∣mony not only of S. Paul (Rom. C. 1. and c. 16) but of the whole Christian world of all Ages, was euidently once the only true Church of Christ, and consequently, the Purest; and neither hath it, nor can it be as euidently, (much less more euidently) proued not to be so still; since the Testimony of those who do or will

deny it, is incomparably Short of the former. Therefore saith T. G. a Chris∣tian by vertue of his being so is bound to be of the Communion of the Roman Church.

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

Cathar.

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

Eun.

You do not hear me say so; and yet I cannot but look upon them, as coming so home to the Point, that unless answered, they carry all before them and quite ruine the Cause of the Reformation. And although perhaps you will not confess so much, yet I

perceiue by your discourse, you are not so well pleased either with the Ar∣gument•• of T. G. or Dr. St's silence, as you were with the Question. However there is one thing added by T. G. which I think you wil not be displeased with: and that is a Reflexion he makes, that wbereas it hath been hitherto speciously pretended against the Church of Rome, * 1.33 that the beleeuing all the Ancient Creeds, and leading a good life, is all that is ne∣cessary to saluation, yet now there is more required by Dr. St. Viz, to ioyn in some Church or Congregation of Chris∣t••a••••, by vertue of a man's being a Chris∣tian; and that he is bound to chuse the Communion of the Purest: by which T. G. saith, he will suppose he meanes at present the Church of England: and thereupon hopes he may without Offence tak•• the same liberty with Dr. St. which Dr St. had done with him, and desire if not for his own sake, yet for the sake of the Presbyterians, Anabaptists, and other se∣parated Congregations, to know one reason from him, why the beleeuing all the An∣cient Creeds, and leading a good life may not be sufficient to salvation vnless one be of the Communion of the Church

of England? This you see how it was press't by T. G. after he had giuen his reasons to Dr. St's demand; but the Dr. has not been so mutually kind as to de∣fer•• to so earnest a request in his Defence.

Cathar.

Perhaps he looked vpon it as an impertinent Digression.

Eun.

So himself also feared he should be thought to digress when he proposed the * 1.34 Question to T. G. and yet could neuer be at rest till he had procured an answer from him. Why then ought he not to haue done the same, when if there were any digression, himself was the Author of it

Cathar.

Perhaps it suited not with his Circumstances, yet I could wish he had done it, because then I suppose we should haue seen with how much grea∣ter Justice the Church of England exacts Cōmunion with her from other Churches, than the Church of Rome. Which hitherto I confesse I haue not been able to discern, and that for a reason offered for∣merly to Consideration by Dr. St. himself in his Irenicum pag. 117. where hauing laid down this Proposition viz. [where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming

to any vnlawfull or suspected practice, Men may lawf••lly deny conformity to, and Communion with that Church in such things, without the guilt of Schism] he endeavours to iustify it from the lawfulnesse of separation from the Church of Rome, in this manner. If our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawful, because she requi∣red vnlawful things as conditions of her Communion; then whereuer such things are required by any Church (as we say they are by the Church of England) non-Communion with th••t Church in those things will be lawful too, and where non-communion is lawful, there can be no Schism in it. If it be said here (he means, I suppose, by the Prelates of * 1.35 the Church of England) that the Pope's Power was an vsurpation, which is not in lawful Governours of Churches; it is som replied saith he, that the Pope's vsurpation mainly lyes in impo∣sing things vpon men's Consciences, as necessary, which are doubtfull or vnlaw∣ful. And whereuer the same thing is done, there is an vsurpation of the same nature, though not in so high a degree: and it may be as lawful to withdraw

Communion from one, as well as the othre.

Eun:

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

Cathar.

To this it is answered by Dr. St. first that no true Protestant can swear blind Obedience to Church-Go∣vernours in all things. That euery one hath a Judicium priuatae discretionis, which is the Rule of practice as to him∣self: and though we freely allow a Mi∣nisteriall Power vnder Christ in the Governours of the Church, yet that ex∣tends not to an obligation vpon men to go against the dictates of their own reason and conscience. Their power is only di∣rectiue, and declaratiue, and in matters of duty can bind no more than reason and euidence brought from Scripture by them doth. Again if the Governours must be Judges, what things are lawful what not, their power will be absolute; for to be sure what euer they command, they will say is lawful either in it's self, or as they command it: If euery priuate person must iudge what is lawfull, what not, which is commanded; (as when all is

said, euery man will be his own Judge in this case, in things concerning his own welfare) then he is no further bound to obey, than he iudgeth the thing to be lawful which is commanded. And for the plea of an erroneous conscience, that takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates of it: for as he is bound to lay it down, supposing it erroneous; so he is bound not to go against it while it is not laid down. But then again — Did not the Pope plead to be a lawfull Governour? And if men are bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governours, as to the lawfulnesse of things, they were bound to beleeue him in that as well as other things, and so separation from that Church (that is, the Church of Rome) was vnlawfull then. Where vpon he con∣cludes, that let men turn and wind them∣selues, which way they will, by the very same Arguments, that any will proue Se∣paration from the Church of Rome law∣ful, because she required vnlawful things, as conditions of her Communion, it will be proued lawful, not to conform to any suspected or vnlawfull practice, required by any Church-Governours, vpon the same terms? if the thing so re∣quired,

be after serious and sober inquiry, iudged vnwarrantable by a Man's own Conscience. Lastly, he addes, that withall, it would be further considered, whether when our best Writers against the Papists do lay the imputation of Schism, not on those who withdraw Communion, but on them for requiring such conditions of Communion (whereby they did rather eiect men out of their Communion, than the others separate f••om them) they do not by the same ar∣gument, lay the Imputation of Schism on all, who require such conditions of Communion, and take it wholly off from those, who refuse to conform for Con∣science sake: And much more to the same purpose, which for breuities sake I omit to repeat.

Eun.

