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 SIXTH DIALOGVE

THE ARGUMENT.

THe Church of Rome not justly char∣geable either for not reserving any External Act of Re••igious worship pro∣per to God, or for giving a••y appropria∣te to God, to Creatures. The Dr. un happy again in his citing of Card. Lugo; and his arguments from the Text. Matth. 3. 10. and the term, Religious worship, solved by his own distin••tions. No succou•• tō his cause from the determination of Circumstances, as ass••gned by him. Mr. Dai••lés doctrine, that signs instituted by men to signify any thing, though of Re∣ligion, are to be interpreted by the pu∣blik Practice of those who use them, a very Just Discharge to the Dr's unjust Charge of Idolatry, in the particular In∣stances, of Invocation, Erecting Temples burning Incense, &c▪ as tbey are practi∣ced in the Ch. of Rome: and T, Gs. An∣swer to the Dr's old Scruple, why Sacri∣sice may not be used to the Saints, in like māner os other External acts are, shown to have been pertinent and satisfac∣tory. A Friendly Advice to him out of St. Augustin.

EVNOMIVS. CATHARINVS,

EVn.

It was agreed between us as I re∣member, at our last parting, that al∣though those of the Church of Rome could not be convicted of Idolatry, yet if they could be proved guilty of damna∣ble sin in the manner of their worship, it would be sufficient to make all those who have a care of their Salvation to ab∣hor the Communion of that Church. But how this can be made out I am yet to seek. For particular Abuses that may happen, they are not the subject of our presēt debate; but speaking of the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Coun∣cils, and the practice conformable to that doctrine, I do not remember that Mr. Thorndike any where chargeth it with ••in, if rightly understood and put in prac∣tice accordingly. If you have met with any thing in the Dr. which you think evinces it, I pray let me hear it.

Cathar.

Enough I think and more than enough; For a man may sin against the vertue of Religion two manner of wayes; either by not giving to God the

worship due to him, or by giving the wor∣ship due only to him to creatures. And I take those of the Church of Rome to be guilty in both. For 1. as Dr. St. saith, * 1.1 although in the general they confess that there ought to be some peculiar acts of Di∣vine worship, as most agreable to Gods incommunicable Excellencie: yet when they deliver their minds freely, they re∣serve * 1.2 no one act of External Adoration as proper to God, and to be performed by all Christians, as Cardinal Lugo, he saith, expressly affirmeth, whom he the rather mentions, because of his great Au∣thority and Eminency, and writing since the rest. 2. They give all the external acts of Adoration to Saints and Images which they do to God, where as the doing of this is absolutely forbidden by Christ * 1.3 himself, when he said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt * 1.4 thou serve; which was certainly under∣stood of an External act of worship, for the devil had said to him Fall down and worship me: A place so Evident that it blinds the Papists with the light of it.

Eun:

Here Catharinus, to be sure not to miss, you have loaded your Gun with a double charge. But still I see no Execu∣tion

done, the former only cutting the ayr, and the latter losing its force against the hard wall. To make this clear, I shall lay down these three Postu∣lata's, and I call them so because I think the Dr. himself will not deny them.

The First is, that the Law of nature * 1.5 teaching, that man ought to use some External acts to testify his submission to God, there ought in reason to be some peculiar external Acts appropriated to the worship of God, as most agreable to his incommunicable Excellencie.

The 2. That the Appropriation which any such External acts had only by the * 1.6 Law of Moses, being taken away by the ceasing of that Law, they are left to their own nature, unless appropriated a new by the Law of Christ, or some lawful Authority under him.

The 3. That the Church having Power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, where nothing doth appear contrary in the * 1.7 Law of Christ, it belongs to her also to declare the Vse and Signification of them: and if after this any Scrupulous Conscience boggle at the doing of them, The Advantage is on the Churches side, ••nd her Authority ought to overrule the

practice of those who are her members.

These things supposed cleer and un∣deniable, as being either expressly asser∣ted, or implied by the Dr. in the Places cited in the margent, J answer to the dou∣ble charge you have made: that the Word Adoration, as the Dr. himself hath ob∣served, (and by this at present as well as * 1.8 some other distinctiōs he afterward gives the world may see he knew very well how to answer his own Arguments though he thought fit to leave the Ap∣plication of them to others:) The word Adoration, I say, may according to him, be taken either for all the External Acts of Religious worship, as John 4. 20. Acts 8. 27. (as it is usually taken by Controver∣tists in the matter of Idolatry, which may be committed in them all.) Or it may be taken more strictly, (as it is in the disputes of the Schools) for that Act of Religious worship which is performed by the motion of the body, as bowing, kneel∣ing, Prostration, and the like. If it be ta∣ken the first way it is certain, that those of the Church of Rome haue one ex∣ternal Act at least of Religious worship proper to God, viz the Sacrifice (as they call it) of the Masse, or the Oblation of

the Body and Bloud of Christ our Lord in the Eucharist, which they deny may be given to any creature, and whereas the Dr. cites Cardinal Lugo, asserting that there is no one external act of Adora∣tion * 1.9 which is proper to Latria, or the wor∣ship peculiar to God, the Jesuits will say that he evidently abuses both his Autho∣rity and his Eminency. For the Cardinal doth not say this, as denying Sacrifice to be an external act of worship proper to God, (which is what the Dr. insinuates by his unfaithfull relation of his words) but because he thinks it not properly an act of Adoration as taken in it's stric∣ter sense, but of another kind distinct from it, yet so that he acknowledges it to be truly and properly an act of Reli∣gious worship, and such an one to use his own express words, qui non potest offerri nisi soli Deo, as may not be offered but to God alone. So unhappy is the Dr in his citations to say no worse at present: and I can not but wonder to see you after so much Experience to build any thing vpon them. But who is there, that will take the pains to compare them? The Romanists then haue one external Act of Religious worship viz Sacrifice which

they acknowledge so proper to God, that it may not be offered but to h••m a∣lone, And I see no reason, why the Solemn Prayers they make, at the time of offe∣ring the Sacrifice, to God as the Su∣pream and only Author of our being, and given of every good and Perfect Gift, (many of which are inserted in to the Liturgy of the Church of England, and are esteemed the Principal Part of the Religious worship she gives to God,) may not by the Institution and Ʋse of them in that Church to God alone, be reckoned for another. And so the Church of Rome hath one external act of Religious wor∣ship appropriated to G••d, if the Eucha∣ristical Sacrifice be truly and properly such, as they say it is, more than I believe you will allow the Church of England to have.

But then, if Adoration be taken in the stricter scnse for those acts of Religious worship which are performed meerly by, the motion of the body: they may be understood either all of them to be abso∣lutely so appropriated to G••d, that it is not lawful vpon any account to give any of them to any other, and then the Qua∣kers will be the only Christians in the

world not chargeable with sin for doing them especially when there is no necessity at all of doing them to any other; as * 1.10 Dr. St. agreably to the Genius of that people objects to T. G. vpon a like oc∣casion. Or only some of them and not other••, as kneeling and prostrating but not bowing: And then the Dr. must tell us▪ what makes the discrimination be∣tween the one and the other. Or they may be understood, as qualified with such a determination of circumstancet, as makes them to be signs and tokens of the worship proper only to God: and then those of the Church of Rome deny they give any such to any but to God: and think they are as much at liberty to use them toward Images or Saints, whē they are understood by the Churche's declaration, as expressions of an inferiour worship, as the Church of England is to use bowing to the Altar; and why kneeling or prostrating may not be so circum∣stanc'd as well as bowing, I do not under∣stand. As for the words of Christ▪ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, which you say are so evident that they blind the Papists with their light, I grant they were un∣derstood

not only o•• an In••ernal but an External act also: but the Occasion was such as the Dr himself tells us, as required * 1.11 no respect of any other kind: And who is so blind as not to see, that the Prohibi∣tion of the Law fell vpon it as deter∣min'd to be a sign of Religious worship by the circumstances in which it was re∣quired. And consequently where there is no such a determination of Circumstan∣ces, the Law is not concerned.

Cathar.

I like not these d••stinctions of yours Eun••mius, nor indeed any distinc∣tions at all, where God interposes in the * 1.12 case: for I see if we admit any, we shall be driven at last to submit to the Judg∣ment of the Church, rather than of any private man: and this will spoile all. Hath not God forbidden any Religious worship to be given to any besides him when he commands that all Religious worship without distinction be given to himself, as it is plain he hath by that Law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. And where the Law doth not distinguish what pre∣sumption is it in us to do it?

