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 . Neque semper arcum . —

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 .

These I confess are but the too frequent Employments , rather than Recreations of the time . But do you never spend an hour in reading a Play or a Romance ?

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.

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 fashion 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 .

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

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 interwouen , that men easily suffer themselues to be Surpriz'd , and then please themselues with the surprise . But Others there are , who look upon it , as an Apology rather for the Heathens , than a Conviction of the Romanists . And Others again , considering the veneration given to Holy Things and Places in the Church of England , and particularly to the Altar by Dr St. himself , are of opinion , that if the Church of Rome be guilty of Idolatry , for giving an Honourary Respect to the Images of Christ and his Saints , both himself and the Church of England must be in the same condemnation .

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 notwithstanding all their Rage and malice , he sits down , he saith , with that Ep , Dedic . 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 .

To deal plainly with you , Catharinus , I was never satisfied with the Charge it self of Idolatry , against the Church of Rome , and much less with Dr 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 .

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 Dr. 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 charging 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 Candor Gen: Preface . and sincerity he is to expect in his Book .

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 perfectly of Mr 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 Mr 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 Preface to his Roman Idolatry , fearing the Censure of divers learned men of the Church of England , for charging so horrid 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 greatest 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 Testimonies 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 Particular Rom Idol : p. 209. Persons in that Church , but to the decrees 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 Mr 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 Mr 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 Authors produced by Dr. St , as incompetent Witnesses in the case , upon the account of being either Puritans , or Puritanically 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 suspected to be Puritanically inclin'd than He ; which was to insinuate that even suspition of Puritanism was a sufficient exception in this case . And therefore in pursuance of this , T. G. shewd from the Testimonies not of Roman , but of Protestant Authors , that Eleven of the Seventeen were accounted Puritans , or Puritanically inclin'd .

I took Good notice of that Reason of Dr. St. in his first Preface , and how tenderly in his Generall Preface he handled that Point , as willing rather to wave the exception by pretty facetious 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 , Downham , 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 Sp●c . p. 49. Church of England , who have been Puritans , 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 relation to his Adversary who had mistaken the one Brother for the Other , and so endeavoured to cast upon him the Suspition of Puritanism . But the Dr. has brought such a new recruit of Testimonies , to maintain his charge . —

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 .

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 Testimonies from other publick Acts and Records as evidently prove it to be the Sense of the Church of England .

Nor can I see what necessity there is that T. G. should Engage himself farther in this argument , his intention 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 between him and his Church ( if it be His ) and hauing giuen that only as a P●●ludium of the close arguing of his Aduersary , 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 Accusation is so foul , so extravagant , and , as yet it appears to me , so vniust

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 Approbation 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 doctrine therin contained , to be fals and dangerous .

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 contained in that Book is a Godly and wholsome doctrine , citing for it the Authorityes of Bp. Montagu , and Dr. Heylin ; and what comes yet more close , Mr. Thorndike confessing of that very Homily against perill of Idolatry , that he must have leave to think it fails in this particular , 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 doctrine 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 confesseth to have been a Man of Excellent Learning and great Piety must in all likelyhood have subscribed the 39. Articles 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 dogmaticall Sense of the Church of England , especially when speaking expressely in the 22. Article of the Romish doctrine concerning Worshipping and Adoraetion of Images , She gives it onely the name of a vain thing and a fond Invention .

But Dr. St. goes on ; and shows the current doctrine of the Church ever since the Reformation to have been agreable to this Homily of the Peril of Idolatry . from the Injunctions of K. Edw. 6. and Q. Elizabeth .

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 progress of it out of Dr. Heylin . There was a time , saith he , when Q. Elizabeth beheld Cyprian Angl. pag. 342 2. Edit. 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 revilings 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 thoroughly weighed in the time of K. Charles I. that as the same Heylin saith Arch. B. Laud with equal diligence endeavoured by his decree , to hinder the reprinting 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 .

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 haue 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 Corporal 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 abhorred of all Faithfull Christians . And now what can be more plain , then that the Adoration of the Host is here expressly condemned as Idolatry ?

To this I answer that the various Fate of this Rubrick , first in not being annexed to the Communion Book till the 2d. Liturgy in the 5. of Edw. 6. and being cast out again in the year 1562. vnder Q. Elizabeth , and so remaining for almost a 100. years , and then re-admitted 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 Judgment is that we know that Dr. Taylor and Mr. Thorndike both maintain , that although they suppose those of the church of Rome to be mistaken in their belief of the Elements being changed 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 Excommunicated 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 inserted ; in which Book he expressely maintains that the worship of the Host in the chap. 19 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 present in an especiall manner . And your friend the Patron Bonae Fidei declares his Judgment also to bee , that it is not so Prodr . p. 77. 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 changed into the Body of Christ . But then again , to tell you my own thoughts concerning 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 Sacrament , ( for this is asserted by Bp Andrews , Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram , Mr. Thorndike , and Andr. Resp. ad Apol. Bellar. other learned men of the Church of England ) but only that no adoration ought to be done to any Corporal Presence of c. 1. Thornd Epil . p. 350. Christ's Natural Flesh and Bloud , as the word Corporal is taken by Dr 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 present . And my Reasons are . First because the words in the 2d , 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 distinguished 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 Adoration 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 beginning of Q. Elizabeth is expressly affirmed by Dr H●ylin in his Ecclesia R●formata , 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 substantially present in the Eucharist , yet they deny it to be there Corporaliter , Corporally , as the word is understood to imply the Natural manner of a Body's Existence . 2ly . Because Dr. Taylor in his Real Bellarm de Euch. li. 1. c. 2. Presence p. 12. saith that when the word Real Presence is denyed by some Protestants , 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 deserue the Ferula , being spoken of a thing , which had been cast out by publick Authority at the reviewing and correcting 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 .