Now I perceive what it is you would be at; you would haue had Dr. St. answer his own argument. A very vngrateful employement I can assure you; for either he cannot absolue you from the crime of Schism, or he must deny (which I am sure you will not) that the Church of England imposes any doubtful and suspected practices, as conditions of Communion with her, ye••

if I mistake not, he hath offered some∣thing to this purpose in his Rational Account pag. 54. where he lays down the State of the difference between the Church of Rome and the Church of England in these words. The Church of Rome, saith he, imposeth new Articles of Faith to be beleeued as necessary to saluation. But the Church of England mak••s no Articles of Faith, but such as haue the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self; and in other things she requires subscription to them, not as Articles of Faith, but as Inferiour Truths, or as Dr. Br••••hall calls them pio•••• Opinions fitted for the Preseruation of Vnity, not, saith he, that we oblige any man to be∣leeue them, but only not to oppose or con∣tradict them. How farr this Answer may relish with you, Catharinus, as implying the Guilt of Schism to be on your side for denying Conformity to so moderate a condition, as non-contra∣dicting only is, I leaue to your conside∣ration. But the vse that T. G. makes of it, is to shew that Dr. St. was not wel advised vpon these Principles, to

vndertake the charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome. In order to which he first lays down the Sense of what the Dr. affirms in these words. This saith he according to Dr. St. is the Basis and Foundation of the Pr••t••stant R••ligion, that no doctrine of the Protestant Reli∣gion, as it differs from that of the Roman, is an Article of Faith; that is, that no Protestant belieues; or if he do, he ougbt not to belieue, as a matter of Faith, viz, that the Images of Christ and his Saints, are not to be honoured; that the Substance of the Bread is not changed in to the Body of Christ; that the Saints in heauen are not to be invoked to pray for vs. But all that he is obliged to by the Church of England, is not to oppose or contradict them. And then inferrs these Consequences from the Dr's Assertion.

1. That the Church of Rome accor∣ding * 1.36 to him, doth not erre against any Article of Faith, because the Church of England, as he saith, makes no Articles of Faith, but such as are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self.

2. That himself doth not belieue any of the af••resaid Points as they are de∣termined by the Church of England,

to be Articles of Faith: because to be Articles of Faith with him they must haue the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Christian world of all Ages, and be acknowledged to be such by Rome it self; which certainly the English Articles concerning the worshipping of Images, the Adoration of the Host, and the Inuocation of Saints, are not,

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

4. And lastly, that this Charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome is vain and groundlesse; because Idolatry being an Errour against the most Fun∣damentall Point of Faith, and the Church of Rome according to him, not

erring against any Article of Faith, t'is euident, saith T. G. that to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry must ac∣cording to his own Principles be the most groundless, vnreasonable, and contra∣dictory proceeding in the world.

This done he desires euery indifferent Reader to reflect and iudge whether Dr. St. to render the doctrine of the 39 Arti∣cles digestible (as he phrases it) to the most squeamish stomack of the Nicest Non-Conformist, haue not done a notable peice of Seruice to the Church of Eng∣land in degrading so many of them, as are not ackno••ledged by the Church of Rome (although they be esteemed the distinctiue badge of the Purity of the Church of England) from the dignity of being Arti∣cles of Faith, into a lower Class of Inf••riour Truths (as he calls them) such as neither himself, nor any body els knows, whe∣ther they haue a grain of truth in them, or no; and consequently are not bound to belieue them? Nay, saith he, Doth he not vndermine the Church of England, both in her doctrine and Government? In her doctrine, by freeing her subiects from any obligation of interiour belieuing her Articles, so farr forth as they differ f••om

thos•• of the Church of Rome to be so much as inferiour Truth? In her Gouernment, by exposing h••r Ordination, (or Pu∣blik Ministery) to be invaded without scruple, by such as in their hearts iudge it Anti-Christian, when he tells them, her Sense is to oblige them no fa••ther, than not to oppose or contradict it? In which by the way I think he dissents as much from the Sense of the Church of England, if that be to be taken from the publick Acts of her Convocat••ons, as in his charge of Idolatry. But to pro∣ceed with T. G. Was it not worth the while, saith he, to rend asunder the peace of Christendome for a Company of Opinions, which (though Dr. Bram∣hal call them Pious, yet (the greater part of Christians, both in the East and West for many Ages haue, and do con∣demn for Impious and Blasphemous? Is not this, saith he, a very Rational, or rather (as Mr. I. S. expounds the word) a very Reasonable Account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion, and a rare way of Justifying her from the guilt of Schism? Surely he neuer thought of charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry, when he layd such sandy Prin∣ciples

of so brittle a Temper, that it was not possible they should bear so great a charge, without breaking and discharg∣ing vpon himself.

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

Cathar.

As for the digression (as you call it) it is not our concern at present to engage in it. It lyes at his Aduersa∣ries door; and so doth the Imputation of Schism at the Church of Englands, on the same account, as on the Church of Rome's, while she imposes doubtful and Suspected Practices as condi••••ons of her Communion. But for the conse∣quences

T. G. inferrs from the difference laid down by Dr. St. between the Church of England and that of Rome he hath sufficiently shown the vanity of one of them. viz. the 4^th in the last Chapter of his Defence, where 1^st he saith that to affirm that the Church of Rome doth not erre in any Fundamental Point of the Chrictian Faith, and yet may be guilty of Idolatry, hath no con∣tradiction in it; f••r the notion of Idola∣try, as applyed to the Church of Rome, is consistent wich it's owning the General Principles of Faith, as to the true God and Jesus-Christ, and giuing Souereign Worship to them. 2. Whereas T. G. saith, that Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamentall Point of Faith, Dr. St. replies that T. G. himself confesses the true Notion of Idolatry to be, the giving the worship due to God to a Creature: And so, if Dr. St. haue proued that the worship of Images in the Roman Church be the giuing the worship due only to God to a Creature, then although the Church of Rome may hold all the Essentials of Faith and be a true Church, yet may it be guilty of Idolatry without contradiction.

Eun.

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

Cathar.

But Dr. St. being, as he * 1.37 saith, afraid to be snap'd by such cunning S••phisters, hath therefore distinguished in time, viz. that to affirm a Church to hold any Idolatry lawfull, which it iud∣ges to be Idolatry and not erre against a Fundamental Point, would be a con∣tradiction. But to say, that it may en∣tertain a false notion of Idolatry, or

of that worship which is due only to God, and not erre against any Funda∣mental, is none: for this false notion being receiued, men may really giue the worship that belongs only to God to his creatures. And this saith he, is the v••most errour necessa••y in this case.

Eun.