Eun:

This is another excellent Prin∣ciple of the Drs to uphold the Quakers in

their absurd fancy of denying to give any External honour to a creature. And although he call this a Venemous insi∣nuation in T. G. yet it follows clearly * 1.13 from the general Principle vpon which he goes for if the Law commandeth all worship to be given to God alone without distinction, what presumption will they say is it in us to distinguish between Civil and Religious where the Law doth not? But what matters it whose cause we vphold, if we can but throw down that of the Church of Rome? And yet I do not so much wonder at this in the Dr. as to see him presume to distinguish where the Law doth not, even in Religious worship, when God himself, as he saith, hath commanded that all Religious wor∣ship without distinctiō be givē to himself. For it is he that tells us, that worship may be said to be Religious two wayes. 1^st. as it is required by the Rule of Reli∣gion and so the worship given to Magis∣trates is * 1.14 Religious. 2. In its nature and cir∣cumstances, as it consists of those acts which God hath appropriated to his wor∣ship, or is attended with those circum∣stances which make it a Religious perform¦ance, and thus it is not to be given to

Princes or any creatures, but only to God himself. So that here we have two sorts of Religious worship, the one properly, the other improperly so called. In like manner he aknowledges that the Reve∣rence given to Holy Places and Things may be called a Religious Respect upon * 1.15 account of the Relation they have to God. Again the honour, saith he, we haue for the Saints may be called Religious ho∣nour, because it is vpon the account of those we may call Religious Excellencies, as they are distinguished from meer natu∣ral Endowments and Civil Accomplish∣ments. And now if the divines of the Church of Rome when they call the Res∣pect they give to Saints and Images Re∣ligious, declare they do it not, but vpon some of the fore mentioned accounts given by the Dr. viz either as those Ex∣ternal Acts are required by the Rule of Religion, or for such Excellencies as he grants we may call Religious, or for the Relation the things to which they are gi∣ven have to God, which is the very rea∣son himself gives, why that may be called Religious respect, which is given to the Altar, I would gladly know why the same distinction may not be allowed to

Sempronius, which is to Titius.

Cathar.

The reason I conceive is be∣cause nothing will serve the Papists for their Saints and Images but Religious worship, and although the Dr. do grant. that the Reverence given to Holy Pla∣ces and Things may be called a Reli∣gious Respect, and the Honour we give to the Saints a Religious Honour; yet he will not admit of Religious worship to any but to God alone, because that in∣cludes submission as to a Superiour. And accordingly where he calls that a Reli¦gious Respect, which was given by Ne∣buchadnezzar to Daniel Dan. 2 46. he * 1.16 saith it was done out of an Opinion of great sanctity without superiority. So also he * 1.17 grants that the meer External Act of Adoration in bowing or kneeling may be given both on the account of Excellencie and superiority, as some of the Patriarchs he saith bowed to Angels, as a token of honour of their Excellencies, and not out of Religious worship: and men may bow and kneel to their Soveraign Princes on the account of Civil worship: and Chil∣dren to their Parents in token of their subjection to them, as well as Creatures to their Creator in their solemn Acts of

de••otion, but, he saith, that in all these cases, the different signification of these Acts is to be gathered f••om the Circum∣stances of them.

Eun:

Here Catharinus you have hea∣ped many things, or rather words toge∣ther. Among the rest you say, the Dr. will not admit any worship to be called Religious, but what is due to God alone. And I dare undertake the Church of Rome will never refuse him Communion for it. For where I pray, do you find, that that Church hath declared Religious worship to be due to Saints and Images? There is no such Expression in any of the Decrees of her Councils obliging those of her Communion so much as to call it so: nor any mention at all made of it in them. And if some of the Schoolmen use that term, it is (as they declare them selves) vpon some of the former accounts acknowledged by the Dr. himself to be sufficient to give the denomination of Religious, as of Relation to God or the Saints when done to Images, or of some Supernatural Excellencie, when gi∣ven to Saints. But I do not see why ac∣cording to his own Principles there may not be a Religious worship due vpon some

account to a creature, as well as a Religious Rspect, or a Religious Honour. For, may there not be a middle kind of Superiority, as well as Excellencie? Such I take the Authority of Bishops to be, whom the H. Ghost, as the Apo∣stle saith, hath placed to govern the Church; not Divine, because that is in∣communicable to any creature, nor meerly Civil or Natural because not founded vpon any such Accounts, but of a middle rank or nature between both. And if the honour giuen for Such an Excellencie, may be called Religious honour, why may not the worship due to such a superiori••y be called Religious wor∣ship? The Dr. indeed tel••s us, that when Nebuchadnezzar fell vpon his face and worshipped Daniel? he did it out of an Opinion of great Sanctity without superio∣rity: But it is but his saying, and the Inten∣tiō of the giver being secret, I wōder how the Dr. could know so precisely how farr it went: and the more, because the Pro∣stration there given was an act of Ado∣ration; for the Text saith not that he honoured, but that he worshipped Da∣niel, and then addes withall, that he commanded that they should offer an

Oblation and sweet Odours (or In∣conse) to him, which by the consent of mankind at that time were understood to be aknowledgments of superiority. But to let that pass, Put case, that God had constituted Daniel the God of Ne∣buchadnezzar as he did Moses the God of Pharaoh, in that cass I suppose the act of Prostration might haue been given vpon the account of his Superiority, as well as Sanctity, and so would haue been an Act of Religious worship, as gi∣ven vpon account of Superiority, which was neither divine nor Civil; as well as of Religious Respect, because given vpon account of such an Excellencie.

Again, the Dr. granting (as he doth,) that the meer External Act of Adora∣tion in bowing or kneeling may be given both on the account of honour and wor∣ship i. e. vpon the account of Excellen∣cie, as when some of the Patriarchs bowed to Angels, and of superiority, as when men bow and kneel to their sove∣raing Princes, and Children to their Pa∣rents, and that in all these cases the dif∣ferent signification of these acts is to be gathered from the Circumstances of them, I would gladly know, why an act Account

of Religious worship given vpon the Account of such a superiority as I haue described, may not be discerned, not to be properly Religious, as well as an act of Religious Respect upon the account of a like Excellencie? But how comes the Dr. after all the great bustle he makes about God's appropriating external acts of worship to himself, to put the Tryal of his cause at last upon the determina∣tion of Circumstances? I confess he must needs see it would come to this at length, all Appropriation by vertue of the law of Moses being taken away, and no express declaration of the Will of Christ produced by him, appropriating them anew. But then again he could not be ignorant how hazardous is must be for him to venture upon it: For if the External acts of worship given to Crea∣tures in the Church of Rome chance to prove accōpanied with such Circūstances by which they may and generally are understood ••ot to be Acts of divine wor∣ship, but of an inferiour Veneration, I do not see but that they are to be ac∣quitted not only of Idolatry, but of sin in doing them, according to the Dr's

own Principles.

Cathar.

Here you touch upon a Point, wherein the Dr. comes vp close indeed with the Papists, and utterly confounds them. For as he hath well observed, the worship for example I giue to the King, * 1.18 doth not take its denomination from my Intention, but from the nature of the Act, which being Civil, the worship continues to bear that name. By which we see, saith he, that the External circumstances, which do accompany mens Acts, are those which do so circumscribe and limit them, that from thence they become either Civil or Religious. And he freely * 1.19 acknowledgeth, that there is the same nature in these Acts, that there is in words of different significations, which being taken in general are of an Equivo∣cal sense; but being considered with all their particular circumstances, they haue their sense so restrained, and limi∣ted, that it is easy to discern the one from the other. That therefore, saith he, we call Religious Adoration which is perfor∣med with all the circumstances o•• Reli∣gious worship, as to time, place, occasion, and such like; as if men used prostration to any thing within the Courts of the

Temple (wherein some of the Jews thought that posture only lawful,) If it were done in the time of Sacrifice or devo∣tion: if the Occasion were such as requi∣red no respect of any other kind, as when the devil demanded of Christ to f••ll down, and worship him. In these and such like circumstances, we say, saith he, that Adoration hath the determin'd significa∣tion of Religious worship, and is an ap∣propriate sign of it by Gods own Institu∣tion. And upon this account it is, that he charges those of the Church of Rome for the Adoration they give to Saints and Images by bowing, kneeling, &c. in the Church, and in the most solemn Acts of devotion.

Eun.

This is one of those Popular dis∣courses which take much with the Vul∣gar. But how impregnable soevet it may appear to those who judge of things by the show they make, yet upon Examina∣tion it will be found as incoherent and weak as an Adversary would wish. For 1. If it be true, as the Dr. saith, that the worship takes it denomination from the nature of the Act, I confess I do not see, how it follows from thence, (though the Dr. say he doth) that the External Cir∣house

cumstances which do accompany men's acts, are those which do so circumscribe and limit them that from thence they become either Civil or Religious. Those who haue but peeped through Aristotles key-hole, (as he saith) tell us that Acts take their nature from the formal Reason or Account upon which they tend to their Objects, and that from thence they become either Civil or Religious, though they may receive another deno∣mination from the circumstances which do accompany them. But I question much whether the meer Circumstances of Time, and Place, and such like, as assigned by the Dr. be sufficient in the present case to give such a denomination▪ For

2. If these be the Circumstances, which do so restrain and limit the signifi∣cation of External Acts, that it is easy to discern one worship from another, how will he make it out, that the People did not give Religious worship to David, when in a most solemn Act of Devotion, wherein David having blessed the Lord before all the Congregation and exhorted the People to do the like, saying, Now * 1.20 Bless you the Lord God: it follows imme∣diately,

And all the Congregation bles∣sed the Lord God of their Fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king. Where we see the same act and at the same time, a time of solemn devotion, given to God and the king, and the People never charged for giving Religious worship to the king.

3. In case the first Christians being met together to pray, and St James their Bishop passing by, they should haue kissed the hemme of his garment, and desired his Benediction in the posture they were in upon their knees, (and the same is of a child at his Prayers, to his Father,) I cannot think that the Dr. himself, had he been present, would haue condemned them of damnable sin for it, or even scrupled the doing of it himself.

4. When Naaman desired to be per∣mitted by the Prophet to go with his Hea∣then Master into the house of Rimmon (of which I shall give you a farther account by and by out of Dr Hammond,) and (when the master worship'd there, and lean'd upon his hand) to bow in the house of Rimmon, the Prophet bad him Go in peace; which surely he would not haue done, had the very bowing in the

and presence of an Idol, and in the very time of worship, been Religious wor∣ship or Idolatry.

5. The External Act of bowing to the Ark among the Jews was, and to the Al∣tar in the Church of England is perfor∣med in the time and place of divine wor∣ship, and yet the Dr. denies them to be Religious worship; t'is not then from those Circumstances precisely that wor∣ship becomes Religious.

6. Lastly, if there be the same nature in these Acts, that there is in words of different signifieations; as those words being differently applied, may bear the same significations in Religious matters, which they do in others, whether they be spoken in the Church or else where; in the time of divine service, or out of it; as the word Father applied to God, or to him from whom we received our Being under God, or the word Light applied to Christ himself, or his disciples; or the words, Give; Help, &c. applied to God, or to Angels and men; and the same is of the words, Advocate, Mediator, Inter∣cessor, &c. as applied to Christ, or to Holymen: As these, I say, and the like words being thus differently applied bear the same significations in Religious mat∣ters,

which they do in others; So also the Acts of bowing, kneeling &c. being differently applied, may signify the same in the time and place of Religious wor∣ship, as being so applied they would do out of it, as you haue seen in the Exam∣ples before alledged, of the People to David, of Naaman to his Master, of the Jews to the Ark, and of Christians to the Altar in solemn Acts of devotion. And consequently, although the Circum∣stances of time and place may contribute in due occasion to show the difference of one Act from another; yet it is, as they stand under other Qualifications, which afford a sufficient Ground to judge of the nature of the Acts, whether they be Civil or Religious, and whether properly Religious, or improperly only, for some Excellency or Superiority not meerly Natural or Civil. And those are. 1. The different Objects to which they are ap∣plied, as to God, or the Saints, or the King, &c. 2. Some Publick Profession or Protestation, manifesting that they are applied to such Objects upon different accounts. 3. The eommon consent or Vse by which such Acts are generally under∣stood to be applied to such Objects, upō

such differēt Accounts. And where th••se three conditiōs cōcurr, they give sufficiēt ground to make a different iudgment of the Acts, be the Circumstances of time * 1.21 and place what they will, as Dr. Ham∣mond himself confesses in the afore-men∣tioned case of Naaman. For having ob∣served, as he doth, (and he saith it is an Ordinary Observation) that Aliens, Proselytes of other nations were not bound to that strictness of submitting to every rite and positive precept of the Law, as the Jews were, instancing particularly in that of not bowing to the king in the presence of an Idol, which

the Jews he saith, at least accounted themselves obliged not to do, and supposing it to be the Com∣mon custome and practice in Syria to pay Veneration, even Prostration to the king, he tells us, that Naaman was permitted by the Prophet to go with his Heathen Master into the house of Rimmon, and (when the Master worship'd there, and lean'd upon his hand) to bow himself in the house of Rimmon 2. kings 5. 18. upon this ground, 1. that he never wēt into the Idol-Temple, but to wait upon his Master in the Office which he had. 2^ly, that he profess't himself to all (even to that Heathen Master, and those that

werein his Court) to be a worshipper of none, but of the true God; and to that end carried two mule-loads of earth out of Palestine with him v. 17. in ho∣nour of him, whose name was great there, and to build an Altar according to th•• Prescript Ex. 20. 24 by which it was s••fficiently clear to the beholders, (as by an Interpretative Protestation) that when his Master worshipt, he only bowed and then his bowing was only Civil to his Master the king, not Religious to Rimmon or Saturn, or his Image there. And therefore to his Question, whether God would be offended with him in that matter, the Prophet answers him with a [Go in peace.] I cannot think so irre∣verently of the Prophet, as that he should make that answer Ironically to his new Convert, (any more then I can belieue N••aman's scruple belong'd only to the former part of his life (reading it in the Praeter sense:) For sure that had been guilty of the worshipping the Idol, and not only bowing in the house of Rim∣mon:) but that he meant in earnest, what alone the words import, that in thus doing, and no more, he need not fear that he should be a breaker of that law, which in this particular was not given

to him, or any, but those of that Na∣tion, or People of the Jews. Where you see that the whole Resolution of the case in the iudgment of that Eminent divine of the Church of England, depends upon the three afore-mentionned con∣ditions of the Object to which the act of bowing was applied, the common practice in Sy••ia of paying that Veneration to the king. and a Publick Pr••testation that he intended not that worship to the Idol, but to his Master, and not on the Cir∣cumstances of time and place, which in that occasion were over-ruled by those other.

The Fundamental reason of this is given by Monsieur Daillé an Eminent divine of the Reformed Church in France; and because his Authority may sway much with you, I shall give it in his own words. Signs, saith he, instituted by * 1.22 men to signify any thing, whether of na∣ture or Religion, are to be interpreted by the publick and common practice of those who use them, and not by the secret and particular Intentions of this or that Per∣son. I grant, saith he, that of themselves and of their own nature, very many of them do not signify one thing more then another; and that those which have a na∣tural

relation to the things signified, haue it not so necessarily annexed to them, that it might not have been lawfull frō the be∣ginning to have us'd them otherwise. But after that the Will of man, which is the Mistresse of such Institutions, hath addi∣cted and dedicated them to a certain si∣gnification, and Publick Vse hath con∣firm'd it, Iaverr, that afterwards to use them in anotbersense is Intolerable Im∣pertinency, and that he that so uses them, is to be accounted for a Fool and a Lyer among all Wise men &c. Thus Monsieur Daillé.

And now to come to the case of the Church of Rome; Although the R••∣manists do give those External acts of Adoration, which are performed by the motion of the body, as bowing, knee∣ling, &c. to Saints and Images, and that in the Church, and in the solemn acts of devotion: Yet these Signs being such as of their own nature are Equivocal, and so subject to the will of men, and there being extant a Publick Profession of that Church, and that confirmed by the Pu∣blick and common Practice, not only of the Roman, but of the whole Chris∣tian world before Luther, (and of the

far greater part of it still,) that when ap∣plied to Saints or Images; they are used as Tokens or Expressions of an Inferiour respect or Veneration, I see if we mete with Monsieur Daillès measures, it can be no other than Intolerable Impertinen∣cie, to restrain and limit them to another Sense, and They who will needs take them in such a restrained sense, that they may charge those who use them in the manner aboue declared, with Idolatry or other damnable Sin, will fall within the number of those who by his verdict are to be accounted for F••ols or Lyers among all Wise men; Atleast if we weigh with Mr. Thorndike's Weights, they must be guilty of a strange Vncharitable Opiniatorness in supposing them to contradict themselves.