This I take to be the vtmost, which Dr St. can say in this case: And when I consider the distinction he giues, methinkes I am more clearly conuinc'd of the truth of that Sage saying of his (though ill applied his Aduersary I. W. for his distinction of expressely or impl••citely,) viz that Mother-wit is much better than Scholastick Fooling. For if * 1.38 my Mo••her-wit fail me not; to erre, in the strictest way of speaking, (though it be used also to signify any Opposition to Truth) is not so properly to oppos•• the Truth, knowing it to be the Truth, as to teach that which is opposite to truth in reality, the Teacher not knowing it to be so. And if the Church of Rome erre in telling men, that the Honour She giues to the Images of Christ and his Saints is not a part of the Honour due to God, if in reality it be a part of his Honour, t'is

Euident She erres against the 2^d Com∣mandment, though she iudges she doth not. So that which way soeuer the Dr. turns himself, he cannot maintain the Church of Rome to be guilty of Idolatry without erring against a Fundamental Po••••t. And that this Errour is damnable, is avowed by himself in his very cha••ge, when he asserteth▪ that those who Com∣municate with the Church of Rome, must by the terms of Communion with her be guilty either of Hypocrisy or Idolatry, either of which, saith he, are sins incon∣sistent with saluation.

Cathar.

But still methinks you come not home to the Point. For what the Dr. fixes himself vpon p. 787. is that the Notion of Idolatry as applyed to the Church of Rome (mark that) is consi∣stent with its owning the General Princi∣ples of Faith, as to the true God and Jesus Christ, and giving Soueraign worship to them, that is, if I vnderstand him aright, that the C••urch of Rome may teach in the General that Soueraign worship is due only to the true God and Jesus Christ, and yet giue the real parts of worship due only to God to a meer

creature, in worshipping him by an Ima∣ge, (which is the notion of Idolatry he applyes to that Church) and yet again at the same time tell men, it is not a part of the Honour which is due to God, as not iudging it to be such.

Eun.

Well, if this be the Point, I think I haue spoken sufficiently to it already. But to make it yet plainer, I must desire you to reflect, that the Con∣trouersy here is not only vpon a General Thesis whether some Idolatrous Practice may not consist with owning the General Principles of Faith as to the true God and Jesus Christ, and giuing. Soue∣raign worship to them (which yet I know not, how himself can maintain against I W's distinction of expressly or implicitely, when he supposes the Church of Rome to debauch the very * 1.39 essential Principles of Faith by damna∣ble errours, and to corrupt the worship of God by vertue of them) but vpon a particular Hypothesis, viz, whether the notion of Idolatry, as applyed to the Church of Rome.) 1. e. the worshipping of God by an Image) be consistent with, that is, be not an errour against the

doctrine of the 2d Commandment, if that be, to forbid men to worship him by an Image? The Affirmatiue of this I think is too manifest to be denyed by any man that hath not lost his Mother-Wit. And therefore if it be a Funda∣mental Point to belieue that to be Ido∣latry, which God himself hath expressly f••rbidden in the law vnder the notion of Idolat••y and that be, the worshipping of him by an Image (as Dr. St. asserts) t'is cleer that the Church of Rome in telling men it is no•• Idolatry (as not kno∣wing it to be such) erres against a Fun∣damentall Point; and he cannot accor∣ding to his Principles maintain his charge of I••olatry without a Contra∣diction. For if it be expressly reuealed in H. Scripture, that to worship God by an Image is Idolatry, it is an Article of Paith, and a Fundamental One too, and the Church of Rome in teaching men to do so, erres against it. And if Dr. St. with the Church of England make no Articles of Faith, but such as are aknowledged to be such by Rome it self (as this is not) according to him it is no Article of Faith at all, that God i••

not to be w••r••hipped by an Image. This I take to be Contradiction enough, and the Dr. must clear himself from it as he can.

Cathar.

This is what a man gets by dropping, (as Dr. St. saith vpon this * 1.40 occasion) some kind words towards them who whil be sure to make all possible ad∣vantages from them, to ouerthrow the force of whateuer can be said afterwards against them. Had he not been so kind hearted as to allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and hold all the Essential Points of Christian Faith, but had stood firm to the Principles of our Party, who look vpon that Church, not as a true Church, but as the Syna∣gogue of Antichrist, he had done the work throughly, and freed himself from the intangling Sophisms of these Scholastick Foolers.

Eun.

I think you haue litle reason to esteem T. G. for one of them who make all possible aduantages from the Dr's kind words to ouerthrow the force of whateuer might or was, said afterwards against him, if you consider how exact he was after∣wards in replying to all his arguments,

whereas the Dr. in his Defence hath passed ouer many important things ob∣iected by T. G. (as you haue heard) without taking notice at all of them. But in the main, I see by what you say, you agree so farr with me, that Dr. St. was not well-aduised to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry vpon his Principles. Nor am I less dissatisfied with his managing it, vpon some other Accounts, which I shall acquaint you with at our next meeting.

THE FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

MR. Thorndike's Judgment of the Charge of Idolatry, with Dr. St's. Honourable Encomium of him. Instead of iustifying the Separation, he brings the Guilt of the Schism vpon himself and the Church of England. A farther display of his Omissions and Contradictions. His Paralel between the worship of the Heathens, and that of the Church of Rome shown to be Im∣pertinent, and the Worship of God by an Image not to be expressly prohibited in the 2^d Commandment.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS

CAthar.

I remember at the begin∣ning of our discourse, you desir'd me to consider you vnder the quality of a Person perfectly of Mr. Thorndik's Judgment, as to the Charge of Idolatry

vpon the Church of Rome: and that what you should produce vpon that account, should be either from his own words, or what you conceiued himself must and would haue said in conformity to his Principles, And I was willing to entertain this conceit of you; but cannot perswade my self, that so learned and Judicious a Man, as Mr. Thorndike is esteemed, would haue allowed so much partiality, as you haue shown in this cause both to T. G. and the Church of Rome.

Eun.

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

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

Of the first he saith, that to the Ima∣ges of Saints there can be no Idolatry, so long as men take them for Saints, that is, Gods creatures; much lesse to the Images of our Lord, for it is the honour of our Lord and not of his Image. And although, saith he, the 2d Council of Nice acknowledges that the Image it self is ho••oured, by the honour giuen to that which it signifieth before the Image, yet it distinguisheth this honour from the honour of our Lord: and therefore teacheth not Idolatry, by teaching to honour Images, though it acknowledge that the Image it self is honoured, when it need not. Of the 2^d he affirmeth that the worship of the Host in the Papacy is not Idolatry, because those who worship the Host, do not belieue that the Ele∣ments remain, but that our Lord Christ, the only true God is present there in a particular manner. For the 3d; though he seem more Scrupulous in that than the other two, because the same things he saith, are desired of the Saints, and in the same terms, in which they are desired of God, euen in the Holy Scripture, yet he acknowledges there is a Profession of that Church extant, which contradicts

the proper sense of such prayers, and for∣ces the Addressers of them, vnless they will contradict themselues, to expound them to signify no more, than obtaining that of God, which they are desired to grant of themselues. And this he implies to be sufficient to excuse them from Ido∣latry, when he sayes, that were it not so, they could not be excused from it.