Cathar.

I confess••, if it be true what Mr. Dail••é saith, that Signs instituted by M•••• to signify any thing, whether of Nat••re or Religion, are to be interpreted by the common and Publick Practice of th••s•• who use them, I do not see but the Papists haue as f••ir▪ (if not a fairer Plea••,) that they ought to be understood in the Sense they declare themselves▪ as the Church of England hath for bowing

to the Altar by it's declaring; that they intend not thereby to give any Religious worship to the Communion Table. For if Number and Continuance weigh any thing in this Case (as certainly they ought in such Institutions as depend upon the Will of men) I conceive the Publick Profession and Agreement both of the Eastern and Western Churches for so many ages together in performing those external acts of Adoration towards Saints and Images, will out-weigh without comparison the Declaration and agreement of the Church of England for bowing to the Altar. But then again, What colour soever you may pretend from the Will of Men, (which you say, is the Mistress of such Institutions) to smooth ouer the practice of the Pa∣pists in giving such External Acts of Adoration as are performed by the mo∣tion of the body, as bowing, kneeling, &c to Saints and Images, (they being in their own nature such as the Dr. grants may be used to God and the creatures): Yet this will not serve for those other acts of Re∣ligious worship, as Sacrifice, Building of Temples and Altars, Burning of In∣cense, Solemn Invocation, and making

of Vows, which God himself hath appro∣priated to his own worship. And who dares alter what God himself hath appointed? * 1.23

Eun.

No man surely I think will be so hardy: but then we ought to consi∣der, how and in what manner the ap∣pointment is made. Otherwise the Pro∣position [who dares alter what God hath appointed?] crudely and unlimitedly ta∣ken, as it is put by the Dr, is that very Principle, vpon which the Anabaptists ground themselves for not swearing, and the Quakers for not calling any man Master. For if God, say they, haue commanded not to swear at all, and for∣bidden his disciples to be called Ma∣sters, who dares alter what God himself hath appointed? But this by the by, to let you see what kind of Principles the Dr. makes use of to combate the Church of Rome.

As for the Objections themselves, although they haue been answered a hundred times over by those of the Church of Rome, yet because you press them anew, I answer, that the Appropriation which all or any of these acts are supposed to haue had only

by the Law of Moses, being taken away by the ceasing of that Law, as I shewed before, and no new appropria∣tion or Prohibition by any express Law of Christ produced hitherto by the Dr. they are to be reckoned in the number of those Rites and Ceremonies which the Church hath power to decree and use as she iudges expedient, and their signification is to be taken from the Pu∣blick Profession and Agreement of those that use them. No new Appropriation, I say, produced by the Dr. which I desire you to observe, because those of the Church of Rome maintain their Sacri∣fice of the Masse, to be of Christ's own Institution, and so not to be given to any Creature.

Here then it is, that we are to consi∣der in what sense it is that those of the Church of Rome give the rest of these external acts to the Saints. For the Will of men being the Mistress of such Insti∣tutions, they ought both in reason and Charity to be understood, as they de∣clare they use them: This I think cannot be denied by the Dr. himself, when to iustify the lawfullness of bowing to the Altar, he appeals to the declaration of

the Church of England, as your self but even now observed. Let us then see in what sense it is that these acts are used by those of the Church of Rome to the Saints. And

1. For the Invocation of Saints, they declare they mean no more by it, then having recourse to their ayd and assistāc•• to obtain by their Intercession Benefits of God through the merits of his only Son and our only Redeemer Jesus Christ.

2. For the building of Temples and Altars, they declare, that the structures so called, may be considered, either as Places designed for the offering of Sa∣crifice and so they ••rect none but to God alone, as they offer Sacrifice to him a∣lone, though in memo••y and honour of the Saints: Or as more Noble Monu∣ments to preserve their Reliques and Memory, and more affectuously implore their Intercession. And that they are commonly called Temples or Churches, and Altars from the relation they haue to the Sacrifice, which is offered in them to God alone, and that Solemn In∣vocation which is made to him, as the only Giver of every good and perfect Gift.

3. For the burning of Incense, the Appropriation it had by the Law of Moses being taken away, and Idoiatry extirpated, which made use of it as an act of Religious worship to Palse Gods, (both of them sufficient reasons, whilst they subsisted, for Hezekiah's breaking to peices the brazen serpent, when he saw the people offer Incense to it) and so the act left to its own nature, which the Dr. himself grants to be the same with that of the outward acts of Adora∣tion, and that T. G. was so farr in the right when he said, that burning of In∣cense * 1.24 w••t a Ceremony of the like nature with bowing, those of the Church of Rome declare that they do not use it to Saints and Images as a sign of Religious worship, but either as a Ceremony to sig∣nify the sweet odour the Prayers of the Saints are, or the like: or as a token of an Inferiour respect and Veneration.

4. Lastly for making of Vows, they declare, they do not promise any thing to the Saints, in the same sence they do to God, but what they promise to God they promise in token of Gratitudo as to the Author and Give•• of all good things; and what they promise to the Saints,

they promise only in token of Gratitude to them for their Intercession to God.

Now whateuer Cavils men of the Critical Employment may make against this manner of using either these acts or words, and how many ••••••sts soever they may give us of their Office from E••ymologies or the like, t'is ma∣nifest that the Publick Profession and common Practice of those who use them, will over-rule all. For after that th••se kind of signs are addicted to such a signification by the will of men, which is the Mistress of such Institutions, where no Appropriation is made by God, and Publick use hath confirm'd it, I confess I do not see but it must be, as Mr, Daillé saith, Impertinency or Folly to limit and restrain thē to another sense. Nor is this to alter what God hath ap∣pointed, as Dr. St. obiecteth against * 1.25 Bellarmin when he confesseth that the name of Vow is alwaies taken in scripture for a promise made to God. For what God hath appointed is not that we shal not call a Promise made to a Saint in token of Gratitude for his intercession, a Vow: but that we shall not make any such Promise to thē as the Authors or Givers

of the benefits we haue received, or ex∣pect to receive by their Intercession; nor that we shall not call a structure erected in Memory of a Saint, a Temple or Church from the Sacrifice and solemn Invocation that is offered in it to God, but that we shall not erect any such to offer Sacrifice to the Saint, or invocate him as Author of what we ask: it In like manner what God hath appointed▪ is not that we shall not perform such other acts to Saints as may serve to testify the Res∣pect and Esteem we haue for the Excle∣lencies they are endowed with (and the same is of Images for the Relation they bear to God) but that we shall not give them to any besides himself, as tokens of that inward submission of our souls which is proper to him; or as they may rational∣ly be understood to be such, which I do not conceive can ever happen in the case of the Church of Rome towards Saints and Images whilst there is extāt a Publick Prof••ssion of that Church determi∣ning and declaring them to be used to them, as tokens only of an I••f••riour Respect or Veneration, and the Practice supposed conformable to the Profession; which we must necessarily do, unless as

Mr Thorndike saith, we will suppose * 1.26 them to contradict themselves: And then the whole Question will be, whether their Adversaries words are to be taken before theirs, that is, whether their Ad∣versaries understand what they mean, better than they do themselves?

Cathar.

Here Eunomius, I think I may say to you what the Priests and El∣ders * 1.27 did to Christ, but with agreat deal more reason: By what Authority do men these things? And who gaue them this Authority? For if this be not to alter what God hath appointed, and to put it in the Power of man to change those things which God hath made peculiar to himself, I know not what is.

Eun:

And here I think I may ask you a like Question to that which Christ * 1.28 made to the man that called him Good, Why callest thou me Good? None is good, save one that is God? By what Authori∣ty do you give the name of Good to a man whom you esteem Righteous, and some times for fashion's sake too, if God haue appropriated the name of Good to himself? Again if God haue expressly for∣bidden to call any man our Father upon * 1.29 the earth, by what Authority do you

giue the name of Father to any man upon the earth? And if he have forbidden his disciples to be called Masters, by * 1.30 what Authority do you take it your self, or Dr St. give it to the Reverend Master Baxter? when you haue answered these Questions, Catharinus, you will see, and perhaps confess what hitherto you would not, that the different ap∣plying of words, (and it is the same of acts in their own nature Equivocal,) is not to alter what God hath appointed, nor to put in the Power of man to change what God hath made peculiar to himself, but to leave them to God in the Sense, in which they are appropriated to him, and apply them only in another sense to the Creatures.

Cathar.

This I confess is more than hitherto I reflected on. But still there is one thing behind which seems to defeat all that you haue said, and if you can give me a satisfactory Account of it, I shall give you no farther trouble. And it is, why the same may not be done in Sa∣crifice, that is, in other External acts of worship as bowing or kneeling, Erecting of Temples, or burning of Incense? Why may it not be made common as well

as Vows. And though it be offered only * 1.31 absolutely to God, why may it not be offered relatively to the Saints or Ima∣ges? * 1.32 In a word, I desire to know with the Dr how a sacrisice doth come to signify * 1.33 this absolute worship more than Adora∣tion?

Eun:

This is a Scruple, which hath troubled the Drs notions from the begin∣ning; and because he repeats it so often in his Defence. I perceive you think it hath not been answered. But J am of ano∣ther mind. For, if you remember, * 1.34 though T. G. tell him, that he will bet∣ter understand it, when he is become a Proselyte; yet with all he saith, that in the mean time it may suffice him to know that the Church of God hath no such cus∣tome; and that Sacrifice is used and ta∣ken by the Publick Vse and Custome of the Church for an acknowledgment of the absolute worship due to God, and not of Relative to an Image. And I do not see why he might not haue been satisfied with this A••swer.

Cathar.

I cannot but wonder to hear you say so. For as the Dr replies very home upon him: I do not ask, saith he, whether the Church of Rome haue any * 1.35

such custome (the Church of God I know hath not) but whether it may not haue that, as well as some others, and upon the same grounds of Relative worship. But if I must not understand this till I become a Proselyte, I hope I shall be alwaies con∣tented with my Ignorance. If I can be no oth••rwise informed, I am not sorry to see such Evidence of their Inability to an∣swer, who make such put-offs.

Eun.

And I cannot but wonder more, why the Dr. should call that a Put-off, which seems to me to be a very Pertinent Answer to the Question, for as much as concerns the Dispute between him and T. G. And that you may see this more cleerly, let us suppose T. G. to haue ad∣mitted, that possibly Sacrifice might be used, in like manner as other external acts are; all the Dr could in••err from thence to his purpose would be, that in such case the Church of Rome might possibly haue no external act of worship appropriated to God, if▪ she haue none but Sacrifice; but whilst she hath no such custome de facto, as offering Sacrifice to Saints and Images, but to God alone; tis manifest he cannot accuse them in that point of having no External Act of

worship proper to God, or of giving it to any besides him, which I take to be suf∣ficient to repell the Drs charge of actual Idolatry; and why T. G. was bound to any more unless men must be condem∣ned as actual Idolaters, because it is pos∣sible they may be so; or what design the Dr proposed to himself by demanding more, I do not understand.

Cathar.

The design was, as I conceive, to provoke T. G. by often casting this Question in his way to give some reason, why Sacrifice might not be ap∣plied to creatures, in like manner as o∣ther External Acts are. For whateuer reason he should give, why this may not be lawfully done in Sacrifice, would equally show the unlawfulness of doing it in the rest: And therefore the Dr so carnetly presses to know how a sacrifice doth come to signify this absolute worship more then Adoration, that is, bowing, or * 1.36 kneeling, or such like acts performed by the motion of the body?

Eun:

This was a Cunning device in∣deed, but such a one, as it seems T. G▪ was not afraid to speak to. For he tells * 1.37 the Dr 1^st that Sacrifice in general is both by the custome of the Church, and th••

consent of all mankind (as St Augustin teacheth) appropriated to signify the * 1.38 absolute worship due only to God. And 2^ly for the particular Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Christ, the nature * 1.39 and dignity thereof, he saith, requireth that it be offered to God alone. And this I take to be a very plain and positive answer, how a Sacrifice doth come to signify this absolute worship more than Adoration. But since the Dr. is not satisfied with it, I must desire you when you see him next, to tell him that a Friend of yours desires to know, why Invocation (which he will haue to be as much the Proper act of Religious worship in the Church of England, as those of the Church of Rome account Sacrifice to be) may not be applied to Creatures, as well as Supplication, which St Paul reckons among the acts * 1.40 of Relig••o••s worship due to God; and why that may not be made common, as well as Go••d, and Father and Master are, which by Christ's own command in the new Law are appropriated to himself. He cannot recurr to Nature, because he knows words do not signify naturally, but by the Will of men, and

are frequently changed by custome. If he haue recourse to the Imposition and Custome of men determining the word Invocation to signify that sort of address which is proper to God; those of the Church of Rome haue the same and in a more Vniversel manner, for a like determination of the external act of Sa∣crifice in general to signify the absolute worship of God. If to God's Institut••on, they acknowledge the same for the Sa∣crifice of the Body and Bloud of our Lord, which, they say, was instituted by Christ himself at his last supper. Lastly if he fly to distinctions, Sempron••us will think he hath as much r••ght to make use of them, as T••t••us.

Cathar.

This is another of those you call Arguments ad hominem. But still methinks you come not up to what the Dr would hau••: If Sacrifice do signify the Absolute worship of God more than Ado∣ration, is it for that of it self it doth more properly signify our inward and total * 1.41 subjection of our selves to God than the other doth? Methinks as the Dr saith, it would become T. Gs learning to i•• form us in this matter.

Eun:

well; as if T G were bound for

the Dr's pleasure to give such reas••ns, as he would haue; and not what himself thought most proper for the present dispute? Does not the Dr himself in that very place, honour them with the title of the best learned of the Roman divines, who confess that Sacrifice doth n••t natu∣rally * 1.42 or of it self, signify any worship of God, but by the Imposition of men? And do not those other Divines who main∣tain it to signify the ••orship proper to God upon the account of nature, ackno••ledge that it doth so also by the common consent of Mankind? What necessity was there then, that T. G. in a debate with an Adversary, whose Genius and Cause both lead him to multiply Controversies without end, should alledge any other reason, than that in which they all agree? Whether this consent of mankind, in using the destru∣ction of creature•• to signify the supream dominion of God ouer life and de••th, and their Subjection to him, owe it's Ori∣gine to nature, or to some Inspirat••on or command of God given to men in the beginning, or were taken up by their own Voluntary Election, and so propagated to Posterity, the Dr is at

liberty to dispute with the Schoolmen, o•• his own thoughts, as he pleases. It concerns not T. G. It was enough for him that he had the consent of mankind on his side, that Sacrifice was to be offered to none but God.

Cathar.

But do you remember what the Dr addes in that very place now cited by you? How comes the destruction of any * 1.43 Creature, saith he, under our command to signify the inward subjection of our selves to God? What pleasure can we conceive the Almighty should take in seeing us to destroy his creatures for his sak••? Our minds may be as farr from submitting to God, as these things are of themselves from signifying such a sub∣mission. Nay how comes a sacrifice to stand so much in our stead, that because we take away the life of that, ther••fore we own God as our Lord? It might rather of it selfsignify that we haue the power of life and death over Beasts, than that God hath it over us.

Eun:

I remember the passage very well; but I do not remember where T. G. said that th•• destruction of a creature doth of it self signify our subjection to God. What he saith is that this material

action may be done for several ends and Intentions; and is not the Institution of * 1.44 God, or the Imposition of men sufficient to determin it, when used as an act of worship, to signify the absolute worship due to God, but that it must be deter∣min'd of it self? Who ever heard any thing more trifling and frivolou? Is this to reason like a Master in Israel? Pray tell me, Catharinus; do you not think Moses would haue been put shrewdly to it, had Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, instead of seeking the Priest hood, quar∣rel'd at the Sacrifices, and made the same demands to him, which the Dr does to T. G.? For might they not haue said to him (and surely it would haue become Moses his learning to haue in∣formed them in this matter,) How comes the destruction of any creature under our command to signify the inward subjection of our selves to God? What pleasure can we conceive the Almighty should take in seeing us to destroy his creatures f••r his sake? Our minds may be as farr f••om submitting to God, as those things are of themselves from signifying such a sub∣mission. Nay how comes a Sacrifice to stand so much in our sto••d, that because

we take away the life of that, therefor•• we own God as our Lord? It might rather of it self signify that we haue the power of l••fe and death over Beasts, than that God hath it over us. But alas poor men, they were not acquainted with these subtilties. They took it upon the Common consent of all Mankind, that sacrifice was an External Act of worship due to God alone, and so quarrel'd not the offering it to him, as Nonsensical, but affected themselves to haue a share in the honour and Office of the Priest∣hood.