Again, if the Question be concerning the managing the Charge of Idolatry, supposing or granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church, as Dr. St. doth. Mr. Thorndik•• expressly affirmeth in his 1. Chapter, that if the Pope be Antichrist, and the Papists Idol••ters the Church of Rome is no true Church; and if it be a true Church, that which it professeth, is not Idolatry, and therevpon giues this necessary caution to those who will proceed vpon that supposition, to prouide that they contradict not them∣selues; which in his 2^d Chapter he saith they must doe, i. e. contradict themselues if they maintain it. 3^dly if the Question be of the Sense of the Church of Eng∣land, Mr. Thorndike shews from the very fact of the Refo••mation, that i•• was not the meaning of those who made the

Change, to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, because that were to sup∣pose it not to be a true Church, and the Church of England not to be the same Church with that which was: whereas the R••formation was not intended for the making a new Church, which was not before, but for the restoring a sick Church to its soundness, and a corrupted Church to it's Purity. Chapt. 1. and 3^d

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

Lastly, he asserteth the Profession of one Visible Church, to oblige all to stand to those grounds and those terms, vpon which it is to be maintained (of which certainly with him the charge of Idola∣try is none) and that he who takes the Pope for Antichrist, and the Papists for Idolaters, can neuer weigh by his own Weights, and mete by his own measures, till he hate Papists worse than

I••ws or Mahumetans; ch. 2. These things being so, I hope you will absolue me from the Suspition of hauing aduan∣ced any thing in this matter, but what Mr. Thorndike himself allows. The Reasons he brings for these Positions you may see your self at leasure in the Places I haue cited.

Cath.

You haue sufficiently acquitted your self of the conceit I began to haue of you: and Dr. St. seems to haue ac∣quitted himself also sufficiently, as to the respect due to the memory of so learned and Pious a Person (as himself acknowledges Mr. Thorndike to haue been) when he assures T. G. that if he could haue thought, what that Learned * 1.41 Man had said in this matter, to haue been agreable either to Scripture or Rea∣son, or the sense of the Primitiue, or of the present Church of England, it might haue prevented his writing, by changing his Opinion; for he saith, he was no stranger to his writings or his arguments. By which you see, he came to them with a good will to be informed before he en∣gaged in this cause and would not haue receded from his Opinion, could he haue adhered to it without violence to

his Reason.

Eun.

This I know is returned by Dr. St. in his late defence. p. 783. in answer to T. G. who vpon occasion of a discourse of Mr. Thorndike's, about the Sense of the 2^d Commandment, dia∣metrically opposite to that which Dr. St. giues, had said, that he could not but look vpon it, as a kind of Prophetical Co••f••tation in the year 1662. of all whi••h the Dr. had produced in the yeare * 1.42 1671. (when his Treatise of Roman Idolatry came forth) for the proof of h•••• charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome in the matter of Images. And how full of respect the Dr's answer is to the Memory of that excellent Person, your self will iudge, if you consider what an honour it is for Mr. Thorndike, for the world to hear it proclaimed from the mouth of Dr. St; that what he hath said in this matter is in his Judg∣ment agreable neither to Scripture, nor Reason, nor the Sense of the Primitiue Church, nor of his own; and this after he had made himself no Stranger to his writings, or his Arguments. Do you not think that many will be apt to beleeue that there must be none of all

these in ••h••m, when such a Man as Dr. St. brought both wit and will to discouer them, but could not? But why did he not make it some part of his bu∣siness to answer his A••guments, if he found them so void of Sense and Rea∣son, at least those which T. G. vrged against him, and, because the Dr. left them vn-answered, said he must look vpon Mr. Thorndike's Book, as a Con∣futation of his before it was written? Does not Mr. Thorndike himself in the 1. Chapter of his Just Weights and Mea∣sures, speaking to those of Dr. St's Judgment, demand, if they can pre∣tend so much charity to him, as to haue attempted the answering of his Reasons, and the rectifying of his mistakes? Or will they, saith he, shew me who hath answered them; and so, that they need not be troubled for me? And now, when Mr. Thorndike himself so charitably, and T. G so iustly called vpon Dr. St. to answer his arguments, was it enough for him to pass all this by with a deaf ear, and hauing professed himself no stranger to the writings, and arguments of that great Man, to tell vs with an Ipse dixit, that he could find neither

Scripture nor Reason, nor the Sense of the Primitiue Church, nor of his own in what he had said in this mat••er? You may belieue as you please, but those of the Church of England haue a d••ffer••nt esteem for him, and for his writings. What if T. G. should answer Dr. St's defence in the same manner, and with the same words, would you take it for good payment? For my part I should be satisfied with neither, nor will your self be, I beleeue, for what concerns Mr. Thorndike, when you shall haue heard what T. G. alledged out of him, * 1.43 to show the crime of Schism to ly at their doors, who charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, and is left vn∣touched by Dr. St. both in his General Preface, and late Defence. That this was Mr. Thorndike's Judgment as to the charge of Idolatry in general, is euident from what I haue cited aboue out of his First chapter; and for the worship of images in particular, in his 19^th Chapter he saith, It is manifest that the Church of God is tyed no farther than there can appear danger of Idola∣try, which if it be so heightned, beyond appearance, as to involve the Church in

the crime of it (i. e. Idolatry) chargeth the schism that may come by that meanes vpon them, that so inhanse it.

Cathar.

This is a thing which I haue often heard, and allwayes with wonder; nothing appearing to me so proper to iustify the Separation of the Church of England from that of Rome, as the charging that Church with Idolatry: for (as Dr. St. himself giues the reason * 1.44 in his Preface) whereas other things are subtle and nice, tedious and obscure, this lyes plain to the conscience of euery man: If the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry, our Separation can be no Schism, either before God or man, be∣cause our Communion would be a Sin.