Cathar.

Be it so, if you will of the Jewish sacrifices: But, (as the Dr goes * 1.45 on) of all things in the world, it would never haue come into my mind, nor I think into any man's well in his senses, to offer up God himself unto God as a Sacri∣fice, in order to the testifying the devoting of our selves unto him; and yet this, after all their talk, comes to be that external sacrifice, wbich is the only appropriate sign of the absolute worship of God, viz, the Sacrifice of the Mass, wherein the Priest is believed, to offer up God himself under the species of Bread and Wine to the Eternal God in token of our subjection

to him. M••thinks yet it were some what more reasonable to offer up brute Crea∣tures that are under us, than God that is so infinitely aboue us, and such is the weakness of my understanding, that this seems to be rather an Argument of our Power over God, than of our subjection to him. But since the Formal Reason of a sacrifice is said to lie in the destruction of it. Good Lord! What thoughts must these men haue (if they haue any) when they th••nk it in their power, first to make their God by speaking five words, then to offer him up as a sacrifice, then to suppose him destroyed, and all this to testify their submission to God. I want words, saith he, to Express the intolerable Blasphemy and Absurdity of these things.

Eun:

This I confess, is such a passage which I could not read without horrour, as being not only trifling and Frivolous as the former, but highly Injurious to that inestimable Sac••ifice, which Christ himself offered upon the Cross. For what was it, the Jews were scandaliz'd at in it but the offering of God to God. We preach, saith St Paul, Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks * 1.46 Foolishness. And then again Ch. 2. v. 7.

We speak the Wisdome of God, which had the Princes of this world known they would not haue crucified the LORD of GLORY. And could the Dr find no Stone to throw at the Mass, but that at which the Jews stumbled, and which his Wiser Heathens derided as Foolishness? I wonder he was not afraid of that saying of the same Apostle 1. Cor. 1. 18, The preaching of the Cross is to them that perish Foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the Power of God, when he durst say, Of all things in the world it cannot enter into my mind, nor I think into any man's well in his senses to offer ••y God himself unto God as a Sacrifice? For although he talk of the making and destroying of God in the Mass, yet he knows very well, there is no such thing done or believed to be done there, but that the same Christ who is in Heauen is believed to be whole under either Species; and his Bloud to be separated from his Body not really, but Mystically only and in Representation. But these bugg words were to be thrust in to giue a colour to his Exorbitancie. The main thing he insists upon is the Intolerable Blasphemy and Absurduy, as he calls it,

of offering up God himself unto God as a Sacrifice. But Good Lord! What thoughts must he haue (if he haue any) of the Sacrifice of the Cross? Can it enter into his mind, that Christ himself (with Reverence be it spoken and trembling too) was not well in his senses, when he offered up God himself to God as a Sacrifice? Or that those who were at the foot of the Cross, might not haue offered him up to his Father, who vo∣luntarily offered himself for them, in order to the testifying the devoting them∣selves as sacrifices to (him if he should please to require it,) without losing their senses? If not, why must those be out of their senses, who offer up the same sacrifice to him, and with like de∣votion upon the Altar? This is such an Argument as might haue been expected from the Pen of a Crellius. But I will not suppose the Dr, either to deny with him that Christ was the High God, because he was so kind to T. G. as to * 1.47 suppose he would not deny the Creator and Governour of the world to be the true God; or that Christ did not offer up himself to God, when St Paul saith so * 1.48 expressly, that he gaue himself for us, as

an offering and a sacrifice to God for a s••eet smelling savour, and th••t he who is the Brig••tness of his Fathers Glory, purged * 1.49 our sins by himself: Or that he thinks it as much for the honour of God and the good of our souls to offer the bloud of brute Creatures, viz, of Bulls and of Goats, as the Bloud of Christ who offered * 1.50 himself without spot to Go••. These things I leave, yet withall I cannot omit to tell you, that I see another ground from whence this kind of transport may pro∣ceed, and at what it levels.

Cathar.

Pray let me know what it is.

Eun:

It is that he cannot with any patience endure to hear of the Sacrifice of the Altar, though he be content to bow to it. That must down, though the Sacrifice of the Cross fall with it. And this was it, which when T. G. had said, * 1.51 that that Religion (speaking only in ge∣neral) which admits no external Visible sacrifice, must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the Publick worship of God, made him so sollicitous and eager to repell the very suspition of having any such sacrifice from the Church of * 1.52 England. What External Visible sacri∣fice haue you, saith he (speaking to those

of the Church of Rome) that we haue not, besides that os God himself, whom you be∣lieve to be personally present (as if the Church of England did not) as the Object of divine worship under the species of Bread and Wine? But was this to speak like a Champion of the Church of England? How farr he dissents herein from the sentiments of the true and genuin Sons of this Church, that is (ac∣cording to his own Paraphrase in his General Preface) the most remote from all suspition of dis-affection to her, or Incli∣nation to Puritanism, may easily appear * 1.53 from what that Person of ••reat learning and Excellent Piety, Mr. Thorndike, (as the Dr himself acknowledges him to haue been), hath delivered upon this subject.

Hauing maintained, saith he, that the Elements are really changed from Ordinary Bread and Wine, into the Body and Bloud of Christ, mystically present as in a Sacrament, and that in vertue of the Consecration, not by the Faith of him that receives; I am to ad∣mit and maintain, Whatsoever appears duly consequent to this Truth; namely, that the Elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, in

as much as the Body an Bloud of Christ are con••ained in them. And then farther addes (p. 46.) that the sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily Propitiatory and Impetratory both, it cannot be denied, that the sacrament of the Eucharist in▪ as much as it is the same sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross,—is also both Propitiatory and Impetratory. The same is asserted by Dr He••••lyn in his Necessary Introduction to Cyprianus Anglicus.

Assuredly, saith he, if the Priest and * 1.54 Altar be so near, the Lamb for the Burnt-offe••••••g cannot be farr of, even the most Blessed Lamb of G••d, which takes away the sins of the world, (as the Scripture s••yles him) whose Passion we find commemorated in the sacra∣ment, called therefore the sacrament of the Altar; and for the same reason called by S. Augustin in his E••chiridion Sacri∣ficium Altaris, the Sacrifice of the Al∣tar; by the E••glish Liturgie in the Prayer next after the Participation, the Sacrifice of Praise and Thankes-giving (Sacri∣ficium laudis;) By Chrysostom, The remembrance of a Sacrifice, and by many learned Writers among our selves, a Commemotative Sacrifice.

For thus saith

Bp Andrews in his Answer to Card. * 1.55 Bellarmin, c. 8. Tollite de Missa Transsubstantiationem vestram, nec diu * 1.56 nobiscum lis erit de sacrificio.

Which the said Dr Heylyn translates in this manner, Take from the Mass your Transubstan∣tiation, and we will haue no difference with you about the sacrifice: declaring thereby how consequent he thought the admitting of a Sacrifice to be, to the belief of the Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, which he there shows to haue been the constant doctrine of the Church of En∣gland, both from her Liturgie and Ca∣techism, * 1.57 and the writings of the best learned of her divines;

among whom he cites that Profession of Bp Andrews in the name of the Church of England to Card.

Bellarmin. Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram; de modo praesentiae nil temerè definimus. We acknowledg•• a presence as true and Real as you do: but we determine nothing rashly of the manner of it. From which and the Testimonies of some other divines he saith, It seems it is agreed on both sides (that is to say, the Church of England and the Church of Rome) that the••e 〈…〉〈…〉

true and 〈…〉〈…〉 of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the disagreement being only in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 P••ae••entiae, the manner of the Presence.

This is what the true and genuin sons of the Church of E••gland teach both concerning the Rea•• Presence, and the Sacrific•• of Christ's Body and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Sacrament of the Altar, as well knowing how great a ••efect it would be for a C••urch to want the most signal Part ef the P••blick worship of God as that of ••acr••fice is 1^st They assert the Person of Christ to be as t••uly and Really present there, as those of the Ch••••ch of Rome do. 2. They assert it also to be there▪ as he Object of divine worship; for Mr Th••rndike speaking of the Ado∣ration * 1.58 of Christ in the Eucharist, saith, I do believe that it was so practised, and done in the Ancient Church, wh••ch I maintain from the beginning t•• haue been the true Church of Christ. And Bp An∣drews * 1.59 tells Cardinal Bellarmin very plainly, that the King (King James, and did not he understand wha•• he said, * 1.60 and what they of the Church of England did?) holds Christ to be truly present in the sacrament, and there also to be truly

adorabl••. Lastly they assert the Eucharist * 1.61 to be no•• only a Sacrament, but a Sa∣crifice, and t••e very Sa••e sacrifice of Christ upon the C••••ss. How comes the Dr then to contradict all these Points when he said speaking to t••ose of the Church of Rome, What exte••nal Vi∣sible sacrifice haue you th••t we haue no••, besides God himself, w••om you believe to be pe••sonally present, as the Object of divine Worship, under the species of Br••ad and Wine? Was it to show his excellent ••k••ll in the affairs and doctrine of tha•• Ch••rch he pretends to defend? No, he could not be ignorant of so evi∣dent a matter. The very names of Priest and A••tar put him daily in mind of it. What made him then tell those of the Church of Rome that the Church of Eng••and hath no such Sacri∣fice, as that of Christ personally present in the Sacram••nt, as the Object of divine * 1.62 worship? O, it was the Intolerable Blas∣phemy and Absurd••••y, as he calls it, of offering up God himself as a sacrifice to God. For of all things in the world, it could never have come into his mind, nor he thinks into any man's well in his senses (by which it seems he thinks Bp

Andrews, Dr Heylin, Mr Thorndike, and the rest to haue been craz'd at least) to offer up God himself unto God as a sacrifice in order to the testifying our devot••ng our selves to him. But if this be B••asph••my, and the Drs definition must obtain against that of the two General Councils of Nice and Ephesus. I know no way but to renounce my Creed. For I do not see, but it is alike blasphemous, to say, that God was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, as that he offered himself upon the Cross, or is off••red by us upon the Altar. And now hath not the Church of England great reason to glory in such a Champion, who under a specious pretence of impugning the Mass, fears not to traduce the most excellent part of her Religious worship (as it is understood by the best Learned of her divines) as blasphemous and absurd, and so wound both her, and the Common Christianity to the very heart, through the side•• of her Enemies?

Cathar.

Let the Dr and the Church of England agree about these things as They can. I do not see after all their sine talk of the nature and dignity of their

sacrifice of the Mass, as due only to God, but that themse••ves in their prac∣tice offer it to Creatures also. For as the * 1.63 Dr hath well observed out of their own Mass-books, they offer it in honour of the Saints: and although they pretend they do it to God in thanksgiving for the Graces he hath bestowed upon the * 1.64 Saints, yet Dr St desires to know of them, whether this be not more than giving God thanks for their vertues; when a Propitiatory sacrifice is offered up * 1.65 to God for their honour? moreover at the same time they pray, that the Saints would intercede with God for them. And What is joyning creatures together with God in the honour of sacrifice, if this be not? Again supposing that they offer it only to God, yet as Cajetan observes, * 1.66 it cannot reach to all Christians, but only belongs to the Priests to offer it. And so they reserve no one act of Exter∣nal Adoration as proper to God, and to be performed by all Christians.

Eun:

To what miserable shifts are men put, when they would haue such Trivial kind of arguing as this to pass for solid Reasoning. Either the Dr was netled without cause for T. G's. telling

him upon occasion, that he would understand better what belongs to a sa∣crifice, when he was become a Proselyte, Or it must be a hard world, when a man of his abilities must be forc'd to fain that he doth not know how the same sacrifice may be a Propitiation for sins, and a Thank••giving for Benefits: espe∣cially the Sacrifice of the Altar, being the same with that of the Cross, in which all the differences of the legal sacrifices were fulfilled. I cannot conceive but that in his frequent Researches into Bellarmin he must haue met with that * 1.67 famous passage of S. Augustin, where he saith, that when the sacrifice of the * 1.68 (Altar, which he there cals the sacrifice of the Mediator,) is offered in the Church for all the faithfull departed, it is to such as were good, but not perfecty good, a sa∣crifice of Propitiation: but for the per∣fectly * 1.69 good, of Thanksgiving. And I thought T. G. had given him a very home-Example how this might be for the honour of a Person, when he de∣sired him to reflect, whether it would not be for his honour, that his whole Party should keep a solemn Day of Thanksgiving for his great performances

against the Popish Cause, although the Thanks were given to God and not to him. And indeed it was so home that he * 1.70 doth not deny it would haue been for his honour. But then to return, as he saith, the kindness of T. G'^s twitch by a forrain example fetch'd from Persia, where Prostration was appropriated to their King, as a sign of subjection to him alone, how strange, saith he, would is haue been thought among them, for a man to haue said to the King, I fall down before you in honour of the Captain of your Guards? A very notable example I can assure you. Yet there is this difference, that how strange soever it might have appeared among the Persians to hear this said to their King, (as it doth now to Countrey People to hear one say, I kiss your hands, instead of I thank you,) it seems it is not so among those of the Church of Rome to say to God. We offer this sacri∣fice to thee in the honour of St Michael, to testify their application of it in thanksgiving for the favours and Graces bestowed on him; and why th••y may not use other manners of expression, as well as of habits or gestures from those of the Persians, I do not undestand:

and as litle why they ought not to be understood, as they declare themselves to mean, the Will of men being the Mis∣tress, and Custome the Confirmer of such forms of speaking. But still the Ques∣tion is, saith the Dr, if sacrifice be appro∣priated to the sol•• honour of God, how ••he honour of Saints comes to be declared by it? But granting, as he doth, that it is for the honour of a Person to praise (or give thanks to) God for him, this I say being granted, the Question as I take it can be no other than to ask, whether the offering of a Present, (as sacrifice is) in token of Gratitude, be to diminish or adde to the Act of Thanksgiving? For if it be a greater Declaration of Thanks∣giving, it must consequently be a greater Declaration also of the honour of the Person for whom it is offered. O but at the same time that they offer the sacri∣fice in honour of the Saints, they pray that they would intercede with God for them. This is more than the Dr finds in their Mass-books, at least from the Of∣fertory, where the Priest begins to apply himself to the Action of sacrifice: for from thence forward the Prayers are all directed to God. But in case they did

so, would it therefore follow that the sacrifice is offered to the Saints because they are desired to join their Prayers with the People to obtain the blessings they ask of God? This surely is something beyond Trifling, for the Dr might as well haue said that the sacrifice is offered to the People because the Priest after the Offertory turns to them, with, Ora∣te f••at••es, and desires them to Pray that it may become acceptable to God; and if you haue nothing of more mo∣ment to propose, I think it is high time we make an End indeed.

Cathar.

But you haue forgot to speak to what I proposed in the last place; that supposing they offer it only to God, yet this, as Cajetan observes, cannot reach to all Christians, but only belongs * 1.71 to the Priests to offer it; and so they reserve no one external act of Adoration as proper to God, and to be performed by all Christians.

Eun.