Eun.

This wonder of yours proceeds from a mistake (as you heard before) that those who made the change in∣tended a Separation; whereas Refor∣mat••on is indeed, and allwaies was the thing intended. And for what you alledge from Dr. St. M. Thorndike confesses, this cause (i. e. Idolatry) * 1.45 would be more then sufficient to iustify se∣paration, did it appear to be true: but then on the othe side, saith he, it charges the mischiefs of the Schism vpon those

that proceed vpon it, before it be as euident as the mischief, are, which they run into vpon it. So that, should the Church of England declare that the Change, which we call Reformation is grounded vpon this supposition, I must then acknowledg saith he, that we are Schismaticks. For the cause not appear∣ing to me (as hitherto it hath not, and I think will neuer be made to appear to me) the Separation, and the Mischiefs of it must be imputed to them that make the change. And therefore we (of the Church of England) in plain terms make our selues Schismaticks, by ground∣ing our Reformation vpon this Pretence. This was returned by T. G. in his Pre∣face, to Dr St. with this reflexion, that this Judgment of Mr. Thorndike, abetted by diuers of the most learned, and most Judicious Persons of the Church of England, will stand as a convincing Preiudice against him, and his charge, till he can make it as euident that the Church of Rome is guilty of Idolatry, as the mischiefs are that haue ensued vpon it. And I can imagin no probable reason, why he should not haue endeavour'd at least, either in his General Preface, or

in his Defence, to haue removed this Preiudice, but that he was so farr of Mr. Thorndike's mind in the matter, as to think it a task impossible to be per∣formed. Otherwise surely he would not haue sate downe quietly with the Im∣putation of so horrible a Sin, as Mr. Thorndike characters that of Schisin to be in the sight of God in his next Chap∣ter, euen greater than that of Heresy * 1.46 or Aposta••y. For an Heretick or an Apostate, saith he, in the sight of God destroys only 〈◊〉〈◊〉 own soul. But he that causeth division in the Church, either peremptorily destroys, or probably hinders the Salvation of all who are parties to it. So the Authors of Schisin must answer for all the souls that perish by it. Add to this, the infinite Bloud. shed, the barba∣rous Violences, the vncharitable slan∣d••rs, the horrid perjuries, the vn∣christian practices, the Antichristian doctrines, the hatred of our Fellow chri∣stians worse than Iews and Ma∣humetans, the reviling the first and grea∣test of Patriarchs, (at least in Order and Dignity,) as the Man of sin; and rai∣ling at that Church, which the Dr. him∣self acknowledges to be a true Church,

and to hold all the Essentials of Faith, as the Mistress of Idolatry, and the Whore of Babylon: besides the other mischi••f. and Miseries, which this division hath brought forth, part of which saith Dr. St. himself, if our ex∣perience doth not tell vs of, yet our cons∣ciences * 1.47 may. Adde I say these things, which lye open to the eyes of men, to the hainousness of Schism in the sight of God, which, as Dr. Hammond tells us out of the Fathers, is as great if not greater than Sacriledg, Parricide or Ido∣latry, not iustifyable by any pretence * 1.48 whatsoeuer, nor expiable even by Mar∣tyrdome it self, and you will see what reason there was, why Dr. St. should haue endeavourd at least the answering Mr. Thorndike's argument, least he might be thought by his silence to stand convicted of the consequence of it, (that is, the guilt of Schism) in his own Judg∣ment.

Cathar.

These are terrible Bug∣bears indeed to frighten vs from the Charge of Idolatry. But still our Plea is the same in order to the Church of England, With that of the Church of England to that of Rome; and whe∣ther

the charge be of Idolatry, as we will haue it, or only of Abuses and Su∣perstitions as Mr. Thorndike calls them, the case of both is alike as to the Church of Rome: for both doe grant, that not those who separate, but those who cause the separation by imposing and requiring things vnlawful, as conditions of Communion, are Schismaticks before God; Only this aduantage they haue, who charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, that it lyes open to the Consci∣ence of euery man, if that Church be guilty of it, our separation can be no Schism either before God or man, be∣cause our Communion would be a sin, whereas other Pleas are subtle and Nice, tedious and obscure, as Dr St. saith.

Eun.

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

Cathar.

And haue you proued the things which the Church of England requireth, to be lawful; and the Abuses and Superstitions of the Church of Rome as Mr. Thornd. calls them, to be as eui∣dently

such, as the Mischiefs are which haue followed frō the imposing of them? The contest at the best stands yet sub Ju∣dice as to both, and for what concerns the Church of Rome, those that Gouern that See (whom Mr. Thorndike esteems the * 1.49 wisest people vpon earth) and all those, whom their wisdome carries along, deny what they require as terms of Communion with them, to be either abuses or Su∣perstitions. And so T. G'^s. Argument, which you mentioned before, if it be good for any thing will haue equall force against the charge of Superstition, as of Idolatry, viz, that till the Accu∣sation be made Good, and iudged so by some more competent Judge, than your selues, you stand arraigned of the Crime of Schism also for breaking Communion with the Church of Rome.

Eun.

Forthat, we appeal, saith Dr. St. to the doctrine and Practice of the truly Catholick Church, in the matters * 1.50 of difference between us and the Church of Rome.

Cathar.

Very well: But then, you are bound I hope, as well as Dr. St. either to acknowledge the Roman to be that Church, and consequently to stand

to her Judgement: or to assign some other Church distinct from the Roman, which Christ hath preserved free from those doctrines and Practices, which you call Abuses and Superstitions, unless you will be your own Judges. Which way you will take, I shall leaue to your conside∣ration.

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

Eun.