You did well to call upon me, Otherwise I confess I had pass'd this over, as a thing not worthy the taking-notice of; for there is nothing more notorious than that those of the Church of Rome are bound on every sunday and

Holy-day to hear Masse (as they cal it) by that External Act to testify the uniting their Intention with the Priest as the Publick Officer of the Church in the Oblation of the Sacrifice. And what is it the Dr would haue more? Would he haue the City of London when they make a Present to the King at his Coronation in order to the testifying their subjection to him, to go every one in Persō, and deliver it with his own hands? Is it not enough that some Publick Person be deputed, as the Lord Maior, or the Recorder to do it in their names, and the King accepts it as offered by each one? If this be so in things belonging to men, how much more in those belonging to God, where as St Paul, saith: Every High-Priest taken f••om amōg men is ordained for men, * 1.72 that they may offer both Gifts and sacri∣fices for sins, and that both for himself and for the People? And if this did not hinder in the old Law, but that both Prin∣ces and People are said to haue offered those sacrifices to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, why must it in the new? I do not except against the Dr's Citation out of Cajetan, though I do not find it in the place quoted by him. But this I dare affirm, that Cajetan was

not so silly a divine as to deny it belon∣ged to the People to offer the Sacrifice by and with the Priest; but that it belōgs not to them to Consecrate it, any more than it did in the old Law to kill and lay it upon the Altar. The very Mass-Book. it self would haue informed him better, in which the Priest calls it their sacri∣fice as well as his, Meum as Vestrum sacrificium, and desires of God to accept it for all those, pro quibus tibi offerimus, vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium. For whom we, saith he, offer, or who offer this sacrifice to thee. And I can imagin but two reasons, why this should not hold as well in the new Law, as the Old; The First given by Korah and his Com∣plices, when they told Moses and Aa∣ron. Yee take too much upon you, seing all * 1.73 the Congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them, where fore then lift yee up your selves abou•• the Congregation of the Lord? Which was no other that to teach the People to invade the Priesthood; Or 2^ly that there is no sacrisice offered in the new Law, and this contradicts not only the Practice of the Church of Christ in the Primitive times, but the sense also of the best

learned divines of the Church of En∣gland. But it is not in this Point alone, that the Dr doth it, but in many others, as I haue shown in the fore going Confe∣rences, which if you think fit to Com∣municate to him, I conceive you will do well at the same time to advise him as a Friend, both for his own credit, and that of the Church he pretends to defend, to take in good part the Counsel which St Augustin gives to some Endless, be∣cause wordish disputers of his time. Let * 1.74 him consider all things diligently, and if perhaps iudging impartially he perceive * 1.75 them to be such, as may rather be play'd upon and made seemingly ridiculous or blasphemous by a Satyrical or Mimical kind of Levity, than solidly confuted, let him surcease to trifle, and chuse rather to be amended and reformed by the. Wise than to be extol'd, and applauded by those who are otherwise.

Cathar.

But do you hope then, Eu∣nomius, that Dr St will ever become a true Church-of-England-Man, in the sense you understand it? that he will

retract his charge of Idolatry, and acquit at least the doctrine of the Church of Rome from the Guilt of it in the wor∣ship of Images, the Invocat••on of Saints, and Adoration of the Host? That he will ever swallow the Contradictions of Christs Personal Presence in the Sacra∣ment? nay first adore him, then offer him believing him to be God in sacri∣fice, and after all eat him? When this comes to pass, I think the Papists will haue litle or no reason to despair of his coming over and joyning with them.

Eun.

How ••estingly soever you say this, Catharinus, yet I think in good Earnest I may tell you that the very Principles he admits, if followed home, would lead him thither? For granting, as he doth, 1^st. that the Church of Rome is a true Church, and doth not erre against any Fundamental Point of Faith; 2^ly that the Gates of Hell have not pre∣vailed against the whole. Christian Church; and 3^ly that a Christian by ver∣tue of his being so is bound to join in Communion with some Church or Congre∣gation of Christians: I do not see, but he is bound either to assign some other true Church of Christ in the world before

Luther besides that of Rome, or else by vertue of his Christianity he is bound to joyn in Communion with it.

Cathar.

Yet still the Dr hath this refuge left him, why we ought not to joyn with the Roman, because if she be guilty of Idolatry, our Communion with * 1.76 her wo••ld be a sin.

Eun.

As for the Charge of Idolatry, I hope you haue been made sensible, how un-maintainable it is, both from the strange Consequences that follow from it, even to the subversion of all lawful Eccle∣siastical Authority in the Church of Eng∣land: as also from the Extravagant Ways the Dr is forced to make use of at any rate to uphold it, as Apologizing for the Heathens, asserting their Jupiter to be the true God, mis-representing and corrupting Authors, denying the Personal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and contradicting not only the true and Genuin Sons of the Church of England, but most of all himself. This therefore can be no good ground to maintain the Separation.

Cathar.

What then can, I pray?

Eun.

That's a Point which requires more time than I have at present to spend

upon it. To morrow morning I begin my Journey without fail.

Cathar.

I wish you a good one; and begg your pardon for hauing detained you so long.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Def. p. 1••9.
• * 1.2

  p. 204.
• * 1.3

  p. 1••9.
• * 1.4

  Matth. 3. 10.
• * 1.5

  See Dr. St. Def. p. 199.
• * 1.6

  Ibidem. p. 26••.
• * 1.7

  ••9. Art. Art. 20. Dr. St. Def. p. 869. and in his Ans. to N, O, p. 268.
• * 1.8

  Des. p. 223.
• * 1.9

  De Myst. Incarn. disp. 34. n. 24.
• * 1.10

  Des. p. 854▪
• * 1.11

  p. 232.
• * 1.12

  Def. p •• 250. 25
• * 1.13

  p. 31••.
• * 1.14

  p. 32••▪
• * 1.15

  Def. p. 603. p. 287. 251.
• * 1.16

  p. 132.
• * 1.17

  p. 193.
• * 1.18

  Des. p. 192.
• * 1.19

  ••. 232.
• * 1.20

  ••. Chron. ••9. 10.
• * 1.21

  Of Idol. •• 29. 30.
• * 1.22

  Apol. c. 14. p. 118.
• * 1.23

  Def. p. 261.
• * 1.24

  Def. p. 242.
• * 1.25

  Des. p. 259.
• * 1.26

  Just Veights ch. 16.
• * 1.27

  Matth. 21. 23.
• * 1.28

  Luke 18 19.
• * 1.29

  Matt 9. 23. 9.
• * 1.30

  v. 10••
• * 1.31

  Def. p. 259.
• * 1.32

  p. 857.
• * 1.33

  p. 230.
• * 1.34

  Cath. no. Idol. p. 132.
• * 1.35

  Def. p. ••57.
• * 1.36

  Des. p. 230.
• * 1.37

  Cath. no. Idol. p. 319.
• * 1.38

  De Civ. Dei. lib. 10. c. 4.
• * 1.39

  p. 1••8.
• * 1.40

  Phil. 4. 6.
• * 1.41

  Def. p. 226.
• * 1.42

  Def. p. 226.
• * 1.43

  Des. p. 226.
• * 1.44

  Cath. n•• Idol. p. 182.
• * 1.45

  p. 227.
• * 1.46

  1. Cor. 1. 23.
• * 1.47

  Def. p. 5.
• * 1.48

  Ephes. 5. 5. 2.
• * 1.49

  Hebr. 1. 3.
• * 1.50

  Hebr. ••. 14.
• * 1.51

  Cath. n••. Idol. p. 391.
• * 1.52

  Des. p. 22••.
• * 1.53

  Mr Thorn∣dike Epil l. 3. c. 5. p. 44.
• * 1.54

  Dr. H••ylyn. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 duct. ••: 24.
• * 1.55

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 An∣drevvs.
• * 1.56

  Resp. ad Apol, Bell.
• * 1.57

  n. 25. 26
• * 1.58

  Epil. P. ••. p. ••51
• * 1.59

  Resp. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 8.
• * 1.60

  Rex Christum in Eu∣charistia vere prae¦sentem▪
• * 1.61

  verè & adoran∣dum statuit.
• * 1.62

  Def. p. 282.
• * 1.63

  Def. p. 218.
• * 1.64

  p. 219.
• * 1.65

  p. 220▪
• * 1.66

  Def. p. 205▪
• * 1.67

  lib. 2. de Pu••g. c. 18.
• * 1.68

  Enchirid c. 110.
• * 1.69

  Cath. no. Idol. p. 394.
• * 1.70

  p. 221.
• * 1.71

  In 2. 2. q. 86. art. 4.
• * 1.72

  Heb. 5. 1. 3.
• * 1.73

  Num. 16 3.
• * 1.74

  Lib. 5. de Civ. Dei c. ul••.
• * 1.75

  Consi∣derent omnia diligen∣ter, & si forte si∣ne stu∣dio par∣tium ju∣dicantes talia esse perspe∣xerint, quae po∣tiùs exagitari, quam convelli possint. quasi Satyrica vel Mi∣mica levitate, cohibeant suas nugas, & potius à prudentibus emendari, quàm laudari ab imprudentibus eligant.
• * 1.76

  See Dialog. 3. 4. 5. of the First Part.