This is a pretty kind of plausi∣ble come off, but will not serve the turn,

I know the word [sufficiently] confident∣ly uttered can do wonders. The Oracles of General Councils are nothing to it, especially if added to a Text of Scri∣pture though neuer so much wrested. But I am too well acquainted with it, to be imposed on by it. Nothing will be sufficient here, but what makes the Ido∣latry of the Church of Rome, as Evi∣dent as the mischiefs are, which haue ensued vpon the Separation; and your self I belieue will grant the first Proof from the practice of the Heathens not to be of that nature, when you shall haue considered, how expressly the Scri∣pture taxes the Heathens of Polytheism and for worshipping their Idols as Gods; and the Obscurity and Contra∣diction there is found in the manner of their worship even as it was explicated by the most learned of their Philosophers. I know very well that Dr St. in his defence strains all the Nerves of his wit, and the Texts, of many of those Fa∣thers he cites to proue the Heathens supream God Jupiter, to be the Supream Being, Creator and Governour of the worl••▪ by that means to dragg the wors∣hip of the Heathens in to a Paral••l

with that of the Church of Rome: but I neuer yet met with any man that be∣lieued it was or is what he would haue it to be; and I haue that esteem for the deuotion of the Feminine Sex that did they belieue it, they would never be so Prophani, as to give the sacred name of Jupiter to their Dogs: But however that be (which we may haue occasion to Examin hereafter) t'is plain the Ar∣gument can signify nothing to the pur∣pose. For if the Heathens gaue not the same worship to their Images and In∣feriour Deities which the Church of Rome doth to her Images and Saints, the Paralell is lost: And if they gaue the same which the Church of Rome allows, the manner of the Worship which he there insists vpon (howeuer they might be mistaken in the things or Persons) is excused from Idolatry by many Emin••nt diuines of the Church of England, as you heard before, and will neuer be proued by Dr. St. to be so. All then that such an Extrinsic Topick can do, is that it may serue to amuze the Ignorant but can neuer Satisfy a Judicious Reader.

As for the 2^d that God in the second

Commandment hath expressly prohibi∣ted the giuing any worship to himself by an Image, let vs first hear the Excep∣tions which T G. layes against it, in * 1.51 the 3^d Chapter of his Catholiks no Ido∣laters, of which Dr St. takes not the least notice neither in his Defence.

What we are to consider in the first * 1.52 place here, saith T. G. is what it is that Dr. St. will undertake to prove: and it is this; that God in the 2^d Command∣ment hath expressly prohibited the gi∣ving any worship to himself by an Ima∣ge. This is what vpon Second thoughts (for the term expressly was not in his first Answer) he undertakes to prove: And I cannot but wonder, saith he, to see it drop now from his Pen, who on the other side asserts Scripture (doubt∣lesse Express Scripture) to be his most certain Rule of Faith, and on the other side denies, (as hath been shewed aboue) any thing to be an Article of Faith which is not acknowledged to be such by Rome it self. What may the meaning of this be? If it be express∣ly revealed in Scripture that God is not to be worshipped by an Image, it is an Article of Faith, If it be not acknow∣ledged

to be such by Rome it self, it is no Article of Faith but (as he calls it) an Inferiour Truth or Pious Opinion, yet such as neither himself, nor any man else according to his Principles ought to belieue there is a Iot of Truth in it. Here vpon he calls vpon the Dr. to speak out. Is it, or is it not an Article of Faith? If it be an Article of Faith, t'is false what he asserts so stiffly in his Rational Account p. 54. that the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, but what are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self. If it be not an Article of Faith, t'is false what he affirms so positiuely here, that God hath expressly prohibited it in the 2^d Com∣mandment. And which side soeuer he takes, tis manifest he contradicts himself. Here was Prouocation enough for Dr. St. to cleer himself. But T. G. pro∣ceeds.

Perhaps his meaning is, saith he, that what at one time is but an Inferiour Truth, must at another time be an Arti∣cle of Faith, according as it may serue to the different ends and purposes he hath designed to himself. And here, if I mis∣take not, saith T. G. lies the Knack, or

(if you will giue it so venerable a name) the Mystery of the business. When the Hedge of the Church of England (viz, Suscription to her 39. Articles) must be broken down for the Good Brethren the Non-Conformists (pray pardon me, if I repeat his words) to enter in and ravage without scruple her Rights and Reuenues, so many of the said Articles, as are not owned by Rome it self, must pass for a company of Inferiour Truths, or Pious Opinions, not, to be assented to, but not to be opposed for Unitie's sake. But when the Church of Rome is to be charged with Idolatry (the Pre∣tence, saith Mr. Thorndike, with which Ignorant Preachers driue their factions) then they are no more Infe∣riour Truths, but Articles of Faith ex∣pressly reuealed in Holy Scripture. Now would an Impartial Reader (to use Dr. Taylor's expression vpon another occasion) say vpon his Conscience, that this was not kindly done, to make vse of the Authority of the Church of Rome, to vnhallow so many of the 39. Articles, as are not owned by her, and cast them down into the class of Inferiour Truths, to stich vp the Rent

made by the Non-Conformists from the Church of England: And then to consecrate them again so easily by ver∣tue of that one Definitiue word [express∣ly] into diuine Reuelations, against the Church of Rome, to make the Breach of the Church of England from her, yet wider. But what cannot an Ireni∣cal complyance with one Party; and a Polemical Animosity, or (as Mr. Thorndike calls it Faction) against another doe? when the same Proposi∣tion, as it respects the former shall be ranked only amongst Inferiour Truths, which none are obliged to assent to; and as it may serue to oppugn the lat∣ter, shal be raised to an Article of Faith, which all are bound to belieue. Here then saith he, lyes the Mystery, that the same Proposition, viz that God is not to be worshiped by an Image, taken Irenically and in its Pacifick temper, is but an Inferiour Truth, because not owned to be an Article of Faith by the Church of Rome: but taken Pole∣mically, and in its warlike Humour, it must be an Article of Faith, because expressly (as Dr. St. saith) revealed in scripture. Thus T. G.

Ca••har.

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

Eun.

I see you are no Friend to School-distinctions; (though Dr. St. himself as you know is sometimes fain to make vse of them) and much lesse to the way of making men contradict themselues. But then it is necessary, especially for Controvertists to prouide they do not do it. T'is necessary as Mr. Thorndike sayes, that they vnderstand themselues, whether they admit the con∣sequence

of their own supposition, or not: which I think Dr. St. did not consider, when he advanced this Proposition, that God in the 2^d Commandment hath expressly prohibited the giuing any wor∣ship to himself by an Image. For (as T. G. discourses vpon it) It were well he * 1.53 would tell vs first, what he vnderstands by the term [Expressly.]

For if he call * 1.54 that (for example) an express Text, which of it self is absolutely cleer and manifest, and therefore as St. Austin saith, Non eget Interpre••e, needs no Interpreter, Mr. Thorndike (and those other learned men of the Church of England who see no better than He) haue reason to lament the loss of their Eye-sight. But if he mean no more, but that it is cleer and manifest to himself, they may hope they see as well as their Neighbours, though they see the quite contrary; vnless they will suffer them∣selues to be wrought vpon by his stout asserting it to be cleer and manifest as the Travellers were by Polus, (in Eras∣mus his Exorcismus) when pretending that he saw a huge Dragon with fiery horns in the sky, by auouching it strong∣ly, and pointing expressly to the Place,

he forced them (out of shame not to see so conspicuous a thing) to confess, that they saw it also. Now that it is not absolutely cleer and manifest of it self, the pains and ways he takes to find it out sufficiently evince, And whether it be cleer and manifest euen to himself, we haue cause to doubt; because the Proposition in debate, viz, That God hath prohibited the giving any wor∣ship to himself by an Image, not being acknowledged by the Church of Rome for an Article of Faith, the Church of England, according to himself, obliges no man to assent to it, but only not to oppose it; and yet on the other side Euery man is bound to assent to that, which he sees to be clear and manifest. Such frequent self-contradictions, saith T. G. are the natural consequences of a discourse not grounded vpon Truth.

Cathar.

This is iust what Dr. St. saith of I. W: that he makes him pile Con∣tradictions vpon Contradictions, as * 1.55 Children do cards one vpon another, and then he comes and cunningly steals away one of the Supporters, and down all the rest fall in great disorder and confusion.

Eun:

This is pleasantly enough said, and may serue to entertain drollish wit, though I understand not well what he means by his Aduersary's Stealing aw••y one of the Supporters. If this piling of contradictions be like that of Cards, me thinks it should be Dr. St's. part to steal away one of the supporters, that the Falrick may fall to the ground; for whilst both stand the Contradiction will remain. But this cannot be done with∣out renouncing one of his Principles, viz, either that he makes no Articles of Faith but what are acknowledged f••r such by Rome it self, or that it is expressly revealed in Scripture (the Rule of Faith) that God is not to be worshipped by an Image. Otherwise it is not the puff of a Iest that will blow down the building. And therefore T. G. adds, that although the Reader may think, (as I perceiue you do) he takes a delight to discover such frequent Contradictions in his Ad∣versary, yet I can assure him, saith he, t'it a much greater Grief to me, to see so subtil a wit so often intangled in them. The fault is in the Cause, (I suppose he means the charge of Idolatry) which cannot be managed without falling

into them. But as S_t Austin saith. Quis coegit eos malam causam habere; Who compelled him and his Partizans to en∣gage themselues in a bad Cause? No∣thing of Faith, if that be true, which he ells us in his Rational Account. Nothing ^tf Reason, as will be shewed in the exa∣mination of his Proofs. Now if after all this, you still persist in the same mind you were of, that the prohibition of giving any worship to God himself by an Image, is so cleerly and expressly de∣livered in tho 2^d Commandment, that if Scripture be the Rule of Faith, no∣thing can be an Rule of Faith, if that be not; let me desire you to consider farther what T. G. hath reply'd in par∣ticular, to Dr. Sts first way of finding out the Sense of the Law, viz, from the Terms in which the Law is expressod. * 1.56 Exod 20. 4. Thou shalt not make vnto thee any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing &c. Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them, nor serve them.

These are the Terms, in which the Law is expressed according to the Transla∣tion used in the Church of England: and ••here, I pray, saith T. G. is it ex∣pressed here that we may not giue any

worship to God himself by an Image? The first part touches not the worship of Images, or of God himself by them, but only the making them, and giues matter to Divines to dispute, whether it be forbidden by this Commandment to make any Image or any likeness at all; a thing in which Protestants are con∣cerned, as well as Catholicks. The second forbids indeed in express terms to bow our selues down to the Images them∣selues (as the Heathens did) but speaks not one word of the lawfulness or vn∣law••ulness of worshipping God himself by them. So that if to treat a matter expressly, be not the same in other words, as not to speak of it at all, it is manifest, that to worship God himself before or by an Image, is not expressly prohibited by this Commandment This T. G. desires his Protestant Rea∣der (he should haue said Puritan) to consider well, and not suffer Puritan) to be deluded wish the sound of words. Is it all, one, saith he to bow our selues down to the Images themselues without any Relation to God, and to worship God himself by bowing before an Ima∣ge? The difference is too palpable not

to be seen by any one who hath not the natural Conceptions of his mind cor∣rupted by an ouer eager desire to pursue at any rate so vniust and vncharitable a charge, as that of Idolatry. The Iews we know gaue worship to God by bowing down before the Ark and the Cherubins, and yet they did not wor∣ship them instead of God: And if Dr. St. will needs contend, that this was a par∣ticular dispensation to the Iews, that they might lawfully bow down to or before the Ark and Cherubins to give worship to God, he must acknowledg the Precept (if it were so) as to that part, viz, of not worshipping God by bowing before an Image, not to haue been Natural, for then God had dis∣pensed with them to commit Real Ido∣latry; but Ceremonial only, and so not to oblige Christians, vnless he wil en∣gage them also in the observance of all the Ceremonial part of the Law of Moses. Taking then the Terms of the Law, and that in the most favourable Translation to the Dr's Cause, tis euident that to worship God himself by an Image is not expressly prohibited in it.

And the Euidence of this is so great,

that although Dr. St. in his late D••f••nce spend aboue a 100. Pages about the Sense of the Second Commandment, yet he neither endeavours to remove the Contradictions,, nor answer the Argu∣ments of T. G. His whole business there is to Criticize vpon the Exceptions which T. G. had made to the several Methods he proposed for the finding out, the Sense of the Law. A very pleasant diversion if you consider it well. I pro∣posed, * 1.57 saith he, several Methods for the finding out the Sense of the Law. The first whereof was from the Ge∣neral terms in which the Law was Ex∣pressed (viz the terms, Image, and Simi∣litude.) And that we might be sure to take notice of it he gives us the same Item when he comes to the Second: The second way, saith he, I proposed to find * 1.58 out the sense of the Commandment was from the Reason of it. And so when he comes to the Third. The last way, * 1.59 I proposed to find out the sense of the Law, was from the Judgment of the Law-giver in the Case of the Golden Calf. And who can chuse but wonder to see so many ways and Methods pur∣sued, so much pains and labour spent

(not to say lost) to seek out what was Express in the Text and plain to be seen without more ado? What need such beating the Hedges and Bushes to find out the Game, if it show it self fairly in the Open Feild? Hunters sometimes will pass by a Hare in the Form, and let the ••ounds loose to find her out by the Sent. But these are such as hunt more for their Pleasure and Exercise, than for the Game.

Cathar.

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

Eunom.

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

Cathar.

No fear at all of that. The very Charge of Idolatry secures it to him: For (as my good Friend, Patronus bo∣nae * 1.60 Fidei observes) The Puritans (who ground themselues upon that charge) do not so easily become Papists, as those of the Church of England who take

other ways; whose consanguinity (as he calls it) in life and discipline with the Pa∣pists carries them ouer to them upon the least impulse, as might be insta••••'d in many, whose names you may find in a litle Book called Legenda lignea: Whereas on the contrary, the l••f••, the doctrine and discipline of th•• P••ritans, as approaehing nearer to the Apostolick, make them more averse and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against the Papists, and very hardly or never to pass over to them.

Eun.

This is a notable Observation indeed, and perhaps may hold better, for the ••anaticks or the Turks, than the Puritans. But Mr. Thorndike had a different esteem of the matter, when weighing in his Ju••t Weight ch. 2. what we get 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Cha••ge of Idolatry and Antichrist, he app••als to the Judg∣ment of men of discretion, Wh••ther This be not the rea••on of that which wise men haue observed, that the passage from the one Extream to the other is more easy and frequent among us, than from the mean to the Extream. For when a No∣vice, saith he, grounded upon this Sup∣position is forced from his Ground upon Remonstrance of such Reasons (as may

be and are produced against it) how rea∣dy is He to fall into the Snare of the Missionaries. And there upon it is, that he advises them not to lead the People by the Nose; to belieue, they can proue their Supposition, when They cannot; and then expect that it be maintained by Those that own the Church of Rome for a true Church, ond therefore must con∣tradict themselues, if they maintain it. What Dr. St. should haue done was to remove the Contradictions, objected to him, and answer the Arguments of T. G. and not go a coursing for his pleasure with new ways and Methods to find out that which himself affirms to be so cleer∣ly Expressed in the Second Command∣ment, that it cannot enter into his mind, how God should haue forbidden it by more express and Emphatical words, * 1.61 than he hath done. But of this I may haue occasion to speak again here after. Let us now, if you please, adjourn till another time.

THE FIFTH DIALOGVE.

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 * 1.62 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 * 1.63 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 * 1.64 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 * 1.65 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 * 1.66 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 * 1.67 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 * 1.68 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 * 1.69 the Church of England. 2^ly not with∣out * 1.70 offering violence to the 39. Arti∣cles. 3^ly not without denying or assigning * 1.71 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 * 1.72 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. * 1.73

Lastly not without subverting all * 1.74 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

• * 1.1

  Ep, De∣dic.
• * 1.2

  Gen: Preface.
• * 1.3

  Rom Idol: p. 209.
• * 1.4

  Sp••c. p. 49.
• * 1.5

  Preface to Rom. Idol.
• * 1.6

  Cyprian Angl. pag. 342 2. Edit.
• * 1.7

  chap. 19
• * 1.8

  Prodr. p. 77.
• * 1.9

  Andr. Resp. ad Apol. Bellar.
• * 1.10

  c. 1. Thornd Epil. p. 350.
• * 1.11

  Bellarm de Euch. li. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.12

  P. 61.
• * 1.13

  P, 62.
• * 1.14

  Cath. no Idol. p. 144. Epil. 3. P. p. 363.
• * 1.15

  Of the Church li. 3. c. 36.
• * 1.16

  Gagg. p. ••18.
• * 1.17

  To. ••. li. 2. c. 8.
• * 1.18

  Cyprian. Angl. pag. 193.
• * 1.19

  Ibid. p. 132.
• * 1.20

  Prodr. p▪ 76.
• * 1.21

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. to 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Ido¦l••••.
• * 1.22

  Art. 22.
• * 1.23

  Cath. no Idol p: 197.
• * 1.24

  p. 877.
• * 1.25

  Iust vveights chap. 1.
• * 1.26

  Iren. p. 405.
• * 1.27

  Cypr. Ang••. P. 391.
• * 1.28

  P. 141.
• * 1.29

  pag. 8.
• * 1.30

  Defence. P. 141.
• * 1.31

  Cath. no I••ol. p. 5.
• * 1.32

  p. 9.
• * 1.33

  ••. 9. 10.
• * 1.34

  Rom. Idol. p. 50.
• * 1.35

  Iren. p. 118.
• * 1.36

  Cath. no Idol. p. 14.
• * 1.37

  p. 7••9.
• * 1.38

  p. 791.
• * 1.39

  p. 788.
• * 1.40

  p. 785.
• * 1.41

  Def. p. 783.
• * 1.42

  Cath. no Idol. p. 175.
• * 1.43

  Pref. •••• Cath. no Idol.
• * 1.44

  Pref. to Rom. Id••l.
• * 1.45

  Iust. vveight. ch. 1.
• * 1.46

  Chap. 2.
• * 1.47

  Iren. p. 62.
• * 1.48

  Of Schis. ch. 1. Sect. 6. 7. 8.
• * 1.49

  Ch. 2
• * 1.50

  Ansvv. 10 N. O. ••. 180.
• * 1.51

  p. 33.
• * 1.52

  Cath. ••o Idol. p. 33.
• * 1.53

  Cath••. no. Idol. p. 36.
• * 1.54

  Li de Vnit. Eccl. c. 19.
• * 1.55

  Def. p. 785.
• * 1.56

  Gathar. no Idol. p. 38.
• * 1.57

  P. 720.
• * 1.58

  P. 73••.
• * 1.59

  P. 747.
• * 1.60

  Spec. p. 44.
• * 1.61

  Rom. Idel p. ••8.
• * 1.62

  P. 273.
• * 1.63

  Defens. verit. p. 1••.
• * 1.64

  p. 181.
• * 1.65

  p. 26••.
• * 1.66

  p. 269.
• * 1.67

  General ••••••face,
• * 1.68

  Ep. D••∣dic. to his De∣fence.
• * 1.69

  Dial. 1.
• * 1.70

  Dial. 2.
• * 1.71

  Dial. 3.
• * 1.72

  Dial. 4.
• * 1.73

  Dial. 3. 4.
• * 1.74

  ••īal. 5.